Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
03-27-2018 Agenda with backup
MEETING AGENDA City Council REGULAR SESSION CITY COUNCIL March 27, 2018 HAL BALDWIN MUNICIPAL COMPLEX COUNCIL CHAMBERS 1400 SCHERTZ PARKWAY BUILDING #4 SCHERTZ, TEXAS 78154 Call to Order — Regular Session Opening Prayer and Pledtes of Allegiance to the Flags of the United States and State of Texas. (Councilmember Edwards) Recognition and Presentation • Introduction of the Student Mayors and Student Councilmembers for the Day. (Mayor /Council /Executive Management) - Student Mayors — Dobie Jr. High, 8th Grade Anissa Warren and Corbett Jr. High, Stn Grade Joshua Pack - Student Councilmembers — Dobie Jr. High, 7th Grade Mia Matos and Corbett Jr. High, 7th Grade Jackson Barnes Presentation • Presentation and update from Guadalupe Regional Medical Center — Prescription Assistance Report. (D. Wait /J. Riggs) • 2018 Wilenchik Walk Donation and awards presentation. (S. Gonzalez /L. Klepper /M. Spence) City Events and Announcements • Announcements of upcoming City Events (B. James /D. Wait /S. Gonzalez) • Announcements and recognitions by the Acting City Manager (B. James) • Announcements and recognitions by the Mayor (M. Carpenter) 03 -27 -2018 Council Agenda Hearing of Residents This time is set aside for any person who wishes to address the City Council. Each person should fill out the speaker's register prior to the meeting. Presentations should be limited to no more than 3 minutes. All remarks shall be addressed to the Council as a body, and not to any individual member thereof. Any person making personal, impertinent, or slanderous remarks while addressing the Council may be requested to leave the meeting. Discussion by the Council of any item not on the agenda shall be limited to statements of specific factual information given in response to any inquiry, a recitation of existing policy in response to an inquiry, and /or a proposal to place the item on a future agenda. The presiding officer, during the Hearing of Residents portion of the agenda, will call on those persons who have signed up to speak in the order they have registered. Consent Agenda Items The Consent Agenda is considered self - explanatory and will be enacted by the Council with one motion. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless they are removed from the Consent Agenda upon the request of the Mayor or a Councilmember. 1. Minutes — Consideration and /or action regarding the approval of the minutes of the regular meeting of March 13, 2018. (B. James /B. Dennis) 2. Resolution No. 18 -R -34 — Consideration and/or action approving a Resolution authorizing the Acting City Manager to sign an Interlocal Agreement for Fire Protection Services with :Bexar County. (D. Wait /K. Long) 3. Resolution No. 18 -R -35 - Consideration and /or action approving a Resolution authorizing EMS debt revenue adjustments, Utility Billing debt revenue adjustments and Schertz Magazine debt revenue adjustments for certain inactive outstanding receivables. (B. James /J. Walters /R. Rosales /J. Mabbitt /L. Klepper) 4. Resolution No. 18 -R -36 - Consideration and /or action approving a Resolution authorizing three Access, Drainage, and Water Easement Agreements with Schertz- Cibolo- Universal City Independent School District for the use, benefit, and control of the City of Schertz for the construction, maintenance, and access of facilities associated with the proposed Corbett Elevated Storage Tank located off of the future extension of Ray Corbett Drive. (B. James /K. Woodlee) 5. Resolution No. 18 -R -40 — Consideration and/or action approving a Resolution authorizing expenditures over $50,000 with Capital Excavation for the removal of a silt pile in the Amazon Drainage Channel. (D. Wait/D. Letbetter) 03 -27 -2018 City Council Agenda Page - 2 - Discussion and Action Items 6. Ordinance No. 18 -M -13 — Consideration and /or action approving an Ordinance amending Chapter 78, Article VII of the Code of Ordinances to adopt a roadway impact fee that may be imposed for roadway facilities in the City. The maximum assessable impact fee per service unit is $1,647.53 in Service Area 1, $1,327.89 in Service Area 2, $1,044.48 in Service Area 3, and $2,392.72 in Service Area 4. City Council may impose impact fees per service unit less than or equal to those maximum amounts an Ordinance to adopt a roadway impact fee that may be imposed on new development for use to construct roadway facilities in the City. Final Reading (B. James /K. Woodlee) Roll Call Vote Confirmation Closed Session 7. City Council will meet in closed session under section 551.074 of the Texas Government Code, Personnel Matters to deliberate the appointment, employment, evaluation, reassignment, duties, discipline, or dismissal of the City Manager. Reconvene into Regular Session 7a. Take any action based on discussions held in closed session under Agenda Item 7. Roll Call Vote Confirmation Requests and Announcements 8. Announcements by the Acting City Manager. 9. Requests by Mayor and Councilmembers that items be placed on a future City Council agenda. 10. Announcements by Mayor and Councilmembers. • City and community events attended and to be attended • City Council Committee and Liaison Assignments (see assignments below) • Continuing education events attended and to be attended • Recognition of actions by City employees • Recognition of actions by community volunteers Adjournment CERTIFICATION I, BRENDA DENNIS, CITY SECRETARY OF THE CITY OF SCHERTZ, TEXAS, DO HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE ABOVE AGENDA WAS PREPARED AND POSTED ON THE OFFICIAL BULLETIN BOARDS ON THIS THE 23rd DAY OF MARCH 2018 AT 11:45 03 -27 -2018 City Council Agenda Page - 3 - A.M., WHICH IS A PLACE READILY ACCESSIBLE TO THE PUBLIC AT ALL TIMES AND THAT SAID NOTICE WAS POSTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH CHAPTER 551, TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE. gi2.E NTA 1�, E N N 15 Brenda Dennis, City Secreta I CERTIFY THAT THE ATTACHED NOTICE AND AGENDA OF ITEMS TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE CITY COUNCIL WAS REMOVED BY ME FROM THE OFFICIAL BULLETIN BOARD ON DAY OF 2018. Title: This facility is accessible in accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act. Handicapped parking spaces are available. If `you require special assistance or have a request for sign interpretative services or other services please call 210 -619 -1030. The City Council for the City of Schertz reserves the right to adjourn into closed session at any time during the course of this meeting to discuss any of the matters listed above, as authorized by the Texas Open Meetings Act. Closed Sessions Authorized: This agenda has been reviewed and approved by the City's legal counsel and the presence of any subject in any Closed Session portion of the agenda constitutes a written interpretation of Texas Government Code Chapter 551 by legal counsel for the governmental body and constitutes an opinion by the attorney that the items discussed therein may be legally discussed in the closed portion of the meeting considering available opinions of a court of record and opinions of the Texas Attorney General known to the attorney. This provision has been added to this agenda with the intent to meet all elements necessary to satisfy Texas Government Code Chapter 551.144(c) and the meeting is conducted by all participants in reliance on this opinion. COUNCIL COMMITTEE AND LIAISON ASSIGNMENTS 03 -27 -2018 City Council Agenda Page - 4 - Mayor Carpenter Councilmember Scajliola — Place 5 Main Street Committee Interview Committee for Boards and Commissions - Alternate Hal Baldwin Scholarship Committee Schertz- Seguin Local Government Corporation — Alternate Cibolo Valley Local Government Corporation - Alternate Councilmember Davis— Place 1 Councilmember Gutierrez — Place 2 Audit Committee Audit Committee Schertz Housing Authority Board Investment Advisory Committee Interview Committee for Boards and Commissions Main Street Committee - Chair Councilmember Larson — Place 3 Councilmember Edwards — Place 4 Main Street Committee — Vice Chair Interview Committee for Boards and Commissions Investment Advisory Committee Cibolo Valley Local Government Corporation Main Street Committee Councilmember Kiser — Place 6 Councilmember Crawford — Place 7 Schertz Animal Services Advisory Commission Schertz- Seguin Local Government Corporation Audit Committee Interview Committee for Boards and Commissions TIRZ 11 Board 03 -27 -2018 City Council Agenda Page - 5 - Workshop CITY COUNCIL MEMORANDUM City Council Meeting: March 27, 2018 Department: Subject: BACKGROUND Administration Guadalupe Regional Medical Center — Prescription Assistance report On March 5, 2013, City Council approved an Interlocal Agreement with Guadalupe Regional Medical Center (the Hospital) relating to a prescription access program. This program offers assistance to qualified citizens of the city that enables them to purchase prescription medication at a significantly reduced price. The provision of a prescription assistance program is a public purpose and preserves and protects these qualified citizens' health and safety. The Hospital will provide prescription medications free of charge or at a low cost to citizens who qualify for assistance under the guidelines established by each drug manufacturer and as described to the City by the Hospital. The Hospital will comply with all federal, state, county, and City laws, rules, ordinances, and regulations which may affect the agreement. A written report will be provided by the Hospital to the City Council of the City on or about March 1 and September 1 of each year. This report will document that the payments made by the City have primarily benefitted citizens of the City and will include such information as total number of resident patients served, number of prescriptions filled, retail dollar value of prescriptions, and sources of program funds. lVIZTG • ' • On The fiscal impact to the City is $5,000 annually. This is a budgeted item. The City's contribution . helps pay for the cost of administering the program. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends Council accept the report from the Guadalupe Regional Medical Center. ATTACHMENT Report dated September 1, 2017 through February 28, 2018 Exhibit A Report Information Guadalupe Regional Medical Center Prescription Assistance Program for Schertz Enrollees September 1, 2017 thru February 28, 2018 11,11*0114sk Total number of patients served by the program F— 11281 Total number of Schertz residents served by the program 1 271 Total number of prescriptions provided by the program F— 197751 Retail dollar value of prescriptions provided by the PAP F -$5,358,158.10 Retail dollar value of prescriptions provided to Schertz residents by PAP $ 160,740.3 Number of prescriptions per Schertz patient per month 1 3.42 Average prescription retail price (3 month supply) per Schertz patient F —$ 870.43 ] Average annual retail prescription benefit per Schertz patient 1 $ 11,907.48 SOURCES OF PROGRAM FUNDS (ANNUAL) Schertz contribution to the program F$ 5,000.00 ] Seguin contribution to the program 1 $ 5,000.00 Contributions to program by individuals 1 $ 5,151.28 Payments by patients ($15.00/month/patient) F$- 138,218.00] Grants received for the program (United Way) F 5,000.04] Other sources of funds (identify sources) Glucose Monitor Rebates $ 1,976.22 Organization Contributions $ 545.00 Corporate Contributions $ 200.00 TOTAL REVENUE $ 161,090.54 TOTAL EXPENSES $ (345,327.96) TOTAL NET $ (184,237.42) Agenda No. 1 CITY COUNCIL MEMORANDUM City Council Meeting: March 27, 2018 Department: Subject: City Secretary Minutes The City Council held a Regular meeting on March 13, 2018. . HHZTG • ' • On RM RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends Council approve the minutes of the regular meeting of March 13, 2018. . Regular Meeting of March 13, 2018 minutes MINUTES REGULAR MEETING March 13, 2018 A Regular Meeting was held by the Schertz City Council of the City of Schertz, Texas, on March 13, 2018, at 6:00 p.m. in the Hal Baldwin Municipal Complex Council Chambers, 1.400 Schertz Parkway, Building #4, Schertz, Texas. The following members present to -wit: Mayor Michael Carpenter Councilmember Mark Davis Councilmember Scott Larson Councilmember Angelina Kiser Staff Present: Executive Director Dudley Wait City Attorney Dan Santee Mayor Pro -Tem David S Councilmember Ralph C3 Councilmember Cedric I Councilmember Bert Cr Acting City Manager Brian Ja Assistant to" the City Manager City S,,e fetary Brenda Dennis Call to Order — City Council Regular Session Mayor Carpenter called the regular Opening Prayer and Pledtes of Texas. (Councilmember Larson) Mayor Carpenter the Hal Baldwin for that purpose. HN the order at 6:00 p of the United" States and State of zdent is in attendance this "evening observing the meeting for -up sheet is 'in the vestibule; be sure to sign in if you are here cellence Award. (B. James /L. Wood) er recognized Senior Planner Bryce Cox who stated he wanted to present the achievement for Planning Excellence which was presented to the City for a letter (addressed to the Mayor) from the Texas Chapter of the American. :iation, which elaborated on the specific goals met and or exceeded by the Staff, and city leadership. The award represents the city's commitment to whole, not just staff. This is the fourth year in a row that the City has been yor and Council congratulated the staff. Plaque presentation regarding Project Warrior. (Councilmember Gutierrez/Mayor) Mayor Carpenter recognized Councilmember Gutierrez who stated that on February 20h he and several others participated in the Selma- Schertz Salute to Service Members 5K "Operation Comfort" Run, held at the Bluebonnet Palace. Councilmember Gutierrez presented a plaque to the Mayor for 8 years continued support. 03 -13 -201.8 Minutes Page - i - Employee Recognition Mayor Carpenter stated that each new employee will have an opportunity to say something, but it is not required. • Business Office - Stacey Babb — Utility Billing Clerk • Library — Pamela Kurczewski — PT Library Circulation Clerk • Police — Diane Deluca & Brandi Brinkman — Communication Officers • Fleet and Facilities Services — Wyatt "Todd" Buckingham — Facilities Manager and Eric Brown — Fleet Mechanic 1 Each department supervisor provided a brief bio to employees thanked the Council for the opportunity to welcomed the new staff members aboard. City Events and Announcements • Announcements of upcoming City Events (B. J Mayor Carpenter recognized Assistant to the City M the following announcements: Sprint Cleanup Continuing throe Drop -off location, , March 25' 11 1 Drive 8:00 a.m. — 5:00 Live music from Ra Tuesday, niraie w aix n:vv am Crescent Bend Nature Park Burnam X 1430 , a traditional Celtic band. employee(s). New d Councilmembers Gonzalez) Gonzalez who provided each day Annual Employee Remembrance Day 11:30 a.m. 10 Commercial Place (Outside Public Works Bldg.) Annual event where we remember city employees who have served 1.0 or more years and have passed away. 03 -13 -201.8 Minutes Page - 2 - • Mayor Thursday, March 22nd The 2018 Taste Retama Park 5:00 pm The Taste is an annual food sampling event held at Retama Park featuring 40+ food and beverage vendors from Schertz, Cibolo, and Selma areas. Friday, March 23rd Pre - Budget Retreat for City Council 8:30 am Civic Center Announcements and recognitions by the Acting City Manager (B. James) No announcements were Announcements and recognitions by No announcem Michele ' ding the cut from Ma who spoke: applications; for 41 senior that is a co aDvly. If there ,n Drive, who continued speaking to City Council stated that she spoke on this before and nothing has • Mr. Richard Elder, 4317 Willow Oak, who stated that when he went online to the www.schertgLcom website he was unable to find information about the proposed zoning change as referenced in Item 2. He suggested that when a zoning change is happening, information should be loaded to the website so citizens can pull up the data. He also stated it was great to have the full packet of information on all the agenda items for each meeting. Lastly, he pointed out that the information regarding the zoning case for this evening references the southeast corner; it should be the southwest corner. • Ms. Mi Lunn, 805 Aero Avenue, spoke on recent burglaries in her neighborhood and at her residence. She also stated someone was taking her mail which she has reported to the Post Office. Mayor Carpenter suggested she speak with our Police Chief Michael Hansen or Executive Director Dudley Wait, both of whom were here tonight. 03 -13 -201.8 Minutes Page - 3 - • Mr. Grumpy Azzoz, 528 Wayward Pass who spoke about some of our veterans who are involved with sporting events and have participated in places like Russia, South Korea, and Japan. He always holds annual fundraisers for them and will do so again on April 23. He also stated today it has been 2 years, 2 months, and 20 days to be exact since we lost a great local businessman, Mr. (Henry) Gutierrez. People keep asking him about any more progress on finding his assassin. We have put out a reward for information, hired a PI, etc. Meanwhile, the family and his friends have had no closure and he feels we have failed Mr. Gutierrez and that we are not getting anywhere. He is asking Council, as a body, to start asking some questions and get some answers. Workshops • Resolution 18 -R -26- CAFR FY2016 -17 - Presntafip approving a Resolution authorizing the approval of the Report. (B. James /J. Walters /D. Fraser) Mayor Mayor Carpenter recognized Finance Director James Debbie Fraser from Armstrong, Vaughn and AsSiw presentation and went through the Comprehensive highlights and answering questions from Council. Mayor Carpenter encouraged Counci and if they have more,questions /conc on and/or action A,nnual Financial who introduced City Auditor who provided a PowerPoint it Report data providing the to look through the report again alters or Ms. Fraser. Mayor Carpenter recognized Councilrnember Edwards who moved seconded by Councilmember CG ttierrez t6 approve Resolution No. 18 -R -26. The vote was unanimous with Mayor Pro -Tern Scagliola, Councilmembers Davis, Gutierrez, Larson, Edwards, Kiser and Crawford Voting for and no, one voting no. Motion Passed. section of the agenda. Mayor Carpenter, recognized Councilmember Edwards who stated he would like agenda item 2 removed for separate action noting the correction made to the ordinance that it should be the southwest corner and got the southeast corner, as mentioned by Mr. Elder. Mayor Carpenter recognized Mayor Pro -Tem Scagliola who stated it is the southeast corner; Live Oak Road ends at FM 3009, the other side of the street is Dietz, if you look at the orientation of the street itself it runs northwest to southeast. He doesn't believe a correction needs to be made. Mayor Carpenter stated that in either case, Mr. Santee, if we have misidentified a corner or not, is it a material problem if we proceed? City Attorney Dan Santee stated that if the legal description on the ordinance that is being passed is correct, that is what we look to. This is for notice and he doesn't believe there is any confusion as to what area we are talking about and they also post signs on the property. Mayor Carpenter recognized Acting City Manager Brian James who stated in talking to staff, and he appreciates Mayor Pro -Tem Scagliola' s comment on where the road ends, staff feels 03 -13 -2018 Minutes Page - 4 - like they errored, that more accurately if we are trying to describe it for a particular resident they would describe it as the southwest corner. If pulled from consent, we can make reference to approval of it being on the southwest corner. He believes that no one was confused as to where the property was that is up for rezone and it is not a procedural issue. Again, with the nod of approval . we will reference the southwest corner. City Attorney Santee stated that if council was going to make a specific change, then it should be pulled from consent for separate action. Mayor Carpenter stated, with that said, item 2 will be pulled off consent and considered separately. Mayor Carpenter recognized Councilmember Crawford who moved seconded by Councilmember Larson to add agenda items l l and 12 to consent. The vote was unanimous with Mayor Pro - Tem Scagliola, Councilmembers Davis, Gutierrez, Larson, Edwards, Kiser and Crawford voting for and no one voting no. Motion Passed. Mayor Carpenter stated that now items 11 and 12 will 1. Minutes — Consideration and/or action regarding the approval of the minuted of the regular meeting of February 27, 2018. (B. James /B. Dennis) 3. Ordinance No. 18 -T -11— Consideration and /or action approving an Ordinance authorizing an adjustment to transfer funds for the Operations Grarit in connection with the Ace Mart Restaurant Supply Company Performance Agreement, repin all ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict with this ordinance; nd"providing an effective date. Final Reading (B. James /J. Walters /K. Kinateder) The following FEW -11 amQ1 MIN TAURANT EALING AL1 'H THIS ORD 4. Boards, G action acce Advisory B INANCE NO. 18-T-11 ns'and Committee Member Resignations — Consideration and/or "resignation of Mr. Ron Washington from the Parks and Recreation Dennis /Mayor /Council) Approval of the resignation of Mr. Ron Washington from the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board. 5. Resolution No. 18 -R -32 — Consideration and /or action authorizing the Acting City Manager to enter into an amended agreement with Physio- Control, Inc. for the lease - purchase of one (1) patient care monitor /defibrillator. (D. Wait /K. Long /J. Mabbitt) 03 -13 -2018 Minutes Page - 5 - The following was read into record: RESOLUTION NO. 18 -R -32 A RESOLUTION BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SCHERTZ, TEXAS AUTHORIZING THE ACTING CITY MANAGER TO ENTER INTO AN AMENDED AGREEMENT WITH PHYSIO- CONTROL, INC. FOR THE LEASE /PURCHASE OF ONE (1) PATIENT CARE MONITOR/DEFIBRILLATOR AND TOTAL EXPENDITURES WITH PHYSIO- CONTROL, INC. IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $80,000 FOR FISCAL YEAR 2017 -2018. 6. Resolution No. 18 -R -31 — Consideration and /or action approving a Resolution authorizing the submission of a grant application in an amount up to $92,203,00 to the Office of the Governor, Homeland Security Division, for the State Homeland Security Grant Program (HSGP). (D. Wait /K. Long) The following was read into record: RESOLUTION NO.1 7. Resolution No. 181 =R -33 Alamo Area Council"' of ait/K. following was tad into and/or action appointing members to the gional Emergency Preparedness Advisory RESOLUTION NO. 18 -R -33 A RESOLUTION BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SCHERTZ, TEXAS APPOINTING MEMBERS TO THE ALAMO AREA COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS REGIONAL EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS ADVISORY COMMITTEE AND OTHER MATTERS IN CONNECTION THEREWITH 1.1. Resolution 18 -R -28 - Consideration and/or action approving a Resolution authorizing Sanitary Sewer Easement Agreements with Schertz - Cibolo- Universal City Independent School District and San Antonio One and San Antonio Three Limited Partnerships for the use, benefit, and control of the City of Schertz for the construction and maintenance of a wastewater line along Wiederstein Road. (B. James /K. Woodlee) 03 -13 -201.8 Minutes Page - 6 - The following was read into record: RESOLUTION NO. 18-R-28 A RESOLUTION BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SCHERTZ, TEXAS APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING SANITARY SEWER EASEMENT AGREEMENTS ALONG WIEDERSTEIN ROAD FROM THE SCHERTZ- CIBOLO-UNIVERSAL CITY INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT AND SAN ANTONIO ONE AND SAN ANTONIO THREE LIMITED PARTNERSHIPS, AND OTHER MATTERS IN CONNECTION THEREWITH 12. Resolution 18-R-29 - Consideration and/or action approving ,, Resolution authorizing a Water Line Easement Agreement with Schertz-Cibol6- 'Universal, City Independent School District for the use, benefit, and control of the City of Schertz for the construction and maintenance of a water line through the Samuel Clemens High ''School property. (13. James/K. Woodlee) The following was read into record: RESOLUTION NO. 18- JITY OF SCHERTZ, TEXAS 'EASEMENT AGREEMENT )OL CAMPUS FROM THE ENT SCHOOL DISTRICT, Discussion and Action Items 2. Ordinance 'No. 18-S40 — Consideration and/or action on a request to rezone approximately, 1.5 acres of land from Single-Family Residential District (R-1) to Office and Professional bistr ' ict (OP) located approximately 220 feet southeast of the intersection of E. Live Oak Road and FM 3009. Final Reading (13. James/L. Wood/E. Grobe) The following was read into record: ORDINANCE NO. 18-S-10 AN ORDINANCE BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SCHERTZ, TEXAS AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP BY REZONING 03-13-2018 Minutes Page - 7 - APPROXIMATELY 1.5 ACRES OF LAND FROM SINGLE - FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, (R -1) TO OFFICE AND PROFESSIONAL DISTRICT (OP). Mayor Carpenter moved seconded by Councilmember Edwards to approve Ordinance No. 18 -5 -10 on final reading with the correction of the designation of the proper corner as identified by staff. The vote was unanimous with Mayor Pro -Tem Scagliola, Councilmembers Davis, Gutierrez, Larson, Edwards, Kiser and Crawford voting for and no one voting no. Motion Passed. 8. Resolution No. 18 -R -27 — Consideration and /or action approving a Resolution authorizing the appointment of Mr. Charles Kelm to the Schez-Seguin Local Government Corporation to fill the vacancy of Mr. Andrew Hunt, twin to 'expire December 31, 2020. (D. Wait) The following was read into record: RESOLUTION NO. 18 -R -2 A RESOLUTION BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SCHERTZ, TEXAS APPOINTING CHARLES KELM TO THE BOARD- OF DIRECTORS PLACE D -2 OF THE SCHERTZ SEGUIN'LOCAL GOVERNMENT CORPORATION, AND OTHER MATTERS IN CONNECTION THEREWITH 9. Res tol'ution No. 18- R =2f1— Consideration and /or action approving a Resolution authorizing the Acting q City Manger to execute and deliver a contract with CityView, an unincorporated division of N. Harris Computer Corporation, in an amount not to exceed $629,586 related to software and implementation services for a Community Development System. (B. Jaffieg/M. Clauser /B. Cox) The following was read into record: RESOLUTION NO. 18 -R -20 A RESOLUTION BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SCHERTZ, TEXAS AUTHORIZING THE ACTING CITY MANAGER TO ENTER INTO A CONTRACT WITH CITYVIEW, AN UNINCORPORATED DIVISION OF N. 03 -13 -201.8 Minutes Page - 8 - HARRIS COMPUTER CORPORATION, FOR SOFTWARE AND IlVIPLEMENATION SERVICES FOR A COMMUNITY DEVELOMENT SYSTEM AND OTHER MATTERS IN CONNECTION THEREWITH Mayor Carpenter recognized Senior Planner Bryce Cox who stated this is something that is going to work citywide for all of the departments that deal with development including the code enforcement department. Some of the current problems staff experiences are that the not clearly defined, information is not in a centralized r, manual processes and paper hardcopies and there is convenience for our customers. Solutions include clarific processes and convenience to the customer. Customers permits, pay fees and check their project status. This el physically come in to city hall. All the data is centraliz minimize errors and improve project timelines. Code enfo customer complaints can be tracked. Using this ystem wil timelines overall. The total project will cost $714,086 ovf years is $629,586. The first- year,exp( expenses will include licensing, implen user hardware, and Incode customizatioi Questions were addressed from Council proposed contract and software. Mayor the website and do some search on the si Mayor r Pro-T, and Cra Mayor Carpenter moved to agenda item 14. ted can and es are complicated and they must deal with self. -help and online 1 ease in development complaints, apply for them from having to automated. It will also will be improved, and improve customer service and icilmember Scagliola who moved seconded by olution No. 18 -R -20. The vote was unanimous with ,ilmembers Davis, Gutierrez, Larson, Edwards, no one voting no. Motion Passed. 14. Resolution No. 18 -R -30 — Consideration and /or action approving a Resolution approving a Resolution approvin a request for a Historical Incentive Program for the Main Street Area Grant for 533 1Vtain Street. (B. James) The following was read into record: RESOLUTION NO. 18 -R -30 A RESOLUTION BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SCHERTZ, TEXAS APPROVING A REQUEST FOR A HISTORICAL INCENTIVE PROGRAM FOR 03 -13 -2018 Minutes Page - 9 - THE MAIN STREET AREA GRANT FOR 533 MAIN STREET IN THE CITY OF SCHERTZ, TEXAS, AND RELATED MATTERS IN CONNECTION THEREWITH Mayor Carpenter recognized Acting City Manager Brian James who stated this program is an incentive to help property owners revitalize their buildings located on Main Street. Some prior grants have been issued for both commercial and residential. This particular property is the building that Bexar Waste had occupied. The grant is up to $20,000, so the owner will pay $20,000 and the City will match that. Mayor Carpenter recognized Councilmember Edwards who 'moved seconded by Councilmember Kiser to approve Resolution No. 18-R-30. The vote was unanimous with Mayor Pro-Tem Scagliola, Councilmembers Davis; Gutierrez, Larson, Edwards, Kiser and Crawford voting for and no one voting no. Motion Passed. Mayor Carpenter moved to closed session at 7:42 p. Closed Session 19. City Council will meet in closed session under section 551.071 of the Texas Government Consultation with the City Attorney regarding pending or''contemplated litigation: • GVSUD vs. City of Schertz • GVSUD vs Texas Public Utility Commission and the City of Schertz Mayor Carpenter moved black into "regular session ,cat 8,.-06p.m. 19a. Take any action based 'o' discu§sibn9,-heldin closed session under Agenda Item 19. action Mayor Carpenter moved back, to the regular discussion items and moved to item 10. 10. Ordinance No. 18-M,43 — Conduct a public hearing and consideration and/or action approving an, Ordinance amending the Code of Ordinances of the City of Schertz by PH adopting Chapter ,*,'Article VII: Roadway Capital Recovery Fees, and to adopt a roadway impact fee thafn[lay be imposed for roadway facilities in the City. The maximum assessable impact fee per service unit is $1,647.53 in Service Area 1, $1,327.89 in Service Area 2, $1,044.48 in Service Area 3, and $2,392.72 in Service Area 4. City Council may impose impact fees per service unit less than or equal to those maximum amounts. First Reading (B. James/K. Woodlee) The following was read into record: ORDINANCE NO. 18-M-13 03-13-2018 Minutes Page - 10 - ROADWAY CAPITAL RECOVERY FEES AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SCHERTZ, TEXAS, AMENDING THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF SCHERTZ, TEXAS BY ADOPTING CHAPTER 78, ARTICLE VII: ROADWAY CAPITAL RECOVERY FEES; INCORPORATING LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS AND CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLANS FOR SUCH FACILITIES; PROVIDING FOR COLLECTION OF IMPACT FEES; ESTABLISHING ACCOUNTS AND RECORDS OF IMPACT FEES COLLECTED; PROVIDING FOR USE OF PROCEEDS FROM IMPACT FEE ACCOUNTS; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY CLAUSE` AND PROVI.DING FOR A PENALTY CLAUSE FOR VIOLATIONS OF THIS ORDINANCE. Mayor Carpenter recognized City Engineer Kathy briefed Council on Roadway Impact fees recommendations from the Capital Improvements ee Advisory Commi She introduced Eddie Haas from Freese and Nichols, prepared the capital improvement plans, the land- se a plan that sets forth and goes into the calculations' 't assessable fees that were determined. He will be explo any questions Council has. Mr. Haas explained the pro presentation. she had previously the policies and who has options and the "'Capital recovery basis for the actual maximum g those numbers and answering rt`and its basis via a PowerPoint Mr. Haas stated the next step is to approve this on final reading; if the council does not approve it, then it= is a Moot point. If tonight council can not come to an agreement or resolution they aright want td consider holding open the public hearing to a date specific if it is something' t at, could b considered, if you .close the public hearing, you will have to repost. and recognized the following who spoke: Mr. Glen Outlaw, 372 Forsyth Park, who spoke about keeping Schertz an affordable place to live. Another thing to consider is the cost of owning a home; the purchase price one- piece, you get a mortgage and you start making payments. Thy other piece of owning a home is property taxes. He would like to see a way to lessen the burden. He stated what you see in the roadway impact fees is a way to lessen that tax burden on all the tax payers of Schertz, existing and new. He stated that if they chose not to do this we are going to take the whole $229,000,000 amount and drop it on the tax payers. You are now increasing the cost of owning a home in Schertz for everyone in the city vs. if you implement these roadway impact fees, yes there is an initial upfront charge to the new homeowner, but you take the long look. Theoretically, you would keep those property taxes a little bit lower, rather having to share the higher tax burden down the road. He understands concerns about the price of new houses but feels consideration must be given to those owners who are already here and their potential tax liability if we don't do this. 03 -13 -2018 Minutes Page - 11 - • Mr. Richard Elder, 4317 Willow Oak, who stated it is important to have a mechanism to pay for the roadways that go into a new development. However, he thinks the cost should be more realistic. Mayor Carpenter closed the public hearing for Council comments and input. Mayor Carpenter recognized Councilmember Larson who stated originally, he came out against this, but tried to keep an open mind. He met with P &Z and] CIAC; he did incredible research on how this impacts others within the city. He stated that it may be a real possibility and necessity, but he still has concerns, not a holistic approach. He stated staff did an exceptional job. There is a need for involvement'in infrastructure — a valid strong case and need. The staff and committee did a good job; needy time to go over the policy. He had questions on what percentage we are going to implement and to do this and how it will impact other policies. New construction is going to go up, 'the cost of homes will go up. He stated the developer isn't going p pay their fair share, it is user -based fee. Reality — it's a one -time fee, new neighbofhood appraised value of already built will go up. He questioned what if we get another Amazon, employees will not be able to live here. His concern is that fees tilt the scale for small new businesses; they won't get the same, this needs a holistic discussion. Councilm ember Larson continued providing pro's and con's. Mayor Carpenter recognized Councilmembet Edwards who stated that when a developer comes to the community, the land buyer looks at "how many houses can be placed, they conduct a proforma together to put prices on homes. He agrees this doesn't fix our problem if we ignore it. Yes,"it'' hurts-, who is going, 11 pay? He stated we are here to make a decision based on the information w are given at the time going forward to help future generations. He feels Councilmember Larson's pain and what's been vetted by different departments and committees. M vor Camenter reminded Council last time this was discussed to Mayor Carpenter recognized Councilmember Davis who stated that he admired Councilmember Larson's passion of this topic and the topic of taxes. He remembers last year talking in their budget retreat we were talking about the budget formulation and we went down a different path last year with looking at things that were done below the cut line. His comment back then was, not a fan of raising taxes, but he is a fan of doing what's right for the city. Sometimes that's making that hard decision of increasing taxes. Tonight, we looked at approving our performance with the new planning software, that's well over half a million dollars. He also has concerns regarding the roadway impact fees but feels it is necessary and the right path to go. He does have concerns regarding residential rates vs. non - residential rates, but we have done a good job of balancing it out — the bottom line. We have had discussions on all the different fees that will impact Schertz going forward and we 03 -13 -201.8 Minutes Page -12 - will keep going down that path and maybe have to tweak it going forward, but he is sure we are going to have other discussions down the road with forth coming budget retreats how this plays out in the growth of the city and how it plays out on other financial aspects such as our tax rate on the city. Mayor Carpenter recognized Councilmember Gutierrez who stated we find ourselves at a fork in the road. Who is going to pay for it, developers or residents, one or the other. If developers pay for it, it's a one -time fee, if residents are paying, then every year we are going to have to pay, pay, pay, it never stops. Even if we charge 25% the residents still have to pay the other 75% to fix the roads. It's still not an even balance there. In service area three that was shown, that is still not enough to fix the roads. Residents are still going to have to pay. Councilmember Gutierrez provided examples pA commercial people that had to pay in Cibolo stating they were pretty high. Businesses will still come, it's the price of doing business and he doesn't think it will have n, uch of an impact in Schertz if we have roadway impact fees. Mayor Carpenter recognized Councilmember Scaglola who moved seconded by Councilmember Crawford to approve Ordinance 18-M-13 first reading. The vote was 6 -1- 0 with Mayor Pro -Tem Scagliola, Councilmember$ Davis, Gutierrez, Edwards, Kiser and Crawford voting for and Councilmember Larson 'noting no. Motion Passed. Mayor Carpenter stated that this was for at our next meeting. Mayor Carpenter r stated that we are evaluating with regard CIP because it was built and accepted b} has not started. We will make some sl: based on some discussions iybnQ back to ,t reading and it will come back on final reading >gaizod'Acting City Manager Brian James who tine of the roads that was not included in the developer, :but the development of those homes t adjustment to the language in the ordinance ike it a little fairer. Mayor Carpenter stated again, thi will be bn final reading at the next meeting and that the sentiment ,of ,Council that he has heard over the time we have had this discussion, this is something we are long to giant to review on a regular basis. Something we are going to want to keep our ey `pp and something we are going to make sure it is working the way we intended it to work, if there are any unforeseen consequences or cascading effects we are going to keep our eye on it and talk about it when they come up. Acting City Manager Brian James gave credit to the Planning and Zoning Commissioner, Mr. Richard Braud who has beep the strongest advocate of having a more in -depth discussion about impact fees as part o our semi- annual updates. We will continue to have these conversations moving forward. Mayor Carpenter moved to closed session at 9:03 p.m. Closed Session 17. City Council will meet in closed session under Section 551.087 of the Texas Government Code, Deliberation Regarding Economic Development Negotiations; Closed Meeting. The governmental body is not required to conduct an open meeting (1) to discuss or deliberate 03 -13 -201.8 Minutes Page -13 - regarding commercial or financial information that the governmental body has received from a business prospect that the governmental body seeks to have locate, stay, or expand in or near the territory of the governmental body and with which the governmental body is conducting economic development negotiations; or (2) to deliberate the offer of a financial or other incentive to a business prospect. Reconvene into Regular Session Mayor Carpenter moved back into regular session at 9:26 p.m. 17a. Take any action based on discussions held in closed sess No action was taken. Councilmember Edwards left the meeting at 9:26 p.ml Mayor Carpenter moved back to the regular 13. Resolution No. 18 -R -24 — Consideration and /or actin; the Acting City Manager to enter into an Agreeme Schertz Seguin Local Government Corporation (SS SSLGC water (D. Wait) The following was read into record: UTION. O. 18 -R -24 Agenda Item 19. oved to item ing a Resolution authorizing the City of Seguin and the - aardina the sale of excess A RESOLUTION BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SCHERTZ, TEXAS AUTHORIZING THE ACTING CITY MANAGER TO ENTER INTO AN AGREkMENT WITH THE CITY OF SEGUIN AND THE SCHERTZ SEGUIN LOCAL GOVERNMENT CORPORATION (SSLGC) REGARDING THE SALE OF EXCESS SSLGC WATER,: , AND OTHER MATTERS IN CONNECTION Mayor Carpenter recognized Executive Director Dudley Wait who stated On January 31, 2018, Mays Carpenter received a letter from City of Seguin Mayor Keil requesting the City of Schertz7 approval for the City of Seguin to sell its share of excess SSLGC water to a 3rd party wholesaler. The approval of the other city and SSLGC is required by the original agreement between both cities that formed the corporation if a city desires to directly sell SSLGC water to a Yd party wholesaler. Since 1999, anytime a 3rd party wholesaler approached either city, that city would work with the wholesaler in an attempt to have this sale come from SSLGC. This is the first time either city has requested approval to sell SSLGC water to another party. 03 -13 -2018 Minutes Page -14 - Seguin city staff discussed the possibility of this request with Schertz staff in November 2017. During discussions, Schertz staff repeatedly expressed concerns with either partner selling SSLGC water. Schertz expressed our desire to see the 50 -50 partnership continue as it was originally set out in the 1999 agreement, but Seguin's concern was that this was already not occurring because of the difference in the amount of water each City was currently consuming. Seguin's position was selling additional water to other entities from the excess water available in their share would actually provide Seguin benefits closer to the ones enjoyed by Schertz (specifically lower effective water rates for SSLGC water due to greater water sales). Throughout continued discussions, both cities have been able to come to an agreement that includes the following items: 1. If either partner City desires to sell excess water to a new YO,Oarty wholesaler, they may do so by notifying the other City and SSLGC of the proposed sales contract. 2. If a current SSLGC customer desires to, purchase additional water; bath cities will work to have SSLGC sell the additional water. if excess water is available. 3. If either city anticipates that they will need ffi* water than their annual allotment SSLGC can utilize excess water from the other city to meet this demand (not spoken of in original 1999 agreement)-, Staff recommends City Council authorize entering into the proposed agreement between Schertz, Seguin and SSLGC that provides direction for future excess water sales and for a second water take =point for Schertz. Mr. Wait addressed concerns and questions council had. Mayor Carpenter recognized Councilmember Kiser who moved seconded by Councilmember Scagliola to approve Resolution No. 18 -R -24. The vote was unanimous with Mayor Pro -Tem Scagliola, Councilmembers Davis, Gutierrez, Larson, Kiser and Crawford voting for and no one voting no. Councilmember Edwards was absent. Motion Passed. 03 -13 -2018 Minutes Page -15 - Mayor Carpenter recognized Councilmember Larson who called for a point of procedure. Mayor Carpenter answered raise your point. Councilmember Larson asked if there was anything remaining on the agenda requiring action by Council tonight, he doesn't believe there is but wanted to clarify this? Mayor Carpenter answered with, he does have to go back with a couple of things. There is a discussion workshop regarding Phase II Park Fees that is not on for action. Councilmember Crawford has asked that we postpone item 1.5, Workshop Discussion regarding governmental transparency, since it was his item that was requested, and he encourages council to grant that request. Item 16 is discussion only: Discussion regarding a proposed Ordinance Authorizing a Franchise Agreement with Guadalupe Valley Electric Cooperativ (GVEC). On action listed on item 16. 11 The last remaining item we have is the additional c] appointment or the seeking of a new City Manager, and t we would not be at this point. Mayor Carpenter stated that procedural answer, but he chose as the chair to answer it ar Councilmember Larson stated that he thought th motion to adjourn seconded by Councilmember Ki would not take up the remaining four items and v procedurally that is not problematic. Mayor Carr, called for the vote. The vote was ' 4 -0 with Cott, and Crawford voting for and Mayor Pro -Tem was absent. Motion Passed: ATTEST: Brenda Dennis, City Secretary 03 -13 -2018 Minutes Page -16 - ;,ossion to begin discussing the zld be for action;" but he suspects exactly a procedural question nor I be grade from the chair and made a ror Carpenter stated that effectively we 91(ff`to roll them to the next agenda; Led he has a motion and a second and hers Davis, Gutierrez, Larson, Kiser voting no. Councilmember Edwards adjourned the meeting at 10:1.0 p.m. Michael R. Carpenter, Mayor Agenda No. 2 CITY COUNCIL MEMORANDUM City Council Meeting: March 27, 2018 Department: Fire Subject: Resolution No. 18 -R -34 — A Resolution by the City Council of the City of Schertz, Texas authorizing the Acting City Manager to sign an Interlocal Agreement for Fire Protection Services with Bexar County. C• � 1 The Schertz Fire Department is charged with the responsibility of regional fire suppression, protection and prevention. The Fire Department responds to fire and emergency calls in portions of unincorporated Bexar County. This area is generally within our ETJ east of 1518 to the county line, and north of Interstate 10 to F.M. 78. This is an annual agreement between Bexar County and the City of Schertz and has no significant changes from previous years. Community Benefit Providing Fire Protection Services to these areas outside the City typically does not adversely impact our responses within the City. We would respond in that area for all types of fires with or without the agreement due to our area -wide mutual aid agreement and the areas proximity to our city limits. By maintaining this agreement with Bexar County, we are able to receive a small subsidy for providing services in an area that would otherwise be without fire service. FISCAL IMPACT The City receives revenue from Bexar County in the amount of $1,756.48 per month ($21,077.76 annually) per this agreement. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends Council approval of Resolution 18 -R -34 to authorize the Acting City Manager to sign the Interlocal Agreement for Fire Protection Services with Bexar County. ATTACHMENTS Resolution 18 -R -34 Exhibit A — Interlocal Agreement with Bexar County RESOLUTION NO. 18 -R -34 A RESOLUTION BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SCHERTZ, TEXAS AUTHORIZING THE ACTING CITY MANAGER TO ENTER INTO AN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT FOR FIRE PROTECTION SERVICES WITH BEXAR COUNTY, AND OTHER MATTERS IN CONNECTION THEREWITH WHEREAS, the City of Schertz Fire Rescue Department provides fire service to the citizens of Schertz and is a participant in multiple mutual aid agreements among other jurisdictions to provide and receive fire service; and WHEREAS, the County of Bexar has need of Ere services in unincorporated Bexar County and historically contracts with the nearest fire departments to provide that service; and WHEREAS, it is of benefit to both parties and to the residents in those areas, to enter into this Agreement to efficiently provide that service to the area designated in Exhibit A ; now therefore, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SCHERTZ, TEXAS Section 1. The City Council hereby authorizes the Acting City Manager to enter into the Interlocal Agreement to provide fire service to areas within Bexar County as set forth in Exhibit A. Section 2. The recitals contained in the preamble hereof are hereby found to be true, and such recitals are hereby made a part of this Resolution for all purposes and are adopted as a part of the judgment and findings of the City Council. Section 3. All resolutions, or parts thereof, which are in conflict or inconsistent with any provision of this Resolution are hereby repealed to the extent of such conflict, and the provisions of this Resolution shall be and remain controlling as to the matters resolved herein. Section 4. This Resolution shall be construed and enforced in accordance with the laws of the State of Texas and the United States of America. Section 5. If any provision of this Resolution or the application thereof to any person . or circumstance shall be held to be invalid, the remainder of this Resolution and the application of such provision to other persons and circumstances shall nevertheless be valid, and the City Council hereby declares that this Resolution would have been enacted without such invalid provision. Section 6. It is officially found, determined, and declared that the meeting at which. this Resolution is adopted was open to the public and public notice of the time, place, and subject matter of the public business to be considered at such meeting, including this Resolution, was given, all as required by Chapter 551, Texas Government Code, as amended. Section 7. This Resolution shall be in force and effect from and after its final passage, and it is so resolved. PASSED AND ADOPTED, this 27th day of March, 2018. CITY OF SCHERTZ, TEXAS Michael R. Carpenter, Mayor ATTEST: Brenda Dennis, City Secretary (CITY SEAL) EXHIBIT A Attached N STATE OF TEXAS § INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT FOR COUNTY OF BEXAR § FIRE PROTECTION SERVICES —Tj, HEREAS, the Commissioners Court of COUNTY is authorized to provide fire protection and firefighting services to citizens of COUNTY residing outside the city limits of any incorporated city within COUNTY- and 5 WHEREAS, the Commissioners Court desires to continue to provide such fire f•.,rotecti•n and firefighting services to citizens of COUNTY residing outside the city limits of CITY, in an area more particularly described • Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated 4 in for all purposes (the "designated area"); and WHEREAS, All payments for expenses incurred as a result of the performance of this Agreement must be made only from current revenues legally available to the respective Parties; and WHEREAS, CITY represents that it can adequately provide fire protection ap, firefighting services on behalf of COUNTY, utilizing CITY's fire department ("CITY' according to the terms and conditions hereinafter stated. I ffl_• -„ i I I i 2.01 For purposes of this Agreement, the following terms shall have the meanings set forth below: (d) ACTIVE FIREFIGHTER - a firefighter who attends a minimum of two training sessions each month, each a minimum of two hours long. (e) PAID FIREFIGHTER - a person, at least eighteen years of a9l who meets the criteria set forth • the Texas Commission Fire Protection Standards and Education. R (f) VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTER - a person, at least eighteen, years of age, who meets the equivalency of Basic Certification as a Volunteer Firefighter within three years after joining DEPARTMENT. (g) FIRE AL - the fire dispatch service utilized by COUNTY. (h) INCIDENT COMMANDER (IC) - The individual responsible for all major event activities, including the development of strategies and tactics and the ordering and the release of resources. The IC has overall authority and responsibility for conducting major event operations and is responsible for the management of all operations at the event site. (i) MAJOR EVENT- An occurrence or incident, natural or human - caused, which might impact a significant area or population, which requires an emergency response to protect life or property. Major events can, for example, include disasters, emergencies, terrorist attacks, terrorist threats, wildland and urban fires, floods, hazardous materials spills, nuclear accidents, aircraft accidents, earthquakes, hurricanes, tornadoes, tropical storms, war - related disasters, public health, use of chemical weapons or other weapons of mass destruction, and medical emergencies, and other occurrences requiring an emergency response. ARTICLE III MY 3.01 The term of this Agreement is for one year beginning January 1, 2018, and ending December 31, 2018. 3.02 This Agreement may be terminated by either party with or without cause, upon sixty days written notice delivered by certified mail, return receipt requested or in person, with a written receipt acknowledging delivery, to the other party. K 0 4.01 CITY agrees to perform the following services in accordance with specifications and standards established by the State Board of Insurance and the office of the State Fire Marshal of Texas, for the benefit of those persons residing in the designated area: (a) Assist the Bexar County Fire Marshal in fire prevention programs; (b) Establish a continuing training program for CITY personnel; (c) Monitor the Fire Alarm or alert system and radio system on a 24 -hour basis; (d) Respond to emergencies and fight fires within the designated area or in support of mutual aid agreements made in accordance with this Agreement; (e) Purchase and install one mobile radio on COUNTY Fire Alarm frequency (154.250) in each firefighting vehicle and provide other receiving equipment as CITY deems necessary; (f) Follow all current radio procedures specified by COUNTY; and (g) Notify Fire Alarm via radio when responding to calls in the designated area even if not dispatched by COUNTY. 4.02 It is expressly agreed between the parties that, in the event of conflicting fire alarms arising within the corporate limits of CITY and the unincorporated designated area, the alarm within the corporate limits shall have priority. Nevertheless, CITY shall use its best efforts to respond or to request assistance in responding to the alarm in the designated area. 4.03 CITY shall maintain, during the term of this Agreement, at least one -half of its active firefighters at a level of competency that meets the equivalency of the certification requirements of a basic firefighter as set forth by the State Firemen's and Fire Marshal's Association. All firefighters must meet the equivalency of the certification requirements herein stated within three years of joining CITY as a firefighter. Failure to meet these E standards is a material breach of this Agreement and shall entitle COUNTY to terminate this Agreement immediately upon written notice to CITY. 4.04 CITY shall complete criminal background checks of all current firefighters or EMS personnel with the assistance and cooperation of the Bexar County Fire Marshal's Office and establish procedures for excluding current or potential firefighters with unacceptable criminal convictions. The COUNTY requires that CITY not allow any personnel with a conviction for a felony or a misdemeanor involving moral turpitude on its department unless that person is otherwise certified by either the Texas Commission on Fire Protection or the Texas Department of State Health Services. 4.05 CITY shall create an inventory listing all of CITY's assets used in the provision of emergency services to include, at a minimum, the designation, quantity, model or serial number, condition and location of such assets within sixty (60) days from the date of this Agreement is executed and provide a copy to COUNTY. 4.06 CITY shall provide monthly status reports in addition to any other monthly reports required by this Agreement, to the Bexar County Fire Marshal to include any personnel incidents, staff certification progress, and the scope and purpose of any training conducted. 4.07 CITY shall establish training programs for all firefighters, probationary firefighters, reserve firefighters and fire officers pursuant to the curricula established by the State Firemen's and Fire Marshals' Association. 4.08 CITY is responsible for maintaining all required National Incident Management System (NIMS) training which utilizes standardized terminology, standardized organizational structures, interoperable communications, consolidated action plans, unified command structures, uniform personnel qualifications standards, uniform standards of planning, training, and exercising, comprehensive resource management, and designated incident facilities during emergencies or disasters. ARTICLE V OBLIGATIONS OF COUNTY 5.01 COUNTY agrees to pay the sum of One Thousand Seven Hundred Fifty -Six and 48/100 Dollars ($1,756.48) per month to CITY to be used solely for the following purposes: (a) Purchase or leasing of firefighting equipment; M (b) Maintenance and operation of firefighting equipment; and (c) Rental, construction, or purchase of firefighting facilities or buildings. 5.02 COUNTY agrees to provide CITY with dispatch services for the designated area, at no cost to CITY, for the duration of this Agreement. It is understood that the termination of this Agreement terminates the fire dispatch service provided by COUNTY unless CITY enters into a dispatch service agreement with COUNTY. 6.01 COUNTY, through its Fire Marshal, further agrees to famish, during the term of this Agreement, the following services upon request: (a) Assist CITY in determining the cause of any structural or suspicious fires; and (b) Assist in resolving questions of territorial jurisdiction between fire departments. In such cases, the decision of the Bexar County Fire Marshal shall be final. 6.02 The County Fire Marshal, or the County Fire Marshal's designee, shall perform as the incident commander in a major event in the unincorporated areas. ARTICLE VII EQUIPMENT 7.01 CITY shall provide all necessary equipment and transportation in providing services specified in this Agreement. 7.02 CITY agrees to remain responsible for registration, licensing, inspection, repairs, and maintenance of all equipment, and for any and all damages resulting from the use of any of its equipment, including motor vehicles. C.1 7.03 COUNTY shall not accrue any equity or ownership interest in any equipment provided by CITY. ►1 t4 Y Csi l� 8.01 It is agreed that COUNTY shall not be liable or responsible to CITY in damages or any money demands for any loss or failure of the central dispatch communications equipment or because of neglect or failure on the part of the central dispatch service provider. 8.02 CITY and COUNTY agree that there is no requirement upon COUNTY to provide fire protection. CITY, therefore, accepts no responsibility to the residents of the designated area. ARTICLE IX INSURANCE 9.01 CITY shall provide and maintain automobile liability insurance for all its CITY vehicles having at least the following policy limits: $250,000 Bodily Injury Per Person $500,000 Bodily Injury Per Occurrence $100,000 Property Damage Per Occurrence 9.02 CITY agrees that, with respect to the above required insurance, CITY shall: (a) Maintain liability insurance through an approved insurance company licensed to do business in Texas. (b) Name COUNTY as an additional insured such that any such policy shall apply fully to any "additional insured," as if COUNTY were a "named insured," or furnish COUNTY with documentation evidencing, to COUNTY's satisfaction, that such policy does not permit COUNTY to be named as an additional insured thereunder. h 1d) Provide thirty days advance notice in writing to COUNTY of cancellation or material change of any and all insurance maintained pursuant to this Article. Ifs k, 11.0 1 CITY shall maintain accurate run reports of each incident to which it responds. Reports shall be retained by CITY subject to inspection by COUNTY, through its Fir* Marshal, at any time during normal business hours. 12.01 CITY agrees that the Bexar County Auditor shall have access for inspections and reviews any financial records, reports, or data related to the funds provided herein and the County Auditor may conduct such inspections and reviews at any reasonable time. M 13.01 No person shall illegally be excluded from participation in, or be denied the benefits of, the program which is the subject of this Agreement on the basis of race, creed, color, sex, age, disability or national origin. la up I ow 14.01 No amendment, modification, or alteration to this Agreement shall be binding unless the same be in writing, dated subsequent to the date hereof and duly executed by the parties hereto. 15.01 All notices by the parties shall be deemed given when either delivered in person or deposited in the U.S. Mail, postage prepaid, certified mail, return receipt requested, addressed to the appropriate party at the following address: If to COUNTY: County Judge Paul Elizondo Tower 101 W. Nueva, Suite 1000 San Antonio, Texas 78205 With a copy to: County Fire Marshal 622 Dolorosa Street San Antonio, Texas 78207 -4535 And: County Auditor Paul Elizondo Tower 101 W. Nueva, #800 San Antonio, Texas 78205 If to CITY: City of Schertz 1400 Schertz Parkway Schertz, Texas 78154 -1634 9 Mi 16.01 CITY agrees to use its best efforts to enter into a mutual aid agreement with other fire departments that have contracted with Bexar County to provide fire protection services. 17.01 In providing all services pursuant to this Agreement, CITY shall abide by all statutes, ordinances, rules and regulations pertaining to, or regulating the provision of, such services, including those now in effect and hereafter adopted. Any violation of said statutes, ordinances, rules or regulations shall constitute a material breach of this Agreement, and shall entitle COUNTY to terminate this Agreement immediately upon delivery of written notice of termination to CITY. ARTICLE XVIII PARTIES BOUND 18.01 This Agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the parties hereto and their respective legal representatives, successors, and assigns where permitted by this Agreement. ARTICLE XIX TEXAS LAW TO APPLY 19.01 This Agreement shall be construed under and in accordance with the laws of the State of Texas, and all obligations of the parties created hereunder are performable solely in Bexar County, Texas. ARTICLE XX LEGAL CONSTRUCTION 20.01 In case any one or more of the provisions contained in this Agreement shall for any reason be held to be invalid, illegal, or unenforceable in any respect, such invalidity, Iff illegality, or unenforceability shall not affect any other provision hereof, and this Agreement shall be construed as if such invalid, illegal, or unenforceable provision had never been contained herein. Llyflwa i fl 21.01 This Agreement constitutes the sole and only agreement of the parties hereto and supersedes any prior understandings or written or oral agreements between the parties respecting the within subject matter. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Agreement is executed in duplicate originals this day of , A.D., 2018. COUNTY OF BEXAR LOW NELSON W. WOLFF County Judge ATTEST: BY: GERARD C. RICKHOFF County Clerk 11 CITY OF SCHERTZ BY: JOHN C. KESSEL City Manager ATTEST: BY: BRENDA DENNIS City Secretary APPROVED: BY: FIRE CHIEF ±� I Ig I � 1111 � i m ........... Attorney - Civil Division I-W RIM M"I k I XTA KTA 141t, 0 W4 Schertz FD Response Area Agenda No. 3 CITY COUNCIL MEMORANDUM City Council Meeting: March 27, 2018 Department: Subject: BACKGROUND: Finance Resolution No. 18 -R -35 — A resolution by the City Council of the City of Schertz, Texas authorizing EMS debt revenue adjustments, Utility Billing debt revenue adjustments and Schertz Magazine debt revenue adjustments for certain inactive outstanding receivables and other matters in connection therewith. In the EMS, Utility Billing, and Magazine functions, services are provided to customers up front and billing is settled later. Since services are provided before receiving payment, inevitably the City has customers that do not pay for the services provided. When this occurs, staff reaches out to the customer to try to collect the outstanding payment including follow up notices and phone calls to try and reach out to the customer to remind them of the outstanding balance and encourage payment. However, the longer the customer account goes without a payment the less likely that any payment will be received. Once a customer account reaches 1.80 days without payment, Staff brings those accounts to the City Council to be "written off'. This process is an accounting procedure following the Generally Accepted Accounted Principles (GAAP), which lays the framework of accounting practices in the U.S. This designation means it is unlikely those outstanding balances will ever be collected. This leads to an accounting adjustment on the City's Financial. Statements to accurately show how much is still outstanding and is reasonable to expect collection. If a customer's account has been written off, this does not erase or forgive that debt. The city can and does collect some portion of the amount owed by those customers. This can be through the debt collection agency used by EMS or if the customer returns to the City and requests new services through the Magazine or Utility Billing. The resolution authorizes the debt for these areas that is more than 180 days outstanding as of September 01, 2017 to be written off. These write offs come before council quarterly and last came before council on January 9th, 2018. . City Council Memorandum Page 2 Previous Write off Amount: February 2017: $621,138.97 June 2017: $544,944.16 September 2017: $510,516.01. January 2018: $510,637.79 FISCAL IMPACT This accounting adjustment will not affect the City's Budget or financial standing. The amount written off is estimated during the budget process and is accounted for in the revenue estimations and the bad debt expense accounts. The action taken tonight will reduce the amount shown as owed to the City by $433,427.1.5 and set it equal to the amount seen as still reasonably collectible. The breakdown is as follows: EMS - $41.7,712.75 Utility Billing - $15,714.40 Magazine - $0.00 There are no write offs for the magazine at this time. Staff recommends Council approve Resolution No. 1.8 -R -35 ATTACHMENTS Resolution No. 18 -R -35 RESOLUTION NO. 18 -R -35 A RESOLUTION BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SCHERTZ, TEXAS AUTHORIZING EMS DEBT REVENUE ADJUSTMENTS, UTILITY BILLING DEBT REVENUE ADJUSTMENTS AND SCHERTZ MAGAZINE DEBT REVENUE ADJUSTMENTS FOR CERTAIN INACTIVE OUTSTANDING RECEIVABLES AND OTHER MATTERS IN CONNECTION THEREWITH. WHEREAS, the City staff of the City of Schertz (the "City ") has recommended that the City maintains quarterly debt revenue adjustments for inactive outstanding accounts; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that it is in the best interest of the City that all inactive outstanding accounts after 180 days nonpayment will be sent to City Council for consideration for write offs. BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SCHERTZ, TEXAS THAT: Section 1. The City Council hereby authorizes the write off in the amount and distribution of accounts below: Function I Amount EMS $417,71.2.75 Utility Billing $1.5,714.40 Magazine $0.00 Total $433,427.15 Section 2. The recitals contained in the preamble hereof are hereby found to be true, and such recitals are hereby made a part of this Resolution for all purposes and are adopted as a part of the judgment and finding of the City Council. Section 3. All resolutions or parts thereof, which are in conflict or inconsistent with any provision of this Resolution are hereby repealed to the extent of such conflict, and the provisions of this Resolution shall be and remain controlling as to the matters resolved herein. Section 4. This Resolution shall be construed and enforced in accordance with the laws of the State of Texas and the United States of America. Section 5. If any provision of this Resolution or the application thereof to any person or circumstance shall be held to be invalid, the remainder of this Resolution and the application of such provision to other persons and circumstances shall nevertheless be valid, and the City Council hereby declares that this Resolution would have been enacted without such invalid provision. Section 6. It is officially found, determined, and declared that the meeting at which this Resolution is adopted was open to the public and public notice of the time, place, and subject matter of the public business to be considered at such meeting, including this Resolution, was given, all as required by Chapter 551, Texas Section 7. This Resolution shall be in force and effect from and after its final passage, and it is so resolved. PASSED AND ADOPTED, this 27th day of March 2018. CITY OF SCHERTZ, TEXAS Michael R. Carpenter, Mayor ATTEST: Brenda Dennis, City Secretary (CITY SEAL) CITY COUNCIL MEMORANDUM City Council Meeting: March 27, 2018 . Department: Engineering Agenda No. 4 Subject: Resolution No. 18 -R -36 — A Resolution authorizing three Access, Drainage, and Water Easement Agreements with Schertz- Cibolo- Universal City Independent School District for the use, benefit, and control of the City of Schertz for the construction, maintenance, and access of facilities associated with the proposed Corbett Elevated Storage Tank located off of the future extension of Ray Corbett Drive. BACKGROUND In order to construct and maintain the planned Corbett Elevated Storage Tank, the City and its contractors need access from the existing end of Ray Corbett Drive to the tank site (approximately 1,000 linear feet away). The area needed for this access and supporting utility installation is within the future right of way of the extension of Ray Corbett Drive and is currently owned by the Schertz-Cibolo- Universal City Independent School District (SCUCISD). The term of the easements will automatically expire when the property is platted into public right of way on a subdivision plat. The SCUCISD Board approved execution of the easement agreements during their regular meeting on December 19, 2017. Goal The goal of Resolution 18 -R -36 is accept and authorize execution of the Access, Drainage, and Water Easement Agreements from SCUCISD along the extension of Ray Corbett Drive. Community Benefit Ensuring properly designed, constructed, and maintained infrastructure facilities to serve orderly development meets a core service need in keeping with the Strategic Plan of the City. Summary of Recommended Action. Staff recommends Council approve Resolution 18 -R -36, approving and authorizing execution of the subject Access, Drainage, and Water Easement Agreements with SCUCISD. FISCAL IMPACT There is no direct fiscal impact from this Resolution. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends Council approve Resolution 18 -R -36 City Council Memorandum Page 2 ATTACHMENTS Resolution 18 -R -36 Access, Drainage, and Water Easement Agreements (0.1763 -ac., 0.4081 -ac., and 1.265 -ac. tracts) with SCUCISD Exhibit of SCUCISD Easement Areas RESOLUTION NO. 18 -R -36 A RESOLUTION BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SCHERTZ, TEXAS APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING ACCESS, DRAINAGE, AND WATER EASEMENT AGREEMENTS ALONG THE FUTURE EXTENSION OF RAY CORBETT DRIVE FROM THE SCHERTZ- CIBOLO- UNIVERSAL CITY INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT AND OTHER MATTERS IN CONNECTION THEREWITH WHEREAS, the City staff of the City of Schertz (the "City ") has recommended that the City enter into agreements for Access, Drainage, and Water Easements with the Schertz- Cibolo- Universal City Independent School District (SCUCISD), the "Grantor "), in the form attached hereto as Exhibit A (the "Agreements "); and WHEREAS, the City needs the Access, Drainage, and Water Easements in connection with the construction, operation, and maintenance of the planned Corbett Elevated Storage Tank; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that it is in the best interest of the City to accept the Access, Drainage, and Water Easements in accordance with the terms of the Agreements. BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SCHERTZ, TEXAS THAT: Section 1. The City Council hereby authorizes the City Manager to execute and deliver the Agreements with the Grantor in substantially the form set forth on Exhibit A and to accept the Access, Drainage, and Water Easements in accordance with the terms of the Agreements. Section 2. The recitals contained in the preamble hereof are hereby found to be true, and such recitals are hereby made a part of this Resolution for all purposes and are adopted as a part of the judgment and findings of the City Council. Section 3. All resolutions, or parts thereof, which are in conflict or inconsistent with any provision of this Resolution are hereby repealed to the extent of such conflict, and the provisions of this Resolution shall be and remain controlling as to the matters resolved herein. Section 4. This Resolution shall be construed and enforced in accordance with the laws of the State of Texas and the United States of America. Section 5. If any provision of this Resolution or the application thereof to any person . or circumstance shall be held to be invalid, the remainder of this Resolution and the application of such provision to other persons and circumstances shall nevertheless be valid, and the City Council hereby declares that this Resolution would have been enacted without such invalid provision. Section 6. It is officially found, determined, and declared that the meeting at which this Resolution is adopted was open to the public and public notice of the time, place, and subject matter of the public business to be considered at such meeting, including this Resolution, was given, all as required by Chapter 551, Texas Government Code, as amended. Section 7. This Resolution shall be in force and effect from and after its final passage, and it is so resolved. PASSED AND ADOPTED, this 27th day of March, 2018. CITY OF SCHERTZ, TEXAS Michael R. Carpenter, Mayor ATTEST: Brenda Dennis, City Secretary (CITY SEAL) EXHIBIT A NOTICE OF CONFIDENTIALITY RIGHTS: IF YOU ARE A NATURAL PERSON, YOU MAY REMOVE OR STRIKE ANY OR ALL OF THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION FROM THIS INSTRUMENT BEFORE IT IS FILED FOR RECORD IN THE PUBLIC RECORDS: YOUR SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER OR YOUR DRIVER'S LICENSE NUMBER. ACCESS, DRAINAGE, AND WATER EASEMENT AGREEMENT THE STATE OF TEXAS § COUNTY OF BEXAR § GRANT OF EASEMENT: SCHERTZ- CIBOLO- UNIVERSAL CITY INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT, a body corporate and political subdivision in the Counties of Guadalupe and Bexar, State of Texas ( "Grantor "), for the sum of Ten and No/ 100 Dollars ($10.00) and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged and confessed, does hereby grant, sell and convey unto THE CITY OF SCHERTZ, TEXAS, a Texas home -rule city, with offices located at 1400 Schertz Parkway, Schertz, Texas 78154 ( "Grantee "), an easement and right -of -way (`Basement ") upon and across the property of Grantor which is more particularly described on Exhibit "A ", attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference (`Basement Tract "), TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the same perpetually to Grantee and its successors and assigns, together with the rights, and privileges and on the terms and conditions set forth below; and Grantor, subject to the Exceptions, to Warranty, does hereby covenant and agree to WARRANT AND FOREVER DEFEND title to the Easement herein granted, unto Grantee, its successors and assigns, against every person whomsoever lawfully claiming or to claim the same or any part thereof. Terms and Conditions: The following terms and conditions apply to the Easement granted by this agreement: 1. Definitions. For the purposes of this grant of Easement certain terms shall have the meanings that follow: (a) "Holder" shall mean Grantee and Grantee's heirs, successors and assigns who at any time own any interest in the conveyance is subject to the terms of this agreement. (b) "Public Utility" shall mean water, drainage, and access facilities. 2. Character of Easement. The Easement granted herein is "in gross," in that there is no "Benefitted Property." Nevertheless, the Easement rights herein granted shall pass to Grantee's successors and assigns, subject to all of the Terms hereof. The 0.1763 AC Easement rights of use granted herein are nonexclusive and irrevocable. The Easement is for the benefit of Holder. 3. Purpose of Easement. The Easement shall be used for public utility purposes, including placement, construction, installation, replacement, repair, maintenance, relocation, removal, and operation of public utility facilities and related appurtenances, or making connections thereto. The Easement shall also be used for the purpose of providing access for the operation, repair, maintenance, replacement and expansion of the public utility facilities and related appurtenances. 4. Term. Easement shall continue to be effective until such time as Grantee determines that the Property has been platted into public right of way on a subdivision plat. 5. Reservation of Rights. Holder's right to use the Easement Property is nonexclusive, and Grantor and Grantor's heirs, successors, and assigns retain the right to use all or part of the Easement Property in conjunction with Holder as long as such use by Grantor and Grantor's heirs, successors, and assigns does not (i) interfere with the use of the Easement Property by Holder for the Easement Purpose, nor (ii) may Grantor construct any building, structure or obstruction on the Easement Property. The right to convey to others the right to use all or part of the Easement Property in conjunction with Holder, as long as such further conveyance is subject to the terms of this agreement. Written approval of Holder must be obtained prior to any use or improvement of Easement Property. 6. Improvement and Maintenance of Easement Property. Subject to the provisions of Section 7., immediately below, improvement and maintenance of the Easement Property and the Facilities will be at the sole expense of Holder. Holder has the right to eliminate any encroachments into the Easement Property. Holder has the right to construct, install, maintain, replace, and remove the Facilities under or across any portion of the Easement Property. All matters concerning the Facilities and their configuration, construction, installation, maintenance, replacement, and removal are at Holder's sole discretion, subject to performance of Holder's obligations under this agreement. Holder has the right to remove or relocate any fences or other encroachments within the Easement Property or along or near its boundary lines if reasonably necessary to construct, install, maintain, replace, or remove the Facilities. Holder will also replace to their original condition any landscaping, driveways or parking areas that were in existence prior to the granting of the Easement Property and are damaged in connection with the work. 7. Maintenance of' Surface Easement Property /Permitted Improvements. Notwithstanding any contrary provision, Grantor shall retain the obligation to maintain the surface of the Easement Property, including the obligation to regularly mow or cut back vegetation and to keep the surface of the Easement Property free of litter, debris, or trash. Any permitted improvement made by Grantor must comply with applicable ordinances, development codes and engineering guidelines of the City of Schertz, and must not conflict with use of the easement for its intended purpose as described herein. 8. Equitable Rights of Enforcement. This Easement may be enforced by restraining orders and injunctions (temporary or permanent) prohibiting interference and commanding compliance. Restraining orders and injunctions will be obtainable on proof of the existence of interference or threatened interference, without the necessity of proof of inadequacy of legal remedies or irreparable harm, and will be obtainable only by the parties to or those benefited by this agreement; provided, however, that the act of obtaining an injunction or restraining order will not be deemed to be an election of remedies or a waiver of any other rights or remedies available at law or in equity. 9. Attorney's Fees. If either party retains an attorney to enforce this agreement, the party prevailing in litigation is entitled to recover reasonable attorney's fees and court and other costs. 10. Binding Effect. This agreement binds and inures to the benefit of the parties and their respective heirs, successors, and permitted assigns. 11. Choice of Law. This agreement will be construed under the laws of the state of Texas, without regard to choice -of -law rules of any jurisdiction. Venue is in the county or counties in which the Easement Property is located. 12. Counterparts. This agreement may be executed in any number of counterparts with the same effect as if all signatory parties had signed the same document. All counterparts will be construed together and will constitute one and the same instrument. 13. Waiver of Default. It is not a waiver of or consent to default if the non - defaulting party fails to declare immediately default or delays in taking any action. Pursuit of any remedies set forth in this agreement does not preclude pursuit of other remedies in this agreement or provided by law. 14. Further Assurances. Each signatory party agrees to execute and deliver any additional documents and instruments and to perform any additional acts necessary or appropriate to perform the terms, provisions, and conditions of this agreement and all transactions contemplated by this agreement. 15. Integration. This agreement contains the complete agreement of the parties and cannot be varied except by written agreement of the parties. The parties agree that there are no oral agreements, representations, or warranties that are not expressly set forth in this agreement. 1.6. Exceptions to Warranty. This grant is subject to any and all encumbrances and easements of record, to the extent the same are valid and enforceable. 17. Legal Construction. Any provision in this agreement is for any reason unenforceable, to the extent the unenforceability does not destroy the basis of the bargain among the parties, the unenforceability will not affect any other provision hereof, and this agreement will be construed as if the unenforceable provision had never been a part of the agreement. Whenever context requires, the singular will include the plural and neuter include the masculine or feminine gender, and vice versa. Article and section headings in this agreement are for reference only and are not intended to restrict or define the text of any section. This agreement will not be construed more or less favorably between the parties by reason of authorship or origin of language. 18. Notices. Any notice required or permitted under this agreement must be in writing. Any notice required by this agreement will be deemed to be delivered (whether actually received or not) when deposited with the United States Postal Service, postage prepaid, certified mail, return receipt requested, and addressed to the intended recipient at the address shown in this agreement. Notice may also be given by regular mail, personal delivery, courier delivery, facsimile transmission, or other commercially reasonable means and will be effective when actually received. Any address for notice may be changed by written notice delivered as provided herein. 19. Recitals /Exhibits. Any recitals in this agreement are represented by the parties to be accurate, and constitute a part of the substantive agreement. All exhibits referenced herein are attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein for all purposes. 20. Entire Agreement. This instrument contains the entire agreement between the parties relating to the rights herein granted and the obligations herein assumed. Any oral representation or modification concerning this instrument shall be of no force and effect except for any subsequent modification in writing, signed by the party to be charged. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this instrument is executed this day of ,20 . GRANTOR: (Grantor's Name) By: (Grantor's Signature) THE STATE OF TEXAS § COUNTY OF § This instrument was acknowledged before me on , 20, by , an individual residing in County, Texas. Notary Public Signature (seal) AGREED AND ACCEPTED: CITY OF SCHERTZ, TEXAS, a Texas home -rule municipality LM THE STATE OF TEXAS COUNTY OF GUADALUPE Brian James, Acting City Manager This instrument was acknowledged before me on , 20_, by Brian James, Acting City Manager of the City of Schertz, Texas, a Texas home -rule municipality, on behalf of said municipality. Notary Public Signature (seal) EXHIBIT "A" EASEMENT TRACT 10927' YI" -,,DRIVE SUITE 104 SAN AN- ONTO, I- 8217 1. ( 10) 590 -4777 F, (21 0) 590-4940 1- 8111 -332-3109 www. ford ngin ering,com T FE No. Fm11 B��L No. 100 1 400 NOTICE OF CONFIDENTIALITY RIGHTS: IF YOU ARE A NATURAL PERSON, YOU MAY REMOVE OR STRIKE ANY OR ALL OF THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION FROM THIS INSTRUMENT BEFORE IT IS FILED FOR RECORD IN THE PUBLIC RECORDS: YOUR SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER OR YOUR DRIVER'S LICENSE NUMBER. ACCESS, DRAINAGE, AND WATER EASEMENT AGREEMENT THE STATE OF TEXAS § COUNTY OF BEXAR § GRANT OF EASEMENT: SCHERTZ- CIBOLO- UNIVERSAL CITY INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT, a body corporate and political subdivision in the Counties of Guadalupe and Bexar, State of Texas ( "Grantor "), for the sum of Ten and No/ 100 Dollars ($10.00) and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged and confessed, does hereby grant, sell and convey unto THE CITY OF SCHERTZ, TEXAS, a Texas home -rule city, with offices located at 1400 Schertz Parkway, Schertz, Texas 78154 ( "Grantee "), an easement and right -of -way (`Basement ") upon and across the property of Grantor which is more particularly described on Exhibit "A ", attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference (`Basement Tract "), TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the same perpetually to Grantee and its successors and assigns, together with the rights, and privileges and on the terms and conditions set forth below; and Grantor, subject to the Exceptions, to Warranty, does hereby covenant and agree to WARRANT AND FOREVER DEFEND title to the Easement herein granted, unto Grantee, its successors and assigns, against every person whomsoever lawfully claiming or to claim the same or any part thereof. Terms and Conditions: The following terms and conditions apply to the Easement granted by this agreement: 1. Definitions. For the purposes of this grant of Easement certain terms shall have the meanings that follow: (a) "Holder" shall mean Grantee and Grantee's heirs, successors and assigns who at any time own any interest in the conveyance is subject to the terms of this agreement. (b) "Public Utility" shall mean water, drainage, and access facilities. 2. Character of Easement. The Easement granted herein is "in gross," in that there is no "Benefitted Property." Nevertheless, the Easement rights herein granted shall pass to Grantee's successors and assigns, subject to all of the Terms hereof. The 0.4081 AC Easement rights of use granted herein are nonexclusive and irrevocable. The Easement is for the benefit of Holder. 3. Purpose of Easement. The Easement shall be used for public utility purposes, including placement, construction, installation, replacement, repair, maintenance, relocation, removal, and operation of public utility facilities and related appurtenances, or making connections thereto. The Easement shall also be used for the purpose of providing access for the operation, repair, maintenance, replacement and expansion of the public utility facilities and related appurtenances. 4. Term. Easement shall continue to be effective until such time as Grantee determines that the Property has been platted into public right of way on a subdivision plat. 5. Reservation of Rights. Holder's right to use the Easement Property is nonexclusive, and Grantor and Grantor's heirs, successors, and assigns retain the right to use all or part of the Easement Property in conjunction with Holder as long as such use by Grantor and Grantor's heirs, successors, and assigns does not (i) interfere with the use of the Easement Property by Holder for the Easement Purpose, nor (ii) may Grantor construct any building, structure or obstruction on the Easement Property. The right to convey to others the right to use all or part of the Easement Property in conjunction with Holder, as long as such further conveyance is subject to the terms of this agreement. Written approval of Holder must be obtained prior to any use or improvement of Easement Property. 6. Improvement and Maintenance of Easement Property. Subject to the provisions of Section 7., immediately below, improvement and maintenance of the Easement Property and the Facilities will be at the sole expense of Holder. Holder has the right to eliminate any encroachments into the Easement Property. Holder has the right to construct, install, maintain, replace, and remove the Facilities under or across any portion of the Easement Property. All matters concerning the Facilities and their configuration, construction, installation, maintenance, replacement, and removal are at Holder's sole discretion, subject to performance of Holder's obligations under this agreement. Holder has the right to remove or relocate any fences or other encroachments within the Easement Property or along or near its boundary lines if reasonably necessary to construct, install, maintain, replace, or remove the Facilities. Holder will also replace to their original condition any landscaping, driveways or parking areas that were in existence prior to the granting of the Easement Property and are damaged in connection with the work. 7. Maintenance of' Surface Easement Property /Permitted Improvements. Notwithstanding any contrary provision, Grantor shall retain the obligation to maintain the surface of the Easement Property, including the obligation to regularly mow or cut back vegetation and to keep the surface of the Easement Property free of litter, debris, or trash. Any permitted improvement made by Grantor must comply with applicable ordinances, development codes and engineering guidelines of the City of Schertz, and must not conflict with use of the easement for its intended purpose as described herein. 8. Equitable Rights of Enforcement. This Easement may be enforced by restraining orders and injunctions (temporary or permanent) prohibiting interference and commanding compliance. Restraining orders and injunctions will be obtainable on proof of the existence of interference or threatened interference, without the necessity of proof of inadequacy of legal remedies or irreparable harm, and will be obtainable only by the parties to or those benefited by this agreement; provided, however, that the act of obtaining an injunction or restraining order will not be deemed to be an election of remedies or a waiver of any other rights or remedies available at law or in equity. 9. Attorney's Fees. If either party retains an attorney to enforce this agreement, the party prevailing in litigation is entitled to recover reasonable attorney's fees and court and other costs. 10. Binding Effect. This agreement binds and inures to the benefit of the parties and their respective heirs, successors, and permitted assigns. 11. Choice of Law. This agreement will be construed under the laws of the state of Texas, without regard to choice -of -law rules of any jurisdiction. Venue is in the county or counties in which the Easement Property is located. 12. Counterparts. This agreement may be executed in any number of counterparts with the same effect as if all signatory parties had signed the same document. All counterparts will be construed together and will constitute one and the same instrument. 13. Waiver of Default. It is not a waiver of or consent to default if the non - defaulting party fails to declare immediately default or delays in taking any action. Pursuit of any remedies set forth in this agreement does not preclude pursuit of other remedies in this agreement or provided by law. 14. Further Assurances. Each signatory party agrees to execute and deliver any additional documents and instruments and to perform any additional acts necessary or appropriate to perform the terms, provisions, and conditions of this agreement and all transactions contemplated by this agreement. 15. Integration. This agreement contains the complete agreement of the parties and cannot be varied except by written agreement of the parties. The parties agree that there are no oral agreements, representations, or warranties that are not expressly set forth in this agreement. 1.6. Exceptions to Warranty. This grant is subject to any and all encumbrances and easements of record, to the extent the same are valid and enforceable. 17. Legal Construction. Any provision in this agreement is for any reason unenforceable, to the extent the unenforceability does not destroy the basis of the bargain among the parties, the unenforceability will not affect any other provision hereof, and this agreement will be construed as if the unenforceable provision had never been a part of the agreement. Whenever context requires, the singular will include the plural and neuter include the masculine or feminine gender, and vice versa. Article and section headings in this agreement are for reference only and are not intended to restrict or define the text of any section. This agreement will not be construed more or less favorably between the parties by reason of authorship or origin of language. 18. Notices. Any notice required or permitted under this agreement must be in writing. Any notice required by this agreement will be deemed to be delivered (whether actually received or not) when deposited with the United States Postal Service, postage prepaid, certified mail, return receipt requested, and addressed to the intended recipient at the address shown in this agreement. Notice may also be given by regular mail, personal delivery, courier delivery, facsimile transmission, or other commercially reasonable means and will be effective when actually received. Any address for notice may be changed by written notice delivered as provided herein. 19. Recitals /Exhibits. Any recitals in this agreement are represented by the parties to be accurate, and constitute a part of the substantive agreement. All exhibits referenced herein are attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein for all purposes. 20. Entire Agreement. This instrument contains the entire agreement between the parties relating to the rights herein granted and the obligations herein assumed. Any oral representation or modification concerning this instrument shall be of no force and effect except for any subsequent modification in writing, signed by the party to be charged. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this instrument is executed this day of ,20 . GRANTOR: (Grantor's Name) By: (Grantor's Signature) THE STATE OF TEXAS § COUNTY OF § This instrument was acknowledged before me on , 20, by , an individual residing in County, Texas. Notary Public Signature (seal) AGREED AND ACCEPTED: CITY OF SCHERTZ, TEXAS, a Texas home -rule municipality LM THE STATE OF TEXAS COUNTY OF GUADALUPE Brian James, Acting City Manager This instrument was acknowledged before me on , 20_, by Brian James, Acting City Manager of the City of Schertz, Texas, a Texas home -rule municipality, on behalf of said municipality. Notary Public Signature (seal) EXHIBIT "A" EASEMENT TRACT EXHIBIT A i I TA P� I H N =NH 1 67.2 43�1rOO x`17 42 44 62.20 cl, 2 9. 6 -3-7U-0 ` 1 IV 63" 13 16 264.6 3 166.90 _ 429.37 X0'0811 66`4212 W 160.12° 4 9.90 37 1'32. 0 NOTICE OF CONFIDENTIALITY RIGHTS: IF YOU ARE A NATURAL PERSON, YOU MAY REMOVE OR STRIKE ANY OR ALL OF THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION FROM THIS INSTRUMENT BEFORE IT IS FILED FOR RECORD IN THE PUBLIC RECORDS: YOUR SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER OR YOUR DRIVER'S LICENSE NUMBER. ACCESS, DRAINAGE, AND WATER EASEMENT AGREEMENT THE STATE OF TEXAS § COUNTY OF BEXAR § GRANT OF EASEMENT: SCHERTZ- CIBOLO- UNIVERSAL CITY INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT, a body corporate and political subdivision in the Counties of Guadalupe and Bexar, State of Texas ( "Grantor "), for the sum of Ten and No/ 100 Dollars ($10.00) and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged and confessed, does hereby grant, sell and convey unto THE CITY OF SCHERTZ, TEXAS, a Texas home -rule city, with offices located at 1400 Schertz Parkway, Schertz, Texas 78154 ( "Grantee "), an easement and right -of -way (`Basement ") upon and across the property of Grantor which is more particularly described on Exhibit "A ", attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference (`Basement Tract "), TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the same perpetually to Grantee and its successors and assigns, together with the rights, and privileges and on the terms and conditions set forth below; and Grantor, subject to the Exceptions, to Warranty, does hereby covenant and agree to WARRANT AND FOREVER DEFEND title to the Easement herein granted, unto Grantee, its successors and assigns, against every person whomsoever lawfully claiming or to claim the same or any part thereof. Terms and Conditions: The following terms and conditions apply to the Easement granted by this agreement: 1. Definitions. For the purposes of this grant of Easement certain terms shall have the meanings that follow: (a) "Holder" shall mean Grantee and Grantee's heirs, successors and assigns who at any time own any interest in the conveyance is subject to the terms of this agreement. (b) "Public Utility" shall mean water, drainage, and access facilities. 2. Character of Easement. The Easement granted herein is "in gross," in that there is no "Benefitted Property." Nevertheless, the Easement rights herein granted shall pass to Grantee's successors and assigns, subject to all of the Terms hereof. The 1.265 AC Easement rights of use granted herein are nonexclusive and irrevocable. The Easement is for the benefit of Holder. 3. Purpose of Easement. The Easement shall be used for public utility purposes, including placement, construction, installation, replacement, repair, maintenance, relocation, removal, and operation of public utility facilities and related appurtenances, or making connections thereto. The Easement shall also be used for the purpose of providing access for the operation, repair, maintenance, replacement and expansion of the public utility facilities and related appurtenances. 4. Term. Easement shall continue to be effective until such time as Grantee determines that the Property has been platted into public right of way on a subdivision plat. 5. Reservation of Rights. Holder's right to use the Easement Property is nonexclusive, and Grantor and Grantor's heirs, successors, and assigns retain the right to use all or part of the Easement Property in conjunction with Holder as long as such use by Grantor and Grantor's heirs, successors, and assigns does not (i) interfere with the use of the Easement Property by Holder for the Easement Purpose, nor (ii) may Grantor construct any building, structure or obstruction on the Easement Property. The right to convey to others the right to use all or part of the Easement Property in conjunction with Holder, as long as such further conveyance is subject to the terms of this agreement. Written approval of Holder must be obtained prior to any use or improvement of Easement Property. 6. Improvement and Maintenance of Easement Property. Subject to the provisions of Section 7., immediately below, improvement and maintenance of the Easement Property and the Facilities will be at the sole expense of Holder. Holder has the right to eliminate any encroachments into the Easement Property. Holder has the right to construct, install, maintain, replace, and remove the Facilities under or across any portion of the Easement Property. All matters concerning the Facilities and their configuration, construction, installation, maintenance, replacement, and removal are at Holder's sole discretion, subject to performance of Holder's obligations under this agreement. Holder has the right to remove or relocate any fences or other encroachments within the Easement Property or along or near its boundary lines if reasonably necessary to construct, install, maintain, replace, or remove the Facilities. Holder will also replace to their original condition any landscaping, driveways or parking areas that were in existence prior to the granting of the Easement Property and are damaged in connection with the work. 7. Maintenance of' Surface Easement Property /Permitted Improvements. Notwithstanding any contrary provision, Grantor shall retain the obligation to maintain the surface of the Easement Property, including the obligation to regularly mow or cut back vegetation and to keep the surface of the Easement Property free of litter, debris, or trash. Any permitted improvement made by Grantor must comply with applicable ordinances, development codes and engineering guidelines of the City of Schertz, and must not conflict with use of the easement for its intended purpose as described herein. 8. Equitable Rights of Enforcement. This Easement may be enforced by restraining orders and injunctions (temporary or permanent) prohibiting interference and commanding compliance. Restraining orders and injunctions will be obtainable on proof of the existence of interference or threatened interference, without the necessity of proof of inadequacy of legal remedies or irreparable harm, and will be obtainable only by the parties to or those benefited by this agreement; provided, however, that the act of obtaining an injunction or restraining order will not be deemed to be an election of remedies or a waiver of any other rights or remedies available at law or in equity. 9. Attorney's Fees. If either party retains an attorney to enforce this agreement, the party prevailing in litigation is entitled to recover reasonable attorney's fees and court and other costs. 10. Binding Effect. This agreement binds and inures to the benefit of the parties and their respective heirs, successors, and permitted assigns. 11. Choice of Law. This agreement will be construed under the laws of the state of Texas, without regard to choice -of -law rules of any jurisdiction. Venue is in the county or counties in which the Easement Property is located. 12. Counterparts. This agreement may be executed in any number of counterparts with the same effect as if all signatory parties had signed the same document. All counterparts will be construed together and will constitute one and the same instrument. 13. Waiver of Default. It is not a waiver of or consent to default if the non - defaulting party fails to declare immediately default or delays in taking any action. Pursuit of any remedies set forth in this agreement does not preclude pursuit of other remedies in this agreement or provided by law. 14. Further Assurances. Each signatory party agrees to execute and deliver any additional documents and instruments and to perform any additional acts necessary or appropriate to perform the terms, provisions, and conditions of this agreement and all transactions contemplated by this agreement. 15. Integration. This agreement contains the complete agreement of the parties and cannot be varied except by written agreement of the parties. The parties agree that there are no oral agreements, representations, or warranties that are not expressly set forth in this agreement. 1.6. Exceptions to Warranty. This grant is subject to any and all encumbrances and easements of record, to the extent the same are valid and enforceable. 17. Legal Construction. Any provision in this agreement is for any reason unenforceable, to the extent the unenforceability does not destroy the basis of the bargain among the parties, the unenforceability will not affect any other provision hereof, and this agreement will be construed as if the unenforceable provision had never been a part of the agreement. Whenever context requires, the singular will include the plural and neuter include the masculine or feminine gender, and vice versa. Article and section headings in this agreement are for reference only and are not intended to restrict or define the text of any section. This agreement will not be construed more or less favorably between the parties by reason of authorship or origin of language. 18. Notices. Any notice required or permitted under this agreement must be in writing. Any notice required by this agreement will be deemed to be delivered (whether actually received or not) when deposited with the United States Postal Service, postage prepaid, certified mail, return receipt requested, and addressed to the intended recipient at the address shown in this agreement. Notice may also be given by regular mail, personal delivery, courier delivery, facsimile transmission, or other commercially reasonable means and will be effective when actually received. Any address for notice may be changed by written notice delivered as provided herein. 19. Recitals /Exhibits. Any recitals in this agreement are represented by the parties to be accurate, and constitute a part of the substantive agreement. All exhibits referenced herein are attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein for all purposes. 20. Entire Agreement. This instrument contains the entire agreement between the parties relating to the rights herein granted and the obligations herein assumed. Any oral representation or modification concerning this instrument shall be of no force and effect except for any subsequent modification in writing, signed by the party to be charged. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this instrument is executed this day of ,20 . GRANTOR: (Grantor's Name) By: (Grantor's Signature) THE STATE OF TEXAS § COUNTY OF § This instrument was acknowledged before me on , 20, by , an individual residing in County, Texas. Notary Public Signature (seal) AGREED AND ACCEPTED: CITY OF SCHERTZ, TEXAS, a Texas home -rule municipality LM THE STATE OF TEXAS COUNTY OF GUADALUPE Brian James, Acting City Manager This instrument was acknowledged before me on , 20_, by Brian James, Acting City Manager of the City of Schertz, Texas, a Texas home -rule municipality, on behalf of said municipality. Notary Public Signature (seal) EXHIBIT "A" EASEMENT TRACT 9 I MOSA I I twompommmi mosumm I Sm- 3 i P i t i g "iF &jI4L7,La'ki�d"l 4�LL % &.LP4.�1 .J m.F f...P PROPOSED ELEC & GAS ESMT 0.3104 ACRES PL RAY CORBETT DR. (VAR.WIDTH ROW) Z 0 SCHERTZ-CIBOLO-UNIVERSAL CITY ISD 1060 ELBEL RD, SCHERTZ, TX 78154 2.028 ACRES - VOL 14343 PG 1954 LAND USE: UNDEVELOPED ZONING: PRE-DEVELOPMENT ------------------- PROPOSED 7C ' SJ DRAINAGE &;llER ESMT (1,265 ACRF") PL 8 ui ui Lu D-- U V) 0 100 200 SCALE: 1" = 100' WESLEY H. RUMPF 12250 SCHAEFER RD, SCHERTZ, TX 78154 REMAINDER OF 14.48 ACRES VOL. 6622 PG. 358 LAND USE: AGRICULTURALIUNDEVELOPED ZONING: DEV. AGREEMENT (DELAYED ANNEXATION) - - - - 7 ----- PT(5iT(5'sTi5ACC DRAINAGE I (0.40 1 ACRES 9 10 11 12 13 N/ 14 n 30 / N\' I 15 20' SEWER ESMT VOL. 13756, PG 1238 0 — "-o-f7 ES 3 O< co Q� 't 0 O'x� 22 CNJ C, < CL 0 co ul Q� Agenda No. 5 CITY COUNCIL MEMORANDUM City Council Meeting: March 27, 2018 Department: Public Works Subject: Resolution No. 18 -R -40 - A Resolution authorizing expenditures over $50,000 with Capital Excavation Company for the removal of a silt pile in the Amazon Drainage Channel. :• xl:l ►1 The City of Schertz currently maintains a drainage channel that runs parallel with Schertz Parkway next to Amazon. There is currently a pile of silt (dirt) that is impeding the water flow within this channel and needs to be removed. This silt pile is from previous work in the channel by the City and it was never removed after the maintenance was complete. We have received the lowest pricing from Capital Excavation to do the required work. We have done business with them in the past (Schertz Parkway Reconstruction) and were pleased with their performance. Proposals were obtained from Capital Excavation and another qualified contractor and the proposal from Capital Excavation was significantly lower due to their proximity to this work site (they are rebuilding Live Oak Road in Selma). Capital Excavation gave us an estimate of $1,100 per day with an expectation of less than 2 days of work. They also stated there could be a mobilization charge of $1,500 for the needed equipment due to a delay in our starting the project. Other pricing was in excess of $30,000 for the same work. The City's practice is to seek authorization from Council when expenditures with a vendor exceed $50,000 in one fiscal year. To date in Fiscal Year 2017 -2018, Capital Excavation has contracted with the City for $1,113,51.9.57 to complete the Schertz Parkway Reconstruction Project. Staff is seeking approval to spend a not to exceed amount of $4,000.00, with Capital Excavation for the removal of silt in the Amazon Drainage Channel during the 2017 -2018 fiscal year. COMMUNITY BENEFIT To provide a well - functioning and maintained drainage channel. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDED ACTION Staff recommends that Council authorize additional expenditures totaling no more than $4,000.00 with Capital Excavation for the removal of silt in the Amazon Drainage Channel. FISCAL IMPACT Funds are budgeted and available for the silt removal in the Drainage budget ATTACHMENTS Resolution 18 -R -40 RESOLUTION NO. 18 -R -40 A RESOLUTION BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SCHERTZ, TEXAS AUTHORIZING EXPENDITURES IN EXCESS OF $50,000 WITH CAPITAL EXCAVATION COMPANY FOR REMOVAL OF SILT FROM THE AMAZON DRAINAGE CHANNEL DURING THE 2017 -2018 FISCAL YEAR AND OTHER MATTERS IN CONNECTION THEREWITH WHEREAS, the City of Schertz (the "City ") has a need to have silt removed from the Amazon Drainage Channel during fiscal year 201.7 -2018; and WHEREAS, City staff has determined that Capital Excavation is the qualified and lowest priced contractor; and WHEREAS, the total amount contracted to date with Capital Excavation for previous projects has exceeded $50,000 for 201.7 -2018 fiscal year; and WHEREAS, The removal of this silt will result in a well- functioning and maintained drainage channel and staff recommends City Council establishes a not to exceed amount of $4,000.00 for the silt removal in the Amazon Drainage Channel in fiscal year 201.7 -2018; therefore THAT: Section 1. The City Council hereby authorizes additional expenditures in excess of previous approved amounts but totaling no more than $4,000.00 with Capital Excavation for the removal of a silt pile in the Amazon Drainage Channel during 201.7 -2018 fiscal year. Section 2. The recitals contained in the preamble hereof are hereby found to be true, and such recitals are hereby made a part of this Resolution for all purposes and are adopted as a part of the judgment and findings of the City Council. Section 3. All resolutions, or parts thereof, which are in conflict or inconsistent with any provision of this Resolution are hereby repealed to the extent of such conflict, and the provisions of this Resolution shall be and remain controlling as to the matters resolved herein. Section 4. This Resolution shall be construed and enforced in accordance with the laws of the State of Texas and the United States of America. Section 5. If any provision of this Resolution or the application thereof to any person or circumstance shall be held to be invalid, the remainder of this Resolution and the application of such provision to other persons and circumstances shall nevertheless be valid, and the City Council hereby declares that this Resolution would have been enacted without such invalid provision. Section 6. It is officially found, determined, and declared that the meeting at which this Resolution is adopted was open to the public and public notice of the time, place, and subject matter of the public business to be considered at such meeting, including this Resolution, was given, all as required by Chapter 551, Texas Government Code, as amended. Section 7. This Resolution shall be in force and effect from and after its final passage, and it is so resolved. PASSED AND ADOPTED, this 27th day of March, 2018 . CITY OF SCHERTZ, TEXAS Michael R. Carpenter, Mayor ATTEST: Brenda Dennis, City Secretary (CITY SEAL) 50664954.1 - 2 - CITY COUNCIL MEMORANDUM City Council Meeting: March 27, 2018 . Department: Engineering Agenda No. 6 Subject: Ordinance No. 18 -M -13 — Consideration and /or action approving an Ordinance amending Chapter 78, Article VII of the Code of Ordinances to adopt a roadway impact fee that may be imposed for roadway facilities in the City. The maximum assessable impact fee per service unit is $1,647.53 in Service Area 1, $1,327.89 in Service Area 2, $1,044.48 in Service Area 3, and $2,392.72 in Service Area 4. City Council may impose impact fees per service unit less than or equal to those maximum amounts an Ordinance to adopt a roadway impact fee that may be imposed on new development for use to construct roadway facilities in the City. (:B. James /K. Woodlee) Final Reading NOTE: Please see explanation of minor change to code language from first reading at the end of this section. Staff has been working with Freese and Nichols, Inc., (FNI) to update the City's Thoroughfare Plan and develop a roadway impact fee ordinance for the City of Schertz. A roadway impact fee (also known as a capital recovery fee) provides a funding mechanism for the implementation of roadway improvements that add capacity necessitated by new development. It also provides a basis for a Schertz specific rough proportionality analysis. The City currently charges water and sewer impact fees. The Texas Local. Government Code (TLGC) establishes the rules and process required to adopt impact fees. The first step required City Council to adopt Land Use Assumptions and a Capital Improvements Plan for the area where fees are to be charged to be used as a basis for the calculation of maximum assessable capital recovery, or impact, fees. Those documents were adopted by Council via Resolution 1.7 -R -1.07 on November 28, 2017. Based on those approved documents, FNI prepared a report that explains the methodology and calculation results of a study to determine the maximum assessable fee rates that may be charged by the City of Schertz to new development within the City limits. City Council Memorandum Page 2 The maximum assessable impact fee rates per service unit calculated for each service area are as follows: • Service Area 1 - $1,647.53 • Service Area 2 - $1,327.89 • Service Area 3 - $1,044.48 • Service Area 4 - $2,392.72 It should be noted that the calculated fees include a reduction based on a credit for the portion of ad- valorem tax revenues expected to be generated by improvements over the program period. City staff met with the following groups to present the Roadway Impact Fee Study findings and to gather feedback regarding the possible implementation of a roadway impact fee in the City of Schertz. • Capital hnprovements Advisory Committee (includes Planning and Zoning Commissioners) (CIAC) — 3 meetings • Committee of Committees Advisory Board (CCAB) • Transportation Safety Advisory Commission (TSAC) • Economic Development Corporation (EDC) Board of Directors • Community Focus Groups including Developers, Development Engineers, Home Builders, and Existing Business Owners /Representatives — 3 meetings City Council approved Resolution 18 -R -10 setting the date for the public hearing to consider adoption of a roadway impact fee ordinance. Based on input from various groups and a recommendation from the CIAC, the proposed roadway impact fee (capital recovery fee) ordinance has been drafted to include the following stipulations. 1. The same rates are to be collected city -wide. This creates parity across the city and does not act to deter or encourage development in any particular part of the city. It also simplifies the administration of the program. 2. Residential rates per service unit are set as follows: a. $600 in years 1 and 2 (equates to $2,022 per house) b. $800 in year 3 (equates to $2,696 per house) c. $900 in year 4 (equates to $3,033 per house) d. $1,000 in year 5 (equates to $3,370 per house) 3. Non - residential rates per service unit are set as follows: a. $100 in years 1 through 3 b. $175 in years 4 and 5 4. Developments already underway will be phased in as follows: City Council Memorandum Page 3 a. Development on a lot for which a plat has been recorded prior to adoption of the ordinance will not be charged the fee for any building permit application submitted within 18 months after the adoption of the ordinance. b. Development on a lot for which a preliminary plat was approved prior to adoption of the ordinance will not be charged the fee for any building permit application submitted within 12 months after the adoption of the ordinance. c. Any other development will be charged an impact fee for a complete building permit application submitted after the date of adoption of the ordinance. 5. A mechanism is included in the ordinance to provide for offsets of impact fees equal to the capacity added to the city's thoroughfare system. Offsets will be expressed and calculated on a service unit (vehicle -mile) basis. 6. The ordinance includes the provision that service areas, the capital improvements plan, and collection rates may be changed periodically. In accordance with TLGC Chapter 395.052, the land use assumptions and capital improvements plan must be updated at least every five years. The maximum assessable fees will be recalculated at that time or sooner, if appropriate. CHANGE FROM FIRST READING: Subsequent to the first reading of proposed ordinance 18 -M -13, it was recognized that there has been some construction and acceptance of new thoroughfare roadway facilities in recent months that were not included on the approved Capital Improvement Plan, but would otherwise have been eligible to provide offsets to impact fees that will be due for new single family residential construction after the 18 -month grace period (based on the proposed phasing of the fee program). It is recommended that the ordinance be adopted including the modification to allow a developer to apply for an offset agreement based on the value added to the thoroughfare system accepted in a recent timeframe (18 months prior to the ordinance). Staff contends that this is an appropriate allowance in keeping with the intent to not unreasonably burden a project already underway. One other minor change since the first reading of the proposed ordinance is a reduction in the vehicle -mile equivalency for the land use of Day Care Center. The previous value was 2.68 vehicle -miles per student. An updated review of data indicates a more appropriate value of 0.81 vehicle - miles per student. With approval of ordinance 1.8 -M -13, the updated value will be reflected in Table 7 of the 2017 Schertz Roadway Impact Fee Final Report. FISCAL IMPACT Adoption of the proposed roadway impact fee ordinance will generate additional revenue for the City that can only be used to add capacity of system roadways. The amount actually collected will depend on the amount, type and location (service area) of development as well as offsets provided from roads constructed by developers. It should be noted that at year 5 (full phase in) the City is proposing to charge approximately 67% of the median maximum assessable impact (of all the service areas) for residential and approximately 12% for non - residential. The City Council Memorandum Page 4 difference in funds needed to construct roadways necessitated by new development will have to come from some other source (general funds — directly or bonds, matching grants, etc.). Staff recommends Council approve Ordinance No. 18 -M -1.3 final reading. ATTACHMENTS Ordinance 1.8 -M -1.3 including Exhibits: Exhibit A — Code Amendment (also attached is red -lined version from I et reading) Exhibit B — Schertz Roadway Impact Fee Capital Improvements Plan Final Report Exhibit C — 2017 Schertz Roadway Impact Fee Final Report (Capital Recovery Plan) Exhibit D — Schertz Roadway Impact Fee Land Use Assumptions Final Report Letter of Recommendation from CIAC CIAC Draft Minutes from February 7, 2018 . ORDINANCE NO. 18 -M -13 ROADWAY CAPITAL RECOVERY FEES AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SCIIERTZ, TEXAS, AMENDING THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF SCHERTZ, TEXAS BY ADOPTING CHAPTER 78, ARTICLE VII; ROADWAY CAPITAL RECOVERY FEES; INCORPORATING LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS AND CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLANS FOR SUCH FACILITIES; PROVIDING FOR COLLECTION OF IMPACT FEES; ESTABLISHING ACCOUNTS AND RECORDS OF IMPACT FEES COLLECTED; PROVIDING FOR USE OF PROCEEDS FROM IMPACT FEE ACCOUNTS; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING FOR A PENALTY CLAUSE FOR VIOLATIONS OF THIS ORDINANCE. WHEREAS, the City of Schertz is responsible for and committed to the provision of public facilities at levels necessary to cure any existing roadway facility deficiencies in already developed areas and insure the provisions of adequate roadway facilities in the future; and WHEREAS, such facilities shall be provided by the City utilizing funds allocated in the capital budget and capital improvements programming processes and relying upon the funding sources indicated therein; and WHEREAS, new residential and nonresidential development causes and imposes increased demands upon roadway facilities that would not otherwise occur; and WHEREAS, planning projections indicate that such development will continue and will place ever - increasing demands on the City to provide necessary roadway facilities improvements and expansion; and WHEREAS, to the extent that such new development places demands upon the roadway facility infrastructure, those demands should be satisfied by more equitably assigning responsibility for financing the provision of such facilities from the public at large to the developments actually creating the demands for them; and WHEREAS, the amount of the roadway capital recovery fee to be imposed shall be determined by the cost of the additional roadway facilities needed to support such development, which roadway facilities shall be identified in a capital improvements program; and WHEREAS, the City Council has previously approved land use assumptions and capital improvement plans for purposes of adopting roadway capital recovery fees; and, WHEREAS, the City Council, after careful consideration of the matter, and upon . recommendations from the Capital Improvements Advisory Committee hereby finds and declares that roadway capital recovery fees imposed upon residential and nonresidential development to finance specified public roadway facilities, the demand for which is created by such development, is in the best interests of the general welfare of the City and Pagel of 3 its residents, is equitable, and does not impose an unfair burden on such development; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that in all things the City has complied with said Chapter 395 of the Texas Local Government Code as the applicable state statute in the notice, adoption, promulgation and methodology necessary to adopt Roadway Capital Recovery Fees; NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SCHERTZ, TEXAS: Section 1. The Code of Ordinances of the City of Schertz is hereby amended by adding Chapter 78 Article VII Roadway Capital Recovery Fees as set forth in Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference. Section 2. The recitals contained in the preamble hereof are hereby found to be true, and such recitals are hereby made a part of this Ordinance for all purposes and are adopted as a part of the judgment and findings of the Council. Section 3. All ordinances and codes, or parts thereof, which are in conflict or inconsistent with any provision of this Ordinance are hereby repealed to the extent of such conflict, and the provisions of this Ordinance shall be and remain controlling as to the matters resolved herein. Section 4. This Ordinance shall be construed and enforced in accordance with the laws of the State of Texas and the United States of America. Section 5. If any provision of this Ordinance or the application thereof to any person or circumstance shall be held to be invalid, the remainder of this Ordinance and the application of such provision to other persons and circumstances shall nevertheless be valid, and the City hereby declares that this Ordinance would have been enacted without such invalid provision. Section 6. It is officially found, determined, and declared that the meeting at which this Ordinance is adopted was open to the public and public notice of the time, place, and subject matter of the public business to be considered at such meeting, including this Ordinance, was given, all as required by Chapter 551, as amended, Texas Government Code. Section 7. This Ordinance shall be effective upon the date of final adoption hereof and any publication required by law. PASSED ON FIRST READING, the 13th day of March 2018. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED ON SECOND READING, the 27th day of March 2018. . Page 2 of 3 CITY OF SCHERTZ, TEXAS Mayor, Michael R. Carpenter City Secretary, Brenda Dennis (CITY SEAL) EXHIBIT A: Code Amendment EXHIBIT B: Schertz Roadway Impact Fee Capital Improvements Plan Final Report EXHIBIT C: 2017 Schertz Roadway Impact Fee Final Report EXHIBIT D: Schertz Roadway Impact Fee Land Use Assumptions Final Report Page 3 of 3 ARTICLE VII.- ROADWAY CAPITAL RECOVERY FEES DIVISION 1. GENERALLY Sec. 78 -170. Short title. This article be known and cited as the Schertz Roadway Capital Recovery Fees Article. Sec. 78 -171. - Purpose. This article is intended to ensure the provision of adequate roadway facilities to serve new development in the city by requiring each development to pay its share of the costs of such improvements necessitated by and attributable to such new development. Sec. 78 -172. - Authority. This article is adopted pursuant to V.T.C.A., Local Government Code Ch. 395 and the City Charter. The provisions of this article shall not be construed to limit the power of the city to utilize all powers and procedures authorized under V.T.C.A., Local Government Code Ch. 395, or other methods authorized under state law or pursuant to other city powers to accomplish the purposes set forth herein, either in substitution or in conjunction with this article. Guidelines may be developed by ordinance, resolution, or otherwise to implement and administer this article. Sec. 78 -173. - Definitions. Assessment means the determination of the amount of the maximum capital recovery fee per service unit which can be imposed on new development pursuant to this article. The amount of the capital recovery fee per service unit is a measure of the traffic impact on system facilities created by the new development. Capital improvement means a roadway facility with a life expectancy of three or more years, to be owned and operated by or on behalf of the city (including the city's share of costs for roadways and associated improvements designated as a numbered highway on the official federal or state highway system). "Capital improvement" applies to a newly constructed roadway facility or to the expansion of an existing roadway facility necessary to serve new development. Capital improvements plan for roadway capital recovery fees identifies the capital improvements or facility expansions and associated costs for each roadway service area that are necessitated by and which are attributable to new development within the service area, for a period not to exceed ten years, which capital improvements are to be financed in whole or in part through the imposition of roadway capital recovery fees pursuant to this article. The capital improvements plan for roadway capital recovery fees is set out in the adopted "Schertz Roadway Impact Fee Capital Improvements Plan Final Report" adopted by resolution of the city council, and attached to Ord. No. 18 -M -13 as exhibit B. Capital recovery fee or roadway capital recovery fee (also referred to as roadway impact fee) means a charge or assessment imposed by the city, pursuant to this article, against new development in order to generate revenue for funding or recouping the costs of capital improvements or facility expansions necessitated by and attributable to the new development. "Capital recovery fees" or "roadway capital recovery fees" do not include road escrow payments for site - related facilities imposed under facility agreements in existence on the effective date of this article. The term also does not include dedication of rights -of -way or easements or construction or dedication of drainage facilities, streets, sidewalks, or curbs if the dedication or construction is required by the subdivision ordinance and is necessitated by and attributable to the new development. Capital recovery plan or Impact fee plan means the plan that identifies the calculation of the maximum assessable capital recovery fee for each service area based on the adopted capital improvements plan and land use assumptions. The capital recovery plan is set out in the "2017 Schertz Roadway Impact Fee Final Report" and attached to Ord. No. 18 -M -13 as exhibit C. City means the City of Schertz, Texas. Credit means: (1) When used in the context of determining the maximum assessable capital recovery fee per service unit, an amount equal to: a. That portion of ad valorem tax and utility service revenues generated by new service units during the program period that is used for the payment of improvements, including the payment of debt, that are included in the capital improvements plan; or b. In the alternative, a credit equal to 50 percent of the total projected cost of implementing the capital improvements plan; or (2) When used in the context of determining the offset for system facilities, the amount of the reduction of an capital recovery fee designed to fairly reflect the value of any construction of, contributions to, or dedications of a system facility agreed to or required by the city as a condition of development approval, pursuant to rules herein established or pursuant to city council - approved administrative guidelines which value shall be credited on a vehicle mile basis against roadway facilities capital recovery fees otherwise due from the development and which credits are hereinafter referred to as an "offset" or "offsets" to avoid confusion. Development unit or development units is the expression of the magnitude of the transportation demand created by each land use planned within a particular development and is used to compute the number of service units consumed by each individual land use application. Final plat recordation or recordation of a final plat means the point at which the applicant has complied with all conditions precedent to recording an approved final plat (minor plat or record plat) in the county, including the final completion of and acceptance by the city of any infrastructure or other improvements required by the subdivision ordinance or any other ordinance and the plat is filed for record with the county clerk's office. Land use assumptions means and includes a description of the service areas and the projections of population and employment growth and associated changes in land uses, densities and intensities adopted by the city, as may be amended from time to time, in each service area over a ten -year period upon which the roadway improvements plan is based. The land use assumptions are set out in the adopted document "Schertz Roadway Impact Fee Land Use Assumptions Final Report" adopted by resolution of the city council, and attached to Ord. No. 18 -M -13 as Exhibit D. Land use vehicle -mile equivalency table or LUVMET is a table that provides the standardized measure of consumption or use of roadway facilities attributable to a new development based on the land use category of the development and historical data and trends applicable to the city during the previous ten years. The LUVMET recognizes and expresses the magnitude of the transportation demand created by different land use categories within a particular development and allow different uses of land to more accurately bear the cost and expense of the impacts generated by such uses. The LUVMET expresses the number of service units consumed by each individual land use application as "vehicle miles (per development unit)." The applicable LUVMET is included by reference as Table 7 of the capital recovery plan. For land use categories with no applicability to those on Table 7, the applicant may petition for the use of an appropriate vehicle -mile equivalent by submitting a trip generation study including trip rates and lengths reflecting specific conditions of the proposed land use and local trip lengths. The study must include enough data to be statistically valid and approval will be at the discretion of the City Manager or designee. New development means a project involving the subdivision of land and/or the construction, reconstruction, redevelopment, conversion, structural alteration, relocation, or enlargement of any structure, or any use or extension of the use of land which has the effect of increasing the requirements for capital improvements, measured by an increase in the number of service units to be generated by such activity, and which requires either the approval and filing with the county of a plat pursuant to the city's subdivision ordinance or the issuance of a building permit. Offset or offsets means the amount of the reduction of an capital recovery fee designed to fairly reflect the value of any construction of, contributions to, or dedications of a system facility agreed to or required by the city as a condition of development approval, pursuant to rules herein established, using the values established in the capital recovery plan, or pursuant to city council- approved administrative guidelines which value shall be credited on a vehicle mile basis against roadway facilities capital recovery fees otherwise due from the development. Preliminary plat approval means the point at which the applicant has complied with all conditions of approval and the plat has been approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission. Recoup means to reimburse the city for capital improvements which the city has previously installed or caused to be installed. Roadway means any freeway, expressway or arterial or collector streets or roads designated in the city's adopted master thoroughfare plan, as may be amended from time to time. The term includes the city's share of costs for roadways designated as a numbered highway on the official federal or state highway system. Roadway facility means an improvement or appurtenance to a roadway which includes, but is not limited to, rights -of -way, whether conveyed by deed or easement; intersection . improvements; traffic signals; turn lanes; drainage facilities associated with the roadway; street lighting or curbs. "Roadway facility" also includes any improvement or appurtenance to an intersection with a roadway officially enumerated in the federal or state highway system. ":Roadway facility" includes the city's share of costs for roadways and associated improvements designated as a numbered highway on the official federal or state highway system, including local matching funds and costs related to utility line relocation and the establishment of curbs, gutters, drainage appurtenances, and rights -of -way. "Roadway facility" excludes those improvements or appurtenances to a roadway which are site - related facilities. Roadway service area or roadway benefits area means the geographic area(s) within the city's corporate limits, which do not exceed six miles and within which geographic area(s) roadway capital recovery fees for capital improvements will be collected for new development occurring within such area, and within which fees so collected will be expended for those capital improvements identified in the capital improvements plan to be located within the roadway service area. "Roadway service area" does not include any land outside the city limits. Roadway service areas are shown on Figure 1 of the capital recovery plan. Service unit means one vehicle mile of travel in the afternoon peak hour of traffic and is also referred to as a "vehicle mile." Service unit equivalent means the amount of capacity created by contribution of a capital improvement on behalf of a new development, expressed in vehicle miles. Single family residential lot means a lot platted to accommodate a single family or a duplex dwelling unit, as authorized under the city's zoning regulations. Site - related facility means an improvement or facility which is constructed for the primary use or benefit of a new development and /or which is for the primary purpose of safe and adequate provision of roadway facilities to serve the new development and which is not included in the roadway improvements plan and for which the developer or property owner is solely responsible under the subdivision, and/or other applicable, regulations. System facility means a capital improvement which is designated in the capital improvements plan and which is not a site - related facility. A system facility may include a capital improvement which is located off -site, within, or on and along the perimeter of the new development site. Sec. 78 -174. - Applicability. The provisions of this article apply to all new developments within the corporate boundaries of the city. The provisions of this article apply uniformly within each roadway benefit area. Sec. 78 -1.75. — Roadway capital recovery fees per service unit. (a) The maximum assessable capital recovery fee per service unit (post- credit) for any use in each service area shall be as calculated and documented in the capital recovery plan as follows: 1. The capital recovery fee per service unit in Service Area 1 is $1,647.53. 2. The capital recovery fee per service unit in Service Area 2 is $1,327.89. 3. The capital recovery fee per service unit in Service Area 3 is $1,044.48. 4. The capital recovery fee per service unit in Service Area 4 is $2,392.72. (b) The assessable capital recovery fee per service unit set forth herein that is assessed to new development, as may be amended from time to time, is declared to be the roughly proportionate measure of the impact(s) generated by a new unit of development on the city's transportation system. To the extent that the capital recovery fee per service unit collected is less than the maximum assessable capital recovery fee per service unit (post credit), as calculated and documented in the capital recovery plan, such difference is hereby declared to be founded on policies unrelated to the measurement of the actual impacts of the development on the city's transportation system. The maximum assessable capital recovery fee per service unit may be used in evaluating any claim by an applicant, developer, or property owner that the dedication, construction, or contribution of a capital improvement imposed as a condition of development approval pursuant to the city's regulations is not roughly proportionate to the impact(s) of the new development on the city's transportation system. Sec. 78 -176. - Assessment of capital recovery fees. (a) Assessment of the capital recovery fee per service unit for any new development shall be made as follows: 1. Assessment of capital recovery fee shall be made at the time of recordation of a final plat and shall be the amount of the maximum assessable capital recovery fee per service unit. 2. Development on a lot for which a final plat has been recorded prior to the effective date of this ordinance (March 27, 2018) shall not be charged a capital recovery fee for any complete building permit application submitted within 18 months from the effective date of this ordinance (September 27, 2019). 3. Development on a lot for which a preliminary plat was approved prior to the effective date of this ordinance (March 27, 2018) . shall not be charged a capital recovery fee for any complete building permit application submitted within 1 year from the effective date of this ordinance (March 27, 201.9). 4. Any other development will be charged a capital recovery fee for a complete building permit application submitted after the date of adoption of the ordinance (March 27, 2018). (b) Following assessment of the capital recovery fee pursuant to subsection (a), the amount of the capital recovery fee assessed per service unit for that new development cannot be increased, unless the owner proposes to change the approved development by the submission of a new application for final plat approval or replat approval, in which case new assessment shall occur at the maximum assessable, applicable rate then in effect. (c) Following the vacating of any plat or submittal of any replat, a new assessment must be made in accordance with Sec. 78 -1.75. (d) Approval of an amending plat pursuant to Texas Local Government Code § 212.016 and the UDC is not subject to reassessment of a capital recovery fee hereunder provided that the use of the property remains the same. Sec. 78 -177. - Payment and collection of capital recovery fees. (a) For all new developments, capital recovery fees shall be collected at the time of application for and in conjunction with the issuance of a building permit. The capital recovery fees to be paid and collected are as follows: 1. The capital recovery fee per service unit for residential use shall be $600.00 beginning the effective date of this ordinance (March 27, 2018) until the last day of the second year from the effective date of this ordinance (March 26, 2020). 2. The capital recovery fee per service unit for residential use shall be $800.00 beginning on the first day of the third year from the effective date of this ordinance (March 27, 2020) and continuing until the last day of the third year from the effective date of this ordinance (March 26, 2021). 3. The capital recovery fee per service unit for residential use shall be $900.00 beginning on the first day of the fourth year from the effective date of this ordinance (March 27, 202 1) and continuing until the last day of the fourth year from the effective date of this ordinance (March 26, 2022). 4. The capital recovery fee per service unit for residential use shall be $1000.00 beginning on the first day of the fifth year from the effective date of this ordinance (March 27, 2022) and continuing until a new rate is adopted. (b) The capital recovery fee per service unit for non - residential use for all roadway service areas shall be as follows: 1. The capital recovery fee per service unit for non - residential use shall be $1.00.00 beginning the effective date of this ordinance (March 27, 2018) until the last day of the third year from the effective date of this ordinance (March 26, 2021). 2. The capital recovery fee per service unit for non - residential use shall be $175.00 beginning on the first day of the fourth year from the effective date of this ordinance (March 27, 202 1) and continuing until a new rate is adopted. (c) The city reserves the right to enter into an agreement with a developer for a different time and manner of payment of capital recovery fees in which case the agreement shall determine the time and manner of payment. (d) The city shall compute the capital recovery fees to be paid and collected for the new development in the following manner: 1. Determine the number of development units for each land use category in the new development using Table 7 of the capital recovery plan. 2. Multiply the number of development units for each land use category in the new development by the vehicle miles (per development unit) for each such land use category also found in Table 7 of the capital recovery plan to determine the number of service units attributable to the new development. 3. If an offset agreement providing for offsets and credits against capital recovery fees exists, the number of service units attributable to the new development shall be reduced by subtracting available service unit equivalents as provided in Sec. 78 -178. If adequate service unit equivalents for offsets and credits are available in an amount equal to or greater than the number of service units generated (required) by this new development, no fee is paid, but the pool of available service unit equivalents shall be reduced accordingly. 4. The amount of capital recovery fees to be collected shall be determined by multiplying the number of service units for the new development by the applicable capital recovery fee per service unit identified herein and shall be calculated at the time of application for and in conjunction with the issuance of a building permit. (e) If the building permit for which a capital recovery fee has been paid has expired, and a new application is thereafter filed, the capital recovery fees shall be computed using the LUVMET and the applicable capital recovery fee per service unit identified herein with credits for previous payment of fees being applied against any new fees due. (f) Whenever the property owner proposes to increase the number of service units for a development, the additional capital recovery fees collected for such new service units shall be determined by using the LUVMET and applicable fee per service unit identified herein, and such additional fees shall be collected at the times prescribed by this section. Sec. 78 -178. - Offsets and credits against capital recovery fees. (a) The city shall offset the reasonable value of any system facility which has been dedicated to and has been accepted by the city no more than 18 months prior to the effective date of this ordinance (September 27, 2016), or offset the amount of any contributions to such facility, against the amount of the roadway capital recovery fees due, in accordance with the rules set forth in this section. The value of an offset must be stated in service units. (b) This subsection applies only to an offset associated with a capital improvement on the capital improvement plan contributed to the city no more than 1.8 months prior to the effective date of this ordinance (September 27, 2016). 1. For purposes of this subsection (b), an offset associated with a capital improvement on the roadway improvement plan contributed to the city no more than 18 months prior to the effective date of this ordinance (September 27, 2016) . is created at the time that the city accepts the system facility for dedication or as may be otherwise stipulated in a binding agreement for the facility pursuant to the city's subdivision regulations. 2. At the time the offset is created, if no offset agreement exists, the developer shall apply for an offset agreement, and the agreement thereafter shall be enforced in accordance with the following terms, providing: a. Identification of the plat with which the offset is to be associated; b. The amount of the capacity created by the system facility, expressed in service unit equivalents; c. A provision stating that the offset may be used to reduce capital recovery fees imposed on new developments contained within the land subject to the associated plat after the effective date of the agreement; and d. A provision that the amount of the offset shall be determined by estimating the number of service unit equivalents of capacity supplied by the system facility (as set forth in the capital recovery plan), reduced by: 1. The number of service units developed within the plat since the contribution of the system facility, using the LUVMET; 2. The amount of the city's participation in the excess costs of the system facility (expressed in service unit equivalents); and 3. The amount of any payments received from other new developments utilizing the system facility (expressed in service unit equivalents); and 7 e. A provision for reimbursement of any unused offsets consistent with subsection (b)(4) of this section. f. A provision stating that in those instances where the city determines the unique characteristics of a roadway segment (such as drainage, topography, easements required, absence of roadway segments remaining in service area) and the projected cost to construct a section of roadway is not roughly proportionate to the dollar value of the vehicle mile credits which may be awarded for that roadway section, the city may consider, upon request of the developer, awarding capital recovery fee offsets based upon the developer's verified, actual costs of said roadway section. The developer may assign the offset agreement with the city's consent, but in no event shall the offsets provided for in the agreement be transferred to any development not subject to the plat associated with such offsets. (3) The developer may petition the city council for offsets for contribution of a capital improvement, including road right -of -way, which is not identified in the capital improvements plan, if the improvement will supply capacity to new developments other than to the development seeking the offset, at the time the facility is accepted by the city or a binding facilities agreement for the facility is executed pursuant to the city's subdivision regulations. If the petition is granted, the terms shall be incorporated into an offset agreement as provided in subsection (b)(2) hereof. The agreement shall also provide that the amount of the offset shall not exceed the capacity of the capital improvement that is estimated to be provided. (4) As provided in the offset agreement required by subsection (b)(2), hereof, the developer may apply for reimbursement of excess offsets following either completion of all development subject to the plat with which the offsets are associated or after ten years following execution of the offset agreement. The following rules apply to such reimbursement, and shall be incorporated into the offset agreement. a. The developer must apply for reimbursement within six months following either: 1. Completion of all development subject to the plat with which the offsets are associated; or 2. Ten years after the date of execution of the offset agreement. b. The following terms shall be incorporated into the reimbursement agreement and the agreement shall be enforced in accordance with such terms: 1. A provision stating that the amount to be reimbursed shall be equal to the number of unused offsets (expressed as a number of service units) multiplied by a fraction equal to the capital recovery fee per service unit to be collected, as set forth herein in effect on the date of execution of the offset agreement, divided by the maximum assessable capital recovery fee per service unit, as set forth herein and in the capital recovery plan in effect on the date of execution of the offset agreement; 2. A provision stating that the amount to be reimbursed may be further equitably reduced, if fewer than 50 percent of the number of service units in the plat with El which the system facility giving rise to the offset have been developed on the date of application for reimbursement; 3. A provision stating that repayment shall be made within five years from the date of execution of the reimbursement agreement, from roadway capital recovery fees collected within the same roadway service area in which the property in question is located, subject to the availability of such funds; 4. A provision that termination or reduction of the city's authority under state law to impose capital recovery fees for roadway facilities shall terminate or correspondingly reduce any obligation of the city to make payments under the offset agreement; and 5. A provision stating that, in converting the offsets from service unit equivalents to a dollar value, the number of service unit equivalents shall be multiplied by the value of a service unit expressed in dollars using the rates set forth herein in effect at the time the offset agreement was executed. c. Execution of a reimbursement agreement shall automatically terminate any offsets associated with a plat pursuant to an offset agreement. Thereafter, new development within the area subject to the plat shall pay roadway capital recovery fees in accordance with schedule 1 then in effect. Sec. 78 -179. - Use of proceeds of roadway capital recovery fees. (a) The capital recovery fees collected within each roadway benefit area may be used to finance, pay for or to recoup the costs of any roadway facility identified in the capital improvements plan for the roadway benefit area, including the construction contract price, surveying and engineering fees, land acquisition costs (including land purchases, court awards and costs, attorney's fees, and expert witness fees), and amounts designated in any reimbursement agreements executed pursuant to this ordinance. (b) Capital recovery fees may be used to pay for the contract services of an independent qualified engineer or financial consultant preparing or updating the capital improvements plan who is not an employee of the political subdivision. (c) Capital recovery fees also may be used to pay the principal sum and interest and other finance costs on bonds, notes or other obligations issued by or on behalf of the city to finance such capital improvement. Sec. 78 -180. - Appeals. (a) The property owner or applicant for a new development may appeal the following administrative decisions to the city council: (l) The applicability of a capital recovery fee to the new development; (2) The amount of the capital recovery fee due; (3) The availability of, the amount of, or the expiration of an offset or a credit; (4) The application of an offset against a capital recovery fee due; 9 (5) The amount of the capital recovery fee in proportion to the benefit received by the new development; or (6) The amount of a refund due, if any. (b) The appellant shall state the basis for the appeal in writing with particularity. The burden of proof shall be on the appellant to demonstrate that the amount of the fee or the amount of the offset was not calculated according to the rules set forth in this ordinance or by administrative guideline adopted by the city council. The appellant shall submit any traffic study or other documents upon which he relies to the city with the request for appeal. (c) The appellant must file a notice of appeal with the city secretary within 30 days following the decision. If the notice of appeal is accompanied by a bond or other sufficient surety with offices for local presentment in a form satisfactory to the city attorney in an amount equal to the original determination of the capital recovery fee due, the development application may be processed while the appeal is pending. (d) The appellant shall promptly pay to the city the full amount of the capital recovery fee determined to be due by the city council regarding such appeal. Failure to promptly pay such capital recovery fee within five business days after the city council's determination on the appeal shall serve as authority for the city to present the bond or other surety to the bonding company or financial institution for performance with no other or further notice or contact with the appellant. Sec. 78 -181. - Refunds. (a) Any capital recovery fee or portion thereof collected pursuant to this article which has not been expended within the applicable roadway service area for an authorized purpose within ten years from the date of payment shall be refunded, upon application, to the record owner of the property at the time the refund is paid or, if the capital recovery fee, was paid by another governmental entity, to such governmental entity, together with interest calculated from the date of collection to the date of refund at the statutory rate as set forth in § 302.002 of the Texas Finance Code or its successor statute. The application for refund pursuant to this section shall be submitted in writing within 60 days after the expiration of the ten -year period for expenditure of the fee. A capital recovery fee shall be considered expended on a first -in, first -out basis. (b) A capital recovery fee collected pursuant to this article shall be considered expended if the total expenditures for capital improvements authorized in this ordinance within the roadway service area within ten years following the date of payment exceed the total fees collected for such improvements during that time period. (c) If a refund is due pursuant to subsections (a) or (b), the city shall prorate the refund by dividing the difference between the amount of expenditures and the amount of the fees collected by the total number of service units assumed within the roadway service area for the period to determine the refund due per service unit. The refund to the record owner shall be calculated by multiplying the refund due per service unit by the number of service units for the new development for which the fee was paid, and interest due shall be calculated upon that amount. (d) If the building permit for a new development for which a capital recovery fee has been paid has expired and a modified or new application has not been filed within six (6) months of such expiration, the city shall, upon written application, refund the amount of the capital recovery fee to the applicant. The city may establish guidelines for refunding of capital . recovery fees collected for which construction plans have been abandoned. Sec. 78 -182. - Relief procedures. (a) Any person who has paid a capital recovery fee or an owner of land upon which an capital recovery fee has been paid may petition the city council to determine whether any duty required by this article has not been performed within the time so prescribed. The petition shall be in writing and shall state the nature of the unperformed duty and request that the act be performed within 60 days of the request. If the city council determines that the duty is required, pursuant to the ordinance and is late in being performed, it shall cause the duty to commence within 60 days of the date of the request and to continue until completion. (b) The city council may grant a variance or waiver from any requirement of this article, upon written request by a developer or owner of property subject to the ordinance, following a public hearing, and only upon finding that a strict application of such requirement would when regarded as a whole result in confiscation of the property. (c) If the city council grants a variance or waiver to the amount of the capital recovery fee due for a new development under this section, it may cause to be appropriated from other city funds the amount of the reduction in the capital recovery fee to the account, for the roadway benefit area, in which the property is located. Secs.78- 183 -78 -1.89- Reserved. (e) If the building permit for which a capital recovery fee has been paid has expired, and a new application is thereafter filed, the capital recovery fees shall be computed using the LUVMET and the applicable capital recovery fee per service unit identified herein with credits for previous payment of fees being applied against any new fees due. (f) Whenever the property owner proposes to increase the number of service units for a development, the additional capital recovery fees collected for such new service units shall be determined by using the LUVMET and applicable fee per service unit identified herein, and such additional fees shall be collected at the times prescribed by this section. Sec. 78 -178. - Offsets and credits against capital recovery fees. (a) The city shall offset the reasonable value of any system facility which has been dedicated to and has been accepted by the city o*-of-& rno more than 18 months Drior to the effective date of this ordinance (M , 2OSe to ber 27 2016), or offset the amount of any contributions to such facility, against the amount of the roadway capital recovery fees due, in accordance with the rules set forth in this section. The value of an offset must be stated in service units. (b) This subsection applies only to an offset associated with a capital improvement on the capital improvement plan contributed to the city aft - no more than 18 months prior to the effective date of this ordinance (Meh-27-,2-04-8Se tember 27 2016). 1. For purposes of this subsection (b), an offset associated with a capital improvement on the roadway improvement plan contributed to the city after-no more than 18 months prior to the effective date of this ordinance ( f Member 27, 2016) is created at the time that the city accepts the system facility for dedication or as may be otherwise stipulated in a binding agreement for the facility pursuant to the city's subdivision regulations. 2. At the time the offset is created, if no offset agreement exists, the developer shall apply for an offset agreement, and the agreement thereafter shall be enforced in accordance with the following terms, providing: a. Identification of the plat with which the offset is to be associated; b. The amount of the capacity created by the system facility, expressed in service unit equivalents; c. A provision stating that the offset may be used to reduce capital recovery fees imposed on new developments contained within the land subject to the associated plat after the effective date of the agreement; and d. A provision that the amount of the offset shall be determined by estimating the number of service unit equivalents of capacity supplied by the system facility (as set forth in the capital recovery plan), reduced by: 1. The number of service units developed within the plat since the contribution of the system facility, using the LUVMET; 2. The amount of the city's participation in the excess costs of the system facility (expressed in service unit equivalents); and 3. The amount of any payments received from other new developments utilizing the system facility (expressed in service unit equivalents); and e. A provision for reimbursement of any unused offsets consistent with subsection (b)(4) of this section. f. A provision stating that in those instances where the city determines the unique characteristics of a roadway segment (such as drainage, topography, easements required, absence of roadway segments remaining in service area) and the projected cost to construct a section of roadway is not roughly proportionate to the dollar value of the vehicle mile credits which may be awarded for that roadway section, the city may consider, upon request of the developer, awarding capital recovery fee offsets based upon the developer's verified, actual costs of said roadway section. The developer may assign the offset agreement with the city's consent, but in no event shall the offsets provided for in the agreement be transferred to any development not subject to the plat associated with such offsets. (4) As provided in the offset agreement required by subsection (b)(2), hereof, the developer may apply for reimbursement of excess offsets following either completion of all development subject to the plat with which the offsets are associated or after ten years following execution of the offset agreement. The following rules apply to such reimbursement, and shall be incorporated into the offset agreement. a. The developer must apply for reimbursement within six months following either: 1. Completion of all development subject to the plat with which the offsets are associated; or 2. Ten years after the date of execution of the offset agreement. b. The following terms shall be incorporated into the reimbursement agreement and the agreement shall be enforced in accordance with such terms: 1. A provision stating that the amount to be reimbursed shall be equal to the number of unused offsets (expressed as a number of service units) multiplied by a fraction equal to the capital recovery fee per service unit to be collected, as set forth herein in effect on the date of execution of the offset agreement, divided by the maximum assessable capital recovery fee per service unit, as set CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN Prepared for: City of Schertz October 2017 Prepared by: FREESE AND NICHOLS, INC. 2711 North Haskell Avenue, Suite 3300 Dallas, Texas 75204 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................... ............................... 2 1.1 Capital Improvements Plan Elements ............................................................. ..............................2 2.0 METHODOLOGY ........................................................................................................... ..............................3 3.0 ROADWAY SERVICE AREAS .................................................................................... ..............................4 4.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS ANALYSIS ....................................................................... ..............................4 4.1 Existing Volumes ..................................................................................................... ..............................6 4.2 Vehicle -Miles of Existing Capacity Supply .................................................... ............................... 6 4.3 Vehicle -Miles of Existing Demand ................................................................... ............................... 6 4.4 Vehicle -Miles of Existing Excess Capacity and Deficiencies .................. ............................... 7 5.0 GROWTH PROJECTIONS ........................................................................................... ..............................7 5.1 Projected Vehicle -Miles of New Demand ....................................................... ..............................9 6.0 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN ......................................................................... ..............................9 6.1 Eligible Projects ..................................................................................................... .............................10 6.2 Eligible Costs ........................................................................................................... .............................10 6.3 Impact Fee CIP ........................................................................................................ .............................12 APPENDIX................................................................................................................................ .............................17 Capital Improvements Plan Roadway Impact Fee Study Freese and Nichols, Inc. Page 1 1.0 INTRODUCTION Chapter 395 of the Texas Local Government Code prescribes the process by which cities in Texas must formulate development impact fees. Legislative mandate requires that a capital improvements plan (CIP) be prepared that addresses long -term growth and that such plan be approved by the governing body prior to a public hearing for the consideration of imposing an impact fee. This report details the development of the impact fee CIP. As a funding mechanism for roadway improvements, impact fees allow cities to recover the costs associated with new facilities or expansions in order to serve future development. Legislatively, roadway impact fees may consider arterial and collector status roads on the City's official Master Thoroughfare Plan. Statutory requirements mandate that impact fees be based on a specific list of improvements identified in the program and only the cost attributed (and necessitated) by new growth over a ten -year period may be considered. As projects in the program are completed, planned costs are updated with actual costs to more accurately reflect the capital expenditure of the program. Additionally, new capital improvement projects may be added to the program. 1.1 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN ELEMENTS This report contains the following components: • Methodology - Explanation of the general methodology used to prepare the capital improvements plan. • Service Area Structure - Explanation and division of the City into impact fee service areas for roadway facilities. • Existing Conditions Analysis — Analysis of the existing roadway system; its carrying capacity, current utilization, and deficiencies. • Growth Projections— Development of growth projections to occur over the ten -year planning period by service area. • Capital Improvements Plan — Description of the capital improvements plan and costing. Capital Improvements Plan Roadway Impact Fee Study Freese and Nichols, Inc. Page 2 2.0 METHODOLOGY The impact fee capital improvements plan is predicated on community growth forecasted over a ten -year planning period. The Land Use Assumptions (LUA) Report, prepared as part of this study process, serves as the basis for the determination of "growth attributable to new development ". The LUA examines growth in terms of population and employment, and are based on recent trends the city has experienced since the early 2000s and reflect the changing dynamics of residential and non - residential growth in the city. Information contained in the report is based upon analysis of data from the U.S. Census, regional and local growth trends, housing permits and known /anticipated development from recent city approvals. These land use assumptions serve as a key component from which impact fees are calculated. For the formulation of the capital improvements plan, a series of work tasks were undertaken and are described below. 1. Meetings were held with City Staff to discuss impact fee methodology, project criteria and eligibility, and cost eligibility for consideration in the study. 2. Roadway service areas were developed to ensure conformity with legislative mandate, as well as amended to allow for city annexations. 3. Vehicle -miles of travel (VMT) in the PM peak hour was identified as the service unit of measure for analyses and impact fee calculations. 4. A roadway inventory was conducted to document lane geometrics, roadway functional classification, and system capacity. Traffic volume count data were collected in May 2015 to determine roadway utilization, and if any capacity deficiencies exist within each impact fee service area. Traffic volume counts were conducted at 30 locations throughout the city. 5. Projected 10 -year growth was calculated for service areas based on land use assumptions (projections of population and employment growth) and translated into residential, office, commercial and industrial VMT using service unit equivalencies. Trip rate data was obtained from Trip Generation, Ninth Edition by the Institute of Transportation Engineers, and trip length statistics for Schertz were obtained from the travel demand model used in the 2017 Schertz Master Thoroughfare Plan Study. 6. A capital improvements plan to address projected growth was developed and separated by service area. Capital Improvements Plan Roadway Impact Fee Study Freese and Nichols, Inc. Page 3 3.0 ROADWAY SERVICE AREAS Service areas are required by State Law to define an area to be served by impact fee capital improvements. Legislative requirements stipulate that roadway service areas be limited to a six -mile maximum and must be located within the current city limits. The result is that, for roadways, new development can only be assessed an impact fee based on the cost of necessary capital improvements within that service area and within city limits. A service area structure consisting of four zones has been developed for Schertz and correlates with the current corporate boundaries, as depicted in Figure 1. An inventory of major roadways that are designated as arterial and /or collector facilities on the Master Thoroughfare Plan was conducted to determine: 1) capacity provided by the existing roadway system, 2) the demand currently placed on the system, and 3) the potential existence of deficiencies on the system. Any deficiencies found to occur will be carried over in the impact fee calculations (netting out capacity made available by the CIP). Data for the inventory was obtained from the Master Thoroughfare Plan, field reconnaissance, and peak hour traffic volume count data. The roadways were divided into segments based on changes in lane configuration, major intersections, city limits or area development that may influence roadway characteristics. For the assessment of individual segments, lane capacities were assigned to each segment based on roadway functional class defined by the Master Thoroughfare Plan and type of existing cross - section, as listed in Table 1. Roadway hourly volume capacities are based on general carrying capacity values and reflect level -of- service (LOS) "D" operation based upon generally accepted capacities as defined in AAMPO planning references, which has been identified as the minimum acceptable traffic operational condition by cities. Capital Improvements Plan Roadway Impact Fee Study Freese and Nichols, Inc. Page 4 Capital Improvements Plan Roadway Impact Fee Study Freese and Nichols, Inc. Page 5 TABLE 1. ROADWAY FACILITY VEHICLE -MILE LANE CAPACITIES Divided Arterial* DA 675 Divided Collector* DC 550 Undivided Arterial UA 625 Undivided Collector UC 500 *Facilities with a two -way left turn lane (TWLTL) treated as a divided facility and marked with a Special Arterial (SA) or Special Collector (SC) designation. 4.1 EXISTING VOLUMES Existing directional PM peak hour volumes were obtained from automated traffic counts conducted in May 2015. Automated traffic counts at 30 separate locations were collected on major roadways throughout the city. In an effort to minimize the total number of counts, data was collected at locations where traffic volumes would typify link volumes on the major segments within the immediate area. For segments not counted, existing volumes were used or estimates were developed based on data from adjoining roadway counts. This data was compiled for roadway segments throughout the city and entered into the database for use in calculations. A summary of volumes by roadway segment is included in the Appendix A as part of the existing capital improvements database. V 1_ ► ''' " _ An analysis of the total capacity for each service area was performed. For each roadway segment, the existing vehicle -miles of capacity supplied were calculated using the following: Vehicle -Miles of Capacity = Link capacity per peak hour per lane x No. of Lanes x Length of segment (miles) A summary of the current capacity available on the roadway system by service area is detailed below. �CIt�I�l. l[ �11IduIIIf�Yllli� ►:1��IY1►�[!l17�luI:�►�17 The level of current usage in terms of vehicle -miles was calculated for each roadway segment. The vehicle- miles of existing demand were calculated by the following equation: Vehicle -Miles of Demand = PM peak hour volume x Length of segment (miles) The total vehicle -miles of demand by service area is also listed below. Capital Improvements Plan Roadway Impact Fee Study Freese and Nichols, Inc. Page 6 4.4 VEHICLE -MILES OF EXISTING EXCESS CAPACITY AND DEFICIENCIES For each roadway segment, the existing vehicle -miles of excess capacity and /or deficiencies were calculated and are listed in Table 2. Each direction was evaluated to determine if vehicle demands exceeded the available capacity. If demand exceeded capacity in one or both directions, the deficiency is deducted from the supply associated with the impact fee capital improvement plan. A summary of peak hour excess capacity and deficiencies is also shown in the table. Any deficiencies identified under current operations will be carried over to the impact fee calculation. A detailed listing of existing excess capacity and deficiencies by roadway segment is also located in the Appendix A. TABLE 2. PEAK HOUR VEHICLE -MILES OF EXISTING CAPACITY, DEMAND, EXCESS CAPACITY AND DEFICIENCIES 1 12,708 2,938 10,047 277 2 37,321 20,846 16,690 215 3 15,917 7,479 9,067 629 4 1,478 130 1,348 0 Total 67,424 31,393 37,151 1,121 5.0 GROWTH PROJECTIONS The projected growth for the roadway service area is represented by the increase in the number of new vehicle -miles of demand generated over the 10 -year planning period. The basis for the calculation of new demand is the population and employment projections that were prepared as part of the Schertz Land Use Assumptions (LUA) Report for Impact Fees dated October 2017 by Freese and Nichols with a growth rate approved by the Schertz CIAC on May 13, 2015. Estimates of population and employment were prepared for the years 2017 and 2027. Population data was provided in terms of the number of dwelling units and persons. Employment data was broken into three classes of employees that include basic, retail and service, comprising a variety of employment groupings. Basic employment generally encompasses the industrial and manufacturing uses; retail employment includes commercial and retail uses; and service employment generally encompasses government and office uses. A summary of the projected growth is summarized below. Capital Improvements Plan Roadway Impact Fee Study Freese and Nichols, Inc. Page 7 TABLE 3. PROJECTED 10 -YEAR DEMOGRAPHIC GROWTH SUMMARY � l I t� i 4� �I t• i t � t t t M i � at � 1 t Source: FNI; October 2017 Land Use Assumptions Report Capital Improvements Plan Roadway Impact Fee Study Freese and Nichols, Inc. Page 8 5.1 PROJECTED VEHICLE -MILES OF NEW DEMAND Projected vehicle -miles of demand were calculated based on the net growth expected to occur over the 10 -year planning period, and on the associated service unit generation for each of the population and employment data components (basic, service and retail). Separate calculations were performed for each data component and were then aggregated for each service area. Vehicle -miles of demand for population growth were based on dwelling units (residential). Vehicle -miles of demand for employment were based on the number of employees, and then converted to square footage of building space using estimates of square footage per employee for industrial, office and retail uses. The 10 -year projected vehicle -miles of demand by service area are summarized in Table 4. The Appendix B details the derivation of the projected demand calculations. TABLE 4. 10 -YEAR PROTECTED SERVICE UNITS OF DEMAND 1 10,461 2 17,905 3 14,918 4 124 Total 43,408 6.0 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN The impact fee CIP is aimed at facilitating long -term growth in Schertz. The City has identified the City- funded transportation projects needed to accommodate the projected growth within the City. The CIP for Roadway Impact Fees is made up of: • Recently completed projects with excess capacity available to serve new growth; • Projects currently under construction; and • Remaining projects needed to complete the City's Master Thoroughfare Plan. All arterial and collector facilities in the currently adopted Master Thoroughfare Plan not to the ultimate build -out were included in the impact fee CIP to provide flexibility in the development of the community due to currently rapid rates of development. The only exception is the FM 3009 extension which was excluded due to the high cost and undetermined scope and timing of the project. Capital Improvements Plan Roadway Impact Fee Study Freese and Nichols, Inc. Page 9 Subsequent to this report on the development of the impact fee CIP, the final report will detail project cost per service unit, the cost attributable to new development, and service area cost per service unit. 6.1 ELIGIBLE PROJECTS Legislative mandate stipulates that the impact fee CIP contain only those roadways which are included on the City's official Master Thoroughfare Plan that are classified as arterial or collector status facilities. Impact fee legislation also allows for the recoupment of costs for previously constructed facilities and projects currently under construction; however, after consideration, none of the projects were included for recoupment. All of these projects conform to the Master Thoroughfare Plan requirements and will consider only the costs incurred by the City for facility implementation. 6.2 ELIGIBLE COSTS In general, those costs associated with the design, right -of -way acquisition, and construction and financing of all items necessary to implement the roadway projects identified in the capital improvements plan are eligible. These estimates are based on the ultimate roadway section identified by functional classification in the 2017 Master Thoroughfare Plan Report with an excerpt of these assumed sections in the Appendix E. It is important to note that upon completion of the capital improvements identified in the CIP, the city must recalculate the impact fee using the actual costs and make refunds if the actual cost is less than the impact fee paid by greater than 10 percent. To prevent this situation, conservative (low) estimates of project cost are considered. Chapter 395.012 identifies roadway costs eligible for impact fee recovery. The law states that: "An impact fee may be imposed only to pay the cost of constructing capital improvements for facility expansions, including and limited to the construction contract price, surveying and engineering fees, land acquisition costs, including land purchases, court awards and costs, attorney fees, and expert witness fees; and fees actually paid or contracted to be paid to an independent qualified engineer or financial consultant preparing or updating the capital improvements plan who is not an employee of the political subdivision." "Projected interest charges and other finance costs may be included in determining the amount of impact fees only if the impact fees are used for the payment of principal and interest on bonds, notes, or other obligations issued by or on behalf of the political subdivision to finance the capital improvements or facility expansions identified in the capital improvements plan and are not used Capital Improvements Plan Roadway Impact Fee Study Freese and Nichols, Inc. Page 10 to reimburse bond funds expended for facilities that are not identified in the capital improvements plan." The following details the individual cost components of the impact fee CIP. Construction: Construction costs include those costs which are normally associated with construction, including: paving, dirt work (including sub -grade preparation, embankment fill and excavation), clearing and grubbing, retaining walls or other slope protection measures, and general drainage items which are necessary in order to build the roadway and allow the roadway to fulfill its vehicle carrying capability. Individual items may include; bridges, culverts, inlets and storm sewers, junction boxes, manholes, curbs and /or gutters, and channel linings and other erosion protection appurtenances. Other items included in cost estimates may include: sidewalks, traffic control devices at select locations (initial cost only), ancillary adjustments to existing utilities, and minimal sodding /landscaping. Engineering: These are the costs associated with the design and surveying necessary to construct the roadway. Because the law specifically references fees, it has generally been understood that in -house City design and surveying cannot be included. Only those services that are contracted out can be included and it may be necessary to use outside design and surveying firms to perform the work. For planned projects, a percentage based on typical engineering contracts was used to estimate these fees. Right -of -Way: Any land acquisition cost estimated to be necessary to construct a roadway can be included in the cost estimate. For planning purposes, only the additional amount of land needed to bring a roadway right -of -way to thoroughfare standard was considered. For example, if a 120' right -of -way for an arterial road was needed and 80' of right -of -way currently existed, only 40' would be considered in the acquisition cost. The cost for right -of -way may vary based on location of project and will be based on data from the most current County Appraisal District data. Debt Service: Predicted interest charges and finance costs may be included in determining the amount of impact fees only if the impact fees are used for the payment of principle and interest on bonds, notes, or other obligations issued by the city to finance capital improvements identified in the impact fee capital improvements plans. They cannot be used to reimburse bond funds for Capital Improvements Plan Roadway Impact Fee Study Freese and Nichols, Inc. Page 11 other facilities. This cost will be determined through a Finance Study and incorporated in the final impact fee cost per service unit calculation. Previous Assessments: The cost for any previous assessments collected by the City on projects identified on the impact fee CIP must be removed from program consideration. As this is a new impact fee program, there are no previous assessments to consider in the initial calculation. Study Updates: The fees paid or contracted to be paid to an independent qualified engineer or financial consultant preparing or updating the capital improvements plan who is not an employee of the political subdivision can be included in the impact fees. Only the cost necessitated by new development will be considered for impact fee consideration. For example, if only 60% of the capacity provided by the impact fee CIP is needed over the ten -year window, then only 60% of the cost associated with those facilities will be considered. This can be seen in Service Area 1 as another example, where net capacity supplied by the CIP is 42,189 vehicle -miles (Table 5) while the projected demand is 10,461 vehicle -miles (Table 4). Therefore, only the portion of cost attributed to the projected demand, 24.8 percent, is considered in the impact fee cost per service unit calculation in the next phase of the study's Impact Fee Report. This calculation is shown for each service area in Table 6. 6.3 IMPACT FEE CIP The proposed CIP consists of 71 project segments over the four service areas and entail the buildout of the full Master Thoroughfare Plan network, as seen in Figure 2. By including the full network, there is flexibility in the impact fee program funds to adapt to development needs and ensure credit is given to developers building thoroughfare roadways. The capacity and net capacity provided by the proposed CIP is summarized below in Table S. Net capacity provided by the proposed CIP takes into consideration current traffic on CIP roads and any deficiencies from the existing conditions analysis described in Section 4 of this report. A detailed listing by project of capacity supplied can be found in the Appendix C. Capital Improvements Plan Roadway Impact Fee Study Freese and Nichols, Inc. Page 12 TABLE 5. CAPACITY AND NET CAPACITY PROVIDED BY THE PROPOSED CIP 1 45,213 2,747 42,466 277 42,189 2 25,210 6,998 18,212 215 17,996 3 46,511 7,305 39,206 629 38,577 4 3,359 130 3,229 0 3,229 Total 120,292 17,181 103,111 1,121 101,991 A comparison of net capacity provided by the proposed CIP relative to 10 -year needs (developed in Section 5) is listed below in Table 6. An analysis reveals an adequately matched overall impact fee CIP program to address growth attributable to new development. TABLE 6. PROJECTED DEMAND AND NET CAPACITY PROVIDED BY THE PROPOSED CIP Project costs were developed based on unit cost estimates compiled by Freese and Nichols. Individual project costs were developed for engineering, right -of -way, and construction, as found in the Appendix D. Each roadway segment uses the Master Thoroughfare Plan's defined functional classification to determine the ultimate roadway standard for each link. Additionally, impact fee study update costs were attributed to the project costs. For recently completed projects, actual costs must be input to meet legislative mandates, but no completed projects were included in this initial impact fee program. The cost for the preliminary IFCIP program totals approximately $228.9 million, excluding debt service. Debt service costs will be determined in the Finance Study as part of the cost per service unit calculation analysis. Figure 2 and Table 7 illustrate and list the capital improvement projects and their associated total cost for the impact fee program. Capital Improvements Plan Roadway Impact Fee Study Freese and Nichols, Inc. Page 13 Capital Improvements Plan Roadway Impact Fee Study Freese and Nichols, Inc. Page 14 Sery Area Project No. Roadway From TO Project Status Length (m it No. Of Type Lanes Rdwy Thoroughfare Plan Description Pot. in Serv. Area Total Project Cost I I FM 2252 IH 35 FM 482 New 0.32 4 DA Principe] Arterial 100% $1,566,800 1 2 FM 2252 DO 482 Railroad Tracks New 0,64 4 DA Secondary Arterial 100% $3,146,000 IV( 3 FM 2252 Railroad Tracks N City Limits New 0.22 4 DA Secondary Arterial 50% $509,850 112 4 N/S Connector (1) IH 35 Railroad Tracks New 1.25 4 DA Secondary Arterial 50% $3,202,650 1 5 E/W Connector (1) NIS Connector (1) FM 2252 New 0.99 4 DA Secondary Arterial 100% $5,513,000 1 6 E/W Connector (2) NIS Connector (1) FM 2252 New 0.99 2 LIC Commercial Collector B 100% $4,269,000 1 7 Fly 482 FIN 2252 Hubertus Rd New 1.05 4 DA Principal Arterial 100% $5,456,100 1 8 FM 482 Hubertus Rd Railroad Tracks New 1.00 4 DA Principal Arterial 100% $5,147,800 1 9 FM 482 800' W of Fresenhahn Friesereahn Ln New 0.15 4 DA Principal Arterial 100% $754,100 I/X 10 FM 482 Fresenharin Ln Schwab Rd New 0.59 4 DA Principal Arterial 50% $1,530,000 1 11 FM 482 Schwab Rd E City Limits New 1.20 4 DA Principal Arterial 100% $6,205,500 1 12 Hubertus Rd IH 35 FM 482 New 0.57 4 DA Principal Arterial 100% $2,855,700 1 13 Hubertus Rd FM 482 IN City Limits New 0.30 4 DA Principal Arterial 100% $1,572,300 1 14 Fnesenhahn Ln D 35 FM 482 New 0.72 3 SO Commercial Collector A 100% $1,343,600 1 15 Schwab Rd 1H 35 FIN 482 New 0.63 6 DA Principal Arterial 100% $4,374,700 1 16 E/W Connector (3) Hubertus Rd David Lack Blad New 1.59 3 SO Commercial Collector A 100% $6,110,000 1 17 Eckhardt Rd Froboese Ln Green Valley Rd New 1.11 2 DO Residential Collector 100% $3,727,100 1 18 Schwab Rd IH 35 S City Limits New 1.14 4 DA Secondary Arterial 100% $5,680,700 1 19 Froboese Ln Schwab Rd Eckhardt Rd New 0,57 2 LIC Residential Collector 100% $2,030,400 1 20 Froboese Ln 2200'E of Eckhardt E City Limits New 0,26 2 LIC Residential Collector 100% $890,000 1 21 Green Valley Rd W City Limits E City Limits New 0.87 4 DA Secondary Arterial 100% $4,199,500 1 22 Homestead Pkwy End Ex Homestead Pkwy S City Limits New 0.33 2 LIC Residential Collector 100% $1,178,500 1 23 Country Club Blwl Scenic Links S City Limits New 0.35 2 LIC Residential Collector 100% $1,257,100 1 24 E/W Connector (4) Country Club BlwJ Homestead Pkwy New 0.77 2 LIC Residential Collector 100% $2,671,200 1 25 E/W Connector (4) Schwab Rd Eckhardt Rd New 0.45 2 LIC Residential Collector 100% $1,602,000 1 26 FIN 1103 11135 Old Wiederstain Rd New 0.70 4 DA Principal Arterial 100% $2,000,000 1 27 NIS Connector (1) D 35 Old Wiederstein Rd New 0.55 4 DA Secondary Arterial 100% $2,667,000 1 28 NIS Connector (2) IH 35 Old Waderstem Rd New 0.73 4 DA Secondary Arterial 100% $3,635,700 1 29 E/W Connector (5) N/S Connector (1) FM 1103 New 2.00 2 LIC Residential Collector 100% $7,097,200 I/X 30 Old Guederstein Rd N/S Connector (1) Cherry Of New 2.17 4 DA Secondary Arterial 50% $5,143,600 Sub-total SA 1 24.22 $97,337,100 2 31 Doerr Ln N City Limits Lookout Rd New 0.91 3 SO Commercial Collector A 100% $3,249,900 2/1 4 NIS Connector (1) IH 35 Railroad Tracks New 1.25 4 DA Secondary Arterial 50% $3,130,900 2 32 E/W Connector (2) FM 3009 NIS Connector (1) New 0.81 2 LIC Commercial Collector B 100% $3,386,200 2 33 E/W Connector (6) FM 3009 NIS Connector (1) New 0.81 2 LIC Commercial Collector B 100% $3,386,100 2 34 Mid-Cities Pkwy D 35 FM 3009 New 0.98 3 SO Commercial Collector A 100% $3,293,700 2 35 E/W Connector (1) FM 3009 NIS Connector (1) New 0.81 4 DA Secondary Arterial 100% $4,190,900 2 36 E/W Connector (7) W City Limits Doerr Ln New 0.65 3 SO Commercial Collector A 100% $2,231,100 2 37 Lookout Rd Tri-County Pkwy Schanz Pkwy New 0.74 3 SO Commercial Collector A 100% $2,743,600 2 38 Four Oaks Ln End of Ex .Four Oaks Ln NIS Connector (1) New 0.54 3 SO Commercial Collector A 100% $1,977,300 2 39 Wrederstren Rd E City Limits FM 3009 New 0.64 4 DA Secondary Arterial 100% $3,079,800 2 40 Wiederstep Rd Schertz Pkwy IN City Limits New 0.41 2 DO Residential Collector 100% $1,294,700 2 41 Baptist Health Dr Ripps-Kreusler Wiederstem Rd New 0.27 3 SO Commercial Collector A 100% $992,900 2 42 Ripps-Kreusler Baptist Health Dr End of Rippe Kreurser New 0.22 3 SO Commercial Collector A 100% $803,900 2 43 Maske Rd FIN 1518 Oak St New 0.54 3 SO Commercial Collector A 100% $1,827,600 2 44 Masks Rd Realignment Oak St Schertz Pkwy New 0.88 2 LIC Residential Collector 100% $3,645,200 2 45 FM 1518/Mad St Maske Rd Oak St New 1.30 3 SA Secondary Arterial 100% $4,494,500 2 46 FM 1518 N City Limits SA 3 Limit New 0.36 6 DA Principal Arterial 100% $436,300 2/3 47 FIR 1518 SA 3 Limit Schanz Pkwy Ext. New 0.39 6 DA Principal Arterial 50% $222,650 2 48 FM 78/John Peterson Blvd VY-CIN Imits a-L- -Its E-CA W-W-M New 1.81 6 DA Precool Arterial 100% $2,683,780 Sub-total SA 2 14.34 $47,071,030 Capital Improvements Plan Roadway Impact Fee Study Freese and Nichols, Inc. Page 15 TABLE 7. IMPACT FEE CIP LISTING (CONTINUED) Sew Area Project No. Roadway From To Project Status Length (m f) No. of Type Lanes Rdwy Thoroughfare Plan Description Pct. in Sew. Area Total Project Cost 3/2 47 FM 1518 SA 2 Limit Schertz Pkwy Ext. New 0.39 6 DA Principal Arterial 50% $222,650 3 49 FM 1518 Schertz Pkwy Ext. IH 10 New 4.09 6 DA Principal Arterial 100% $5,165,000 3 50 Schaefer Rd W City Limits FM 1518 New 0.48 2 UC Residential Collector 100% $1,536,700 3/X 51 RAF - Bumette Schaefer Rd E City Limits New 0.55 4 DA Secondary Arterial 50% $1,279,500 3/X 52 Lower Seguin Rd W City limits E of Tates Dr New 0.35 3 SA Secondary Rural Arterial 50% $686,450 3 53 Lower Seguin Rd E of Tates Or W of Canopy Bend New 1.76 3 SA Secondary Rural Arterial 100% $6,998,900 3 54 Lower Seguin Rd W of Canopy Bend E City Limits New 1.72 4 DA Secondary Arterial 100% $7,860,400 3 55 N/S Connector (3) N City Limits S City Limits New 0.15 4 DA Principal Arterial 100% $764,000 3 56 NIS Connector (3) N City Limits S City Limits New 0.27 4 DA Principal Arterial 100% $1,380,400 3 57 NIS Connector (4) N City Limits S City Limits New 0.26 2 UC Residential Collector 100% $894,600 3 58 NIS Connector (4) N City Limits S City Limits New 0.21 2 UC Residential Collector 100% $725,000 3/X 59 W Ware Seguin Rd W City Limits Boeing Dr New 0.57 2 UC Residential Collector 50% $900,550 3 60 W Ware Seguin Rd Boeing Dr NIS Connector (5) New 0.67 2 UC Residential Collector 100% $2,236,900 3 61 NIS Connector (5) Lower Seguin Rd W Ware Seguin Rd New 1.10 2 UC Residential Collector 100% $3,780,500 3 62 N/S Connector (5) W Ware Seguin Rd E Ware Seguin Rd New 0.93 2 UC Residential Collector 100% $3,227,400 3 63 Trainer Hale Rd (NIS) Weir Rd IH 10 New 1.66 4 DA Principal Arterial 100% $8,020,500 3 64 Trainer Hale Rd (E /W) FM 1518 Trainer Hale Rd (NIS) New 1.51 4 DA Secondary Arterial 100% $7,710,300 3 65 Ware Seguin Rd Graytown Rd NIS Connector (5) New 135 3 SA Secondary Rural Arterial 100% $4,736,300 3 66 E Ware Seguin Rd NIS Connector (5) FM 1518 New 1.41 3 SA Secondary Rural Arterial 100% $4,739,900 3/4 67 Graybwn Rd Boeing Dr IH 10 New 1.11 3 SA Secondary Rural Arterial 50% $2,000,600 3 68 NIS Connector (6) Ware Seguin Rd lH 10 New 0.47 3 SC Commercial Collector 100% $1,712,600 3 69 E/W Connector 3) IH 10 E City Limits New 2.33 3 SC Commercial Collector 100% $8482300 Sub -total SA 3 23.33 $75,061,450 4/3 67 Graytown Rd Boeing Dr 11110 New 1.11 3 SA Secondary Rural Arterial 50% $2,000,600 4 70 Binz - Engleman Rd W City limits Graytown Rd New 1.30 3 SA Secondary Rural Arterial 100% $4,667,000 4 71 Scenic Lake Dr Binz- Engleman Rd IH 10 New 0.77 3 SC Commercial Collector A 100% $2.777,400 Sub -total SA 4 3.19 $9,445,000 Totals: 65.08 ( $228,914,580 Totals: Engineering Cost Right -of -Way Cost Construction Cost $14,149,150 $10,633,600 ,204,131.830 TOTAL NET COST $228,914,580 Future Impact Fee Update Cost' $100,000 TOTAL IMPLEMENTATION COST $229,014,580 Notes: DA- DiNded arterial Recoup- Recoupment Project SA- Special arterial (with two way left turn lane) New - New Project SC- Special collector (with two way left turn lane) ' Cost for (2) 5 year updates UC- Undivided collector `/X indcates roadway half in /half out of City Limits indicates roadway split between two seMce areas Capital Improvements Plan Freese and Nichols, Inc. Roadway Impact Fee Study Page 16 APPENDIX Appendix A: Existing Conditions Analysis Schertz Roadway Impact Fee Study Existing Capital Improvements Analysis Total 56.57 67,424 31,393 37,151 1,121 Notes: DA- Divided arterial Direction A= Northbound or Eastbound UA- Undivided arterial Direction B = Southbound or Westbound SA- Special arterial with dual -left turn lane '/X indcates roadway half in /half out of City Limits DC- Divded collector *1* indicates roadway split between two service areas UC- Undivided collector A B C D Ax BxC AxD So, Length No. of Lane Pct. in Peak Hour Volume VMT Supply VIAL Demand Total VMT Total VMT - Area Roadway From To mei) Lanes Type CapacityServ. Area A B Total Pk Hr Total Fir Fir Total Excess Capacity Deficiency '. 1 FM 2252 IH 35 Railroad Tracks 0.87 2 UA 625 100% 73 250 323 :1084 -280 `. 804 0`' 1!X FM 2252 Railroad Tracks NCity Limits 0.22 2 UA 625 50% 0 250 250 138 ' 55 83 05 1 FM482 FM 2252 Hubertus Rd 1.05 2 UA 625 100% 46 52 98 .1315 '. 103 : 1212 0- 1 FM482 Hubertus Rd Railroad Tracks 1,00 2 UA 625 1001 46 52 98 -1252 ' 98 1154 0' 1 FM482 Railroad Tracks Friesenhahn Ln 0.18 2 UA 625 100% 46 52 98 -222 17 204 0:: 1/X FM482 Friesenhahn Lo ECity Limits 0.59 2 UA 625 50% 46 0 46 -369 - 27 342 0' 1 Hubertus Rd 11135 FM482 0.57 2 UA 625 100% 30 57 87 1708 49 659 0': 1 Friesenhahn Ln IH 35 FM482 0.72 2 UC 500 100% 50 50 100 717 `: 72 ' 645 0.' 1 Schwab Rd IH 35 Railroad Tracks 0.53 3 S 675 100% 120 315 435 3721 -232 < 489 0: 1 Eckhardt Rd I1135 SCity Limits 1.17 2 UA 625 100% 19 11 30 1466 35 - 1431 0' 1 Schwab Rd IH 35 End of Schwab Rd 0.36 2 UA 625 100% 3 2 5 '454 2 452 0' 1 Country Club Blvd IH 35 Northcliffe Golf Club 046 2 DC 550 100% 50 50 100 507 46 461 0( 1 Country Club Blvd Northcliffe Golf Club End of Ex Country Club l 039 2 DC Y 550 100% 50 50 100 .'434 39 395 0 1 FM 1103 IH 35 Old Wiederstein Rd 0.70 2 UA 625 100 590 1020 1610 ' 877 `.'1129 25 277 - 1 Belmont Pkwy IH 35 Old Wiederstein Rd 0.74 2 UC 500 100% 20 20 40 >739 'S 30 710 0.. 1/X Old Wiederstein Rd Cibolo Valley Dr Cherry Tree Or 2.17 2 UA 625 50% 0 177 177 .:1356 384 972 0- 1/X Wlederestein Rd IH 35 Old Wiederstein Rd 0.56 2 UA 625 50% 607 0 607 -:348 - 338 10 0.. Sub -Total 12.29 12,708 2,938 10,047 277: 2 FM 3009 NCity Limits IH 35 1.62 4 D 675 100% 1010 900 1910 4368 :3090 1278 0- 2 Doerr Ln Bell N Dr Lookout Rd 0.91 2 UC 500 100% 50 50 100 5:913 >: 91 ? 822 0= 2 Lookout Rd Doerr Lo Schertz Pkwy 0.62 2 UC 500 100% 133 219 352 623 219 404 0:: 2 Four Oaks Ln FM 3009 End of Four Oaks Ln 0.33 2 UC 500 100% 20 20 40 .328 13 315 0: 21X Schertz Pkwy Lookout Rd N of IH 35 0.51 2 UA 625 50% 50 0 50 <321 26 295 0.. 2 Schertz Pkwy Nof IH 35 IH 35 0.23 2 UA 625 100% 50 50 100 290 'I 23 ' 267 0 ". 2 Schanz Pkwy IH 35 FM78 /John Peterson BI 314 4 DA 675 100% 712 753 1465 '8471 '4596 3875 0.: 2 FM 3009 IH 35 S of Woodland Oaks Or 1.53 5 SA 675 100 869 980 1849 4129 2828 1301 0- 2/X FM 3009 S of Woodland Oaks Dr Live Oak Rd 047 5 SA 675 50% 0 980 980 640 '..: 465 : 175 0- 2 FM 3009 Live Oak Rd FM78 /John Peterson BI 116 5 SA 675 100% 869 980 1849 3124 .2140 985 0- 2 Wiederstein Rd FM 3009 WCity Lim its 145 2 UC 500 100% 100 100 200 P.1449 ;290 1159 0 2 Savannah Dr Scheriz Pkwy WCity Limits 0.90 2 UC 500 100% 50 50 100 f905 90 = 814 0': 2 Live Oak Rd Schertz Pkwy FM 3009 0.86 2 UC 500 100% 100 100 200 ::858 172 686 0P 2 Masks Rd FM 1518 Schanz Pkwy 1.23 2 UC 500 100% 97 105 202 1225 247 978 0': 2 Borgfeld Rd FM 3009 ECity Lim its 043 4 U 500 100% 509 423 932 '859 :400 :. 459 0., 2 FM 1518 /Main St Masks Rd Oak St 1.30 2 UA 625 100% 397 351 748 '1623 971 = 652 0`: 2 FM 1518 /Main St Oak St Aviation Blvd 0.24 4 UA 625 100% 351 397 748 :'600 - 179 420 0: 2 FM 1518/M in St Aviation Blvd FM78 /John Peterson BI 0.29 2 UA 625 100% 351 397 748 '366 219 147 0 2 FM 1518 NCity Lim its SA3 Lim it 0.36 2 UA 625 100% 755 508 1263 1452 -457 42 47< 213 FM 1518 SA3 Limit Schanz Pkwy EM, 0.39 2 UA 625 50% 755 0 755 :245 :'296 0 51` 2 Aviation Blvd WCity Limits FM 1518 0.53 2 UA 625 100% 613 438 1051 : 659 554 105 0' 2 FM 78 /John Peterson BI Cibolo Creek Schertz Pkwy 0.67 5 SA 675 100% 1525 1096 2621 1809 ::1756 170 117`. 2 FM78 /John Peterson Bl Schertz Pkwv ECity Limits 1.14 5 S 675 100% 998 520 1518 ':3065 '1723 - 1342 0: Sub -Total 20.31 37;321 20,846 46,690 215? 3/2 FM 1518 SA2 Limit Schanz Pkwy Ext. 0.39 2 UA 625 50% 0 508 508 245 4199 46 0 3 FM 1518 Schertz Pkwy ExL Lower Seguin Rd 1.31 2 UA 625 100% 755 508 1263 :.1638 :1655 153 170 -: 3 FM 1518 Lower Seguin Rd Trainer Hale Rd 1.93 2 UA 625 100% 790 538 1328 2417 <2568 168 319' 3 FM 1518 Trainer Hale Rd IH 10 0.85 2 UA 625 100% 790 538 1328 . 1057 '1123 74 139? 3 Schaefer Rd W End of Schaefer E of FM 1518 0.48 2 UC 500 100% 100 100 200 '478 - 96 383 0`: 31X Schaefer Rd Eof FM 1518 ECity Limits 0.55 2 UC 500 50% 100 0 100 .!277 :' 55 222 0'. 3/X Schaefer Rd WCity Limits RAF - Burnette 0.14 2 UC 500 50% 100 0 100 69 '- 14 55 0:! 3/X RAF - Burnett. Schaefer Rd ECity Limits 0.56 2 UC 500 50% 50 0 50 "278 28 : 250 0' 3/X Lower Seguin Rd WCity Limits Eof Tates Or 0.35 2 U 500 50% 304 0 304 '175 ?107 69 0. 3/X Lower Seguin Rd Eof Tates Dr FM 1518 2.27 2 UC 500 50% 304 188 492 2272 71118 - 1154 0:: 3 Lower Seguin Rd FM 1518 ECity Limits 178 2 UC 500 100% 37 16 53 '.1783 94 1688 0'. 3 Ware Seguin Rd Boeing Or E -S Bend in Ware Segu 0.71 2 UA 625 100% 19 20 39 11884 ? 28 857 0. 3 Ware Seguin Rd E -S Bend in Ware Seguin R S -E Bend in Ware Segu 0.92 2 UC 500 100% 20 19 39 '916 36 : 881 0' 3 Ware Seguin Rd S -E Bend in Ware Seguin R FM 1518 1,41 2 UC 500 100% 20 19 39 1412 - 55 `: 1357 0- 314 Graytown Rd Boeing Dr IH 10 1,11 2 UA 625 50% 238 0 238 >: 697 265 431 0.' 3 Pfeil Rd Ware Seguin Rd IH 10 1.32 2 UC 500 100 % 22 8 30 ' 1319 S 40 < 1279 0 . Sub -Total 16.08 15,917 7,479 79,067 529 413 Graytown Rd Boeing Dr IH 10 1.11 2 UA 625 501 0 89 89 697 99 597 0- 4 Scenic Lake Dr Boeing Dr IH 10 0.78 2 UC 500 100% 20 20 40 781 ' 31 : 750 0!! Sub -Total 1.90 1,478 130 -1,348 0`; Total 56.57 67,424 31,393 37,151 1,121 Notes: DA- Divided arterial Direction A= Northbound or Eastbound UA- Undivided arterial Direction B = Southbound or Westbound SA- Special arterial with dual -left turn lane '/X indcates roadway half in /half out of City Limits DC- Divded collector *1* indicates roadway split between two service areas UC- Undivided collector Appendix B: Projected 10 -Year Growth (Vehicle -Miles of New Demand) Vehicle -Mile Trip Generation by Service Area, Schertz Impact Fee Based on September 2017 land Use Assumptions by FNI Fstimated Pe.,ide.wiai nm4h Vehicle -M'le Tdn (' na Linn SerNce Area Added Dwelling Units Vehicle -Miles per DU Total Vehicle -Miles 1 1,061 3.37 3,576 2 1,389 3.37 4,681 3 3,445 3.37 11,610 4 20 3.37 67 Estimated Basic Emulnvment Growth Vhirle -Mile Generation (1.500 SF/emnlnvee) Service Area Added Employees Square Feet per em p. Total S uare Feet Vehicle -Miles Per 1000fSF Total Vehicle -Miles 1 694 1,500 1,041,000 170 3,852 2 1,751 1,500 2,626,500 3.70 9,718 3 365 1,500 547,500 170 2,026 4 0 1,500 0 3.70 0 Fstimated .4enrire Fmnlnvmant ('-4h Vahirla -Mile Genaratinn 1500 SF1P.- Invee) SerNce Area Added Employees Square Feet per em p. Total S uare Feet Vehicle -Miles Per 1000lSF Total Vehicle -Miles 1 595 500 297,500 5.69 1,693 2 419 500 209,500 5.69 1,192 3 106 500 53,000 5.69 302 4 20 500 10,000 5.69 57 Fstimated Retail Fmnlnvmant (gym h Vahicla-Mila Renaratinn 11 non RF /amn1rni ) SerNce Area Added Employees Square Feet per em p. Total S uare Feet Vehicle -Miles Per 1000fSF Total Vehicle -Miles 1 317 1,000 317,000 4.23 1,341 2 547 1,000 547,000 4.23 2,314 3 232 1,000 232,000 4.23 981 4 0 1,000 0 4.23 0 Vehicle -mile Generation Summary SeNlce Area Residential Growth Vehicle -Miles Basic Growth Vehicle -Miles Service Growth Vehicle -Miles Retail Growth Vehicle -Miles -- Total -- Growth Vehicle- Miles' 1 3,576 3,852 1,693 1,341 - -- 10,461 - 2 4,681 9,718 1,192 2,314 17,905- 3 11,610 2,026 302 981 -- .14,918- 4 67 0 57 0 -------- -124 - Totals 19,934 15,596 3,243 4,636 - - - -- 43,408 - SUEquivalency Residential DU 3.37 Basic Employ SF 3.70 Service Employ SF 5.69 Retail Employ SF 4.23 Appendix C: Roadway Capital Improvements Plan ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS PLAN PROJECTS Definitions LANES The total number of lanes in both directions available for travel. TYPE The type of roadway (used in determining capacity): DA = divided arterial UA = undivided arterial SA = special arterial (arterial with continuous left turn) DC = divided collector UC = undivided collector SC = special collector (arterial with continuous left turn) PK -HR VOLUME The existing volumes of cars on the roadway segment traveling during the afternoon (P.M.) peak hour of travel. IN SERVICE AREA If the roadway is located on the boundary of the service area (with the city limits running along the centerline of the roadway), then half of the roadway is inventoried in the service area and the other half is not. This value is either 50% or 100 %. VEH -MI SUPPLY The number of total service units (vehicle - miles) supplied within PK -HR TOTAL the service area, based on the length and established capacity of the roadway type. VEH -MI TOTAL The total service unit (vehicle -mile) demand created by DEMAND PK -HR existing traffic on the roadway segment in the afternoon peak hour. EXCESS CAPACITY The number of service units supplied but unused by PK -HR VEH -MI existing traffic in the afternoon peak hour. CIP VEH -MI The number of service units used by existing traffic in excess of DEFICIENCY the available service units supplied by the roadway in the afternoon peak hour. � o o o 0 0 00 0 0...0 0 00 0 00 0 0 o 0 0 00 0 00 0 00 of o 0 0 00 0 00 0 o a - U r V) 2 NO (9 O O O W W 'O M1 V O' m 0 O 0 O N O O MI F O O O O O O O t«6 N V N r d@ VI N M M O N 0 O O V N M 'M OM I M ' .O � .N W Q . M O O m V N o V . h . O . h m W O O . m 9. F W h NcO N O.N N V h M� W N'h O N MN MM h V.M V W O> N H 'O <p M M O N h M U5 r r S � 2 M M O O O O M M W (O N F O O N O O O O O O O O O O O O O O h 00 O O O O O O O E F-o = m N Q N N M Q d O d c4 ?D f9 t9 iQ 6 0 4 4 0 61 d Q d O O 4 d Q d d O d 4 4 4 0 0 0 0 4 M O 0 0 o N o a M - N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 cn ¢ Q ¢ w m ¢ ¢ Q ¢ m@ m m o o O o m °° m °° O° m m° m O m O O O m o o o N 5 . m o c c c C a U o U..' .ga9J .o .o N ,o N N N 'C 'C _ d N Lo,. N N N N N A < o o Q o o o o 'C Q Q O ¢ O ¢ O o o Q o o 4 '�' U U U U U U¢ U U .`, U U U I U U U 'a u m a m R a m iu m m is m m m m m m m �t m m o m m m 'm m m m F, m m o m m E sa m m m N C G o C G (} G U U U C C C G is G C C p ❑ a o 0 0 Q1 C C c C c E = E a o 5 a o a a 'oo ._ o o -aa' o 0 o N N N o N N N ° av a"i aoi w a a` a` a` o. a`. a a oai m a"i - a c w ooi E- E E E- E E E cn v> u> zn E E E v> m v ta w m m v u5 v) m w E yr E E E va E E E o ° o a cc o a o v ° o as °J : d d d d d U d d d d Q d d U d U U d U U d U U U U d d d U Q U Q U U U Q U U U o � 2 J M (p N N d) O> O La N c) z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z a .E .E x .E .E .E .E .E tY m h c c c Ci c f= -o a o o J N o o o U 2 U Y U U U U o s a@ to U o r va F tL fl' z CC LL LL Z fr Li. N W fE_ z 1L LL❑ ii w W W w w w Z W 0 0 0 LL U J CC Z Z iA_ Z❑ u) Z J a a � o m o O � GSi X C aai aai z ii � z J Rs n aai N N O 4 M C O C N N 9 W C J 0 6 4 T w M W N N V��' Ip O o sn v° srs U U cNV v °' z cn v �n v> o a u5 s W `c U U o 0 o a o o M M rn v5 °o c u M M cn a M o° U c cai o u m M M U t/> U M 2 2 M� LL LL z z !.i. Z LL rn ?? S LL � N w vt U uJ ? z z z LL LL Z I.I_ F w O O O O EL o o p o O S O O U CS 'O 'O a -O C C T S] U U Q O 'a, U U tJ U J T N N N C !t! G 41 0 fS U G G M C O C G C r G N tt1 w t(? C o o N N N N N C C A O m .O .> C? a C 3 N N N U U U a. m w �' 3 U 3 0 0 w �' U U ° U U U ;,7,0`. �' i j Ua U U CJ C3 0 0 s s w s o o m o o °a '> `'> 0 0 K I LL. IL z w w IL LL LL L Z Z tL V1 W w u) LL LL 0 Z U W W W z z w O ❑ z W w W W m1 LL .O .° d' u7 CR r a2 O O - .- N m e- N X N X X' o � ,- •- .`- ,- •- •- ,- •- •- .`- •- ,- �- •- ,- ,- •- ,- •- •- •- •- •- •- •- •- - •- N O ri of o......0 o o o o o o o . o . . o . . o o ....o o o 75 -Ta -cz -c5 �5 -c -c5 -c < 0 0 0 0 a a¢¢ a¢ 0 < Q¢ 0 0 0 0 0 0 < < so O. L 2 . Q Q. -p -p 2- E- .2- E E E 0- a`. 0- E E E E E !Y o o cr [2 w CK w Of E E o 0 to a) < < < < < < < oO � M M . O. N N N chD � Iq M 't MI M 3 3 z z z z z z z z z zl z z zo z z z zo z z z z z z z z z z z z z z ZI z z z x -0 LU tis 0 a. I Q. U) T D W, o U) 0 V) U) .1 U) w Cl) w w co co (n U) m z 3� z I za O LU E X t z, z, < C) U) R m 0. 2, oz U<) U) w z z z z 0 z 0 CL N 0 0 0 & o E & mu U) co of vo) V) U) c fn ai c W Q 0 0 C) U) U) co U) w U) U) a5 w Q U) U) m I X x W-1 O Appendix D: Roadway Improvement Plan Cost Analysis 8 3 s 2 8 8 8 8 8 3 8 3 8 8 8 8 s 3 8 3 8 8 8 8 8 3 8 3 8 o g 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 O q q m 15 15 16 Ill 16 14 4 16 1� - <O 14 4 14 c4 14 li 1: 1� 15 13 ll� 15 �7 Ill 14 -7 a - - - - - - - - - - - w 0 8 8 8 2 8 8 8 8 8 s 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 2 8 8 °° 8 8 8 8 8 o0 c� �q cD (D n cD q cl� �q n N N oa v� cr� N (q q in v� n "I oO N cR � cl� IQ IQ M �q 13� 1� testa ,4 c\i 4 1 1 - N N - - "i 6 1 D - - - - - o; a -1 e; 2 a a -1 11; 2 71 v; -" ;; -1 -" - - . - - -" -I I 0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . °O . . . . . . . . . 0 -D q Iq 10 q 1� �D CO q 1� LO q 0? ° N q ml LO P� N 1� ct 0 0 �� o 0 0 0 0 � o ° o 0 0 ° o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 °F9 0 0 0 � N o � o 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lo 4 an � di ro 75 a -�a -F� -6 — — — — — - m m m t -ra g- cL 't 't 't, T� 1� oo < —o —o - — — o < < < < < o o o o < < o < < < < < < < < < < -m -F� -Fo -Fo 76 co -F, -�6 7� 'F� -Z6 -�a --�a -za 'ffi le -ffi 16 76 16 �a 21 2- S., .2- 2 2 2 2 �2 o E E 2o ct E clt tt ct c� L �t E ol E E E E E E E U3 u) co u) E o- E E u) u) u) E u) E E E u) E E E o o In u, c� cf c� o o o o o o < < < < < U < < < < < < < U Q U U Q U U Q U U U U < < < U < U < Z I N O o O . . O. . . . . . O. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 c5 6 ('i N l 6 0 6 0 0 . . . . . . . . . . z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z 0 o o 2 2 2 z- Z` z w U) 0 Q U) Lu I Lu U) w m w 0 0 0 z z z 0' 9') z I C c N tab 10 10 N w N LU 'T' U) T 'N �: tit U') 0, Z5 >z m Z5 b Z5 6 6 i2 2 2 2c m o o 0 0 0 Q o 0 o u E ��E 2'R :�R :2 2 if - . I L. 2 z I w Z w w :f :f (D 3: 0 w w z z w 0 ❑ �2 :1 ,2 �2 t2 — .- — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — O. o o O 8 8 8 .1 1. .1 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. .1 1. 1. 1. OM NO V 1. .1 .1 1 1. V Na 1. yy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O .0 �: cl� ll� 0 1� Iq IQ MO clz 00 11 O -i q N N N M N q q 1: M Ffi 14 C6 14 1 vs U -D ID cD 1� Iz c� -D �q 10 cD Iq cli m ll� D c6 q O 14 4 11: ll� ml m �T o F. Lu in m 75 75 75 m Q Q 76 m < �5 �3 'Fo m 75 c, -m 6 �t' m m t z -6 z _ °a < 0 0 0 < o 0 < U0 < 0 0 u Q C) 0 < < < r y < < < io -F m m m m m -M ct Of x m o w 2 2 1 .2- Z t Z3 21, i�l 2� 2� 2 2 o o . . . w w - E E E o E E E o j) CL u) E E o E E E E M it . , D� af of o o o u) of ol lo o o u) w u) to U CJ U7 J) Li < U U U U U < < < < < < U < < < < < < U U U U U U < < < < < U U < K ❑ D u) u) (n ❑ u) ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ u) u) ❑ ❑ ❑ n n n D > ❑ ❑ (n u) In (o v) u) u) u) -6 Z Ic! 2 . O 4 c5 c5 , — . O. . . . . . . . . . . . I N . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 z z z z z z z z z zi o m u) z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z( z z zi LU m us in z- z, m o m Lu Lu u) (n co u) o w �22 Lu A Lu w o u) u) u) u) w El it g E m ❑ p E 8� 9 u) 22 15 5 N m o o u) a� co z w z z z z m 1 6 z m, co Fn 15 m k6 x oe ae 2 .2 2 & & .2 .2 Z5 I o -2 1 m o 1 38 U o o o co u) . . . . 0 0 Q 0 c c o Ly � � to u) @ of co w z z z z Lu (D z X x x Ni ml O 4i ig 0 F- Appendix E: Roadway Project Cost Estimates Master Thoroughfare Plan Roadway Sections Freeways, Limited Access The freeway is typically uninterrupted with grade separations at intersections and ramped entries and exits to and from they crossroads as on 1 -35. However, limited access r,• { freeways may also be interrupted for signalized arterial roadway crossings. a a I I , Freeways typically operate at free flow speeds over 55 mph and have two or more lanes in a7a�N�tia{RC? GGWP¢FI4 ¢,iTtI�TCGmti each travel direction. Freeways are typically r� M ff"ao- R bra f*&,*N 'Ptw N1S barrier or median separated, or in the example of the managed lanes under design for 1 -35, can be grade separated from the rest of the corridor where ROW is constrained. The managed lanes element is intended to help maintain a free -flow speed, even during times of peak congestion on adjacent facilities. Freeways, especially controlled access, are typically paralleled by service roads that serve as the interface between the freeway and the adjacent community's arterial and collector street network. Source: Figure 11. 1-35 Managed lanes illustrative - View from Schertz Parkway. Principal Arterials The recommended ROW for principal arterials ranges from 120 to 130 feet. The ROW is intended to accommodate higher volumes and levels of mobility, providing substantial regional access and statewide travel. A ROW of 120 feet allows for four travel lanes and associated spaces. Where six travel lanes are needed, a typical section of 130 feet can be used. Urban principal arterial roadways provide the predominant passageways through the urbanized portions of the community and connect to the regional freeway network, typically providing for curb and gutter drainage. Intersections are provided at all arterial, collector and local roadways and as needed allowing for local land access directly to the facility. Intersections with arterial roadways are typically signalized and provisions made for one or more left turn lanes and occasionally right -turn lanes to facilitate the through movements along the arterial. Principal urban arterial roadways provide at least two travel lanes in each direction plus a center median area for separations of traffic. The median area may be used to provide channelized left -turn lanes, continuous left -turn lanes, and /or streetscape. Where traffic operational Chapter 3. Thoroughfare System Plan analyses support the need for greater throughput capacity, a six -lane section may be considered — as is the case for the ultimate build out of FM 1518 south of FM 78. Access management practices should be employed to minimize the impacts of property access (i.e., driveways) on the principal arterial facility. Sidewalks, five to ten feet in width, should be provided along either sides of the roadway, buffered from travel lanes. A divided median is key for this classification of roadway, and a median width minimum of 16 feet is included. A divided median of sufficient width allows area for dedicated left turn lanes at intersections and provides access management for fewer turning conflicts, and preservation of traffic flow. The median may be raised, or surfaced depending on the adjacent land use. Driveway access onto principal arterials should be limited by access management and spacing requirements, and parking along arterial roadways is generally prohibited. The illustrations below show typical sections for four and six travel lanes with surfaced medians. • High degree of regional mobility, higher traffic volumes and operational speeds • Access is carefully managed • Curb and gutter section with underground stormwater utilities and drainage • Examples include Roy Richard Drive (FM 3009), FM 78, FM 1103, and FM 1518 south of FM 78. Figure 13. Six -Lane Principal Arterial Section Chapter 3. Thoroughfare System Plan Secondary Arterial The ROW for a secondary arterial in Schertz is 90 feet wide. The arterial is intended to accommodate medium volumes and local mobility, and provide for connections to neighboring communities. Secondary arterial roadways are intended for local trips, so design speeds should also be notably lower than principal arterials. A ROW of 90 feet allows for four travel lanes, and space to buffer different travel modes. A divided median is also important for this classification of roadway, allowing some area for reduced width left turn lanes at minor intersections and provides access management for fewer turning conflicts. Additional ROW may be preferred at major intersections. Driveway access to Secondary Arterials should also be guided by access management and spacing requirements. Parking along secondary arterial roadways is generally prohibited, unless parallel parking bays are provided in addition to travel lanes, which may be desirable in a potential mixed -use transit oriented district north of 1 -35. Bicycle accommodation is intended to be provided on a shared -use path (or hike - and -bike path), buffered from the roadway. • Cross -Town mobility • Accommodates medium traffic volumes and operational speeds • Managed Access • Four -lane divided • Curb and gutter drainage • Examples include Lower Seguin Road east of FM 1518, Wiederstein /Old Wiederstein Road, and the east -west portion of Trainer Hale Road. Figure 1. Secondary Arterial Section — Wederstein Road Chapter 3. Thoroughfare System Plan Secondary Rural Arterial Rural Secondary Arterial roadways carry traffic across significant segments of the city, connect principal arterials to collectors and accommodate moderate volumes at higher speeds. This section is intended for use where adjacent, planned land uses are lower intensity, and access points fewer than the urban section would provide. The recommended ROW for Secondary Rural Arterials is 90 feet and is intended to include a three -lane section, with two travel lanes and a surfaced median. Travel lanes should be 12 feet wide with 6- to 8- foot -wide shoulders to accommodate emergency parking, extended site lines, and bicycles. Wide areas at the edge of paved shoulders provide for stormwater drainage and buffer from the roadway from adjacent property. Where sidewalks are provided, they should be between the drainage channel and the edge of the ROW. Driveways should still be guided by access management principles. A two -way left - turn lane in the center of the section provides buffer distance from oncoming traffic and left turn opportunities without obstructing the through- movement. An adjacent 20- foot -wide trail easement allows for accommodating pedestrians and bicycles on a shared -use path (or hike - and -bike path) sufficiently buffered from the travel way, and opportunities for tree growth. • Cross -town mobility • Accommodates medium traffic volumes and higher operational speeds • Access is managed • Two -lane divided • Open section drainage Examples include Lower Seguin Road west of Hollering Vine and adjacent to Randolph AFB, and Ware Seguin Road west of FM 1518. Chapter 3. Thoroughfare System Plan Collector roadways serve to provide access to higher functional class facilities, access to residential areas, and provide access and circulation to commercial areas. They are designed for short trips, lower speeds, and connections between residential and commercial areas. They are differentiated from arterial streets by their length and degree of access to adjacent development where driveway access is seldom limited. The recommended ROW for Collector roadways is 70 feet wide. The pavement width of 40 feet is wide enough to provide different layouts of lane striping to accommodate adjacent uses — whether it is on street parking, or bike lanes, or a center -turn lane, the width is intended to be flexible over time as needs change. Three typical sections are provided: one residential section with on street bike lanes, one commercial section with a middle turn lane for frequent driveways and turn - movements, and one commercial section with on street parking. • Collection and distribution of traffic • Speeds and volumes dependent on adjacent land uses and neighborhoods served • Access to development and neighborhoods • Connectivity to arterial and residential collector streets Typical Residential Collector — 70 -foot ROW: 7 -foot buffered bike lanes accommodate bicycles of all comfort levels. Examples include Ray Corbett Drive, Live Oak Road, Wiederstein Road west of FM 3009, Country Club Boulevard, Eckhardt Road, and segments of Ware Seguin Road. '- •- • • •' Chapter 3. Thoroughfare System Plan Typical Commercial Collectors — 70 -foot ROW — applicable in Southern Schertz near 1 -10 and northern Schertz near 1 -35. The 12- foot -wide outside lanes can accommodate more experienced bicycles. A shared - used path on one side accommodates less experienced bicycles. Figure 18. Commercial Collector (TOD) - Example: New Streets in TOD area LOCI Residential and Commercial/industrial Streets The primary function of local streets is to provide access to and from properties. Local streets feed to and from the collector street network, but occasionally may tie directly to arterial streets. The urban local residential street is described in the Schertz Unified Development Code as a 30 -foot pavement width, with curb - and - gutter drainage and minimum 5- foot -wide sidewalks on each side of the street, buffered from the curb. Local residential streets have a 50- foot -wide ROW. Local commercial /industrial streets are described as 42 feet of pavement, with curb and gutter drainage, 5 -foot sidewalks, and a 60- foot -wide ROW. Local streets are not illustrated on the MTP map, but are encouraged to be developed to increase connectivity, lessen block lengths, and encourage active and non -auto modes of travel for people on foot, pedestrians in wheelchairs, and people on bike. Chapter 3. Thoroughfare System Plan Impact Fee CIP Project Cost Estimates City of Schertz Impact Fee Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Estimate FM 2252 IH -35 to FM 482 Functional Classification: Principal Arterial No. of Lanes: 4 Length (If): 1,690 Right -of -Way Width (ft.): 120 Median Type: Raised - - - - - - Pavement Width (Edge to Edge): 48 Description: Widening of roadway to thoroughfare standard Shared -Use Path bicycle facility Item No. Item Description Quantity Unit Item Cost Unit Cost Pavement Markings & Signage Item Cost 1 Right of Way Preparation 17 STA $ 3,000.00 $ 51,000 2 Unclassified Street Excavation 4,200 CY $ 20.00 $ 84,000 3 3" HMAC (Type "D ") 9,100 SY $ 18.00 $ 163,800 4 10" Flex Base 11,300 SY $ 18.00 $ 203,400 5 6" Moisture Conditioned Subgrade 11,300 SY $ 7.00 $ 79,100 6 TX -5 Geogrid 11,300 SY $ 1.00 $ 11,300 7 6" Monolithic Concrete Curb & Gutter 6,760 LF $ 25.00 $ 169,000 8 4" Concrete Sidewalk and Ramps 2,800 SY $ 50.00 $ 140,000 9 Block Sodding and Topsoil 9,950 SY $ 5.00 $ 49,750 Item No. Item Description Pct. Of Paving Allowance Item Cost 10 Pavement Markings & Signage 2% $ 19,100 11 Traffic Control 5% $ 47,600 12 Erosion Control 3% $ 28,600 13 Drainage Improvements (RCP, Inlets, MH, Outfalls) 20% $ 190,300 Item No. Item Description Notes Allowance Item Cost 14 Landscaping /Illumination None $ $ 15 Drainage Structures None $ $ - 16 Bridge Structures None - $ $ - 17 Traffic Signals None - - - $ $ - 18 Other None - - - $ $ - Item Description Construction Engineering /Survey /Testing Right -of -Way Acquisition 2017 Impact Fee Update City of Schertz I, II, & III Construction Subtotal: $ 1,236,950 Mobilization 5% $ 61,900 Contineencv 10% $ 129,900 Notes Allowance Item Cost - $ 1,428,800 7% $ 100,000 Cost per sq. ft.: $ 0.75 $ 38,000 $ 38,000 Freese and Nichols, Inc. Updated: 612017 2 City of Schertz Impact Fee Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Estimate FM 2252 FM 482 to Railroad Tracks Functional Classification: Secondary Arterial No. of Lanes: 4 Length (If): 3,379 Right -of -Way Width (ft.): 90 Median Type: Raised Pavement Width (Edge to Edge): 48 Description: Widening of roadway to thoroughfare standard Shared -Use Path bicycle facility Item No. Item Description Quantity Unit Item Cost Unit Cost Pavement Markings & Signage Item Cost 1 Right of Way Preparation 34 STA $ 3,000.00 $ 102,000 2 Unclassified Street Excavation 8,300 CY $ 20.00 $ 166,000 3 3" HMAC (Type "D ") 18,100 SY $ 18.00 $ 325,800 4 10" Flex Base 22,600 SY $ 18.00 $ 406,800 5 6" Moisture Conditioned Subgrade 22,600 SY $ 7.00 $ 158,200 6 TX -5 Geogrid 22,600 SY $ 1.00 $ 22,600 7 6" Monolithic Concrete Curb & Gutter 13,520 LF $ 25.00 $ 338,000 8 4" Concrete Sidewalk and Ramps 5,600 SY $ 50.00 $ 280,000 9 Block Sodding and Topsoil 8,640 SY $ 5.00 $ 43,200 Item No. Item Description Pct. Of Paving Allowance Item Cost 10 Pavement Markings & Signage 2% $ 36,900 11 Traffic Control 5% $ 92,200 12 Erosion Control 3% $ 55,300 13 Drainage Improvements (RCP, Inlets, MH, Outfalls) 20% $ 368,600 Item No. Item Description Notes Allowance 14 Landscaping /Illumination None $ $ 15 Drainage Structures None $ $ 16 Bridge Structures None - - - $ $ 17 Traffic Signals None $ $ 18 Other At -grade RR crossing $ 150,000 $ Item Description Construction Engineering /Survey /Testing Right -of -Way Acquisition 2017 Impact Fee Update City of Schertz I, II, & III Construction Subtotal: $ Mobilization 5% $ Contineencv 10% $ Item Cost 150,000 150,000 2,545,600 127,300 267,300 Notes Allowance Item Cost - $ 2,940,200 7% $ 205,800 Cost per sq. ft.: $ 0.75 $ $ - Freese and Nichols, Inc. Updated: 612017 3 City of Schertz Impact Fee Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Estimate FM 2252 Railroad Tracks to N. City Limits Functional Classification: Secondary Arterial = No. of Lanes: 4 Length (If): 1,162 Right -of -Way Width (ft.): 90 Median Type: Raised Pavement Width (Edge to Edge): 48 Description: Widening of roadway to thoroughfare standard Shared -Use Path bicycle facility Item No. Item Description Quantity Unit Item Cost Unit Cost Pavement Markings & Signage Item Cost 1 Right of Way Preparation 12 STA $ 3,000.00 $ 36,000 2 Unclassified Street Excavation 2,900 CY $ 20.00 $ 58,000 3 3" HMAC (Type "D ") 6,200 SY $ 18.00 $ 111,600 4 10" Flex Base 7,800 SY $ 18.00 $ 140,400 5 6" Moisture Conditioned Subgrade 7,800 SY $ 7.00 $ 54,600 6 TX -5 Geogrid 7,800 SY $ 1.00 $ 7,800 7 6" Monolithic Concrete Curb & Gutter 4,650 LF $ 25.00 $ 116,250 8 4" Concrete Sidewalk and Ramps 1,900 SY $ 50.00 $ 95,000 9 Block Sodding and Topsoil 2,970 SY $ 5.00 $ 14,850 Item No. Item Description Pct. Of Paving Allowance Item Cost 10 Pavement Markings & Signage 2% $ 12,700 11 Traffic Control 5% $ 31,800 12 Erosion Control 3% $ 19,100 13 Drainage Improvements (RCP, Inlets, MH, Outfalls) 20% $ 126,900 Item No. Item Description Notes Allowance Item Cost 14 Landscaping /Illumination None $ $ 15 Drainage Structures None $ $ 16 Bridge Structures None $ $ - 17 Traffic Signals None $ $ 18 Other None - $ $ - Item Description Construction Engineering /Survey /Testing Right -of -Way Acquisition 2017 Impact Fee Update City of Schertz I, II, & III Construction Subtotal: $ 825,000 Mobilization 5% $ 41,300 Contineencv 10% $ 86,700 Notes Allowance Item Cost - $ 953,000 7% $ 66,700 Cost per sq. ft.: $ 0.75 $ $ - Freese and Nichols, Inc. Updated: 612017 4 City of Schertz Impact Fee Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Estimate N/S CONNECTOR (1) IH -35 to Railroad Tracks Functional Classification: Secondary Arterial No. of Lanes: 4 Length (If): 6,600 Right -of -Way Width (ft.): 90 Median Type: Raised Pavement Width (Edge to Edge): 48 Description: Construction of new roadway to thoroughfare standard Shared -Use Path bicycle facility Item No. Item Description Quantity Unit Item Cost Unit Cost Pavement Markings & Signage Item Cost 1 Right of Way Preparation 66 STA $ 3,000.00 $ 198,000 2 Unclassified Street Excavation 16,200 CY $ 20.00 $ 324,000 3 3" HMAC (Type "D ") 35,200 SY $ 18.00 $ 633,600 4 10" Flex Base 44,000 SY $ 18.00 $ 792,000 5 6" Moisture Conditioned Subgrade 44,000 SY $ 7.00 $ 308,000 6 TX -5 Geogrid 44,000 SY $ 1.00 $ 44,000 7 6" Monolithic Concrete Curb & Gutter 26,400 LF $ 25.00 $ 660,000 8 4" Concrete Sidewalk and Ramps 11,000 SY $ 50.00 $ 550,000 9 Block Sodding and Topsoil 16,870 SY $ 5.00 $ 84,350 Item No. Item Description Pct. Of Paving Allowance Item Cost 10 Pavement Markings & Signage 2% $ 71,900 11 Traffic Control 5% $ 179,700 12 Erosion Control 3% $ 107,900 13 Drainage Improvements (RCP, Inlets, MH, Outfalls) 20% $ 718,800 Item No. Item Description Notes Allowance 14 Landscaping /Illumination None - $ $ 15 Drainage Structures None $ $ 16 Bridge Structures None $ $ 17 Traffic Signals None $ $ 18 Other At -grade RR crossing- $ 150,000 $ Item Description Construction Engineering /Survey /Testing Right -of -Way Acquisition 2017 Impact Fee Update City of Schertz I, II, & III Construction Subtotal: $ Mobilization 5% $ Contineencv 10% $ Item Cost 150,000 150,000 4,822,250 241,200 506,400 Notes Allowance Item Cost - $ 5,569,900 7% $ 389,900 Cost per sq. ft.: $ 0.75 $ 445,500 $ 445,500 Freese and Nichols, Inc. Updated: 612017 5 City of Schertz Impact Fee Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Estimate E/W CONNECTOR (1) N/S Connector (1) to FM 2252 Functional Classification: Secondary Arterial - No. of Lanes: 4 Length (If): 5,227 Right -of -Way Width (ft.): 90 Median Type: Raised Pavement Width (Edge to Edge): 62 Description: Construction of new roadway to thoroughfare standard On- street bicycle facility (Pavement: 7' + T) Item No. Item Description Quantity Unit Item Cost Unit Cost Pavement Markings & Signage Item Cost 1 Right of Way Preparation 53 STA $ 3,000.00 $ 159,000 2 Unclassified Street Excavation 15,800 CY $ 20.00 $ 316,000 3 3" HMAC (Type "D ") 36,100 SY $ 18.00 $ 649,800 4 10" Flex Base 43,000 SY $ 18.00 $ 774,000 5 6" Moisture Conditioned Subgrade 43,000 SY $ 7.00 $ 301,000 6 TX -5 Geogrid 43,000 SY $ 1.00 $ 43,000 7 6" Monolithic Concrete Curb & Gutter 20,910 LF $ 25.00 $ 522,750 8 4" Concrete Sidewalk and Ramps 5,800 SY $ 50.00 $ 290,000 9 Block Sodding and Topsoil 8,130 SY $ 5.00 $ 40,650 Item No. Item Description Pct. Of Paving Allowance Item Cost 10 Pavement Markings & Signage 2% $ 62,000 11 Traffic Control 5% $ 154,900 12 Erosion Control 3% $ 92,900 13 Drainage Improvements (RCP, Inlets, MH, Outfalls) 20% $ 619,300 Item No. Item Description Notes Allowance 14 Landscaping /Illumination None $ $ 15 Drainage Structures None - $ - $ 16 Bridge Structures None - - - $ $ 17 Traffic Signals None - - - $ $ 18 Other At -grade RR crossing- $ 150,000 $ Item Description Construction Engineering /Survey /Testing Right -of -Way Acquisition 2017 Impact Fee Update City of Schertz I, II, & III Construction Subtotal: $ Mobilization 5% $ Contineencv 10% $ Item Cost 150,000 15 ©,000 4,175, 300 208,800 438,500 Notes Allowance Item Cost - $ 4,822,600 7% $ 337,600 Cost per sq. ft.: $ 0.75 $ 352,800 $ 352,800 Freese and Nichols, Inc. Updated: 612017 6 City of Schertz Impact Fee Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Estimate E/W CONNECTOR (2) N/S Connector (1) to FM 2252 Functional Classification: Commercial Collector B No. of Lanes: 2 Length (If): 5,227 Right -of -Way Width (ft.): 70 Median Type: None Pavement Width (Edge to Edge): 42 Description: Construction of new roadway to thoroughfare standard On- street parking (9' + 9') Item No. Item Description Quantity Unit Item Cost Unit Cost Pavement Markings & Signage Item Cost 1 Right of Way Preparation 53 STA $ 3,000.00 $ 159,000 2 Unclassified Street Excavation 10,300 CY $ 20.00 $ 206,000 3 3" HMAC (Type "D ") 24,400 SY $ 18.00 $ 439,200 4 10" Flex Base 27,900 SY $ 18.00 $ 502,200 5 6" Moisture Conditioned Subgrade 27,900 SY $ 7.00 $ 195,300 6 TX -5 Geogrid 27,900 SY $ 1.00 $ 27,900 7 6" Monolithic Concrete Curb & Gutter 10,460 LF $ 25.00 $ 261,500 8 4" Concrete Sidewalk and Ramps 13,900 SY $ 50.00 $ 695,000 9 Block Sodding and Topsoil 0 SY $ 5.00 $ - Item No. Item Description Pct. Of Paving Allowance Item Cost 10 Pavement Markings & Signage 2% $ 49,800 11 Traffic Control 5% $ 124,400 12 Erosion Control 3% $ 74,600 13 Drainage Improvements (RCP, Inlets, MH, Outfalls) 20% $ 497,300 Item No. Item Description Notes Allowance Item Cost 14 Landscaping /Illumination None $ $ 15 Drainage Structures None $ $ - 16 Bridge Structures None $ $ - 17 Traffic Signals None $ $ - 18 Other None $ $ - Item Description Construction Engineering /Survey /Testing Right -of -Way Acquisition 2017 Impact Fee Update City of Schertz I, II, & III Construction Subtotal: $ 3,232,200 Mobilization 5% $ 161,700 Contineencv 10% $ 339,400 Notes Allowance Item Cost - $ 3,733,300 7% $ 261,300 Cost per sq. ft.: $ 0.75 $ 274,400 $ 274,400 Freese and Nichols, Inc. Updated: 612017 City of Schertz Impact Fee Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Estimate FM 482 FM 2252 to Hubertus Rd Functional Classification: Principal Arterial No. of Lanes: 4 Length (If): 5,544 Right -of -Way Width (ft.): 120 Median Type: Raised - - - - - - Pavement Width (Edge to Edge): 48 Description: Widening of roadway to thoroughfare standard Shared -Use Path bicycle facility Item No. Item Description Quantity Unit Item Cost Unit Cost Pavement Markings & Signage Item Cost 1 Right of Way Preparation 56 STA $ 3,000.00 $ 168,000 2 Unclassified Street Excavation 13,600 CY $ 20.00 $ 272,000 3 3" HMAC (Type "D ") 29,600 SY $ 18.00 $ 532,800 4 10" Flex Base 37,000 SY $ 18.00 $ 666,000 5 6" Moisture Conditioned Subgrade 37,000 SY $ 7.00 $ 259,000 6 TX -5 Geogrid 37,000 SY $ 1.00 $ 37,000 7 6" Monolithic Concrete Curb & Gutter 22,180 LF $ 25.00 $ 554,500 8 4" Concrete Sidewalk and Ramps 9,200 SY $ 50.00 $ 460,000 9 Block Sodding and Topsoil 32,650 SY $ 5.00 $ 163,250 Item No. Item Description Pct. Of Paving Allowance Item Cost 10 Pavement Markings & Signage 2% $ 62,300 11 Traffic Control 5% $ 155,700 12 Erosion Control 3% $ 93,400 13 Drainage Improvements (RCP, Inlets, MH, Outfalls) 20% $ 622,600 Item No. Item Description Notes Allowance Item Cost 14 Landscaping /Illumination None $ - $ - 15 Drainage Structures 2 Minor Crossings $ 200,000 $ 200,000 16 Bridge Structures None $ - $ - 17 Traffic Signals None $ $ - 18 Other None - - - - $ $ Item Description Construction Engineering /Survey /Testing Right -of -Way Acquisition 2017 Impact Fee Update City of Schertz I, II, & III Construction Subtotal: $ 4,246,550 Mobilization 5% $ 212,400 Contineencv 10% $ 445,900 Notes Allowance Item Cost - $ 4,904,900 7% $ 343,300 Cost per sq. ft.: $ 0.75 $ 207,900 $ 207,900 Freese and Nichols, Inc. Updated: 612017 8 City of Schertz Impact Fee Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Estimate FM 482 Hubertus Rd to Railroad Tracks Functional Classification: Principal Arterial No. of Lanes: 4 Length (If): 5,280 Right -of -Way Width (ft.): 120 Median Type: Raised - - - - - - Pavement Width (Edge to Edge): 48 Description: Widening of roadway to thoroughfare standard Shared -Use Path bicycle facility Item No. Item Description Quantity Unit Item Cost Unit Cost Pavement Markings & Signage Item Cost 1 Right of Way Preparation 53 STA $ 3,000.00 $ 159,000 2 Unclassified Street Excavation 13,000 CY $ 20.00 $ 260,000 3 3" HMAC (Type "D ") 28,200 SY $ 18.00 $ 507,600 4 10" Flex Base 35,200 SY $ 18.00 $ 633,600 5 6" Moisture Conditioned Subgrade 35,200 SY $ 7.00 $ 246,400 6 TX -5 Geogrid 35,200 SY $ 1.00 $ 35,200 7 6" Monolithic Concrete Curb & Gutter 21,120 LF $ 25.00 $ 528,000 8 4" Concrete Sidewalk and Ramps 8,800 SY $ 50.00 $ 440,000 9 Block Sodding and Topsoil 31,090 SY $ 5.00 $ 155,450 Item No. Item Description Pct. Of Paving Allowance Item Cost 10 Pavement Markings & Signage 2% $ 59,400 11 Traffic Control 5% $ 148,300 12 Erosion Control 3% $ 89,000 13 Drainage Improvements (RCP, Inlets, MH, Outfalls) 20% $ 593,100 Item No. Item Description Notes Allowance 14 Landscaping /Illumination None $ $ 15 Drainage Structures None $ $ 16 Bridge Structures None $ $ 17 Traffic Signals None $ $ 18 Other At -grade RR crossing- $ 150,000 $ Item Description Construction Engineering /Survey /Testing Right -of -Way Acquisition 2017 Impact Fee Update City of Schertz I, II, & III Construction Subtotal: $ Mobilization 5% $ Contineencv 10% $ Item Cost 150,000 150,000 4,005,050 200,300 420,600 Notes Allowance Item Cost - $ 4,626,000 7% $ 323,800 Cost per sq. ft.: $ 0.75 $ 198,000 $ 198,000 Freese and Nichols, Inc. Updated: 612017 9 City of Schertz Impact Fee Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Estimate FM 482 800' West of Friesenhahn Ln. to Friesenhahn Ln. Functional Classification: Principal Arterial No. of Lanes: 4 Length (►f): 800 Right -of -Way Width (ft.): 120 Median Type: Raised - - - - - - Pavement Width (Edge to Edge): 48 Description: Widening of roadway to thoroughfare standard Shared -Use Path bicycle facility Item No. Item Description Quantity Unit Item Cost Unit Cost Pavement Markings & Signage Item Cost 1 Right of Way Preparation 8 STA $ 3,000.00 $ 24,000 2 Unclassified Street Excavation 2,000 CY $ 20.00 $ 40,000 3 3" HMAC (Type "D ") 4,300 SY $ 18.00 $ 77,400 4 10" Flex Base 5,400 SY $ 18.00 $ 97,200 5 6" Moisture Conditioned Subgrade 5,400 SY $ 7.00 $ 37,800 6 TX -5 Geogrid 5,400 SY $ 1.00 $ 5,400 7 6" Monolithic Concrete Curb & Gutter 3,200 LF $ 25.00 $ 80,000 8 4" Concrete Sidewalk and Ramps 1,300 SY $ 50.00 $ 65,000 9 Block Sodding and Topsoil 4,710 SY $ 5.00 $ 23,550 Item No. Item Description Pct. Of Paving Allowance Item Cost 10 Pavement Markings & Signage 2% $ 9,100 11 Traffic Control 5% $ 22,600 12 Erosion Control 3% $ 13,600 13 Drainage Improvements (RCP, Inlets, MH, Outfalls) 20% $ 90,100 Item No. Item Description Notes Allowance Item Cost 14 Landscaping /Illumination None $ $ 15 Drainage Structures None $ $ - 16 Bridge Structures None $ $ - 17 Traffic Signals None - - - $ $ - 18 Other None - - - $ $ - Item Description Construction Engineering /Survey /Testing Right -of -Way Acquisition 2017 Impact Fee Update City of Schertz I, II, & III Construction Subtotal: $ 585,750 Mobilization 5% - $ 29,300 Contineencv 10% $ 61,600 Notes Allowance Item Cost - $ 676,700 7% $ 47,400 Cost per sq. ft.: $ 0.75 $ 30,000 $ 30,000 Freese and Nichols, Inc. Updated: 612017 10 City of Schertz Impact Fee Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Estimate FM 482 Friesenhahn Ln. to Schwab Rd. Functional Classification: Principal Arterial No. of Lanes: 4 Length (If): 3,115 Right -of -Way Width (ft.): 120 Median Type: Raised - - - - - - - Pavement Width (Edge to Edge): 48 Description: Widening of roadway to thoroughfare standard Shared -Use Path bicycle facility Item No. Item Description Quantity Unit Item Cost Unit Cost Pavement Markings & Signage Item Cost 1 Right of Way Preparation 32 STA $ 3,000.00 $ 96,000 2 Unclassified Street Excavation 7,700 CY $ 20.00 $ 154,000 3 3" HMAC (Type "D ") 16,700 SY $ 18.00 $ 300,600 4 10" Flex Base 20,800 SY $ 18.00 $ 374,400 5 6" Moisture Conditioned Subgrade 20,800 SY $ 7.00 $ 145,600 6 TX -5 Geogrid 20,800 SY $ 1.00 $ 20,800 7 6" Monolithic Concrete Curb & Gutter 12,470 LF $ 25.00 $ 311,750 8 4" Concrete Sidewalk and Ramps 5,200 SY $ 50.00 $ 260,000 9 Block Sodding and Topsoil 18,350 SY $ 5.00 $ 91,750 Item No. Item Description Pct. Of Paving Allowance Item Cost 10 Pavement Markings & Signage 2% $ 35,100 11 Traffic Control 5% $ 87,800 12 Erosion Control 3% $ 52,700 13 Drainage Improvements (RCP, Inlets, MH, Outfalls) 20% $ 351,000 Item No. Item Description Notes Allowance Item Cost 14 Landscaping /Illumination None $ - $ - 15 Drainage Structures 1 Minor Crossing $ 100;000 $ 100,000 16 Bridge Structures None - - - $ - $ - 17 Traffic Signals None - - - $ $ - 18 Other None $ $ Item Description Construction Engineering /Survey /Testing Right -of -Way Acquisition 2017 Impact Fee Update City of Schertz I, II, & III Construction Subtotal: $ 2,381,500 Mobilization 5% $ 119,100 Contineencv 10% $ 250,100 Notes Allowance Item Cost - $ 2,750,700 7% $ 192,500 Cost per sq. ft.: $ 0.75 $ 116,800 $ 116,800 Freese and Nichols, Inc. Updated: 612017 City of Schertz Impact Fee Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Estimate FM 482 Schwab Rd. to E. City Limits Functional Classification: Principal Arterial No. of Lanes: 4 Length (If): 6,336 Right -of -Way Width (ft.): 120 Median Type: Raised - - - - - - Pavement Width (Edge to Edge): 48 Description: Widening of roadway to thoroughfare standard Shared -Use Path bicycle facility Item No. Item Description Quantity Unit Item Cost Unit Cost Pavement Markings & Signage Item Cost 1 Right of Way Preparation 64 STA $ 3,000.00 $ 192,000 2 Unclassified Street Excavation 15,500 CY $ 20.00 $ 310,000 3 3" HMAC (Type "D ") 33,800 SY $ 18.00 $ 608,400 4 10" Flex Base 42,300 SY $ 18.00 $ 761,400 5 6" Moisture Conditioned Subgrade 42,300 SY $ 7.00 $ 296,100 6 TX -5 Geogrid 42,300 SY $ 1.00 $ 42,300 7 6" Monolithic Concrete Curb & Gutter 25,350 LF $ 25.00 $ 633,750 8 4" Concrete Sidewalk and Ramps 10,600 SY $ 50.00 $ 530,000 9 Block Sodding and Topsoil 37,310 SY $ 5.00 $ 186,550 Item No. Item Description Pct. Of Paving Allowance Item Cost 10 Pavement Markings & Signage 2% $ 71,300 11 Traffic Control 5% $ 178,100 12 Erosion Control 3% $ 106,900 13 Drainage Improvements (RCP, Inlets, MH, Outfalls) 20% $ 712,100 Item No. Item Description Notes Allowance Item Cost 14 Landscaping /Illumination None $ - $ - 15 Drainage Structures 2 Minor Crossings $ 200,000 $ 200,000 16 Bridge Structures None - - $ - $ - 17 Traffic Signals None $ $ - 18 Other None $ $ - Item Description Construction Engineering /Survey /Testing Right -of -Way Acquisition 2017 Impact Fee Update City of Schertz I, II, & III Construction Subtotal: $ 4,828,900 Mobilization 5% $ 241,500 Contineencv 10% $ 507,100 Notes Allowance Item Cost - $ 5,577,500 7% $ 390,400 Cost per sq. ft.: $ 0.75 $ 237,600 $ 237,600 Freese and Nichols, Inc. Updated: 612017 12 City of Schertz Impact Fee Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Estimate HUBERTUS ROAD IH -35 to FM 482 Functional Classification: Principal Arterial No. of Lanes: 4 =_ Length (If): 3,010 Right -of -Way Width (ft.): 120 Median Type: Raised - - - - - - Pavement Width (Edge to Edge): 48 Description: Widening of roadway to thoroughfare standard Shared -Use Path bicycle facility Item No. Item Description Quantity Unit Item Cost Unit Cost Pavement Markings & Signage Item Cost 1 Right of Way Preparation 31 STA $ 3,000.00 $ 93,000 2 Unclassified Street Excavation 7,400 CY $ 20.00 $ 148,000 3 3" HMAC (Type "D ") 16,100 SY $ 18.00 $ 289,800 4 10" Flex Base 20,100 SY $ 18.00 $ 361,800 5 6" Moisture Conditioned Subgrade 20,100 SY $ 7.00 $ 140,700 6 TX -5 Geogrid 20,100 SY $ 1.00 $ 20,100 7 6" Monolithic Concrete Curb & Gutter 12,040 LF $ 25.00 $ 301,000 8 4" Concrete Sidewalk and Ramps 5,000 SY $ 50.00 $ 250,000 9 Block Sodding and Topsoil 17,720 SY $ 5.00 $ 88,600 Item No. Item Description Pct. Of Paving Allowance Item Cost 10 Pavement Markings & Signage 2% $ 33,900 11 Traffic Control 5% $ 84,700 12 Erosion Control 3% $ 50,800 13 Drainage Improvements (RCP, Inlets, MH, Outfalls) 20%_ $ 338,600 Item No. Item Description Notes Allowance Item Cost 14 Landscaping /Illumination None $ $ - 15 Drainage Structures None $ $ - 16 Bridge Structures None $ $ - 17 Traffic Signals None $ $ - 18 Other None $ $ - Item Description Construction Engineering /Survey /Testing Right -of -Way Acquisition 2017 Impact Fee Update City of Schertz I, II, & III Construction Subtotal: $ 2,201,000 Mobilization 5% $ 110,100 Contineencv 10% $ 231,200 Notes Allowance Item Cost - $ 2,542,300 7% $ 178,000 Cost per sq. ft.: $ 0.75 $ 135,400 $ 135,400 Freese and Nichols, Inc. Updated: 612017 13 City of Schertz Impact Fee Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Estimate HUBERTUS ROAD FM 482 to N. City Limits Functional Classification: Principal Arterial No. of Lanes: 4 Length (If): 1,584 Right -of -Way Width (ft.): 120 - - - - Median Type: Raised Pavement Width (Edge to Edge): 48 Description: Construction of new roadway to thoroughfare standard Shared -Use Path bicycle facility Item No. Item Description Quantity Unit Item Cost Unit Cost Pavement Markings & Signage Item Cost 1 Right of Way Preparation 16 STA $ 3,000.00 $ 48,000 2 Unclassified Street Excavation 3,900 CY $ 20.00 $ 78,000 3 3" HMAC (Type "D ") 8,500 SY $ 18.00 $ 153,000 4 10" Flex Base 10,600 SY $ 18.00 $ 190,800 5 6" Moisture Conditioned Subgrade 10,600 SY $ 7.00 $ 74,200 6 TX -5 Geogrid 10,600 SY $ 1.00 $ 10,600 7 6" Monolithic Concrete Curb & Gutter 6,340 LF $ 25.00 $ 158,500 8 4" Concrete Sidewalk and Ramps 2,600 SY $ 50.00 $ 130,000 9 Block Sodding and Topsoil 9,330 SY $ 5.00 $ 46,650 Item No. Item Description Pct. Of Paving Allowance Item Cost 10 Pavement Markings & Signage 2% $ 17,800 11 Traffic Control 5% $ 44,500 12 Erosion Control 3% $ 26,700 13 Drainage Improvements (RCP, Inlets, MH, Outfalls) 20% $ 178,000 Item No. Item Description Notes Allowance Item Cost 14 Landscaping /Illumination None $ $ 15 Drainage Structures None $ $ - 16 Bridge Structures None - - $ $ - 17 Traffic Signals None $ $ - 18 Other None $ $ - Item Description Construction Engineering /Survey /Testing Right -of -Way Acquisition 2017 Impact Fee Update City of Schertz I, II, & III Construction Subtotal: $ 1,156,750 Mobilization 5% $ 57,900 Contineencv 10% $ 121,500 Notes Allowance Item Cost - $ 1,336,200 7% $ 93,500 Cost per sq. ft.: $ 0.75 $ 142,600 $ 142,600 Freese and Nichols, Inc. Updated: 612017 14 City of Schertz Impact Fee Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Estimate Functional Classification: Length (If): Right -of -Way Width (ft.): Median Type: Pavement Width (Edge to Edge) Description: FRIESENHAHN LANE IH -35 to FM 482 Commercial Collector A No. of Lanes: 3 1,690 70 Two -Way Left Turn Lane 38 Widening of roadway to thoroughfare standard Shared -Use Path bicycle facility Item No. Item Description Quantity Unit Item Cost Unit Cost Pavement Markings & Signage Item Cost 1 Right of Way Preparation 17 STA $ 3,000.00 $ 51,000 2 Unclassified Street Excavation 3,100 CY $ 20.00 $ 62,000 3 3" HMAC (Type "D ") 7,200 SY $ 18.00 $ 129,600 4 10" Flex Base 8,300 SY $ 18.00 $ 149,400 5 6" Moisture Conditioned Subgrade 8,300 SY $ 7.00 $ 58,100 6 TX -5 Geogrid 8,300 SY $ 1.00 $ 8,300 7 6" Monolithic Concrete Curb & Gutter 3,380 LF $ 25.00 $ 84,500 8 4" Concrete Sidewalk and Ramps 2,800 SY $ 50.00 $ 140,000 9 Block Sodding and Topsoil 2,820 SY $ 5.00 $ 14,100 Item No. Item Description Pct. Of Paving Allowance Item Cost 10 Pavement Markings & Signage 2% $ 14,000 11 Traffic Control 5% $ 34,900 12 Erosion Control 3% $ 21,000 13 Drainage Improvements (RCP, Inlets, MH, Outfalls) 20% $ 139,400 Item No. Item Description Notes Allowance 14 Landscaping /Illumination None $ $ 15 Drainage Structures None $ $ 16 Bridge Structures None $ $ 17 Traffic Signals None $ $ 18 Other At -grade RR crossing $ 150,000 $ Item Description Construction Engineering /Survey /Testing Right -of -Way Acquisition 2017 Impact Fee Update City of Schertz I, II, & III Construction Subtotal: $ Mobilization 5% $ Contineencv 10% $ Item Cost 150,000 150,000' 1,056,300 52,900 111,000 Notes Allowance Item Cost - $ 1,220,200 7% $ 85,400 Cost per sq. ft.: $ 0.75 $ 38,000 $ 38,000 Freese and Nichols, Inc. Updated: 612017 15 City of Schertz Impact Fee Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Estimate SCHWAB ROAD IH -35 to FM 482 Functional Classification: Principal Arterial No. of Lanes: 6 Length (If): 3,326 Right -of -Way Width (ft.): 200 Median Type: Raised - - - - - - Pavement Width (Edge to Edge): 68 - - - - - - Description: Widening of roadway to thoroughfare standard - - - Shared -Use Path bicycle facility Item No. Item Description Quantity Unit Item Cost Unit Cost Pavement Markings & Signage Item Cost 1 Right of Way Preparation 34 STA $ 3,000.00 $ 102,000 2 Unclassified Street Excavation 10,900 CY $ 20.00 $ 218,000 3 3" HMAC (Type "D ") 25,200 SY $ 18.00 $ 453,600 4 10" Flex Base 29,600 SY $ 18.00 $ 532,800 5 6" Moisture Conditioned Subgrade 29,600 SY $ 7.00 $ 207,200 6 TX -5 Geogrid 29,600 SY $ 1.00 $ 29,600 7 6" Monolithic Concrete Curb & Gutter 13,310 LF $ 25.00 $ 332,750 8 4" Concrete Sidewalk and Ramps 5,500 SY $ 50.00 $ 275,000 9 Block Sodding and Topsoil 41,760 SY $ 5.00 $ 208,800 Item No. Item Description Pct. Of Paving Allowance Item Cost 10 Pavement Markings & Signage 2% $ 47,200 11 Traffic Control 5% $ 118,000 12 Erosion Control 3% $ 70,800 13 Drainage Improvements (RCP, Inlets, MH, Outfalls) 20% $ 472,000 Item No. Item Description Notes Allowance Item Cost 14 Landscaping /Illumination None $ - $ - 15 Drainage Structures 1 Minor Crossing $ 100,000 $ 100,000 16 Bridge Structures None $ - $ - 17 Traffic Signals None $ - $ - 18 Other At -grade RR crossing - - $ 150,000 $ 150,000 Item Description Construction Engineering /Survey /Testing Right -of -Way Acquisition 2017 Impact Fee Update City of Schertz I, II, & III Construction Subtotal: $ 3,317,750 Mobilization 5% $ 165,900 Contineencv 10% $ 348,400 Notes Allowance Item Cost - $ 3,832,100 7% $ 268,200 Cost per sq. ft.: $ 0.75 $ 274,400 $ 274,400 Freese and Nichols, Inc. Updated: 612017 16 City of Schertz Impact Fee Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Estimate Functional Classification: Length (If): Right -of -Way Width (ft.): Median Type: Pavement Width (Edge to Edge) Description: E/W CONNECTOR (3) Hubertus Rd. to David Lack Blvd. Commercial Collector A No. of Lanes: 3 8,395 70 Two -Way Left Turn Lane 38 Construction of new roadway to thoroughfare standard Shared -Use Path bicycle facility Item No. Item Description Quantity Unit Item Cost Unit Cost Pavement Markings & Signage Item Cost 1 Right of Way Preparation 84 STA $ 3,000.00 $ 252,000 2 Unclassified Street Excavation 15,100 CY $ 20.00 $ 302,000 3 3" HMAC (Type "D ") 35,500 SY $ 18.00 $ 639,000 4 10" Flex Base 41,100 SY $ 18.00 $ 739,800 5 6" Moisture Conditioned Subgrade 41,100 SY $ 7.00 $ 287,700 6 TX -5 Geogrid 41,100 SY $ 1.00 $ 41,100 7 6" Monolithic Concrete Curb & Gutter 16,800 LF $ 25.00 $ 420,000 8 4" Concrete Sidewalk and Ramps 14,000 SY $ 50.00 $ 700,000 9 Block Sodding and Topsoil 13,990 SY $ 5.00 $ 69,950 Item No. Item Description Pct. Of Paving Allowance Item Cost 10 Pavement Markings & Signage 2% $ 69,100 11 Traffic Control 5% $ 172,600 12 Erosion Control 3% $ 103,600 13 Drainage Improvements (RCP, Inlets, MH, Outfalls) 20% $ 690,400 Item No. Item Description Notes Allowance Item Cost 14 Landscaping /Illumination None $ - $ - 15 Drainage Structures 1 Minor Crossing $ 100,000 $ 100,000 16 Bridge Structures None - - - $ - $ - 17 Traffic Signals None - - - $ $ - 18 Other None $ $ - Item Description Construction Engineering /Survey /Testing Right -of -Way Acquisition 2017 Impact Fee Update City of Schertz I, II, & III Construction Subtotal: $ 4,587,250 Mobilization 5% $ 229,400 Contineencv 10% $ 481,700 Notes Allowance Item Cost - $ 5,298,400 7% $ 370,900 Cost per sq. ft.: $ 0.75 $ 440,700 $ 440,700 Freese and Nichols, Inc. Updated: 612017 17 City of Schertz Impact Fee Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Estimate ECKHARDT ROAD Froboese Ln. to Green Valley Rd. Functional Classification: Residential Collector No. of Lanes: 2 Length (If): 5,861 Right -of -Way Width (ft.): 70 Median Type: None Pavement Width (Edge to Edge): 38 Description: Widening of roadway to thoroughfare standard On- street bicycle facility (Pavement: 7' + T) Item No. Item Description Quantity Unit Item Cost Unit Cost Pavement Markings & Signage Item Cost 1 Right of Way Preparation 59 STA $ 3,000.00 $ 177,000 2 Unclassified Street Excavation 10,600 CY $ 20.00 $ 212,000 3 3" HMAC (Type "D ") 24,800 SY $ 18.00 $ 446,400 4 10" Flex Base 28,700 SY $ 18.00 $ 516,600 5 6" Moisture Conditioned Subgrade 28,700 SY $ 7.00 $ 200,900 6 TX -5 Geogrid 28,700 SY $ 1.00 $ 28,700 7 6" Monolithic Concrete Curb & Gutter 11,730 LF $ 25.00 $ 293,250 8 4" Concrete Sidewalk and Ramps 6,500 SY $ 50.00 $ 325,000 9 Block Sodding and Topsoil 13,020 SY $ 5.00 $ 65,100 Item No. Item Description Pct. Of Paving Allowance Item Cost 10 Pavement Markings & Signage 2% $ 45,300 11 Traffic Control 5% $ 113,300 12 Erosion Control 3% $ 68,000 13 Drainage Improvements (RCP, Inlets, MH, Outfalls) 20% $ 453,000 Item No. Item Description Notes Allowance Item Cost 14 Landscaping /Illumination None $ $ 15 Drainage Structures None $ $ - 16 Bridge Structures None $ $ - 17 Traffic Signals None - - $ $ - 18 Other None $ $ - Item Description Construction Engineering /Survey /Testing Right -of -Way Acquisition 2017 Impact Fee Update City of Schertz I, II, & III Construction Subtotal: $ 2,944,550 Mobilization 5% $ 147,300 Contineencv 10% $ 309,200 Notes Allowance Item Cost - $ 3,401,100 7% $ 238,100 Cost per sq. ft.: $ 0.75 $ 87,900 $ 87,900 Freese and Nichols, Inc. Updated: 612017 18 City of Schertz Impact Fee Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Estimate SCHWAB ROAD IH -35 to S. City Limits Functional Classification: Secondary Arterial =_ No. of Lanes: 4 Length (If): 6,019 Right -of -Way Width (ft.): 90 Median Type: Raised Pavement Width (Edge to Edge): 48 Description: Construction of new roadway to thoroughfare standard Shared -Use Path bicycle facility Item No. Item Description Quantity Unit Item Cost Unit Cost Pavement Markings & Signage Item Cost 1 Right of Way Preparation 61 STA $ 3,000.00 $ 183,000 2 Unclassified Street Excavation 14,800 CY $ 20.00 $ 296,000 3 3" HMAC (Type "D ") 32,200 SY $ 18.00 $ 579,600 4 10" Flex Base 40,200 SY $ 18.00 $ 723,600 5 6" Moisture Conditioned Subgrade 40,200 SY $ 7.00 $ 281,400 6 TX -5 Geogrid 40,200 SY $ 1.00 $ 40,200 7 6" Monolithic Concrete Curb & Gutter 24,080 LF $ 25.00 $ 602,000 8 4" Concrete Sidewalk and Ramps 10,000 SY $ 50.00 $ 500,000 9 Block Sodding and Topsoil 15,380 SY $ 5.00 $ 76,900 Item No. Item Description Pct. Of Paving Allowance Item Cost 10 Pavement Markings & Signage 2% $ 65,700 11 Traffic Control 5% $ 164,200 12 Erosion Control 3% $ 98,500 13 Drainage Improvements (RCP, Inlets, MH, Outfalls) 20% $ 656,600 Item No. Item Description Notes Allowance Item Cost 14 Landscaping /Illumination None $ $ 15 Drainage Structures None $ $ - 16 Bridge Structures None $ $ - 17 Traffic Signals None $ $ - 18 Other None $ $ - Item Description Construction Engineering /Survey /Testing Right -of -Way Acquisition 2017 Impact Fee Update City of Schertz I, II, & III Construction Subtotal: $ 4,267,700 Mobilization 5% - $ 213,400 Contineencv 10% $ 448,200 Notes Allowance Item Cost - $ 4,929,300 7% $ 345,100 Cost per sq. ft.: $ 0.75 $ 406,300 $ 406,300 Freese and Nichols, Inc. Updated: 612017 19 City of Schertz Impact Fee Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Estimate FROBOESE LANE Schwab Rd. to Eckhardt Rd. Functional Classification: Residential Collector No. of Lanes: 2 Length (If): 3,010 Right -of -Way Width (ft.): 70 Median Type: None Pavement Width (Edge to Edge): 38 Description: Construction of new roadway to thoroughfare standard - On- street bicycle facility (Pavement: 7' + T) Item No. Item Description Quantity Unit Item Cost Unit Cost Pavement Markings & Signage Item Cost 1 Right of Way Preparation 31 STA $ 3,000.00 $ 93,000 2 Unclassified Street Excavation 5,400 CY $ 20.00 $ 108,000 3 3" HMAC (Type "D ") 12,800 SY $ 18.00 $ 230,400 4 10" Flex Base 14,800 SY $ 18.00 $ 266,400 5 6" Moisture Conditioned Subgrade 14,800 SY $ 7.00 $ 103,600 6 TX -5 Geogrid 14,800 SY $ 1.00 $ 14,800 7 6" Monolithic Concrete Curb & Gutter 6,020 LF $ 25.00 $ 150,500 8 4" Concrete Sidewalk and Ramps 3,300 SY $ 50.00 $ 165,000 9 Block Sodding and Topsoil 6,690 SY $ 5.00 $ 33,450 Item No. Item Description Pct. Of Paving Allowance Item Cost 10 Pavement Markings & Signage 2% $ 23,400 11 Traffic Control 5% $ 58,300 12 Erosion Control 3% $ 35,000 13 Drainage Improvements (RCP, Inlets, MH, Outfalls) 20% $ 233,100 Item No. Item Description Notes Allowance Item Cost 14 Landscaping /Illumination None $ - $ 15 Drainage Structures None - $ $ - 16 Bridge Structures None - - - $ - $ - 17 Traffic Signals None - - - $ - $ - 18 Other None - - - $ - $ - Item Description Construction Engineering /Survey /Testing Right -of -Way Acquisition 2017 Impact Fee Update City of Schertz I, II, & III Construction Subtotal: $ 1,514,950 Mobilization 5% $ 75,800 Contineencv 10% $ 159,100 Notes Allowance Item Cost - $ 1,749,900 7% $ 122,500 Cost per sq. ft.: $ 0.75 $ 158,000 $ 158,000 Freese and Nichols, Inc. Updated: 612017 20 City of Schertz Impact Fee Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Estimate FROBOESE LANE E/W Break Pt. 1 to E/W Break Pt. 2 Functional Classification: Residential Collector No. of Lanes: 2 Length (If): 1,380 Right -of -Way Width (ft.): 70 Median Type: None Pavement Width (Edge to Edge): 38 Description: Widening of roadway to thoroughfare standard On- street bicycle facility (Pavement: 7' + T) Item No. Item Description Quantity Unit Item Cost Unit Cost Pavement Markings & Signage Item Cost 1 Right of Way Preparation 14 STA $ 3,000.00 $ 42,000 2 Unclassified Street Excavation 2,500 CY $ 20.00 $ 50,000 3 3" HMAC (Type "D ") 5,900 SY $ 18.00 $ 106,200 4 10" Flex Base 6,800 SY $ 18.00 $ 122,400 5 6" Moisture Conditioned Subgrade 6,800 SY $ 7.00 $ 47,600 6 TX -5 Geogrid 6,800 SY $ 1.00 $ 6,800 7 6" Monolithic Concrete Curb & Gutter 2,760 LF $ 25.00 $ 69,000 8 4" Concrete Sidewalk and Ramps 1,500 SY $ 50.00 $ 75,000 9 Block Sodding and Topsoil 3,070 SY $ 5.00 $ 15,350 Item No. Item Description Pct. Of Paving Allowance Item Cost 10 Pavement Markings & Signage 2% $ 10,700 11 Traffic Control 5% $ 26,800 12 Erosion Control 3% $ 16,100 13 Drainage Improvements (RCP, Inlets, MH, Outfalls) 20% $ 106,900 Item No. Item Description Notes Allowance Item Cost 14 Landscaping /Illumination None $ $ 15 Drainage Structures None $ $ - 16 Bridge Structures None $ $ - 17 Traffic Signals None $ $ - 18 Other None $ $ - Item Description Construction Engineering /Survey /Testing Right -of -Way Acquisition 2017 Impact Fee Update City of Schertz I, II, & III Construction Subtotal: $ 694,850 Mobilization 5% $ 34,800 Contineencv 10% $ 73,000 Notes Allowance Item Cost - $ 802,700 7% $ 56,200 Cost per sq. ft.: $ 0.75 $ 31,100 $ 31,100 Freese and Nichols, Inc. Updated: 612017 21 City of Schertz Impact Fee Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Estimate GREEN VALLEY ROAD W. City Limits to E. City Limits Functional Classification: Secondary Arterial No. of Lanes: 4 =_ Length (If): 4,594 Right -of -Way Width (ft.): 90 Median Type: Raised Pavement Width (Edge to Edge): 48 Description: Widening of roadway to thoroughfare standard Shared -Use Path bicycle facility Item No. Item Description Quantity Unit Item Cost Unit Cost Pavement Markings & Signage Item Cost 1 Right of Way Preparation 46 STA $ 3,000.00 $ 138,000 2 Unclassified Street Excavation 11,300 CY $ 20.00 $ 226,000 3 3" HMAC (Type "D ") 24,500 SY $ 18.00 $ 441,000 4 10" Flex Base 30,700 SY $ 18.00 $ 552,600 5 6" Moisture Conditioned Subgrade 30,700 SY $ 7.00 $ 214,900 6 TX -5 Geogrid 30,700 SY $ 1.00 $ 30,700 7 6" Monolithic Concrete Curb & Gutter 18,380 LF $ 25.00 $ 459,500 8 4" Concrete Sidewalk and Ramps 7,700 SY $ 50.00 $ 385,000 9 Block Sodding and Topsoil 11,740 SY $ 5.00 $ 58,700 Item No. Item Description Pct. Of Paving Allowance Item Cost 10 Pavement Markings & Signage 2% $ 50,200 11 Traffic Control 5% $ 125,400 12 Erosion Control 3% $ 75,200 13 Drainage Improvements (RCP, Inlets, MH, Outfalls) 20% $ 501,300 Item No. Item Description Notes Allowance Item Cost 14 Landscaping /Illumination None $ $ 15 Drainage Structures None $ $ - 16 Bridge Structures None - - $ $ - 17 Traffic Signals None $ $ - 18 Other None - - $ $ - Item Description Construction Engineering /Survey /Testing Right -of -Way Acquisition 2017 Impact Fee Update City of Schertz I, II, & III Construction Subtotal: $ 3,258,500 Mobilization 5% $ 163,000 Contineencv 10% $ 342,200 Notes Allowance Item Cost - $ 3,763,700 7% $ 263,500 Cost per sq. ft.: $ 0.75 $ 172,300 $ 172,300 Freese and Nichols, Inc. Updated: 612017 22 City of Schertz Impact Fee Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Estimate HOMESTEAD PARKWAY Existing Homestead Pkwy. to S. City Limits Functional Classification: Residential Collector No. of Lanes: 2 Length (If): 1,742 Right -of -Way Width (ft.): 70 Median Type: None Pavement Width (Edge to Edge): 38 Description: Construction of new roadway to thoroughfare standard On- street bicycle facility (Pavement: 7' + T) Item No. Item Description Quantity Unit Item Cost Unit Cost Pavement Markings & Signage Item Cost 1 Right of Way Preparation 18 STA $ 3,000.00 $ 54,000 2 Unclassified Street Excavation 3,200 Cy $ 20.00 $ 64,000 3 3" HMAC (Type "D ") 7,400 SY $ 18.00 $ 133,200 4 10" Flex Base 8,600 SY $ 18.00 $ 154,800 5 6" Moisture Conditioned Subgrade 8,600 SY $ 7.00 $ 60,200 6 TX -5 Geogrid 8,600 SY $ 1.00 $ 8,600 7 6" Monolithic Concrete Curb & Gutter 3,490 LF $ 25.00 $ 87,250 8 4" Concrete Sidewalk and Ramps 1,900 SY $ 50.00 $ 95,000 9 Block Sodding and Topsoil 3,870 SY $ 5.00 $ 19,350 Item No. Item Description Pct. Of Paving Allowance Item Cost 10 Pavement Markings & Signage 2% $ 13,600 11 Traffic Control 5% $ 33,900 12 Erosion Control 3% $ 20,300 13 Drainage Improvements (RCP, Inlets, MH, Outfalls) 20% $ 135,300 Item No. Item Description Notes Allowance Item Cost 14 Landscaping /Illumination None $ $ 15 Drainage Structures None - - $ $ - 16 Bridge Structures None $ $ - 17 Traffic Signals None $ $ - 18 Other None $ $ - Item Description Construction Engineering /Survey /Testing Right -of -Way Acquisition 2017 Impact Fee Update City of Schertz I, II, & III Construction Subtotal: $ 879,500 Mobilization 5% $ 44,000 Contineencv 10% $ 92,400 Notes Allowance Item Cost - $ 1,015,900 7% $ 71,100 Cost per sq. ft.: $ 0.75 $ 91,500 $ 91,500 Freese and Nichols, Inc. Updated: 612017 23 City of Schertz Impact Fee Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Estimate COUNTRY CLUB BOULEVARD Scenic Links to S. City Limits Functional Classification: Residential Collector No. of Lanes: 2 Length (If): 1,848 Right -of -Way Width (ft.): 70 Median Type: None Pavement Width (Edge to Edge): 38 Description: Construction of new roadway to thoroughfare standard - On- street bicycle facility (Pavement: 7' + T) Item No. Item Description Quantity Unit Item Cost Unit Cost Pavement Markings & Signage Item Cost 1 Right of Way Preparation 19 STA $ 3,000.00 $ 57,000 2 Unclassified Street Excavation 3,400 CY $ 20.00 $ 68,000 3 3" HMAC (Type "D ") 7,900 SY $ 18.00 $ 142,200 4 10" Flex Base 9,100 SY $ 18.00 $ 163,800 5 6" Moisture Conditioned Subgrade 9,100 SY $ 7.00 $ 63,700 6 TX -5 Geogrid 9,100 SY $ 1.00 $ 9,100 7 6" Monolithic Concrete Curb & Gutter 3,700 LF $ 25.00 $ 92,500 8 4" Concrete Sidewalk and Ramps 2,100 SY $ 50.00 $ 105,000 9 Block Sodding and Topsoil 4,110 SY $ 5.00 $ 20,550 Item No. Item Description Pct. Of Paving Allowance Item Cost 10 Pavement Markings & Signage 2% $ 14,500 11 Traffic Control 5% $ 36,100 12 Erosion Control 3% $ 21,700 13 Drainage Improvements (RCP, Inlets, MH, Outfalls) 20% $ 144,400 Item No. Item Description Notes Allowance Item Cost 14 Landscaping /Illumination None $ $ 15 Drainage Structures None $ $ - 16 Bridge Structures None $ - $ - 17 Traffic Signals None $ $ - 18 Other None $ $ - Item Description Construction Engineering /Survey /Testing Right -of -Way Acquisition 2017 Impact Fee Update City of Schertz I, II, & III Construction Subtotal: $ 938,550 Mobilization 5% $ 47,000 Contineencv 10% $ 98,600 Notes Allowance Item Cost - $ 1,084,200 7% $ 75,900 Cost per sq. ft.: $ 0.75 $ 97,000 $ 97,000 Freese and Nichols, Inc. Updated: 612017 24 City of Schertz Impact Fee Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Estimate E/W CONNECTOR (4) Country Club Blvd. to Homestead Pkwy. Functional Classification: Residential Collector No. of Lanes: 2 Length (If): 4,073 Right -of -Way Width (ft.): 70 Median Type: None Pavement Width (Edge to Edge): 38 Description: Construction of new roadway to thoroughfare standard On- street bicycle facility (Pavement: 7' + T) Item No. Item Description Quantity Unit Item Cost Unit Cost Pavement Markings & Signage Item Cost 1 Right of Way Preparation 41 STA $ 3,000.00 $ 123,000 2 Unclassified Street Excavation 7,400 CY $ 20.00 $ 148,000 3 3" HMAC (Type "D ") 17,200 SY $ 18.00 $ 309,600 4 10" Flex Base 20,000 SY $ 18.00 $ 360,000 5 6" Moisture Conditioned Subgrade 20,000 SY $ 7.00 $ 140,000 6 TX -5 Geogrid 20,000 SY $ 1.00 $ 20,000 7 6" Monolithic Concrete Curb & Gutter 8,150 LF $ 25.00 $ 203,750 8 4" Concrete Sidewalk and Ramps 4,500 SY $ 50.00 $ 225,000 9 Block Sodding and Topsoil 9,050 SY $ 5.00 $ 45,250 Item No. Item Description Pct. Of Paving Allowance Item Cost 10 Pavement Markings & Signage 2% $ 30,600 11 Traffic Control 5% $ 76,500 12 Erosion Control 3% $ 45,900 13 Drainage Improvements (RCP, Inlets, MH, Outfalls) 20% $ 305,900 Item No. Item Description Notes Allowance Item Cost 14 Landscaping /Illumination None $ $ 15 Drainage Structures None $ $ - 16 Bridge Structures None $ $ - 17 Traffic Signals None $ $ - 18 Other None $ $ - Item Description Construction Engineering /Survey /Testing Right -of -Way Acquisition 2017 Impact Fee Update City of Schertz I, II, & III Construction Subtotal: $ 1,988,250 Mobilization 5% $ 99,500 Contineencv 10% $ 208,800 Notes Allowance Item Cost - $ 2,296,600 7% $ 160,800 Cost per sq. ft.: $ 0.75 $ 213,800 $ 213,800 Freese and Nichols, Inc. Updated: 612017 25 City of Schertz Impact Fee Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Estimate E/W CONNECTOR (4) Schwab Rd. to Eckhardt Rd. Functional Classification: Residential Collector No. of Lanes: 2 Length (If): 2,376 Right -of -Way Width (ft.): 70 Median Type: None Pavement Width (Edge to Edge): 38 - - - - - Description: Construction of new roadway to thoroughfare standard On- street bicycle facility (Pavement: 7' + T) Item No. Item Description Quantity Unit Item Cost Unit Cost Pavement Markings & Signage Item Cost 1 Right of Way Preparation 24 STA $ 3,000.00 $ 72,000 2 Unclassified Street Excavation 4,300 CY $ 20.00 $ 86,000 3 3" HMAC (Type "D ") 10,100 SY $ 18.00 $ 181,800 4 10" Flex Base 11,700 SY $ 18.00 $ 210,600 5 6" Moisture Conditioned Subgrade 11,700 SY $ 7.00 $ 81,900 6 TX -5 Geogrid 11,700 SY $ 1.00 $ 11,700 7 6" Monolithic Concrete Curb & Gutter 4,760 LF $ 25.00 $ 119,000 8 4" Concrete Sidewalk and Ramps 2,600 SY $ 50.00 $ 130,000 9 Block Sodding and Topsoil 5,280 SY $ 5.00 $ 26,400 Item No. Item Description Pct. Of Paving Allowance Item Cost 10 Pavement Markings & Signage 2% $ 18,400 11 Traffic Control 5% $ 46,000 12 Erosion Control 3% $ 27,600 13 Drainage Improvements (RCP, Inlets, MH, Outfalls) 20% $ 183,900 Item No. Item Description Notes Allowance Item Cost 14 Landscaping /Illumination None $ $ 15 Drainage Structures None - $ $ - 16 Bridge Structures None - - - - $ $ - 17 Traffic Signals None $ $ - 18 Other None $ $ - Item Description Construction Engineering /Survey /Testing Right -of -Way Acquisition 2017 Impact Fee Update City of Schertz I, II, & III Construction Subtotal: $ 1,195,300 Mobilization 5% $ 59,800 Contineencv 10% $ 125,600 Notes Allowance Item Cost - $ 1,380,700 7% $ 96,600 Cost per sq. ft.: $ 0.75 $ 124,700 $ 124,700 Freese and Nichols, Inc. Updated: 612017 26 City of Schertz Impact Fee Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Estimate FM 1103 IH -35 to Old Wiederstein Rd. Functional Classification: Principal Arterial No. of Lanes: 4 Length (If): 3,696 Right -of -Way Width (ft.): 130 Median Type: Raised - - - - - - Pavement Width (Edge to Edge): 48 Description: Widening of roadway to thoroughfare standard funded through City Go Bonds, TxDOT, and AAMPO. City contribution anticipated at $2,000,000 Item Description Notes Allowance Item Cost Construction City contribution - - - $ 2,000,000 Engineering /Survey /Testing 7% $ - Right -of -Way Acquisition Cost per sq. ft.: $ 0.75 $ - $ - 2017 Impact Fee Update Freese and Nichols, Inc. City of Schertz Updated: 612017 27 City of Schertz Impact Fee Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Estimate N/S CONNECTOR (1) IH -35 to Old Wiederstein Rd. Functional Classification: Secondary Arterial No. of Lanes: 4 Length (If): 2,904 Right -of -Way Width (ft.): 90 Median Type: Raised Pavement Width (Edge to Edge): 48 Description: Widening of roadway to thoroughfare standard Shared -Use Path bicycle facility Item No. Item Description Quantity Unit Item Cost Unit Cost Pavement Markings & Signage Item Cost 1 Right of Way Preparation 30 STA $ 3,000.00 $ 90,000 2 Unclassified Street Excavation 7,100 CY $ 20.00 $ 142,000 3 3" HMAC (Type "D ") 15,500 SY $ 18.00 $ 279,000 4 10" Flex Base 19,400 SY $ 18.00 $ 349,200 5 6" Moisture Conditioned Subgrade 19,400 SY $ 7.00 $ 135,800 6 TX -5 Geogrid 19,400 SY $ 1.00 $ 19,400 7 6" Monolithic Concrete Curb & Gutter 11,620 LF $ 25.00 $ 290,500 8 4" Concrete Sidewalk and Ramps 4,800 SY $ 50.00 $ 240,000 9 Block Sodding and Topsoil 7,420 SY $ 5.00 $ 37,100 Item No. Item Description Pct. Of Paving Allowance Item Cost 10 Pavement Markings & Signage 2% $ 31,700 11 Traffic Control 5% $ 79,200 12 Erosion Control 3% $ 47,500 13 Drainage Improvements (RCP, Inlets, MH, Outfalls) 20% $ 316,600 Item No. Item Description Notes Allowance Item Cost 14 Landscaping /Illumination None $ - $ - 15 Drainage Structures 1 Minor Crossing $ 100,000 $ 100,000 16 Bridge Structures None $ - $ - 17 Traffic Signals None $ $ - 18 Other None $ $ Item Description Construction Engineering /Survey /Testing Right -of -Way Acquisition 2017 Impact Fee Update City of Schertz I, II, & III Construction Subtotal: $ 2,158,000 Mobilization 5% $ 107,900 Contineencv 10% $ 226,600 Notes Allowance Item Cost - $ 2,492,500 7% $ 174,500 Cost per sq. ft.: $ 0.75 $ $ - Freese and Nichols, Inc. Updated: 612017 28 City of Schertz Impact Fee Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Estimate Functional Classification: Length (If): Right -of -Way Width (ft.): Median Type: Pavement Width (Edge to Edge) Description: N/S CONNECTOR (2) IH -35 to Old Wiederstein Rd. Secondary Arterial No. of Lanes: 4 3,854 90 Raised 48 Construction of new roadwa Shared -Use Path bicycle facil hfare standard Item No. Item Description Quantity Unit Item Cost Unit Cost Pavement Markings & Signage Item Cost 1 Right of Way Preparation 39 STA $ 3,000.00 $ 117,000 2 Unclassified Street Excavation 9,500 CY $ 20.00 $ 190,000 3 3" HMAC (Type "D ") 20,600 SY $ 18.00 $ 370,800 4 10" Flex Base 25,700 SY $ 18.00 $ 462,600 5 6" Moisture Conditioned Subgrade 25,700 SY $ 7.00 $ 179,900 6 TX -5 Geogrid 25,700 SY $ 1.00 $ 25,700 7 6" Monolithic Concrete Curb & Gutter 15,420 LF $ 25.00 $ 385,500 8 4" Concrete Sidewalk and Ramps 6,400 SY $ 50.00 $ 320,000 9 Block Sodding and Topsoil 9,850 SY $ 5.00 $ 49,250 Item No. Item Description Pct. Of Paving Allowance Item Cost 10 Pavement Markings & Signage 2% $ 42,100 11 Traffic Control 5% $ 105,100 12 Erosion Control 3% $ 63,100 13 Drainage Improvements (RCP, Inlets, MH, Outfalls) 20% $ 420,200 Item No. Item Description Notes Allowance Item Cost 14 Landscaping /Illumination None $ $ 15 Drainage Structures None $ $ - 16 Bridge Structures None $ $ - 17 Traffic Signals None - - $ $ - 18 Other None $ $ - Item Description Construction Engineering /Survey /Testing Right -of -Way Acquisition 2017 Impact Fee Update City of Schertz I, II, & III Construction Subtotal: $ 2,731,250 Mobilization 5% $ 136,600 Contineencv 10% $ 286,800 Notes Allowance Item Cost - $ 3,154,700 7% $ 220,800 Cost per sq. ft.: $ 0.75 $ 260,200 $ 260,200 Freese and Nichols, Inc. Updated: 612017 29 City of Schertz Impact Fee Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Estimate E/W CONNECTOR (5) N/S Connector (1) to FM 1103 Functional Classification: Residential Collector No. of Lanes: 2 Length (If): 10,552 Right -of -Way Width (ft.): 70 Median Type: None Pavement Width (Edge to Edge): 38 Description: Construction of new roadway to thoroughfare standard On- street bicycle facility (Pavement: 7' + T) Item No. Item Description Quantity Unit Item Cost Unit Cost Pavement Markings & Signage Item Cost 1 Right of Way Preparation 106 STA $ 3,000.00 $ 318,000 2 Unclassified Street Excavation 19,000 CY $ 20.00 $ 380,000 3 3" HMAC (Type "D ") 44,600 SY $ 18.00 $ 802,800 4 10" Flex Base 51,600 SY $ 18.00 $ 928,800 5 6" Moisture Conditioned Subgrade 51,600 SY $ 7.00 $ 361,200 6 TX -5 Geogrid 51,600 SY $ 1.00 $ 51,600 7 6" Monolithic Concrete Curb & Gutter 21,110 LF $ 25.00 $ 527,750 8 4" Concrete Sidewalk and Ramps 11,700 SY $ 50.00 $ 585,000 9 Block Sodding and Topsoil 23,450 SY $ 5.00 $ 117,250 Item No. Item Description Pct. Of Paving Allowance Item Cost 10 Pavement Markings & Signage 2% $ 81,500 11 Traffic Control 5% $ 203,700 12 Erosion Control 3% $ 122,200 13 Drainage Improvements (RCP, Inlets, MH, Outfalls) 20% $ 814,500 Item No. Item Description Notes Allowance Item Cost 14 Landscaping /Illumination None $ - $ 15 Drainage Structures None $ $ - 16 Bridge Structures None $ $ - 17 Traffic Signals None $ $ - 18 Other None $ $ - Item Description Construction Engineering /Survey /Testing Right -of -Way Acquisition 2017 Impact Fee Update City of Schertz I, II, & III Construction Subtotal: $ 5,294,300 Mobilization 5% $ 264,800 Contineencv 10% $ 556,000 Notes Allowance Item Cost - $ 6,115,100 7% $ 428,100 Cost per sq. ft.: $ 0.75 $ 554,000 $ 554,000 Freese and Nichols, Inc. Updated: 612017 30 City of Schertz Impact Fee Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Estimate OLD WIEDERSTEIN ROAD N/S Connector (1) to Cherry Tree Dr. Functional Classification: Secondary Arterial No. of Lanes: 4 =_ Length (If): 11,458 Right -of -Way Width (ft.): 90 Median Type: Raised Pavement Width (Edge to Edge): 48 Description: Widening of roadway to thoroughfare standard Shared -Use Path bicycle facility Item No. Item Description Quantity Unit Item Cost Unit Cost Pavement Markings & Signage Item Cost 1 Right of Way Preparation 115 STA $ 3,000.00 $ 345,000 2 Unclassified Street Excavation 28,100 CY $ 20.00 $ 562,000 3 3" HMAC (Type "D ") 61,200 SY $ 18.00 $ 1,101,600 4 10" Flex Base 76,400 SY $ 18.00 $ 1,375,200 5 6" Moisture Conditioned Subgrade 76,400 SY $ 7.00 $ 534,800 6 TX -5 Geogrid 76,400 SY $ 1.00 $ 76,400 7 6" Monolithic Concrete Curb & Gutter 45,840 LF $ 25.00 $ 1,146,000 8 4" Concrete Sidewalk and Ramps 19,100 SY $ 50.00 $ 955,000 9 Block Sodding and Topsoil 29,280 SY $ 5.00 $ 146,400 Item No. Item Description Pct. Of Paving Allowance Item Cost 10 Pavement Markings & Signage 2% $ 124,900 11 Traffic Control 5% $ 312,200 12 Erosion Control 3% $ 187,300 13 Drainage Improvements (RCP, Inlets, MH, Outfalls) 20% $ 1,248,500 Item No. Item Description Notes Allowance Item Cost 14 Landscaping /Illumination None $ $ 15 Drainage Structures None $ $ - 16 Bridge Structures None $ $ - 17 Traffic Signals None $ $ - 18 Other None $ - $ - Item Description Construction Engineering /Survey /Testing Right -of -Way Acquisition 2017 Impact Fee Update City of Schertz I, II, & III Construction Subtotal: $ 8,115,300 Mobilization 5% $ 405,800 Contineencv 10% $ 852,200 Notes Allowance Item Cost - $ 9,373,300 7% $ 656,100 Cost per sq. ft.: $ 0.75 $ 257,800 $ 257,800 Freese and Nichols, Inc. Updated: 612017 31 City of Schertz Impact Fee Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Estimate DOERR LANE N. City Limits to Lookout Rd. Functional Classification: Commercial Collector A No. of Lanes: 3 Length (If): 4,805 Right -of -Way Width (ft.): 70 Median Type: Two -Way Left Turn Lane Pavement Width (Edge to Edge): 38 Description: Widening of roadway to thoroughfare standard Shared -Use Path bicycle facility Item No. Item Description Quantity Unit Item Cost Unit Cost Pavement Markings & Signage Item Cost 1 Right of Way Preparation 49 STA $ 3,000.00 $ 147,000 2 Unclassified Street Excavation 8,700 CY $ 20.00 $ 174,000 3 3" HMAC (Type "D ") 20,300 SY $ 18.00 $ 365,400 4 10" Flex Base 23,500 SY $ 18.00 $ 423,000 5 6" Moisture Conditioned Subgrade 23,500 SY $ 4.00 $ 94,000 6 TX -5 Geogrid 23,500 SY $ 1.00 $ 23,500 7 6" Monolithic Concrete Curb & Gutter 9,610 LF $ 25.00 $ 240,250 8 4" Concrete Sidewalk and Ramps 8,000 SY $ 50.00 $ 400,000 9 Block Sodding and Topsoil 8,010 SY $ 5.00 $ 40,050 Item No. Item Description Pct. Of Paving Allowance Item Cost 10 Pavement Markings & Signage 2% $ 38,200 11 Traffic Control 5% $ 95,400 12 Erosion Control 3% $ 57,300 13 Drainage Improvements (RCP, Inlets, MH, Outfalls) 20% $ 381,500 Item No. Item Description Notes Allowance 14 Landscaping /Illumination None $ $ 15 Drainage Structures None - $ $ 16 Bridge Structures None $ $ 17 Traffic Signals None - - - $ $ 18 Other At -grade RR crossing- $ 150,000 $ Item Description Construction Engineering /Survey /Testing Right -of -Way Acquisition 2017 Impact Fee Update City of Schertz I, II, & III Construction Subtotal: $ Mobilization 5% $ Contineencv 10% $ Item Cost 150,000 15©,000 2,629,600 131,500 276,200 Notes Allowance Item Cost - $ 3,037,300 7% $ 212,600 Cost per sq. ft.: $ 0.75 $ $ - Freese and Nichols, Inc. Updated: 612017 32 City of Schertz Impact Fee Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Estimate E/W CONNECTOR (2) FM 3009 to N/S Connector (1) Functional Classification: Commercial Collector B No. of Lanes: 2 Length (If): 4,277 Right -of -Way Width (ft.): 70 Median Type: None Pavement Width (Edge to Edge): 42 - - - - - - - Description: Construction of new roadway to thoroughfare standard - On- street parking (9' + 9') Item No. Item Description Quantity Unit Item Cost Unit Cost Pavement Markings & Signage Item Cost 1 Right of Way Preparation 43 STA $ 3,000.00 $ 129,000 2 Unclassified Street Excavation 8,400 CY $ 20.00 $ 168,000 3 3" HMAC (Type "D ") 20,000 SY $ 18.00 $ 360,000 4 10" Flex Base 22,900 SY $ 18.00 $ 412,200 5 6" Moisture Conditioned Subgrade 22,900 SY $ 4.00 $ 91,600 6 TX -5 Geogrid 22,900 SY $ 1.00 $ 22,900 7 6" Monolithic Concrete Curb & Gutter 8,560 LF $ 25.00 $ 214,000 8 4" Concrete Sidewalk and Ramps 11,400 SY $ 50.00 $ 570,000 9 Block Sodding and Topsoil 0 SY $ 5.00 $ - Item No. Item Description Pct. Of Paving Allowance Item Cost 10 Pavement Markings & Signage 2% $ 39,400 11 Traffic Control 5% $ 98,400 12 Erosion Control 3% $ 59,100 13 Drainage Improvements (RCP, Inlets, MH, Outfalls) 20% $ 393,600 Item No. Item Description Notes Allowance Item Cost 14 Landscaping /Illumination None $ ? $ 15 Drainage Structures None $ $ - 16 Bridge Structures None $ $ - 17 Traffic Signals None - $ $ - 18 Other None $ $ - Item Description Construction Engineering /Survey /Testing Right -of -Way Acquisition 2017 Impact Fee Update City of Schertz I, II, & III Construction Subtotal: $ 2,558,200 Mobilization 5% $ 128,000 Contineencv 10% $ 268,700 Notes Allowance Item Cost - $ 2,954,900 7% $ 206,800 Cost per sq. ft.: $ 0.75 $ 224,500 $ 224,500 Freese and Nichols, Inc. Updated: 612017 33 City of Schertz Impact Fee Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Estimate E/W CONNECTOR (6) FM 3009 to N/S Connector (1) Functional Classification: Commercial Collector B No. of Lanes: 2 Length (If): 4,277 Right -of -Way Width (ft.): 70 Median Type: None Pavement Width (Edge to Edge): 42 Description: Construction of new roadway to thoroughfare standard On- street parking (9' + 9') Item No. Item Description Quantity Unit Item Cost Unit Cost Pavement Markings & Signage Item Cost 1 Right of Way Preparation 43 STA $ 3,000.00 $ 129,000 2 Unclassified Street Excavation 8,400 CY $ 20.00 $ 168,000 3 3" HMAC (Type "D ") 20,000 SY $ 18.00 $ 360,000 4 10" Flex Base 22,900 SY $ 18.00 $ 412,200 5 6" Moisture Conditioned Subgrade 22,900 SY $ 4.00 $ 91,600 6 TX -5 Geogrid 22,900 SY $ 1.00 $ 22,900 7 6" Monolithic Concrete Curb & Gutter 8,560 LF $ 25.00 $ 214,000 8 4" Concrete Sidewalk and Ramps 11,400 SY $ 50.00 $ 570,000 9 Block Sodding and Topsoil 0 SY $ 5.00 $ - Item No. Item Description Pct. Of Paving Allowance Item Cost 10 Pavement Markings & Signage 2% $ 39,400 11 Traffic Control 5% $ 98,400 12 Erosion Control 3% $ 59,100 13 Drainage Improvements (RCP, Inlets, MH, Outfalls) 20% $ 393,600 Item No. Item Description Notes Allowance Item Cost 14 Landscaping /Illumination None $ $ 15 Drainage Structures None - $ $ - 16 Bridge Structures None $ $ - 17 Traffic Signals None $ $ - 18 Other None $ $ - Item Description Construction Engineering /Survey /Testing Right -of -Way Acquisition 2017 Impact Fee Update City of Schertz I, II, & III Construction Subtotal: $ 2,558,200 Mobilization 5% $ 127,900 Contineencv 10% $ 268,700 Notes Allowance Item Cost - $ 2,954,800 7% $ 206,800 Cost per sq. ft.: $ 0.75 $ 224,500 $ 224,500 Freese and Nichols, Inc. Updated: 612017 34 City of Schertz Impact Fee Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Estimate MID - CITIES PARKWAY IH -35 to FM 3009 Functional Classification: Commercial Collector A No. of Lanes: 3 Length (If): 5,174 Right -of -Way Width (ft.): 70 - - - - - Median Type: Two -Way Left Turn Lane Pavement Width (Edge to Edge): 38 Description: Widening of roadway to thoroughfare standard Shared -Use Path bicycle facility Item No. Item Description Quantity Unit Item Cost Unit Cost Pavement Markings & Signage Item Cost 1 Right of Way Preparation 52 STA $ 3,000.00 $ 156,000 2 Unclassified Street Excavation 9,300 CY $ 20.00 $ 186,000 3 3" HMAC (Type "D ") 21,900 SY $ 18.00 $ 394,200 4 10" Flex Base 25,300 SY $ 18.00 $ 455,400 5 6" Moisture Conditioned Subgrade 25,300 SY $ 4.00 $ 101,200 6 TX -5 Geogrid 25,300 SY $ 1.00 $ 25,300 7 6" Monolithic Concrete Curb & Gutter 10,350 LF $ 25.00 $ 258,750 8 4" Concrete Sidewalk and Ramps 8,600 SY $ 50.00 $ 430,000 9 Block Sodding and Topsoil 8,620 SY $ 5.00 $ 43,100 Item No. Item Description Pct. Of Paving Allowance Item Cost 10 Pavement Markings & Signage 2% $ 41,000 11 Traffic Control 5% $ 102,500 12 Erosion Control 3% $ 61,500 13 Drainage Improvements (RCP, Inlets, MH, Outfalls) 20% $ 410,000 Item No. Item Description Notes Allowance Item Cost 14 Landscaping /Illumination None - $ $ 15 Drainage Structures None $ $ - 16 Bridge Structures None $ $ - 17 Traffic Signals None $ $ - 18 Other None - - - $ $ - Item Description Construction Engineering /Survey /Testing Right -of -Way Acquisition 2017 Impact Fee Update City of Schertz I, II, & III Construction Subtotal: $ 2,664,950 Mobilization 5% $ 133,300 Contineencv 10% $ 279,900 Notes Allowance Item Cost - $ 3,078,200 7% $ 215,500 Cost per sq. ft.: $ 0.75 $ $ - Freese and Nichols, Inc. Updated: 612017 35 City of Schertz Impact Fee Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Estimate E/W CONNECTOR (1) FM 3009 to N/S Connector (1) Functional Classification: Secondary Arterial No. of Lanes: 4 Length (If): 4,277 Right -of -Way Width (ft.): 90 Median Type: Raised Pavement Width (Edge to Edge): 62 Description: Construction of new roadway to thoroughfare standard On- street bicycle facility (Pavement: 7' + T) Item No. Item Description Quantity Unit Item Cost Unit Cost Pavement Markings & Signage Item Cost 1 Right of Way Preparation 43 STA $ 3,000.00 $ 129,000 2 Unclassified Street Excavation 12,900 CY $ 20.00 $ 258,000 3 3" HMAC (Type "D ") 29,500 SY $ 18.00 $ 531,000 4 10" Flex Base 35,200 SY $ 18.00 $ 633,600 5 6" Moisture Conditioned Subgrade 35,200 SY $ 4.00 $ 140,800 6 TX -5 Geogrid 35,200 SY $ 1.00 $ 35,200 7 6" Monolithic Concrete Curb & Gutter 17,110 LF $ 25.00 $ 427,750 8 4" Concrete Sidewalk and Ramps 4,800 SY $ 50.00 $ 240,000 9 Block Sodding and Topsoil 6,650 SY $ 5.00 $ 33,250 Item No. Item Description Pct. Of Paving Allowance Item Cost 10 Pavement Markings & Signage 2% $ 48,600 11 Traffic Control 5% $ 121,500 12 Erosion Control 3% $ 72,900 13 Drainage Improvements (RCP, Inlets, MH, Outfalls) 20% $ 485,800 Item No. Item Description Notes Allowance Item Cost 14 Landscaping /Illumination None $ $ 15 Drainage Structures None $ $ - 16 Bridge Structures None $ $ - 17 Traffic Signals None $ $ - 18 Other None $ $ - Item Description Construction Engineering /Survey /Testing Right -of -Way Acquisition 2017 Impact Fee Update City of Schertz I, II, & III Construction Subtotal: $ 3,157,400 Mobilization 5% $ 157,900 Contineencv 10% $ 331,600 Notes Allowance Item Cost - $ 3,646,900 7% $ 255,300 Cost per sq. ft.: $ 0.75 $ 288,700 $ 288,700 Freese and Nichols, Inc. Updated: 612017 36 City of Schertz Impact Fee Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Estimate E/W CONNECTOR (7) W. City Limits to Doerr Ln. Functional Classification: Commercial Collector A No. of Lanes: 3 Length (If): 3,432 Right -of -Way Width (ft.): 70 Median Type: Two -Way Left Turn Lane Pavement Width (Edge to Edge): 38 Description: Construction of new roadway to thoroughfare standard Item No. Item Description Quantity Unit Item Cost Unit Cost Pavement Markings & Signage Item Cost 1 Right of Way Preparation 35 STA $ 3,000.00 $ 105,000 2 Unclassified Street Excavation 6,200 CY $ 20.00 $ 124,000 3 3" HMAC (Type "D ") 14,500 SY $ 18.00 $ 261,000 4 10" Flex Base 16,800 SY $ 18.00 $ 302,400 5 6" Moisture Conditioned Subgrade 16,800 SY $ 4.00 $ 67,200 6 TX -5 Geogrid 16,800 SY $ 1.00 $ 16,800 7 6" Monolithic Concrete Curb & Gutter 6,870 LF $ 25.00 $ 171,750 8 4" Concrete Sidewalk and Ramps 3,800 SY $ 50.00 $ 190,000 9 Block Sodding and Topsoil 7,630 SY $ 5.00 $ 38,150 Item No. Item Description Pct. Of Paving Allowance Item Cost 10 Pavement Markings & Signage 2% $ 25,600 11 Traffic Control 5% $ 63,900 12 Erosion Control 3% $ 38,300 13 Drainage Improvements (RCP, Inlets, MH, Outfalls) 20% $ 255,300 Item No. Item Description Notes Allowance Item Cost 14 Landscaping /Illumination None $ $ - 15 Drainage Structures None $ $ - 16 Bridge Structures None - - - $ $ - 17 Traffic Signals None - - $ $ - 18 Other None $ $ - Item Description Construction Engineering /Survey /Testing Right -of -Way Acquisition 2017 Impact Fee Update City of Schertz I, II, & III Construction Subtotal: $ 1,659,400 Mobilization 5% $ 83,000 Contineencv 10% $ 174,300 Notes Allowance Item Cost - $ 1,916,700 7% $ 134,200 Cost per sq. ft.: $ 0.75 $ 180,200 $ 180,200 Freese and Nichols, Inc. Updated: 612017 37 City of Schertz Impact Fee Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Estimate LOOKOUT ROAD Tri- County Pkwy. to Schertz Pkwy. Functional Classification: Commercial Collector A No. of Lanes: 3 Length (If): 3,907 Right -of -Way Width (ft.): 70 Median Type: Two -Way Left Turn Lane Pavement Width (Edge to Edge): 38 Description: Widening of roadway to thoroughfare standard Shared -Use Path bicycle facility Item No. Item Description Quantity Unit Item Cost Unit Cost Pavement Markings & Signage Item Cost 1 Right of Way Preparation 40 STA $ 3,000.00 $ 120,000 2 Unclassified Street Excavation 7,100 CY $ 20.00 $ 142,000 3 3" HMAC (Type "D ") 16,500 SY $ 18.00 $ 297,000 4 10" Flex Base 19,200 SY $ 18.00 $ 345,600 5 6" Moisture Conditioned Subgrade 19,200 SY $ 4.00 $ 76,800 6 TX -5 Geogrid 19,200 SY $ 1.00 $ 19,200 7 6" Monolithic Concrete Curb & Gutter 7,820 LF $ 25.00 $ 195,500 8 4" Concrete Sidewalk and Ramps 6,500 SY $ 50.00 $ 325,000 9 Block Sodding and Topsoil 6,510 SY $ 5.00 $ 32,550 Item No. Item Description Pct. Of Paving Allowance Item Cost 10 Pavement Markings & Signage 2% $ 31,100 11 Traffic Control 5% $ 77,700 12 Erosion Control 3% $ 46,700 13 Drainage Improvements (RCP, Inlets, MH, Outfalls) 20% $ 310,800 Item No. Item Description Notes Allowance Item Cost 14 Landscaping /Illumination None $ - $ - 15 Drainage Structures 2 Minor Crossings $ 200,000 $ 200,000 16 Bridge Structures None $ - $ - 17 Traffic Signals None - - $ $ - 18 Other None $ $ Item Description Construction Engineering /Survey /Testing Right -of -Way Acquisition 2017 Impact Fee Update City of Schertz I, II, & III Construction Subtotal: $ 2,219,950 Mobilization 5% - $ 111,000 Contineencv 10% $ 233,100 Notes Allowance Item Cost - $ 2,564,100 7% $ 179,500 Cost per sq. ft.: $ 0.75 $ $ - Freese and Nichols, Inc. Updated: 612017 38 City of Schertz Impact Fee Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Estimate FOUR OAKS LANE Existing Four Oaks Ln. to N/S Connector (1) Functional Classification: Length (If): Right -of -Way Width (ft.): Median Type: Pavement Width (Edge to Edge) Description: Commercial Collector A No. of Lanes: 3 2,851 70 Two -Way Left Turn Lane J 38 Construction of new roadway to thoroughfare standard Shared -Use Path bicycle facility Item No. Item Description Quantity Unit Item Cost Unit Cost Pavement Markings & Signage Item Cost 1 Right of Way Preparation 29 STA $ 3,000.00 $ 87,000 2 Unclassified Street Excavation 5,200 CY $ 20.00 $ 104,000 3 3" HMAC (Type "D ") 12,100 SY $ 18.00 $ 217,800 4 10" Flex Base 14,000 SY $ 18.00 $ 252,000 5 6" Moisture Conditioned Subgrade 14,000 SY $ 4.00 $ 56,000 6 TX -5 Geogrid 14,000 SY $ 1.00 $ 14,000 7 6" Monolithic Concrete Curb & Gutter 5,710 LF $ 25.00 $ 142,750 8 4" Concrete Sidewalk and Ramps 4,800 SY $ 50.00 $ 240,000 9 Block Sodding and Topsoil 4,750 SY $ 5.00 $ 23,750 Item No. Item Description Pct. Of Paving Allowance Item Cost 10 Pavement Markings & Signage 2% $ 22,800 11 Traffic Control 5% $ 56,900 12 Erosion Control 3% $ 34,200 13 Drainage Improvements (RCP, Inlets, MH, Outfalls) 20% $ 227,500 Item No. Item Description Notes Allowance Item Cost 14 Landscaping /Illumination None $ $ 15 Drainage Structures None $ $ - 16 Bridge Structures None $ $ - 17 Traffic Signals None $ $ - 18 Other None $ - $ - Item Description Construction Engineering /Survey /Testing Right -of -Way Acquisition 2017 Impact Fee Update City of Schertz I, II, & III Construction Subtotal: $ 1,478,700 Mobilization 5% $ 74,000 Contineencv 10% $ 155,300 Notes Allowance Item Cost - $ 1,708,000 7% $ 119,600 Cost per sq. ft.: $ 0.75 $ 149,700 $ 149,700 Freese and Nichols, Inc. Updated: 612017 39 City of Schertz Impact Fee Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Estimate Functional Classification: Length (If): Right -of -Way Width (ft.): Median Type: Pavement Width (Edge to Edge) Description: E. City Limits to FM 3009 Secondary Arterial No. of Lanes: 4 3,379 90 Raised 48 Construction of new roadway to thoroughfare standard Shared -Use Path bicycle facility Item No. Item Description Quantity Unit Item Cost Unit Cost Pavement Markings & Signage Item Cost 1 Right of Way Preparation 34 STA $ 3,000.00 $ 102,000 2 Unclassified Street Excavation 8,300 CY $ 20.00 $ 166,000 3 3" HMAC (Type "D ") 18,100 SY $ 18.00 $ 325,800 4 10" Flex Base 22,600 SY $ 18.00 $ 406,800 5 6" Moisture Conditioned Subgrade 22,600 SY $ 4.00 $ 90,400 6 TX -5 Geogrid 22,600 SY $ 1.00 $ 22,600 7 6" Monolithic Concrete Curb & Gutter 13,520 LF $ 25.00 $ 338,000 8 4" Concrete Sidewalk and Ramps 5,600 SY $ 50.00 $ 280,000 9 Block Sodding and Topsoil 8,640 SY $ 5.00 $ 43,200 Item No. Item Description Pct. Of Paving Allowance Item Cost 10 Pavement Markings & Signage 2% $ 35,500 11 Traffic Control 5% $ 88,800 12 Erosion Control 3% $ 53,300 13 Drainage Improvements (RCP, Inlets, MH, Outfalls) 20% $ 355,000 Item No. Item Description Notes Allowance Item Cost 14 Landscaping /Illumination None $ $ 15 Drainage Structures None $ $ - 16 Bridge Structures None $ $ - 17 Traffic Signals None $ $ - 18 Other None $ $ - Item Description Construction Engineering /Survey /Testing Right -of -Way Acquisition 2017 Impact Fee Update City of Schertz I, II, & III Construction Subtotal: $ 2,307,400 Mobilization 5% $ 115,400 Contineencv 10% $ 242,300 Notes Allowance Item Cost - $ 2,665,100 7% $ 186,600 Cost per sq. ft.: $ 0.75 $ 228,100 $ 228,100 Freese and Nichols, Inc. Updated: 612017 40 City of Schertz Impact Fee Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Estimate WIEDERSTEIN ROAD W. City Limits to Schertz Pkwy. Functional Classification: Residential Collector No. of Lanes: 2 Length (If): 2,165 Right -of -Way Width (ft.): 70 Median Type: None Pavement Width (Edge to Edge): 38 Description: Reconstruction of roadway to thoroughfare standard On- street bicycle facility (Pavement: 7' + T) Item No. Item Description Quantity Unit Item Cost Unit Cost Pavement Markings & Signage Item Cost 1 Right of Way Preparation 22 STA $ 3,000.00 $ 66,000 2 Unclassified Street Excavation 3,900 CY $ 20.00 $ 78,000 3 3" HMAC (Type "D ") 9,200 SY $ 18.00 $ 165,600 4 10" Flex Base 10,600 SY $ 18.00 $ 190,800 5 6" Moisture Conditioned Subgrade 10,600 SY $ 4.00 $ 42,400 6 TX -5 Geogrid 10,600 SY $ 1.00 $ 10,600 7 6" Monolithic Concrete Curb & Gutter 4,330 LF $ 25.00 $ 108,250 8 4" Concrete Sidewalk and Ramps 2,400 SY $ 50.00 $ 120,000 9 Block Sodding and Topsoil 4,810 SY $ 5.00 $ 24,050 Item No. Item Description Pct. Of Paving Allowance Item Cost 10 Pavement Markings & Signage 2% $ 16,200 11 Traffic Control 5% $ 40,300 12 Erosion Control 3% $ 24,200 13 Drainage Improvements (RCP, Inlets, MH, Outfalls) 20% $ 161,200 Item No. Item Description Notes Allowance Item Cost 14 Landscaping /Illumination None $ $ 15 Drainage Structures None $ $ - 16 Bridge Structures None $ $ - 17 Traffic Signals None - - $ $ - 18 Other None $ $ - Item Description Construction Engineering /Survey /Testing Right -of -Way Acquisition 2017 Impact Fee Update City of Schertz I, II, & III Construction Subtotal: $ 1,047,600 Mobilization 5% $ 52,400 Contineencv 10% $ 110,000 Notes Allowance Item Cost - $ 1,210,000 7% $ 84,700 Cost per sq. ft.: $ 0.75 $ $ - Freese and Nichols, Inc. Updated: 612017 41 City of Schertz Impact Fee Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Estimate BAPTIST HEALTH DRIVE Ripps - Kreusler to Wiederstein Rd. Functional Classification: Commercial Collector A No. of Lanes: 3 Length (If): 1,426 Right -of -Way Width (ft.): 70 Median Type: TWLTL Pavement Width (Edge to Edge): 38 Description: Construction of new roadway to thoroughfare standard Shared -Use Path bicycle facility Item No. Item Description Quantity Unit Item Cost Unit Cost Pavement Markings & Signage Item Cost 1 Right of Way Preparation 15 STA $ 3,000.00 $ 45,000 2 Unclassified Street Excavation 2,600 CY $ 20.00 $ 52,000 3 3" HMAC (Type "D ") 6,100 SY $ 18.00 $ 109,800 4 10" Flex Base 7,000 SY $ 18.00 $ 126,000 5 6" Moisture Conditioned Subgrade 7,000 SY $ 4.00 $ 28,000 6 TX -5 Geogrid 7,000 SY $ 1.00 $ 7,000 7 6" Monolithic Concrete Curb & Gutter 2,860 LF $ 25.00 $ 71,500 8 4" Concrete Sidewalk and Ramps 2,400 SY $ 50.00 $ 120,000 9 Block Sodding and Topsoil 2,380 SY $ 5.00 $ 11,900 Item No. Item Description Pct. Of Paving Allowance Item Cost 10 Pavement Markings & Signage 2% $ 11,500 11 Traffic Control 5% $ 28,600 12 Erosion Control 3% $ 17,200 13 Drainage Improvements (RCP, Inlets, MH, Outfalls) 20% $ 114,300 Item No. Item Description Notes Allowance Item Cost 14 Landscaping /Illumination None $ $ 15 Drainage Structures None $ $ - 16 Bridge Structures None - - - - $ $ - 17 Traffic Signals None $ $ - 18 Other None $ $ - Item Description Construction Engineering /Survey /Testing Right -of -Way Acquisition 2017 Impact Fee Update City of Schertz I, II, & III Construction Subtotal: $ 742,800 Mobilization 5% $ 37,200 Contineencv 10% $ 78,000 Notes Allowance Item Cost - $ 858,000 7% $ 60,100 Cost per sq. ft.: $ 0.75 $ 74,800 $ 74,800 Freese and Nichols, Inc. Updated: 612017 42 City of Schertz Impact Fee Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Estimate RIPPS- KREUSLER Baptist Health Dr. to End of Alignment Functional Classification: Commercial Collector A No. of Lanes: 3 Length (If): 1,162 Right -of -Way Width (ft.): 70 Median Type: TWLTL Pavement Width (Edge to Edge): 38 Description: Construction of new roadway to thoroughfare standard Shared -Use Path bicycle facility Item No. Item Description Quantity Unit Item Cost Unit Cost Pavement Markings & Signage Item Cost 1 Right of Way Preparation 12 STA $ 3,000.00 $ 36,000 2 Unclassified Street Excavation 2,100 CY $ 20.00 $ 42,000 3 3" HMAC (Type "D ") 5,000 SY $ 18.00 $ 90,000 4 10" Flex Base 5,700 SY $ 18.00 $ 102,600 5 6" Moisture Conditioned Subgrade 5,700 SY $ 4.00 $ 22,800 6 TX -5 Geogrid 5,700 SY $ 1.00 $ 5,700 7 6" Monolithic Concrete Curb & Gutter 2,330 LF $ 25.00 $ 58,250 8 4" Concrete Sidewalk and Ramps 1,900 SY $ 50.00 $ 95,000 9 Block Sodding and Topsoil 1,940 SY $ 5.00 $ 9,700 Item No. Item Description Pct. Of Paving Allowance Item Cost 10 Pavement Markings & Signage 2% $ 9,300 11 Traffic Control 5% $ 23,200 12 Erosion Control 3% $ 13,900 13 Drainage Improvements (RCP, Inlets, MH, Outfalls) 20% $ 92,500 Item No. Item Description Notes Allowance Item Cost 14 Landscaping /Illumination None $ $ 15 Drainage Structures None $ $ - 16 Bridge Structures None $ $ - 17 Traffic Signals None - - - $ $ - 18 Other None - - - $ $ - Item Description Construction Engineering /Survey /Testing Right -of -Way Acquisition 2017 Impact Fee Update City of Schertz I, II, & III Construction Subtotal: $ 600,950 Mobilization 5% $ 30,100 Contineencv 10% $ 63,200 Notes Allowance Item Cost - $ 694,300 7% $ 48,600 Cost per sq. ft.: $ 0.75 $ 61,000 $ 61,000 Freese and Nichols, Inc. Updated: 612017 43 City of Schertz Impact Fee Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Estimate MASKE ROAD FM 1518 to Oak St. Functional Classification: Commercial Collector A No. of Lanes: 3 Length (If): 2,851 Right -of -Way Width (ft.): 70 Median Type: Two -Way Left Turn Lane Pavement Width (Edge to Edge): 38 Description: Widening of roadway to thoroughfare standard Shared -Use Path bicycle facility Item No. Item Description Quantity Unit Item Cost Unit Cost Pavement Markings & Signage Item Cost 1 Right of Way Preparation 29 STA $ 3,000.00 $ 87,000 2 Unclassified Street Excavation 5,200 CY $ 20.00 $ 104,000 3 3" HMAC (Type "D ") 12,100 SY $ 18.00 $ 217,800 4 10" Flex Base 14,000 SY $ 18.00 $ 252,000 5 6" Moisture Conditioned Subgrade 14,000 SY $ 4.00 $ 56,000 6 TX -5 Geogrid 14,000 SY $ 1.00 $ 14,000 7 6" Monolithic Concrete Curb & Gutter 5,710 LF $ 25.00 $ 142,750 8 4" Concrete Sidewalk and Ramps 4,800 SY $ 50.00 $ 240,000 9 Block Sodding and Topsoil 4,750 SY $ 5.00 $ 23,750 Item No. Item Description Pct. Of Paving Allowance Item Cost 10 Pavement Markings & Signage 2% $ 22,800 11 Traffic Control 5% $ 56,900 12 Erosion Control 3% $ 34,200 13 Drainage Improvements (RCP, Inlets, MH, Outfalls) 20% $ 227,500 Item No. Item Description Notes Allowance Item Cost 14 Landscaping /Illumination None $ $ 15 Drainage Structures None $ $ - 16 Bridge Structures None $ $ - 17 Traffic Signals None $ $ - 18 Other None $ $ - Item Description Construction Engineering /Survey /Testing Right -of -Way Acquisition 2017 Impact Fee Update City of Schertz I, II, & III Construction Subtotal: $ 1,478,700 Mobilization 5% $ 74,000 Contineencv 10% $ 155,300 Notes Allowance Item Cost - $ 1,708,000 7% $ 119,600 Cost per sq. ft.: $ 0.75 $ $ - Freese and Nichols, Inc. Updated: 612017 44 City of Schertz Impact Fee Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Estimate MASKE ROAD Oak St. to Schertz Pkwy. Functional Classification: Residential Collector No. of Lanes: 2 Length (If): 4,646 Right -of -Way Width (ft.): 70 Median Type: None Pavement Width (Edge to Edge): 38 Description: Construction of new roadway to thoroughfare standard On- street bicycle facility (Pavement: 7' + T) Item No. Item Description Quantity Unit Item Cost Unit Cost Pavement Markings & Signage Item Cost 1 Right of Way Preparation 47 STA $ 3,000.00 $ 141,000 2 Unclassified Street Excavation 8,400 CY $ 20.00 $ 168,000 3 3" HMAC (Type "D ") 19,700 SY $ 18.00 $ 354,600 4 10" Flex Base 22,800 SY $ 18.00 $ 410,400 5 6" Moisture Conditioned Subgrade 22,800 SY $ 4.00 $ 91,200 6 TX -5 Geogrid 22,800 SY $ 1.00 $ 22,800 7 6" Monolithic Concrete Curb & Gutter 9,300 LF $ 25.00 $ 232,500 8 4" Concrete Sidewalk and Ramps 5,200 SY $ 50.00 $ 260,000 9 Block Sodding and Topsoil 10,330 SY $ 5.00 $ 51,650 Item No. Item Description Pct. Of Paving Allowance Item Cost 10 Pavement Markings & Signage 2% $ 34,700 11 Traffic Control 5% $ 86,700 12 Erosion Control 3% $ 52,000 13 Drainage Improvements (RCP, Inlets, MH, Outfalls) 20% $ 346,500 Item No. Item Description Notes Allowance Item Cost 14 Landscaping /Illumination None $ - $ - 15 Drainage Structures 1 Major Crossing $ 500,000 $ 500,000 16 Bridge Structures None $ - $ - 17 Traffic Signals None - - $ $ - 18 Other None $ $ - Item Description Construction Engineering /Survey /Testing Right -of -Way Acquisition 2017 Impact Fee Update City of Schertz I, II, & III Construction Subtotal: $ 2,752,050 Mobilization 5% $ 137,700 Contineencv 10% $ 289,000 Notes Allowance Item Cost - $ 3,178,800 7% $ 222,500 Cost per sq. ft.: $ 0.75 $ 243,900 $ 243,900 Freese and Nichols, Inc. Updated: 612017 45 City of Schertz Impact Fee Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Estimate Functional Classification: Length (If): Right -of -Way Width (ft.): Median Type: Pavement Width (Edge to Edge) Description: FM 1518 Maske Rd. to Oak St. Secondary Arterial = No. of Lanes: 3 -_ 6.864 70 Two -Way Left Turn Lane 38 Widening of roadway to thoroughfare standard; special section Shared -Use Path bicycle facility Item No. Item Description Quantity Unit Item Cost Unit Cost Pavement Markings & Signage Item Cost 1 Right of Way Preparation 69 STA $ 3,000.00 $ 207,000 2 Unclassified Street Excavation 12,400 CY $ 20.00 $ 248,000 3 3" HMAC (Type "D ") 29,000 SY $ 18.00 $ 522,000 4 10" Flex Base 33,600 SY $ 18.00 $ 604,800 5 6" Moisture Conditioned Subgrade 33,600 SY $ 4.00 $ 134,400 6 TX -5 Geogrid 33,600 SY $ 1.00 $ 33,600 7 6" Monolithic Concrete Curb & Gutter 13,730 LF $ 25.00 $ 343,250 8 4" Concrete Sidewalk and Ramps 11,400 SY $ 50.00 $ 570,000 9 Block Sodding and Topsoil 11,440 SY $ 5.00 $ 57,200 Item No. Item Description Pct. Of Paving Allowance Item Cost 10 Pavement Markings & Signage 2% $ 54,500 11 Traffic Control 5% $ 136,100 12 Erosion Control 3% $ 81,700 13 Drainage Improvements (RCP, Inlets, MH, Outfalls) 20% $ 544,100 Item No. Item Description Notes Allowance Item Cost 14 Landscaping /Illumination None - $ - $ - 15 Drainage Structures 1 Minor Crossing $ 100,000 $ 100,000 16 Bridge Structures None $ - $ - 17 Traffic Signals None $ $ - 18 Other None $ $ Item Description Construction Engineering /Survey /Testing Right -of -Way Acquisition 2017 Impact Fee Update City of Schertz I, II, & III Construction Subtotal: $ 3,636,650 Mobilization 5% $ 181,900 Contineencv 10% $ 381,900 Notes Allowance Item Cost - $ 4,200,500 7% $ 294,000 Cost per sq. ft.: $ 0.75 $ $ - Freese and Nichols, Inc. Updated: 612017 46 City of Schertz Impact Fee Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Estimate FM 1518 N. City Limits to Service Area 3 Limit Functional Classification: Principal Arterial No. of Lanes: 6 Length (If): 1,901 Right -of -Way Width (ft.): 130 Median Type: Raised - - - - - - Pavement Width (Edge to Edge): 68 Description: Widening of roadway to thoroughfare standard Shared -Use Path bicycle facility Item No. Item Description Quantity Unit Item Cost Unit Cost Pavement Markings & Signage Item Cost 1 Right of Way Preparation 20 STA $ 3,000.00 $ 60,000 2 Unclassified Street Excavation 6,200 CY $ 20.00 $ 124,000 3 3" HMAC (Type "D ") 14,400 SY $ 18.00 $ 259,200 4 10" Flex Base 16,900 SY $ 18.00 $ 304,200 5 6" Moisture Conditioned Subgrade 16,900 SY $ 4.00 $ 67,600 6 TX -5 Geogrid 16,900 SY $ 1.00 $ 16,900 7 6" Monolithic Concrete Curb & Gutter 7,610 LF $ 25.00 $ 190,250 8 4" Concrete Sidewalk and Ramps 3,200 SY $ 50.00 $ 160,000 9 Block Sodding and Topsoil 9,080 SY $ 5.00 $ 45,400 Item No. Item Description Pct. Of Paving Allowance Item Cost 10 Pavement Markings & Signage 2% $ 24,600 11 Traffic Control 5% $ 61,400 12 Erosion Control 3% $ 36,900 13 Drainage Improvements (RCP, Inlets, MH, Outfalls) 20% $ 245,600 Item No. Item Description Notes Allowance Item Cost 14 Landscaping /Illumination None $ - $ - 15 Drainage Structures 1 Minor Crossing $ 100,000 = $ 100,000 16 Bridge Structures None $ - $ - 17 Traffic Signals None $ $ - 18 Other None $ - $ - Item Description Construction Engineering /Survey /Testing Right -of -Way Acquisition 2017 Impact Fee Update City of Schertz I, II, & III Construction Subtotal: $ 1,696,050 Mobilization 5% $ 84,900 Contineencv 10% $ 178,100 Notes Allowance Item Cost City Contribution (TxDOT) 20% $ 391,800 7% $ 27,400 Cost per sq. ft.: $ 0.75 $ 17,100 $ 17,100 Freese and Nichols, Inc. Updated: 612017 47 City of Schertz Impact Fee Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Estimate FM 1518 Service Area 3 Limit to Schertz Pkwy. Extension Functional Classification: Principal Arterial No. of Lanes: 6 Length (If): 2,059 Right -of -Way Width (ft.): 130 Median Type: Raised - - - - - - Pavement Width (Edge to Edge): 68 Description: Widening of roadway to thoroughfare standard Shared -Use Path bicycle facility Item No. Item Description Quantity Unit Item Cost Unit Cost Pavement Markings & Signage Item Cost 1 Right of Way Preparation 21 STA $ 3,000.00 $ 63,000 2 Unclassified Street Excavation 6,800 CY $ 20.00 $ 136,000 3 3" HMAC (Type "D ") 15,600 SY $ 18.00 $ 280,800 4 10" Flex Base 18,400 SY $ 18.00 $ 331,200 5 6" Moisture Conditioned Subgrade 18,400 SY $ 4.00 $ 73,600 6 TX -5 Geogrid 18,400 SY $ 1.00 $ 18,400 7 6" Monolithic Concrete Curb & Gutter 8,240 LF $ 25.00 $ 206,000 8 4" Concrete Sidewalk and Ramps 3,400 SY $ 50.00 $ 170,000 9 Block Sodding and Topsoil 9,840 SY $ 5.00 $ 49,200 Item No. Item Description Pct. Of Paving Allowance Item Cost 10 Pavement Markings & Signage 2% $ 26,600 11 Traffic Control 5% $ 66,500 12 Erosion Control 3% $ 39,900 13 Drainage Improvements (RCP, Inlets, MH, Outfalls) 20%_ $ 265,700 Item No. Item Description Notes Allowance Item Cost 14 Landscaping /Illumination None $ $ 15 Drainage Structures None $ $ - 16 Bridge Structures None - - - $ $ - 17 Traffic Signals None $ $ - 18 Other None $ $ - Item Description Construction Engineering /Survey /Testing Right -of -Way Acquisition 2017 Impact Fee Update City of Schertz I, II, & III Construction Subtotal: $ 1,726,900 Mobilization 5% $ 86,400 Contineencv 10% $ 181,400 Notes Allowance Item Cost City Contribution (TxDOT) 20% $ 398,900 7% $ 27,900 Cost per sq. ft.: $ 0.75 $ 18,500 $ 18,500 Freese and Nichols, Inc. Updated: 612017 48 City of Schertz Impact Fee Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Estimate FM 78 /JOHN PETERSON BOULEVARD W. City Limits to E. City Limits Functional Classification: Principal Arterial No. of Lanes: 6 Length (If): 9,557 Right -of -Way Width (ft.): 120 Median Type: Raised - - - - - - Pavement Width (Edge to Edge): 68 Description: Widening of roadway to thoroughfare standard Shared -Use Path bicycle facility Item No. Item Description Quantity Unit Item Cost Unit Cost Pavement Markings & Signage Item Cost 1 Right of Way Preparation 96 STA $ 3,000.00 $ 288,000 2 Unclassified Street Excavation 31,200 CY $ 20.00 $ 624,000 3 3" HMAC (Type "D ") 72,300 SY $ 18.00 $ 1,301,400 4 10" Flex Base 85,000 SY $ 18.00 $ 1,530,000 5 6" Moisture Conditioned Subgrade 85,000 SY $ 4.00 $ 340,000 6 TX -5 Geogrid 85,000 SY $ 1.00 $ 85,000 7 6" Monolithic Concrete Curb & Gutter 38,230 LF $ 25.00 $ 955,750 8 4" Concrete Sidewalk and Ramps 15,900 SY $ 50.00 $ 795,000 9 Block Sodding and Topsoil 35,040 SY $ 5.00 $ 175,200 Item No. Item Description Pct. Of Paving Allowance Item Cost 10 Pavement Markings & Signage 2% $ 121,900 11 Traffic Control 5% $ 304,800 12 Erosion Control 3% $ 182,900 13 Drainage Improvements (RCP, Inlets, MH, Outfalls) 20% $ 1,218,900 Item No. Item Description Notes Allowance Item Cost 14 Landscaping /Illumination None $ - $ - 15 Drainage Structures 1 Minor Crossing $ 100,000 $ 100,000 16 Bridge Structures 1/2 Bridge on Either End $ 2,835,000 $ 2,835,000 17 Traffic Signals None $ - $ - 18 Other None $ - $ Item Description Construction Engineering /Survey /Testing Right -of -Way Acquisition 2017 Impact Fee Update City of Schertz I, II, & III Construction Subtotal: $ 10,857,850 Mobilization 5% = $ 542,900 Contineencv 10% = $ 1,140,100 Notes Allowance Item Cost City Contribution (TxDOT) 20% $ 2,508,180 7% $ 175,600 Cost per sq. ft.: $ 0.75 $ $ - Freese and Nichols, Inc. Updated: 612017 49 City of Schertz Impact Fee Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Estimate FM 1518 Schertz Pkwy. Extension to IH -10 Functional Classification: Principal Arterial No. of Lanes: 6 Length (If): 21,595 Right -of -Way Width (ft.): 130 Median Type: Raised - - - - - - Pavement Width (Edge to Edge): 68 Description: Widening of roadway to thoroughfare standard Shared -Use Path bicycle facility Item No. Item Description Quantity Unit Item Cost Unit Cost Pavement Markings & Signage Item Cost 1 Right of Way Preparation 216 STA $ 3,000.00 $ 648,000 2 Unclassified Street Excavation 70,400 CY $ 20.00 $ 1,408,000 3 3" HMAC (Type "D ") 163,200 SY $ 18.00 $ 2,937,600 4 10" Flex Base 192,000 SY $ 18.00 $ 3,456,000 5 6" Moisture Conditioned Subgrade 192,000 SY $ 4.00 $ 768,000 6 TX -5 Geogrid 192,000 SY $ 1.00 $ 192,000 7 6" Monolithic Concrete Curb & Gutter 86,390 LF $ 25.00 $ 2,159,750 8 4" Concrete Sidewalk and Ramps 36,000 SY $ 50.00 $ 1,800,000 9 Block Sodding and Topsoil 103,180 SY $ 5.00 $ 515,900 Item No. Item Description Pct. Of Paving Allowance Item Cost 10 Pavement Markings & Signage 2% $ 277,800 11 Traffic Control 5% $ 694,300 12 Erosion Control 3% $ 416,600 13 Drainage Improvements (RCP, Inlets, MH, Outfalls) 20% $ 2,777,100 Item No. Item Description Notes Allowance Item Cost 14 Landscaping /Illumination None $ - $ - 15 Drainage Structures 3 Minor Crossings - $ 300,000 $ 300,000 16 Bridge Structures 1 Bridge $ 1,890,000 $ 1,890,000 17 Traffic Signals None - - - $ - $ - 18 Other None - - - $ - $ Item Description Construction Engineering /Survey /Testing Right -of -Way Acquisition 2017 Impact Fee Update City of Schertz I, II, & III Construction Subtotal: $ 20,241,050 Mobilization 5% $ 1,012,100 Contineencv 10% $ 2,125,400 Notes Allowance Item Cost City Contribution (TxDOT) 20% $ 4,675,700 7% $ 327,300 Cost per sq. ft.: $ 0.75 $ 162,000 $ 162,000 Freese and Nichols, Inc. Updated: 612017 50 City of Schertz Impact Fee Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Estimate SCHAEFER ROAD W. City Limits to FM 1518 Functional Classification: Residential Collector No. of Lanes: 2 Length (If): 2,534 Right -of -Way Width (ft.): 70 Median Type: None Pavement Width (Edge to Edge): 38 Description: Widening of roadway to thoroughfare standard On- street bicycle facility (Pavement: 7' + T) Item No. Item Description Quantity Unit Item Cost Unit Cost Pavement Markings & Signage Item Cost 1 Right of Way Preparation 26 STA $ 3,000.00 $ 78,000 2 Unclassified Street Excavation 4,600 CY $ 20.00 $ 92,000 3 3" HMAC (Type "D ") 10,800 SY $ 18.00 $ 194,400 4 10" Flex Base 12,400 SY $ 18.00 $ 223,200 5 6" Moisture Conditioned Subgrade 12,400 SY $ 4.00 $ 49,600 6 TX -5 Geogrid 12,400 SY $ 1.00 $ 12,400 7 6" Monolithic Concrete Curb & Gutter 5,070 LF $ 25.00 $ 126,750 8 4" Concrete Sidewalk and Ramps 2,800 SY $ 50.00 $ 140,000 9 Block Sodding and Topsoil 5,630 SY $ 5.00 $ 28,150 Item No. Item Description Pct. Of Paving Allowance Item Cost 10 Pavement Markings & Signage 2% $ 18,900 11 Traffic Control 5% $ 47,300 12 Erosion Control 3% $ 28,400 13 Drainage Improvements (RCP, Inlets, MH, Outfalls) 20% $ 188,900 Item No. Item Description Notes Allowance Item Cost 14 Landscaping /Illumination None $ $ 15 Drainage Structures None - - $ $ - 16 Bridge Structures None $ $ - 17 Traffic Signals None $ $ - 18 Other None $ $ - Item Description Construction Engineering /Survey /Testing Right -of -Way Acquisition 2017 Impact Fee Update City of Schertz I, II, & III Construction Subtotal: $ 1,228,000 Mobilization 5% $ 61,400 Contineencv 10% $ 129,000 Notes Allowance Item Cost - $ 1,418,400 7% $ 99,300 Cost per sq. ft.: $ 0.75 $ 19,000 $ 19,000 Freese and Nichols, Inc. Updated: 612017 51 City of Schertz Impact Fee Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Estimate RAF- BURNETTE Schaefer Rd. to E. City Limits Functional Classification: Secondary Arterial No. of Lanes: 4 Length (If): 2,904 - Right -of -Way Width (ft.): 90 Median Type: Raised Pavement Width (Edge to Edge): 48 Description: Widening of roadway to thoroughfare standard Shared -Use Path bicycle facility Item No. Item Description Quantity Unit Item Cost Unit Cost Pavement Markings & Signage Item Cost 1 Right of Way Preparation 30 STA $ 3,000.00 $ 90,000 2 Unclassified Street Excavation 7,100 CY $ 20.00 $ 142,000 3 3" HMAC (Type "D ") 15,500 SY $ 18.00 $ 279,000 4 10" Flex Base 19,400 SY $ 18.00 $ 349,200 5 6" Moisture Conditioned Subgrade 19,400 SY $ 4.00 $ 77,600 6 TX -5 Geogrid 19,400 SY $ 1.00 $ 19,400 7 6" Monolithic Concrete Curb & Gutter 11,620 LF $ 25.00 $ 290,500 8 4" Concrete Sidewalk and Ramps 4,800 SY $ 50.00 $ 240,000 9 Block Sodding and Topsoil 7,420 SY $ 5.00 $ 37,100 Item No. Item Description Pct. Of Paving Allowance Item Cost 10 Pavement Markings & Signage 2% $ 30,500 11 Traffic Control 5% $ 76,300 12 Erosion Control 3% $ 45,800 13 Drainage Improvements (RCP, Inlets, MH, Outfalls) 20% $ 305,000 Item No. Item Description Notes Allowance Item Cost 14 Landscaping /Illumination None $ $ - 15 Drainage Structures None - $ $ - 16 Bridge Structures None $ $ - 17 Traffic Signals None $ $ - 18 Other None - - - - $ $ - Item Description Construction Engineering /Survey /Testing Right -of -Way Acquisition 2017 Impact Fee Update City of Schertz I, II, & III Construction Subtotal: $ 1,982,400 Mobilization 5% $ 99,200 Contineencv 10% $ 208,200 Notes Allowance Item Cost - $ 2,289,800 7% $ 160,300 Cost per sq. ft.: $ 0.75 $ 108,900 $ 108,900 Freese and Nichols, Inc. Updated: 612017 52 City of Schertz Impact Fee Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Estimate LOWER SEGUIN ROAD W. City Limits to E. of Tates Dr. Functional Classification: Secondary Rural Arterial No. of Lanes: 3 Length (If): 1,848 Right -of -Way Width (ft.): 90 Median Type: Two -Way Left Turn Lane Pavement Width (Edge to Edge): 48 Description: Widening of roadway to thoroughfare standard Shared -Use Path bicycle facility Item No. Item Description Quantity Unit Item Cost Unit Cost Pavement Markings & Signage Item Cost 1 Right of Way Preparation 19 STA $ 3,000.00 $ 57,000 2 Unclassified Street Excavation 4,100 CY $ 20.00 $ 82,000 3 3" HMAC (Type "D ") 9,900 SY $ 18.00 $ 178,200 4 10" Flex Base 11,100 SY $ 18.00 $ 199,800 5 6" Moisture Conditioned Subgrade 11,100 SY $ 4.00 $ 44,400 6 TX -5 Geogrid 11,100 SY $ 1.00 $ 11,100 7 6" Monolithic Concrete Curb & Gutter 3,700 LF $ 25.00 $ 92,500 8 4" Concrete Sidewalk and Ramps 3,100 SY $ 50.00 $ 155,000 9 Block Sodding and Topsoil 5,130 SY $ 5.00 $ 25,650 Item No. Item Description Pct. Of Paving Allowance Item Cost 10 Pavement Markings & Signage 2% $ 17,000 11 Traffic Control 5% $ 42,300 12 Erosion Control 3% $ 25,400 13 Drainage Improvements (RCP, Inlets, MH, Outfalls) 20% $ 169,200 Item No. Item Description Notes Allowance Item Cost 14 Landscaping /Illumination None $ $ 15 Drainage Structures None $ $ - 16 Bridge Structures None $ $ - 17 Traffic Signals None $ $ - 18 Other None $ $ - Item Description Construction Engineering /Survey /Testing Right -of -Way Acquisition 2017 Impact Fee Update City of Schertz I, II, & III Construction Subtotal: $ 1,099,550 Mobilization 5% $ 55,000 Contineencv 10% $ 115,500 Notes Allowance Item Cost - $ 1,270,100 7% $ 88,900 Cost per sq. ft.: $ 0.75 $ 13,900 $ 13,900 Freese and Nichols, Inc. Updated: 612017 53 City of Schertz Impact Fee Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Estimate LOWER SEGUIN ROAD E. of Tates Dr. to W. of Canopy Bend /Aranda Ln. Functional Classification: Secondary Rural Arterial No. of Lanes: 3 Length (If): 9,293 Right -of -Way Width (ft.): 90 Median Type: Two -Way Left Turn Lane Pavement Width (Edge to Edge): 48 Description: Widening of roadway to thoroughfare standard Shared -Use Path bicycle facility Item No. Item Description Quantity Unit $ Unit Cost 1 Right of Way Preparation 93 STA $ 3,000.00 $ 2 Unclassified Street Excavation 20,500 CY $ 20.00 $ 3 3" HMAC (Type "D ") 49,600 SY $ 18.00 $ 4 10" Flex Base 51,700 SY $ 18.00 $ 5 6" Moisture Conditioned Subgrade 51,700 SY $ 4.00 $ 6 TX -5 Geogrid 51,700 SY $ 1.00 $ 7 6" Monolithic Concrete Curb & Gutter 0 LF $ 25.00 $ 8 4" Concrete Sidewalk and Ramps 10,300 SY $ 50.00 $ 9 Block Sodding and Topsoil 33,040 SY $ 5.00 $ Item No. Item Description 10 Pavement Markings & Signage 11 Traffic Control 12 Erosion Control 13 Drainage Improvements (RCP, Inlets, MH, Outfalls) Item Cost 279,000 410,000 892,800 930,600 206,800 51,700 515,000 165,200 Pct. Of Paving Item Description Item Cost 2% $ 69,100 5% $ 172,600 3% $ 103,600 20% $ 690,300 Item No. Item Description Notes Allowance 14 Landscaping /Illumination None $ $ 15 Drainage Structures None $ $ 16 Bridge Structures 1 Bridge $ 1,120,000 $ 17 Traffic Signals None $ - $ 18 Other None $ $ Item Description Construction Engineering /Survey /Testing Right -of -Way Acquisition I, II, & III Construction Subtotal: $ Mobilization 5% $ Contineencv 10% $ Item Cost 1,120,000 1,120,000 5,606,700 280,400 588,800 Notes Allowance Item Cost - $ 6,475,900 7% $ 453,300 Cost per sq. ft.: $ 0.75 $ 69,700 $ 69,700 2017 Impact Fee Update Freese and Nichols, Inc. City of Schertz Updated: 612017 54 City of Schertz Impact Fee Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Estimate LOWER SEGUIN ROAD W. of Canopy Bend /Aranda Ln. to E. City Limits Functional Classification: Secondary Arterial No. of Lanes: 4 Length (If): 9,082 Right -of -Way Width (ft.): 90 Median Type: Raised Pavement Width (Edge to Edge): 48 Description: Widening of roadway to thoroughfare standard Shared -Use Path bicycle facility Item No. Item Description Quantity Unit Item Cost Unit Cost Pavement Markings & Signage Item Cost 1 Right of Way Preparation 91 STA $ 3,000.00 $ 273,000 2 Unclassified Street Excavation 22,300 CY $ 20.00 $ 446,000 3 3" HMAC (Type "D ") 48,500 SY $ 18.00 $ 873,000 4 10" Flex Base 60,600 SY $ 18.00 $ 1,090,800 5 6" Moisture Conditioned Subgrade 60,600 SY $ 4.00 $ 242,400 6 TX -5 Geogrid 60,600 SY $ 1.00 $ 60,600 7 6" Monolithic Concrete Curb & Gutter 36,330 LF $ 25.00 $ 908,250 8 4" Concrete Sidewalk and Ramps 15,100 SY $ 50.00 $ 755,000 9 Block Sodding and Topsoil 23,210 SY $ 5.00 $ 116,050 Item No. Item Description Pct. Of Paving Allowance Item Cost 10 Pavement Markings & Signage 2% $ 95,400 11 Traffic Control 5% = $ 238,300 12 Erosion Control 3% $ 143,000 13 Drainage Improvements (RCP, Inlets, MH, Outfalls) 20% $ 953,100 Item No. Item Description Notes Allowance Item Cost 14 Landscaping /Illumination None $ $ 15 Drainage Structures None $ $ - 16 Bridge Structures None $ $ - 17 Traffic Signals None $ $ - 18 Other None $ $ - Item Description Construction Engineering /Survey /Testing Right -of -Way Acquisition 2017 Impact Fee Update City of Schertz I, II, & III Construction Subtotal: $ 6,194,900 Mobilization 5% $ 309,800 Contineencv 10% $ 650,500 Notes Allowance Item Cost - $ 7,155,200 7% $ 500,900 Cost per sq. ft.: $ 0.75 $ 204,300 $ 204,300 Freese and Nichols, Inc. Updated: 612017 55 City of Schertz Impact Fee Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Estimate N/S Connector (3) N. City Limits to S. City Limits Functional Classification: Principal Arterial No. of Lanes: 4 Length (If): 792 Right -of -Way Width (ft.): 120 Median Type: Raised - - - - - - - Pavement Width (Edge to Edge): 48 Description: Construction of new roadway to thoroughfare standard Shared -Use Path bicycle facility Item No. Item Description Quantity Unit Item Cost Unit Cost Pavement Markings & Signage Item Cost 1 Right of Way Preparation 8 STA $ 3,000.00 $ 24,000 2 Unclassified Street Excavation 2,000 CY $ 20.00 $ 40,000 3 3" HMAC (Type "D ") 4,300 SY $ 18.00 $ 77,400 4 10" Flex Base 5,300 SY $ 18.00 $ 95,400 5 6" Moisture Conditioned Subgrade 5,300 SY $ 4.00 $ 21,200 6 TX -5 Geogrid 5,300 SY $ 1.00 $ 5,300 7 6" Monolithic Concrete Curb & Gutter 3,170 LF $ 25.00 $ 79,250 8 4" Concrete Sidewalk and Ramps 1,300 SY $ 50.00 $ 65,000 9 Block Sodding and Topsoil 4,660 SY $ 5.00 $ 23,300 Item No. Item Description Pct. Of Paving Allowance Item Cost 10 Pavement Markings & Signage 2% $ 8,700 11 Traffic Control 5% $ 21,600 12 Erosion Control 3% $ 13,000 13 Drainage Improvements (RCP, Inlets, MH, Outfalls) 20% _ $ 86,200 Item No. Item Description Notes Allowance Item Cost 14 Landscaping /Illumination None $ $ 15 Drainage Structures None - $ $ - 16 Bridge Structures None $ $ - 17 Traffic Signals None $ $ - 18 Other None $ $ - Item Description Construction Engineering /Survey /Testing Right -of -Way Acquisition 2017 Impact Fee Update City of Schertz I, II, & III Construction Subtotal: $ 560,350 Mobilization 5% $ 28,100 Contineencv 10% $ 58,900 Notes Allowance Item Cost - $ 647,400 7% $ 45,300 Cost per sq. ft.: $ 0.75 $ 71,300 $ 71,300 Freese and Nichols, Inc. Updated: 612017 56 City of Schertz Impact Fee Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Estimate N/S Connector (3) N. City Limits to S. City Limits Functional Classification: Principal Arterial No. of Lanes: 4 Length (If): 1,426 Right -of -Way Width (ft.): 120 Median Type: Raised - - - - - - - Pavement Width (Edge to Edge): 48 Description: Construction of new roadway to thoroughfare standard Shared -Use Path bicycle facility Item No. Item Description Quantity Unit Item Cost Unit Cost Pavement Markings & Signage Item Cost 1 Right of Way Preparation 15 STA $ 3,000.00 $ 45,000 2 Unclassified Street Excavation 3,500 CY $ 20.00 $ 70,000 3 3" HMAC (Type "D ") 7,700 SY $ 18.00 $ 138,600 4 10" Flex Base 9,600 SY $ 18.00 $ 172,800 5 6" Moisture Conditioned Subgrade 9,600 SY $ 4.00 $ 38,400 6 TX -5 Geogrid 9,600 SY $ 1.00 $ 9,600 7 6" Monolithic Concrete Curb & Gutter 5,710 LF $ 25.00 $ 142,750 8 4" Concrete Sidewalk and Ramps 2,400 SY $ 50.00 $ 120,000 9 Block Sodding and Topsoil 8,400 SY $ 5.00 $ 42,000 Item No. Item Description Pct. Of Paving Allowance Item Cost 10 Pavement Markings & Signage 2% $ 15,600 11 Traffic Control 5% $ 39,000 12 Erosion Control 3% $ 23,400 13 Drainage Improvements (RCP, Inlets, MH, Outfalls) 20% $ 155,900 Item No. Item Description Notes Allowance Item Cost 14 Landscaping /Illumination None $ $ 15 Drainage Structures None - - $ $ - 16 Bridge Structures None $ $ - 17 Traffic Signals None - - $ $ - 18 Other None $ $ - Item Description Construction Engineering /Survey /Testing Right -of -Way Acquisition 2017 Impact Fee Update City of Schertz I, II, & III Construction Subtotal: $ 1,013,050 Mobilization 5% $ 50,700 Contineencv 10% $ 106,400 Notes Allowance Item Cost - $ 1,170,200 7% $ 81,900 Cost per sq. ft.: $ 0.75 $ 128,300 $ 128,300 Freese and Nichols, Inc. Updated: 612017 57 City of Schertz Impact Fee Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Estimate N/S Connector (4) N. City Limits to S. City Limits Functional Classification: Residential Collector - No. of Lanes: 2 Length (If): 1,373 Right -of -Way Width (ft.): 70 Median Type: None Pavement Width (Edge to Edge): 38 Description: Construction of new roadway to thoroughfare standard On- street bicycle facility (Pavement: 7' + T) Item No. Item Description Quantity Unit Item Cost Unit Cost Pavement Markings & Signage Item Cost 1 Right of Way Preparation 14 STA $ 3,000.00 $ 42,000 2 Unclassified Street Excavation 2,500 CY $ 20.00 $ 50,000 3 3" HMAC (Type "D ") 5,800 SY $ 18.00 $ 104,400 4 10" Flex Base 6,800 SY $ 18.00 $ 122,400 5 6" Moisture Conditioned Subgrade 6,800 SY $ 4.00 $ 27,200 6 TX -5 Geogrid 6,800 SY $ 1.00 $ 6,800 7 6" Monolithic Concrete Curb & Gutter 2,750 LF $ 25.00 $ 68,750 8 4" Concrete Sidewalk and Ramps 1,500 SY $ 50.00 $ 75,000 9 Block Sodding and Topsoil 3,050 SY $ 5.00 $ 15,250 Item No. Item Description Pct. Of Paving Allowance Item Cost 10 Pavement Markings & Signage 2% $ 10,300 11 Traffic Control 5% $ 25,600 12 Erosion Control 3% $ 15,400 13 Drainage Improvements (RCP, Inlets, MH, Outfalls) 20% $ 102,400 Item No. Item Description Notes Allowance Item Cost 14 Landscaping /Illumination None $ $ 15 Drainage Structures None $ $ - 16 Bridge Structures None $ $ - 17 Traffic Signals None $ $ - 18 Other None $ $ - Item Description Construction Engineering /Survey /Testing Right -of -Way Acquisition 2017 Impact Fee Update City of Schertz I, II, & III Construction Subtotal: $ 665,500 Mobilization 5% $ 33,300 Contineencv 10% $ 69,900 Notes Allowance Item Cost - $ 768,700 7% $ 53,800 Cost per sq. ft.: $ 0.75 $ 72,100 $ 72,100 Freese and Nichols, Inc. Updated: 612017 58 City of Schertz Impact Fee Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Estimate N/S Connector (4) N. City Limits to S. City Limits Functional Classification: Residential Collector No. of Lanes: 2 Length (If): 1,109 Right -of -Way Width (ft.): 70 Median Type: None Pavement Width (Edge to Edge): 38 Description: Construction of new roadway to thoroughfare standard On- street bicycle facility (Pavement: 7' + T) Item No. Item Description Quantity Unit Item Cost Unit Cost Pavement Markings & Signage Item Cost 1 Right of Way Preparation 12 STA $ 3,000.00 $ 36,000 2 Unclassified Street Excavation 2,000 CY $ 20.00 $ 40,000 3 3" HMAC (Type "D ") 4,700 SY $ 18.00 $ 84,600 4 10" Flex Base 5,500 SY $ 18.00 $ 99,000 5 6" Moisture Conditioned Subgrade 5,500 SY $ 4.00 $ 22,000 6 TX -5 Geogrid 5,500 SY $ 1.00 $ 5,500 7 6" Monolithic Concrete Curb & Gutter 2,220 LF $ 25.00 $ 55,500 8 4" Concrete Sidewalk and Ramps 1,200 SY $ 50.00 $ 60,000 9 Block Sodding and Topsoil 2,460 SY $ 5.00 $ 12,300 Item No. Item Description Pct. Of Paving Allowance Item Cost 10 Pavement Markings & Signage 2% $ 8,300 11 Traffic Control 5% $ 20,800 12 Erosion Control 3% $ 12,500 13 Drainage Improvements (RCP, Inlets, MH, Outfalls) 20% $ 83,000 Item No. Item Description Notes Allowance Item Cost 14 Landscaping /Illumination None $ $ 15 Drainage Structures None $ $ - 16 Bridge Structures None $ $ - 17 Traffic Signals None - $ $ - 18 Other None - - - - $ $ - Item Description Construction Engineering /Survey /Testing Right -of -Way Acquisition 2017 Impact Fee Update City of Schertz I, II, & III Construction Subtotal: $ 539,500 Mobilization 5% $ 27,000 Contineencv 10% $ 56,700 Notes Allowance Item Cost - $ 623,200 7% $ 43,600 Cost per sq. ft.: $ 0.75 $ 58,200 $ 58,200 Freese and Nichols, Inc. Updated: 612017 59 City of Schertz Impact Fee Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Estimate Functional Classification: Length (If): Right -of -Way Width (ft.): Median Type: Pavement Width (Edge to Edge) Description: WEST WARE SEGUIN ROAD W. City Limits to Boeing Dr. Residential Collector No. of Lanes: 2 3,010 70 None 1 38 Reconstruction of roadway to thoroughfare standard On- street bicycle facility (Pavement: 7' + T) Item No. Item Description Quantity Unit Item Cost Unit Cost Pavement Markings & Signage Item Cost 1 Right of Way Preparation 31 STA $ 3,000.00 $ 93,000 2 Unclassified Street Excavation 5,400 CY $ 20.00 $ 108,000 3 3" HMAC (Type "D ") 12,800 SY $ 18.00 $ 230,400 4 10" Flex Base 14,800 SY $ 18.00 $ 266,400 5 6" Moisture Conditioned Subgrade 14,800 SY $ 4.00 $ 59,200 6 TX -5 Geogrid 14,800 SY $ 1.00 $ 14,800 7 6" Monolithic Concrete Curb & Gutter 6,020 LF $ 25.00 $ 150,500 8 4" Concrete Sidewalk and Ramps 3,300 SY $ 50.00 $ 165,000 9 Block Sodding and Topsoil 6,690 SY $ 5.00 $ 33,450 Item No. Item Description Pct. Of Paving Allowance Item Cost 10 Pavement Markings & Signage 2% $ 22,500 11 Traffic Control 5% $ 56,100 12 Erosion Control 3% $ 33,700 13 Drainage Improvements (RCP, Inlets, MH, Outfalls) 20% $ 224,200 Item No. Item Description Notes Allowance Item Cost 14 Landscaping /Illumination None $ $ 15 Drainage Structures None $ $ - 16 Bridge Structures None $ $ - 17 Traffic Signals None $ $ - 18 Other None $ $ - Item Description Construction Engineering /Survey /Testing Right -of -Way Acquisition 2017 Impact Fee Update City of Schertz I, II, & III Construction Subtotal: $ 1,457,250 Mobilization 5% $ 72,900 Contineencv 10% $ 153,100 Notes Allowance Item Cost - $ 1,683,300 7% $ 117,800 Cost per sq. ft.: $ 0.75 $ $ - Freese and Nichols, Inc. Updated: 612017 60 City of Schertz Impact Fee Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Estimate WEST WARE SEGUIN ROAD Boeing Dr. to N/S Connector (5) Functional Classification: Residential Collector No. of Lanes: 2 Length (If): 3,538 Right -of -Way Width (ft.): 70 Median Type: None Pavement Width (Edge to Edge): 38 Description: Reconstruction of roadway to thoroughfare standard On- street bicycle facility (Pavement: 7' + T) Item No. Item Description Quantity Unit Item Cost Unit Cost Pavement Markings & Signage Item Cost 1 Right of Way Preparation 36 STA $ 3,000.00 $ 108,000 2 Unclassified Street Excavation 6,400 CY $ 20.00 $ 128,000 3 3" HMAC (Type "D ") 15,000 SY $ 18.00 $ 270,000 4 10" Flex Base 17,300 SY $ 18.00 $ 311,400 5 6" Moisture Conditioned Subgrade 17,300 SY $ 4.00 $ 69,200 6 TX -5 Geogrid 17,300 SY $ 1.00 $ 17,300 7 6" Monolithic Concrete Curb & Gutter 7,080 LF $ 25.00 $ 177,000 8 4" Concrete Sidewalk and Ramps 3,900 SY $ 50.00 $ 195,000 9 Block Sodding and Topsoil 7,860 SY $ 5.00 $ 39,300 Item No. Item Description Pct. Of Paving Allowance Item Cost 10 Pavement Markings & Signage 2% $ 26,400 11 Traffic Control 5% $ 65,800 12 Erosion Control 3% $ 39,500 13 Drainage Improvements (RCP, Inlets, MH, Outfalls) 20% $ 263,100 Item No. Item Description Notes Allowance Item Cost 14 Landscaping /Illumination None $ - $ - 15 Drainage Structures 1 Minor Crossing $ 100,000 $ 100,000 16 Bridge Structures None $ - $ - 17 Traffic Signals None - - $ $ - 18 Other None $ $ Item Description Construction Engineering /Survey /Testing Right -of -Way Acquisition 2017 Impact Fee Update City of Schertz I, II, & III Construction Subtotal: $ 1,810,000 Mobilization 5% $ 90,500 Contineencv 10% $ 190,100 Notes Allowance Item Cost - $ 2,090,600 7% $ 146,300 Cost per sq. ft.: $ 0.75 $ $ - Freese and Nichols, Inc. Updated: 612017 61 City of Schertz Impact Fee Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Estimate N/S CONNECTOR (S) Lower Seguin Rd. to W. Ware Seguin Rd. Functional Classification: Residential Collector No. of Lanes: 2 Length (If): 5,808 Right -of -Way Width (ft.): 70 Median Type: None Pavement Width (Edge to Edge): 38 Description: Construction of new roadway to thoroughfare standard On- street bicycle facility (Pavement: 7' + T) Item No. Item Description Quantity Unit Item Cost Unit Cost Pavement Markings & Signage Item Cost 1 Right of Way Preparation 59 STA $ 3,000.00 $ 177,000 2 Unclassified Street Excavation 10,500 CY $ 20.00 $ 210,000 3 3" HMAC (Type "D ") 24,600 SY $ 18.00 $ 442,800 4 10" Flex Base 28,400 SY $ 18.00 $ 511,200 5 6" Moisture Conditioned Subgrade 28,400 SY $ 4.00 $ 113,600 6 TX -5 Geogrid 28,400 SY $ 1.00 $ 28,400 7 6" Monolithic Concrete Curb & Gutter 11,620 LF $ 25.00 $ 290,500 8 4" Concrete Sidewalk and Ramps 6,500 SY $ 50.00 $ 325,000 9 Block Sodding and Topsoil 12,910 SY $ 5.00 $ 64,550 Item No. Item Description Pct. Of Paving Allowance Item Cost 10 Pavement Markings & Signage 2% $ 43,300 11 Traffic Control 5% $ 108,200 12 Erosion Control 3% $ 64,900 13 Drainage Improvements (RCP, Inlets, MH, Outfalls) 20% $ 432,700 Item No. Item Description Notes Allowance Item Cost 14 Landscaping /Illumination None $ $ 15 Drainage Structures None - $ $ - 16 Bridge Structures None $ $ - 17 Traffic Signals None - - $ $ - 18 Other None $ $ - Item Description Construction Engineering /Survey /Testing Right -of -Way Acquisition 2017 Impact Fee Update City of Schertz I, II, & III Construction Subtotal: $ 2,812,150 Mobilization 5% $ 140,700 Contineencv 10% $ 295,300 Notes Allowance Item Cost - $ 3,248,200 7% $ 227,400 Cost per sq. ft.: $ 0.75 $ 304,900 $ 304,900 Freese and Nichols, Inc. Updated: 612017 62 City of Schertz Impact Fee Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Estimate N/S CONNECTOR (S) W. Ware Seguin Rd. to E. Ware Seguin Rd. Functional Classification: Residential Collector No. of Lanes: 2 Length (If): 4,910 Right -of -Way Width (ft.): 70 Median Type: None Pavement Width (Edge to Edge): 38 Description: Reconstruction of roadway to thoroughfare standard On- street bicycle facility (Pavement: 7' + T) Item No. Item Description Quantity Unit Item Cost Unit Cost Pavement Markings & Signage Item Cost 1 Right of Way Preparation 50 STA $ 3,000.00 $ 150,000 2 Unclassified Street Excavation 8,900 CY $ 20.00 $ 178,000 3 3" HMAC (Type "D ") 20,800 SY $ 18.00 $ 374,400 4 10" Flex Base 24,100 SY $ 18.00 $ 433,800 5 6" Moisture Conditioned Subgrade 24,100 SY $ 4.00 $ 96,400 6 TX -5 Geogrid 24,100 SY $ 1.00 $ 24,100 7 6" Monolithic Concrete Curb & Gutter 9,830 LF $ 25.00 $ 245,750 8 4" Concrete Sidewalk and Ramps 5,500 SY $ 50.00 $ 275,000 9 Block Sodding and Topsoil 10,910 SY $ 5.00 $ 54,550 Item No. Item Description Pct. Of Paving Allowance Item Cost 10 Pavement Markings & Signage 2% $ 36,700 11 Traffic Control 5% $ 91,600 12 Erosion Control 3% $ 55,000 13 Drainage Improvements (RCP, Inlets, MH, Outfalls) 20% $ 366,400 Item No. Item Description Notes Allowance Item Cost 14 Landscaping /Illumination None $ - $ - 15 Drainage Structures 2 Minor Crossings - $ 200,000 $ 200,000 16 Bridge Structures None $ - $ - 17 Traffic Signals None $ $ - 18 Other None $ - $ Item Description Construction Engineering /Survey /Testing Right -of -Way Acquisition 2017 Impact Fee Update City of Schertz I, II, & III Construction Subtotal: $ 2,581,700 Mobilization 5% = $ 129,100 Contineencv 10% $ 271,100 Notes Allowance Item Cost - $ 2,981,900 7% $ 208,700 Cost per sq. ft.: $ 0.75 $ 36,800 $ 36,800 Freese and Nichols, Inc. Updated: 612017 63 City of Schertz Impact Fee Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Estimate TRAINER HALE ROAD (N /S) Weir Rd. to IH -10 Functional Classification: Principal Arterial No. of Lanes: 4 Length (If): 8,765 Right -of -Way Width (ft.): 120 - - - - Median Type: Raised Pavement Width (Edge to Edge): 48 Description: Widening of roadway to thoroughfare standard Shared -Use Path bicycle facility Item No. Item Description Quantity Unit Item Cost Unit Cost Pavement Markings & Signage Item Cost 1 Right of Way Preparation 88 STA $ 3,000.00 $ 264,000 2 Unclassified Street Excavation 21,500 CY $ 20.00 $ 430,000 3 3" HMAC (Type "D ") 46,800 SY $ 18.00 $ 842,400 4 10" Flex Base 58,500 SY $ 18.00 $ 1,053,000 5 6" Moisture Conditioned Subgrade 58,500 SY $ 4.00 $ 234,000 6 TX -5 Geogrid 58,500 SY $ 1.00 $ 58,500 7 6" Monolithic Concrete Curb & Gutter 35,060 LF $ 25.00 $ 876,500 8 4" Concrete Sidewalk and Ramps 14,600 SY $ 50.00 $ 730,000 9 Block Sodding and Topsoil 51,610 SY $ 5.00 $ 258,050 Item No. Item Description Pct. Of Paving Allowance Item Cost 10 Pavement Markings & Signage 2% $ 95,000 11 Traffic Control 5% $ 237,400 12 Erosion Control 3% $ 142,400 13 Drainage Improvements (RCP, Inlets, MH, Outfalls) 20% $ 949,300 Item No. Item Description Notes Allowance Item Cost 14 Landscaping /Illumination None $ $ 15 Drainage Structures None $ $ - 16 Bridge Structures None $ $ - 17 Traffic Signals None $ $ - 18 Other None $ $ - Item Description Construction Engineering /Survey /Testing Right -of -Way Acquisition 2017 Impact Fee Update City of Schertz I, II, & III Construction Subtotal: $ 6,170,550 Mobilization 5% $ 308,600 Contineencv 10% $ 648,000 Notes Allowance Item Cost - $ 7,127,200 7% $ 498,900 Cost per sq. ft.: $ 0.75 $ 394,400 $ 394,400 Freese and Nichols, Inc. Updated: 612017 64 City of Schertz Impact Fee Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Estimate TRAINER HALE ROAD (E /W) FM 1518 to Trainer Hale Rd. (N /S) Functional Classification: Secondary Arterial No. of Lanes: 4 Length (If): 7,973 Right -of -Way Width (ft.): 90 - - - Median Type: Raised - - - - - - - Pavement Width (Edge to Edge): 48 Description: Widening of roadway to thoroughfare standard Shared -Use Path bicycle facility Item No. Item Description Quantity Unit Item Cost Unit Cost Pavement Markings & Signage Item Cost 1 Right of Way Preparation 80 STA $ 3,000.00 $ 240,000 2 Unclassified Street Excavation 19,500 CY $ 20.00 $ 390,000 3 3" HMAC (Type "D ") 42,600 SY $ 18.00 $ 766,800 4 10" Flex Base 53,200 SY $ 18.00 $ 957,600 5 6" Moisture Conditioned Subgrade 53,200 SY $ 4.00 $ 212,800 6 TX -5 Geogrid 53,200 SY $ 1.00 $ 53,200 7 6" Monolithic Concrete Curb & Gutter 31,900 LF $ 25.00 $ 797,500 8 4" Concrete Sidewalk and Ramps 13,300 SY $ 50.00 $ 665,000 9 Block Sodding and Topsoil 20,370 SY $ 5.00 $ 101,850 Item No. Item Description Pct. Of Paving Allowance Item Cost 10 Pavement Markings & Signage 2% $ 83,700 11 Traffic Control 5% $ 209,300 12 Erosion Control 3% $ 125,600 13 Drainage Improvements (RCP, Inlets, MH, Outfalls) 20% $ 837,000 Item No. Item Description Notes Allowance Item Cost 14 Landscaping /Illumination None - $ $ 15 Drainage Structures None $ $ - 16 Bridge Structures 1 Bridge $ 750,000 $ 750,000 17 Traffic Signals None $ - $ - 18 Other None $ - $ Item Description Construction Engineering /Survey /Testing Right -of -Way Acquisition 2017 Impact Fee Update City of Schertz I, II, & III Construction Subtotal: $ 6,190,350 Mobilization 5% $ 309,600 Contineencv 10% $ 650,000 Notes Allowance Item Cost - $ 7,150,000 7% $ 500,500 Cost per sq. ft.: $ 0.75 $ 59,800 $ 59,800 Freese and Nichols, Inc. Updated: 612017 65 City of Schertz Impact Fee Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Estimate Functional Classification: Length (If): Right -of -Way Width (ft.): Median Type: Pavement Width (Edge to Edge) Description: WARE SEGUIN ROAD Graytown Rd. to N/S Connector (5) Secondary Rural Arterial No. of Lanes: 3 7,128 90 Two -Way Left Turn Lane 48 Construction of new roadway to thoroughfare standard Shared -Use Path bicycle facility Item No. Item Description Quantity Unit Item Cost Unit Cost 1 Right of Way Preparation 72 STA $ 3,000.00 $ 2 Unclassified Street Excavation 15,700 CY $ 20.00 $ 3 3" HMAC (Type "D ") 38,100 SY $ 18.00 $ 4 10" Flex Base 39,600 SY $ 18.00 $ 5 6" Moisture Conditioned Subgrade 39,600 SY $ 4.00 $ 6 TX -5 Geogrid 39,600 SY $ 1.00 $ 7 6" Monolithic Concrete Curb & Gutter 0 LF $ 25.00 $ 8 4" Concrete Sidewalk and Ramps 7,900 SY $ 50.00 $ 9 Block Sodding and Topsoil 25,340 SY $ 5.00 $ Item No. Item Description 10 Pavement Markings & Signage 11 Traffic Control 12 Erosion Control 13 Drainage Improvements (RCP, Inlets, MH, Outfalls) Item Cost 216,000 314,000 685,800 712,800 158,400 39,600 395,000 126,700 Pct. Of Paving Item Cost 2% $ 53,000 5% $ 132,500 3% $ 79,500 20% $ 529,700 Item No. Item Description Notes Allowance Item Cost 14 Landscaping /Illumination None $ $ 15 Drainage Structures None $ $ - 16 Bridge Structures None - - $ $ - 17 Traffic Signals None - - - $ $ - 18 Other None - - - - $ $ - Item Description Construction Engineering /Survey /Testing Right -of -Way Acquisition I, II, & III Construction Subtotal: $ 3,443,000 Mobilization 5% $ 172,200 Contineencv 10% $ 361,600 Notes Allowance Item Cost - $ 3,976,800 7% $ 278,400 Cost per sq. ft.: $ 0.75 $ 481,100 $ 481,100 2017 Impact Fee Update Freese and Nichols, Inc. City of Schertz Updated: 612017 66 City of Schertz Impact Fee Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Estimate Functional Classification: Length (If): Right -of -Way Width (ft.): Median Type: Pavement Width (Edge to Edge) Description: EAST WARE SEGUIN ROAD N/S Connector (5) to FM 1518 Secondary Rural Arterial No. of Lanes: 3 7,445 90 Two -Way Left Turn Lane 48 Widening of roadway to thoroughfare standard Shared -Use Path bicycle facility Item No. Item Description Quantity Unit 14 Unit Cost 1 Right of Way Preparation 75 STA $ 3,000.00 $ 2 Unclassified Street Excavation 16,400 CY $ 20.00 $ 3 3" HMAC (Type "D ") 39,800 SY $ 18.00 $ 4 10" Flex Base 41,400 SY $ 18.00 $ 5 6" Moisture Conditioned Subgrade 41,400 SY $ 4.00 $ 6 TX -5 Geogrid 41,400 SY $ 1.00 $ 7 6" Monolithic Concrete Curb & Gutter 0 LF $ 25.00 $ 8 4" Concrete Sidewalk and Ramps 8,300 SY $ 50.00 $ 9 Block Sodding and Topsoil 26,470 SY $ 5.00 $ Item No. Item Description 10 Pavement Markings & Signage 11 Traffic Control 12 Erosion Control 13 Drainage Improvements (RCP, Inlets, MH, Outfalls) Item Cost 225,000 328,000 716,400 745,200 165,600 41,400 415,000 132,350 Pct. Of Paving Item Cost 2% $ 55,400 5% $ 138,500 3% $ 83,100 20% $ 553,800 Item No. Item Description Notes Allowance 14 Landscaping /Illumination None $ - $ 15 Drainage Structures 1 Minor Crossing $ 100,000 $ 16 Bridge Structures None $ - $ 17 Traffic Signals None $ $ 18 Other None $ $ Item Description Construction Engineering /Survey /Testing Right -of -Way Acquisition I, II, & III Construction Subtotal: $ Mobilization 5% $ Contineencv 10% $ Item Cost 100,000 100,000 3,699,750 185,000 388,500 Notes Allowance Item Cost - $ 4,273,300 7% $ 299,100 Cost per sq. ft.: $ 0.75 $ 167,500 $ 167,500 2017 Impact Fee Update Freese and Nichols, Inc. City of Schertz Updated: 612017 67 City of Schertz Impact Fee Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Estimate GRAYTOWN ROAD Boeing Dr. to IH -10 Functional Classification: Secondary Rural Arterial No. of Lanes: 3 Length (If): 5,861 Right -of -Way Width (ft.): 90 Median Type: TWLTL Pavement Width (Edge to Edge): 48 - - - - - Description: Widening of roadway to thoroughfare standard - - Shared -Use Path bicycle facility Item No. Item Description Quantity Unit $ Unit Cost 1 Right of Way Preparation 59 STA $ 3,000.00 $ 2 Unclassified Street Excavation 12,900 CY $ 20.00 $ 3 3" HMAC (Type "D ") 31,300 SY $ 18.00 $ 4 10" Flex Base 32,600 SY $ 18.00 $ 5 6" Moisture Conditioned Subgrade 32,600 SY $ 4.00 $ 6 TX -5 Geogrid 32,600 SY $ 1.00 $ 7 6" Monolithic Concrete Curb & Gutter 0 LF $ 25.00 $ 8 4" Concrete Sidewalk and Ramps 6,500 SY $ 50.00 $ 9 Block Sodding and Topsoil 20,840 SY $ 5.00 $ Item No. Item Description 10 Pavement Markings & Signage 11 Traffic Control 12 Erosion Control 13 Drainage Improvements (RCP, Inlets, MH, Outfalls) Item Cost 177,000 258,000 563,400 586,800 130,400 32,600 325,000 104,200 Pct. Of Paving Item Description Item Cost 2% - $ 43,600 5% $ 108,900 3% $ 65,400 20% $ 435,500 Item No. Item Description Notes Allowance 14 Landscaping /Illumination None $ - $ 15 Drainage Structures 3 Minor Crossings $ 300,000 - $ 16 Bridge Structures None $ - $ 17 Traffic Signals None - $ $ 18 Other None $ $ Item Description Construction Engineering /Survey /Testing Right -of -Way Acquisition I, II, & III Construction Subtotal: $ Mobilization 5% $ Contineencv 10% $ Item Cost 300,000 300,000 3,130,800 156,600 328,800 Notes Allowance Item Cost - $ 3,616,200 7% $ 253,100 Cost per sq. ft.: $ 0.75 $ 131,900 $ 131,900 2017 Impact Fee Update Freese and Nichols, Inc. City of Schertz Updated: 612017 68 City of Schertz Impact Fee Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Estimate N/S CONNECTOR (6) Ware Seguin Rd. to IH -10 Functional Classification: Commercial Collector A No. of Lanes: 3 Length (If): 2,482 - - Right -of -Way Width (ft.): 70 Median Type: TWLTL Pavement Width (Edge to Edge): 38 Description: Construction of new roadway to thoroughfare standard Shared -Use Path bicycle facility Item No. Item Description Quantity Unit Item Cost Unit Cost Pavement Markings & Signage Item Cost 1 Right of Way Preparation 25 STA $ 3,000.00 $ 75,000 2 Unclassified Street Excavation 4,500 CY $ 20.00 $ 90,000 3 3" HMAC (Type "D ") 10,500 SY $ 18.00 $ 189,000 4 10" Flex Base 12,200 SY $ 18.00 $ 219,600 5 6" Moisture Conditioned Subgrade 12,200 SY $ 4.00 $ 48,800 6 TX -5 Geogrid 12,200 SY $ 1.00 $ 12,200 7 6" Monolithic Concrete Curb & Gutter 4,970 LF $ 25.00 $ 124,250 8 4" Concrete Sidewalk and Ramps 4,100 SY $ 50.00 $ 205,000 9 Block Sodding and Topsoil 4,140 SY $ 5.00 $ 20,700 Item No. Item Description Pct. Of Paving Allowance Item Cost 10 Pavement Markings & Signage 2% $ 19,700 11 Traffic Control 5% $ 49,300 12 Erosion Control 3% $ 29,600 13 Drainage Improvements (RCP, Inlets, MH, Outfalls) 20% $ 197,000 Item No. Item Description Notes Allowance Item Cost 14 Landscaping /Illumination None $ $ 15 Drainage Structures None $ $ - 16 Bridge Structures None - - - $ $ - 17 Traffic Signals None - - - $ $ - 18 Other None - - - $ $ - Item Description Construction Engineering /Survey /Testing Right -of -Way Acquisition 2017 Impact Fee Update City of Schertz I, II, & III Construction Subtotal: $ 1,280,150 Mobilization 5% $ 64,100 Contineencv 10% $ 134,500 Notes Allowance Item Cost - $ 1,478,800 7% $ 103,500 Cost per sq. ft.: $ 0.75 $ 130,300 $ 130,300 Freese and Nichols, Inc. Updated: 612017 69 City of Schertz Impact Fee Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Estimate E/W CONNECTOR (8) IH 10 to E. City Limits Functional Classification: Commercial Collector A No. of Lanes: 3 Length (If): 12,302 Right -of -Way Width (ft.): 70 Median Type: TWLTL Pavement Width (Edge to Edge): 38 - - - - - - - Description: Construction of new roadway to thoroughfare standard Shared -Use Path bicycle facility Item No. Item Description Quantity Unit Item Cost Unit Cost Pavement Markings & Signage Item Cost 1 Right of Way Preparation 124 STA $ 3,000.00 $ 372,000 2 Unclassified Street Excavation 22,100 CY $ 20.00 $ 442,000 3 3" HMAC (Type "D ") 52,000 SY $ 18.00 $ 936,000 4 10" Flex Base 60,200 SY $ 18.00 $ 1,083,600 5 6" Moisture Conditioned Subgrade 60,200 SY $ 4.00 $ 240,800 6 TX -5 Geogrid 60,200 SY $ 1.00 $ 60,200 7 6" Monolithic Concrete Curb & Gutter 24,610 LF $ 25.00 $ 615,250 8 4" Concrete Sidewalk and Ramps 20,500 SY $ 50.00 $ 1,025,000 9 Block Sodding and Topsoil 20,500 SY $ 5.00 $ 102,500 Item No. Item Description Pct. Of Paving Allowance Item Cost 10 Pavement Markings & Signage 2% $ 97,600 11 Traffic Control 5% $ 243,900 12 Erosion Control 3% $ 146,400 13 Drainage Improvements (RCP, Inlets, MH, Outfalls) 20% $ 975,500 Item No. Item Description Notes Allowance Item Cost 14 Landscaping /Illumination None $ $ 15 Drainage Structures None - - $ $ - 16 Bridge Structures None $ $ - 17 Traffic Signals None $ $ - 18 Other None $ - $ - Item Description Construction Engineering /Survey /Testing Right -of -Way Acquisition 2017 Impact Fee Update City of Schertz I, II, & III Construction Subtotal: $ 6,340,750 Mobilization 5% $ 317,100 Contineencv 10% $ 665,800 Notes Allowance Item Cost - $ 7,323,700 7% $ 512,700 Cost per sq. ft.: $ 0.75 $ 645,900 $ 645,900 Freese and Nichols, Inc. Updated: 612017 70 City of Schertz Impact Fee Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Estimate Functional Classification: Length (If): Right -of -Way Width (ft.): Median Type: Pavement Width (Edge to Edge) Description: BINZ- ENGLEMAN ROAD W. City Limits to Graytown Rd. Secondary Rural Arterial No. of Lanes: 3 6,864 90 Two -Way Left Turn Lane 48 Construction of new roadway to thoroughfare standard Shared -Use Path bicycle facility Item No. Item Description Quantity Unit $ Unit Cost 1 Right of Way Preparation 69 STA $ 3,000.00 $ 2 Unclassified Street Excavation 18,400 CY $ 20.00 $ 3 3" HMAC (Type "D ") 36,700 SY $ 18.00 $ 4 10" Flex Base 38,200 SY $ 18.00 $ 5 6" Moisture Conditioned Subgrade 38,200 SY $ 4.00 $ 6 TX -5 Geogrid 38,200 SY $ 1.00 $ 7 6" Monolithic Concrete Curb & Gutter 0 LF $ 25.00 $ 8 4" Concrete Sidewalk and Ramps 7,600 SY $ 50.00 $ 9 Block Sodding and Topsoil 24,410 SY $ 5.00 $ Item No. Item Description 10 Pavement Markings & Signage 11 Traffic Control 12 Erosion Control 13 Drainage Improvements (RCP, Inlets, MH, Outfalls) Item Cost 207,000 368,000 660,600 687,600 152,800 38,200 380,000 122,050 Pct. Of Paving Item Description Item Cost 2% $ 52,400 5% $ 130,900 3% $ 78,500 20% $ 523,300 Item No. Item Description Notes Allowance Item Cost 14 Landscaping /Illumination None - - - $ - $ 15 Drainage Structures None - $ - $ - 16 Bridge Structures None $ - $ - 17 Traffic Signals None $ - $ - 18 Other None - - - $ - $ - Item Description Construction Engineering /Survey /Testing Right -of -Way Acquisition I, II, & III Construction Subtotal: $ 3,401,350 Mobilization 5% - $ 170,100 Contineencv 10% $ 357,200 Notes Allowance Item Cost - $ 3,928,700 7% $ 275,000 Cost per sq. ft.: $ 0.75 $ 463,300 $ 463,300 2017 Impact Fee Update Freese and Nichols, Inc. City of Schertz Updated: 612017 71 City of Schertz Impact Fee Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Estimate SCENIC LAKE DRIVE Binz - Engleman Rd. to IH -10 Functional Classification: Commercial Collector A No. of Lanes: 3 Length (If): 4,066 Right -of -Way Width (ft.): 70 Median Type: Two -Way Left Turn Lane Pavement Width (Edge to Edge): 38 Description: Widening of roadway to thoroughfare standard Shared -Use Path bicycle facility Item No. Item Description Quantity Unit Item Cost Unit Cost Pavement Markings & Signage Item Cost 1 Right of Way Preparation 41 STA $ 3,000.00 $ 123,000 2 Unclassified Street Excavation 7,300 CY $ 20.00 $ 146,000 3 3" HMAC (Type "D ") 17,200 SY $ 18.00 $ 309,600 4 10" Flex Base 19,900 SY $ 18.00 $ 358,200 5 6" Moisture Conditioned Subgrade 19,900 SY $ 4.00 $ 79,600 6 TX -5 Geogrid 19,900 SY $ 1.00 $ 19,900 7 6" Monolithic Concrete Curb & Gutter 8,140 LF $ 25.00 $ 203,500 8 4" Concrete Sidewalk and Ramps 6,800 SY $ 50.00 $ 340,000 9 Block Sodding and Topsoil 6,780 SY $ 5.00 $ 33,900 Item No. Item Description Pct. Of Paving Allowance Item Cost 10 Pavement Markings & Signage 2% $ 32,300 11 Traffic Control 5% $ 80,700 12 Erosion Control 3% $ 48,500 13 Drainage Improvements (RCP, Inlets, MH, Outfalls) 20% $ 322,800 Item No. Item Description Notes Allowance Item Cost 14 Landscaping /Illumination None $ - $ - 15 Drainage Structures 1 Minor Crossing $ 100,000 $ 100,000 16 Bridge Structures None $ - $ - 17 Traffic Signals None $ $ - 18 Other None $ $ Item Description Construction Engineering /Survey /Testing Right -of -Way Acquisition 2017 Impact Fee Update City of Schertz I, II, & 111 Construction Subtotal: $ 2,198,000 Mobilization 5% $ 109,900 Contineencv 10% $ 230,800 Notes Allowance Item Cost - $ 2,538,700 7% $ 177,700 Cost per sq. ft.: $ 0.75 $ 61,000 $ 61,000 Freese and Nichols, Inc. Updated: 612017 2017 SCHERTZ R • ji j •..�. r r r f M•)� FREESE AND NICHOLS, INC. TEXAS REGISTERED ENGINEERING FIRM F-2144 Prepared FREESE AND i Dallas, Texas 75204 • - ii TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .......................................................................................................... ..............................I 1.0 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................... ..............................1 1.1 Methodology ............................................................................................................ ............................... 3 2.0 ROADWAY SERVICE AREAS .................................................................................... ..............................4 3.0 LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS ....................................................................................... ..............................4 3.1 Base Year Data .......................................................................................................... ..............................4 3.1.1 Growth Summary .......................................................................................... ............................... 6 3.1.2 2017 Population ............................................................................................. ..............................6 3.1.3 2017 Employment ......................................................................................... ..............................6 3.2 Ten -Year Projection ............................................................................................... ..............................7 3.2.1 2027 Population ............................................................................................. ..............................7 3.2.2 2027 Employment ......................................................................................... ..............................8 3.3 Summary ................................................................................................................... ............................... 8 4.0 ROADWAY IMPACT FEE SERVICE UNITS ........................................................ .............................10 4.1 Service Units ............................................................................................................ .............................10 4.1.1 Service Unit Supply ...................................................................................... .............................11 4.1.2 Service Unit Demand ................................................................................... .............................11 4.2 Service Units for New Development .............................................................. .............................11 4.2.1 Trip Generation .............................................................................................. .............................11 5.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS ANALYSIS ..................................................................... .............................18 5.1 Existing Volumes ................................................................................................... .............................18 5.2 Vehicle -Miles of Existing Capacity Supply ................................................... .............................19 5.3 Vehicle -Miles of Existing Demand .................................................................. .............................19 5.4 Vehicle -Miles of Existing Excess Capacity and Deficiencies ................. .............................19 6.0 PROJECTED CONDITIONS ANALYSIS .............................................................. ............................... 20 6.1 Projected Growth ................................................................................................ ............................... 20 6.1.1 Projected Vehicle -Miles of New Demand ............................................. .............................20 6.2 CApital Improvements Plan ............................................................................ ............................... 21 6.2.1 Eligible Projects ............................................................................................. .............................21 6.2.2 Eligible Costs ................................................................................................... .............................22 6.2.3 Impact Fee CIP ................................................................................................ .............................24 6.2.4 Projected Vehicle -Miles Capacity Available for New Growth ...... .............................28 City of Schertz, Texas Roadway Impact Fee Study Freese and Nichols, Inc. 6.3.5 Cost of Roadway Improvements ------------------------------39 7.0 CALCULATION ()F IMPACT FEES ..................................................................................................... 30 7.1 Cost per Service Unit ......................................................................................................................... 3O 7.1.1 Cost Attributable 10 New Development -------------------------.3A 7.1.3 Maximum Cost per Service Unit Calculation ................................................................... 31 7.2 Calculation of Roadway Impact Fees .......................................................................................... 32 APPENDICES........................................................................................................................................................ 34 Appendix A: Roadway Impact Fee Definitions Appendix B: Existing Conditions Analysis Appendix C: Projected lV-Ye8rGrowth Appendix D: Roadway Capital Improvements Plan Appendix E: Roadway Improvement Plan Cost Analysis Appendix F: Roadway Project Cost Estimates Appendix G: Land Use Assumptions Report Appendix H: Roadway Service Area Analysis Summary Appendix l: Debt Service and Credit Analysis City of Sch ertz,rexas Roadway Impact Fee Study Freese and Nichols, Inc. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Shrinking funds available for city infrastructure improvements have prohibited many cities from upgrading infrastructure to meet increasing demands resulting from new growth. To alleviate this issue, many cities collect "impact fees" from new development to help fund roadway improvements necessitated by such development. These fees provide an objective method for new developments to pay their fair share for impact to the city's infrastructure. The one -time, up -front charges provide a predictable cost for new development rather than "negotiated" developer exactions. As codified in Chapter 395 of the Texas Local Government Codes, two rational nexus tests must be demonstrated in order to legally support impact fee programs. First, a reasonable connection between the need for additional capital facilities and the growth in demand generated by the new development must be defined. Second, a reasonable connection between the expenditure of the funds collected and the benefits to the new development must be shown. The purpose of this report is to summarize the methodology used in the development and calculation of roadway impact fees for the City of Schertz. The methodology used herein satisfies the requirements of the Texas Local Government Code Section 395 for the establishment of impact fees. Service Areas Four (4) roadway service areas were created within Schertz current city limits. Annexation in the ETJ was considered in the development of the zonal structure so that as service areas expand in the future, they still conform to legislative mandates in Chapter 395 so that no point is greater than a six -mile maximum to a zone boundary. This six -mile limit ensures that roadway improvements are in close proximity to the development paying the fees that it serves. City of Schertz, Texas Roadway Impact Fee Study Freese and Nichols, Inc. Page i Service Units Vehicle -miles of travel in the PM peak hour was determined to be the most effective service unit for calculating and assessing impact fees. Vehicle -miles establish a relationship between the intensity of land development and the demand on the roadway system through the use of published trip generation data and average trip length. The PM peak hour is used as the time period for assessment because typically the greatest demand for roadway capacity occurs during this hour. Additionally, roadways are sized to meet this demand and roadway capacity can more accurately be defined on an hourly basis. The service units (vehicle - miles) for new development are a function of trip generation and the average trip length characteristics for specific land uses based on the best available data. The result of combining trip generation and trip length information is an equivalency table that establishes a service unit rate for various land uses. Existing Conditions An analysis of the existing roadway system revealed that the current roadway system provides 67,424 vehicle -miles of capacity. Existing demands placed on the system was determined to be 31,393 vehicle - miles. Evaluation of the existing roadway system found 1,121 vehicle -miles of deficiencies on the current roadway network (roadway segments at or above their capacity) with all deficiencies located on roadways identified in the CIP. Projected Growth Projected growth, expressed in terms of vehicle -miles over a 10 -year planning period, was based on population and employment data that was prepared in the Land Use Assumptions for Impact Fees (2017- 2027). Based on this growth, the projected vehicle -miles of demand generated in the 10 -year period was calculated to be 43,408 vehicle - miles. Capital Improvements Plan All arterial and collector class facilities identified in the currently adopted Master Thoroughfare Plan not built to the ultimate standard were included in the impact fee capital improvements plan (CIP). The purpose for this is to enable consideration of credits for any arterial or collector class facility built by development within the rapidly growing community. The only exception is the FM 3009 extension which was excluded due to the high cost and undetermined scope and timing of the project. All projects identified are new projects, but recoupment projects are also eligible in future updates to the program. City of Schertz, Texas Roadway Impact Fee Study Freese and Nichols, Inc. Page ii Seventy -one (71) projects comprise the Impact Fee CIP (IFCIP) totaling $229.0 million, providing 103,112 vehicle -miles of new net capacity, were identified for impact fee consideration of which $80.4 million is attributable to new development over the 10 -year planning period. A credit analysis conducted determined the debt service cost attributable to new growth at $9.6 million for a total cost of $90.0 million attributable to new development in the 10 -year period. Cost per Service Unit Calculation The base cost per service unit was calculated based on the total cost attributable to new development and the projected 10 -year demand. State legislation requires that a credit for the portion of ad- valorem tax revenues generated by improvements over the program period, or a credit equal to 50% of the total projected cost of implementing a roadway impact fee capital improvements program be given. Based on the credit analysis, the maximum allowable cost per service unit was calculated using the total cost of the impact fee program, less the credit. The determination of fees due from new development is based upon the size of development, its associated service unit generation (equivalency table) and the cost per service unit derived or adopted for each service area. City of Schertz, Texas Roadway Impact Fee Study Freese and Nichols, Inc. Page iii 1.0 INTRODUCTION Shrinking funds available for roadway improvements on city thoroughfares have prohibited many cities from upgrading infrastructure to meet increasing travel demands resulting from new growth. To alleviate this issue, many cities collect "impact fees" from new development to help fund roadway improvements necessitated by such development. What is unique and perhaps controversial about impact fees is that they often finance roadway improvements that are outside the development itself. However, when considering traffic implications created from a system standpoint, impact fees provide a means by which infrastructure may keep pace with such development. Texas initially authorized the use of impact fees with the passage of Senate Bill 336 during the 1987 legislature. Now codified in Chapter 395 of the Texas Local Government Codes, the legislation authorizes cities to collect fees from new developments to finance new construction or expansion of capital improvements such as water treatment and distribution facilities, storm and wastewater facilities, and roadway facilities. The law stipulates that all fees collected from new development must not exceed the maximum amount calculated by the methodology described therein. The law also mandates that impact fee systems be updated periodically to ensure that the appropriate cost per service unit is established. As new roadway improvements are completed, actual costs are inserted into the cost per service unit calculation to reflect a more accurate reading of service area costs as opposed to estimated costs that were established at the onset of the impact fee system. Additionally, new capital improvement projects can be added to the system. City of Schertz, Texas Roadway Impact Fee Study Freese and Nichols, Inc. Page 1 In September 2001, Chapter 395 was amended, which called for several technical and administrative changes including the following: • Expansion of the permissible service area structure for roadway facilities from three to six miles; • A credit for the portion of ad valorem tax revenues generated by improvements over the program period, or the credit equal to 50% of the total projected cost of implementing the capital improvements plan; • A city's share of costs on the federal or Texas highway system, including matching funds and costs related to utility line relocation, the establishment of curbs and gutters, sidewalks, drainage appurtenances, and rights -of -way; • Increase in the time period of update of impact fee land use assumptions and capital improvements plan from a three to five -year period; • Changes in compliance requirements as they relate to annual reporting; and • Consolidation of the land use assumptions and capital improvements plan hearings as well as a single public hearing for system updates. The implementation of a roadway impact fee system complying with Chapter 395 offers several benefits including: 1. A systematic, structured approach to assessment of fees; 2. A clear, equitable distribution of costs associated with the impact of new development; 3. The ability to pool funds for project initiation within a service area; 4. Assurance that fees collected will be spent in the area where new development is occurring; 5. Up -front knowledge of fees to be imposed; 6. Credits for developer participation; and 7. Ability for developers to demonstrate that, pursuant to city guidelines, specific unit equivalencies may be different from those presented in the land use equivalency table. Recognizing the need to provide safe and adequate facilities and desiring to have equitable funding of roadway improvements, the City of Schertz retained Freese and Nichols, Inc. to assist in the development of a roadway impact fee system. City of Schertz, Texas Roadway Impact Fee Study Freese and Nichols, Inc. Page 2 1.1 METHODOLOGY To develop roadway impact fees, a series of work tasks were undertaken. These tasks are described below. 1. Meetings were held with City Staff to discuss impact fee methodology, project criteria and eligibility, and cost eligibility for consideration in the study. 2. Roadway service areas were developed to ensure conformity with legislative mandate, including six -mile maximum zones and within city limits. 3. Vehicle -miles of travel (VMT) in the PM peak hour was identified as the service unit of measure for analyses and impact fee calculations. 4. A roadway inventory was conducted to document lane geometrics, roadway functional classification, and system capacity. Traffic volume count data were collected in May 2015 to determine roadway utilization, and if any capacity deficiencies exist within each impact fee service area. Traffic volume counts were conducted at 30 locations throughout the city. 5. Projected 10 -year growth was calculated for service areas based on land use assumptions (projections of population and employment growth) and translated into residential, office, commercial and industrial VMT using service unit equivalencies. Trip rate data was obtained from Trip Generation, Ninth Edition by the Institute of Transportation Engineers, and trip length statistics for Schertz were obtained from the travel demand model used in the 2017 Schertz Master Thoroughfare Plan Study. The Land Use Assumptions for Impact Fees report was publicly heard and approved by the Schertz City Council on November 28, 2017. 6. A capital improvements plan (CIP) to address projected growth was developed and separated by service area. The Capital Improvements Plan for Impact Fees report was publicly heard and approved by the Schertz City Council on November 28, 2017. 7. Roadway costs associated with construction, engineering, right -of -way, and project financing for capital improvement projects were prepared by Freese and Nichols. Costs for study updates are eligible for recovery and were included in the total project cost. Roadway cost data was compiled and tabulated by service area. 8. As defined in Chapter 395, a credit analysis was applied to determine the discount to be applied to the cost of the CIP in determining a cost per service unit for each service area in lieu of the 50% credit. 9. The cost of capacity supplied, cost attributable to new development and the maximum cost per service unit was calculated for each service area. 10. This report was prepared to document the procedures, findings, and conclusions of the study. City of Schertz, Texas Roadway Impact Fee Study Freese and Nichols, Inc. Page 3 2.0 ROADWAY SERVICE AREAS Impact fee legislation requires that service areas be defined for impact fees to ensure that facility improvements are located in proximity to the area that is generating the need. Chapter 395 requires that roadway service areas be limited to a six -mile maximum and be located within the current city limits. Roadway service areas are different from other impact fee service areas, which can include the city limits and Extra - Territorial Jurisdiction (ETJ). This is primarily because roadway systems are "open" to both local and regional use as opposed to a defined limit of service that is provided with water and wastewater systems. The result is that new development can only be assessed an impact fee based on the cost of necessary capital improvements within that service area. A service area structure consisting of four (4) zones has been developed for Schertz and correlates with the current corporate boundaries, as depicted in Figure 1. Annexation in the ETJ was considered so that the service areas may be expanded in the future while still conforming to legislative mandate. Population and land use assumptions are important elements in the analysis of roadway systems. To assist the City of Schertz in determining the need and timing of capital improvements to serve future development, a reasonable estimation of future growth is required. Growth and future development projections were formulated based on assumptions pertaining to the type, location, quantity, and timing of various future land uses within the community. These land use assumptions, which include population projections, will become the basis for the preparation of impact fee capital improvement plans for roadway facilities. 3.1 BASE YEAR DATA Using the City's historical growth trends and data, the 2017 base year population estimate for the City of Schertz and future growth rate were derived. This "benchmark" information provides a starting basis of data for the ten -year growth assumptions. A full description of this analysis is provided in the 2017 Land Use Assumption Report located in Appendix G. For the purposes of documenting changes in population, land use, density, and intensity, the data format used as a basis to formulate the land use assumptions was principally population and employment. City of Schertz, Texas Roadway Impact Fee Study Freese and Nichols, Inc. Page 4 City of Schertz, Texas Roadway Impact Fee Study Freese and Nichols, Inc. Page 5 3.1.1 Growth Summary A compound annual growth rate (CAGR) allows for a general assessment of growth, considering periodic increases and decreases in residential population growth coinciding with changing economic conditions of the planning period. One method of predicting future growth is looking at past growth. Schertz has experienced steady growth over the past decade. Past growth trends from the U.S. Census were examined in conjunction with single - family building permit data from the city and internal city projections. These sources indicated rates of growth between 2.6 and 4.1 percent for population. Based upon this data, analysis of 10 -year forecasts, and City Staff input, a 3.5 percent compound annual growth rate was determined to be an appropriate assumption for the 10 -year study period. It is believed to account for periods of rapid and stable growth expected to occur in the future. This rate was recommended by the Schertz Capital Improvements Advisory Committee on May 13, 2015. 3.1.2 2017 Population Using data provided by the Alamo Area Metropolitan Planning Organization ( AAMPO), existing population estimates were developed at the Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ) level, but some adjustments were needed to consider areas within the limits of the city. The U.S. Census Intercensal population data in conjunction with building permit data provided a base year population estimate of 40,339. 3.1.3 2017 Employment Similar to the population breakdown, base employment data was calculated using TAZ data from AAMPO. An interpolation was calculated to derive the 2017 employment estimates. Also, because the TAZs do not follow city limits in some locations, adjustments were made based on existing land uses and percentage of each TAZ located within city limits. Employment for each TAZ was broken down into basic, service, and retail uses as defined within the AAMPO data. Table 1 summarizes the base year employment. City of Schertz, Texas Roadway Impact Fee Study Freese and Nichols, Inc. Page 6 TABLE 1: SUMMARY OF BASE YEAR (2017) POPULATION AND EMPLOYMENT Source: Freese and Nichols, Inc., AAMPO 3.2 TEN -YEAR PROJECTION Projected growth has been characterized in two forms: population and employment. A series of assumptions were made to arrive at reasonable growth rates for population and employment. The following assumptions have been made as a basis from which ten -year projections could be initiated. • Future land uses will occur based on similar trends of the past and consistent with the Future Land Use Plan Map, • The city will be able to finance the necessary improvements to accommodate growth, • School facilities will accommodate increases in population, and • Densities will be as projected in the Sector Plans. The ten -year projections are based upon the 3.5 percent growth rate discussed earlier and considers past trends of the city. 3.2.1 2027 Population The city has experienced steady growth over the past decade. The city's 2000 population stood at just over 18,000 residents. By the end of the decade, Schertz's population neared 32,000 in 2010 and a current 2017 estimate of 40,339. Although population estimates from the ETJ cannot be taken into account when calculating land use assumptions, the growing population within the ETJ should be monitored as the city plans its future. Using a 3.5 percent compound annual growth rate, the projected 2027 population for the city is 56,902. Development details, such as The Crossvine Development and constraints from the Randolph Air Force Base, informed the distribution of the growth through the city in this 10 -year timeframe as seen in Table 2. City of Schertz, Texas Roadway Impact Fee Study Freese and Nichols, Inc. Page 7 TABLE 2: CITY OF SCHERTZ PROJECTED POPULATION Source: Freese and Nichols, Inc. 3.2.2 2027 Employment Employment projections for the year 2027 were based on data provided by AAMPO. For assumption purposes, an interpolation of the modeling year (2025 and 2040) numbers was calculated to derive the 2027 employment estimates per TAZ. Table 3 shows the total employment for the base year, projected employment for 2027, the net growth, and percent change. The increase corresponds to an annual growth rate of 3.8 percent citywide, slightly higher than the population growth rate. TABLE 3: CITY OF SCHERTZ PROJECTED EMPLOYMENT Source: Freese and Nichols, Inc., AAMPO 3.3 SUMMARY • The existing 2017 population for Schertz stands at approximately 40,339 persons, with an existing estimated employment of 11,201 jobs. • An average annual growth rate of 3.5 percent was used to calculate the Schertz ten -year growth projections. This growth rate is based upon the State Water Board Projections, the Parks Plan, City forecasts, historical U.S. Census data, as well as Building Permit information received from the City. • Ten -year (2027) population is forecasted to be 56,902 persons, with an employment of 16,247 jobs. City of Schertz, Texas Roadway Impact Fee Study Freese and Nichols, Inc. Page 8 TABLE 4: LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS 2017 -2027 SUMMARY City of Schertz, Texas Roadway Impact Fee Study Freese and Nichols, Inc. Page 9 o � e Population ,�i"�tel" ">-rrlt�[.; � 4tf;J . 5,3�1� , • . 16568. " " .r% �. Service Area 1 9,239 12,211 2,972 2.8% ServiceArea 2 28,280 32,169 3,889 1.3% Service Area 3 2,809 12,454 9,645 16.1% Service Area 4 11 68 57 20.0% Dwelling Units Service Area 1 3,300 4,361 1,061 2.8% Service Area 2 10,100 11,489 1,389 1.3% Service Area 3 1,003 4,448 3,445 16.1% Service Area 4 4 24 20 20.0% Employment 0,1 16 247 5�04 Service Area 1 2,206 3,812 1,606 5.6% Basic 1,120 1,814 694 4.9% Reta i 1 468 785 317 5.3% Service 618 1,213 595 7.0% Service Area 2 8,587 11,304 2,717 2.8% Basic 3,287 5,038 1,751 4.4% Reta i 1 2,449 2,996 547 2.0% Service 2,851 3,270 419 1.4% Service Area 3 408 1,111 703 10.5% Basic 232 597 365 9.9% Reta i 1 108 340 232 12.2% Service 68 174 106 9.9% Service Area 4 0 20 20 - Basic 0 0 0 - Reta i 1 0 0 0 - Service 0 20 20 - City of Schertz, Texas Roadway Impact Fee Study Freese and Nichols, Inc. Page 9 4.0 ROADWAY IMPACT FEE SERVICE Service units establish a relationship between roadway projects and demand placed on the street system by development, as well as, the ability to calculate and assess impact fees for specific development proposals. As defined in Chapter 395, "Service unit means a standardized measure of consumption, use, generation, or discharge attributable to an individual unit of development in accordance with generally accepted engineering or planning standards for a particular category of capital improvements or facility expansions." To determine the roadway impact fee for a particular development, the service unit must accurately identify the impact that the development will have on the major roadway system (i.e., arterial and collector roads) serving the development. This impact is a combination of the number of new trips generated by the development, the particular peaking characteristics of the land - uses) within the development, and the length of each new trip on the transportation system. The service unit must also reflect the capacity, which is provided by the roadway system, and the demand placed on the system during the time in which peak, or design, conditions are present on the system. Transportation facilities are designed and constructed to accommodate volumes expected to occur during the peak hours (design hours). These volumes typically occur during the peak hours as motorists travel to and from work. The vehicle -mile during the PM peak hour serves as the service unit for impact fees in Schertz. This service unit establishes a more precise measure of capacity, utilization and intensity of land development through the use of published trip generation data. It also recognizes legislative requirements with regards to trip length. This service unit has been tested and validated since the inception of impact fee legislation in 1989. 4.1 SERVICE UNITS Service units create a link between supply (roadway projects) and demand (development). Both can be expressed as a combination of the number of vehicles traveling during the peak hour and the distance traveled by these vehicles in miles. City of Schertz, Texas Roadway Impact Fee Study Freese and Nichols, Inc. Page 10 4.1.1 Service Unit Supply For roadway capital project improvements, the number of service units provided during the peak hour is simply the product of the capacity of the roadway in one hour and the length of the product. For example: Given a four -lane divided roadway project with a 600 vehicle per hour per lane capacity and a length of two miles, the number of service units provided is: 600 vehicles per hour per lane x 4 lanes x 2 miles = 4,800 vehicles -miles 4.1.2 Service Unit Demand The demand placed on the system can be expressed in a similar manner. For example, a development generating 100 vehicle trips in the PM peak hour with an average trip length of two miles would generate: 100 vehicle -trips x 2 mites /trip = 200 vehicle -miles Similarly, demand placed on the existing roadway network is calculated in the same manner with a known traffic volume (peak hour roadway counts collected in 2015) on a street and a given segment length. 4.2 SERVICE UNITS FOR NEW DEVELOPMENT An important objective in the development of the impact fee system is the development of a specific service unit equivalency for individual developments. The vehicle -miles generated by a new development are a function of the trip generation and average trip length characteristics of that development. The following describes the process used to develop the vehicle - equivalency table, which relates land use types and sizes to the resulting vehicle -miles of demand created by that development. 4.2.1 Trip Generation Trip generation information for the PM peak hour was based on data published in the Ninth Edition of Trip Generation by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE). Trip Generation is a reference publication that contains travel characteristics of over 100 land uses across the nation and is based on empirical data gathered from over 3,200 studies that were reported to the Institute by public agencies, developers and consulting firms. City of Schertz, Texas Roadway Impact Fee Study Freese and Nichols, Inc. Page 11 Pass -by and Diverted Trips Adjustments The actual "traffic impact" of a specific site for impact fee purposes is based on the amount of traffic added to the street system. To accurately estimate new trips generated by a new development, adjustments must be made to trip generation rates and equations to account for pass -by and diverted trips. The added traffic is adjusted so that each development is assigned only for a portion of trips associated with that particular development, reducing the possibility of over - counting by counting only primary trips generated. Pass -by trips are those trips that are already on a particular route for a different purpose and simply stop at a particular development on that route. For example, a stop at a convenience store on the way home from the office is a pass -by trip for the convenience store. A pass -by trip does not create an additional burden on the street system and therefore should not be counted in the assessment of impact fees of a convenience store. A diverted trip is a similar situation, except that a diversion is made from the regular route to make an interim stop. On a system -wide basis, this trip places a slightly additional burden on the street system but in many cases, this burden is minimal. Trip generation rates were reduced by the percentages presented in Table 5 in an effort to isolate the primary trip purpose. Adjustments were based on studies conducted by ITE and other published studies. The resulting recommended trip rates are illustrated as part of the Land Use /Vehicle -Mile Equivalency Table illustrated later in this chapter. Rates were developed in lieu of equations to simplify the assessment of impact fees by the City and likewise, the estimation of impact fees by persons who may be required to pay an impact fee in conjunction with a development project. City of Schertz, Texas Roadway Impact Fee Study Freese and Nichols, Inc. Page 12 TABLE 5: TRIP REDUCTION ESTIMATES (PM PEAK HOURI -... .. ....:.... .. .:.:. ' -. 1 ce.lYip .. - P s9 y, DiAirte4l " A x Rat o �r; , 1ik1'I a :. . twiici6 Ihtlit .. t@ te; -T ' ' WI DCt tCtiOnS ... Residential Single - family detached housing 210 DU 1.00 0% 0% 1.00 Apartment 220 DU 0.62 0% 0% 0.62 Continuing Care Retirement Community 255 DU 0.16 0% 0% 0.16 Others Not Specified DU 1.00 0% 0% 1.00 Office General Office Building 710 1000 sq. ft. 1.49 0% 0% 1.49 Medical/ Dental Office 720 1000 sq. ft. 3.57 0% 0% 157 Retail l Commercial Hotel 310 Rooms 0.60 0% 0% 0.60 All Suites Hotel 311 Rooms 0.40 0% 0% 0.40 Motel 320 Rooms 0.47 0°% 0°% 0.47 Movie Theater with Matinee 444 Screens 20.22 15% 0% 17.19 Building Materials and Lumber store 812 1000 sq. ft. 4.49 25% 0% 337 Free standing Discount Superstore 813 1000 sq. ft. 4.35 28% 0% 3.13 Hardware /Paint Store 816 1000 sq. ft. 4.84 26% 28% 123 Garden Center 817 1000 sq. ft. 6.94 0% 0% 6.94 Nursery (Wholesale) 818 1000 sq. ft. 5.17 25% 0% 3.88 Shopping Center 820 1000 sq. ft. 3.71 34% 26% 1.48 Automobile Sales 841 1000 sq. ft. 2.62 40% 0% 1.57 Auto Parts Sales 843 1000 sq. ft. 5.98 43% 13% 2.63 Tire Store 848 1000 sq. ft. 4.15 28% 10% 157 Tire Superstore 849 1000 sq. ft. 2.11 28% 10% 1.31 Supermarket 850 1000 sq. ft. 9.48 36% 38% 2.48 Convenience Market with Gasoline Pumps 853 Fueling Positions 19.07 63% 26% 2.10 Discount Club 857 1000 sq. ft. 4.18 0% 0% 4.18 Home Improvement Superstore 862 1000 sq. ft. 2.33 48% 24% 0.65 Electronic Superstore 863 1000 sq. ft. 4.50 40% 33% 1.22 Toy Superstore 864 1000 sq. ft. 4.99 0°% 0% 4.99 Apparel Store 876 1000 sq. ft. 3.83 0% 0% 3.83 Arts and Crafts Store 879 1000 sq. ft. 6.21 0% 0% 6.21 Pharmacy with Drive Thin 881 1000 sq. ft. 9.91 49% 13% 3.77 Furniture Store 890 1000 sq. ft. 0.45 53% 31% 0.07 Bank with Drive Thm 912 1000 sq. ft. 24.30 47% 26% 6.64 Restaurant 932 1000 sq. ft. 9.85 43% 26% 111 Fast food with Drive Thm 934 1000 sq. ft. 32.65 50% 23% 8.72 Quick Lubrication Vehicle Stop 941 Serving Positions 5.19 55% 0% 234 Automotive Care Center 942 1000 sq. ft. 3.11 0% 0% 3.11 Others Not Specified 1000 sq. ft. 3.71 34% 26% 1.48 Light Industrial General Light Industrial 110 1000 sq. ft. 0.97 0% 0% 0.97 Manufacturing 140 1000 sq. ft. 0.73 0% 0% 0.73 Warehouse 150 1000 sq. ft. 0.32 0% 0% 0.32 Mini Warehouse (Self Storage) 151 1000 sq. ft. 0.26 0% 0% 0.26 High -Cube Warehouse /Distribution Center 152 1000 sq. ft. 0.12 0% 0% 0.12 Utilities 170 1000 sq. ft. 0.76 0% 0% 0.76 Others Not Specified 1000 sq. ft. 0.97 0% 0% 0.97 Institutional Private School (K-12) 536 Students 0.17 0% 0% 0.17 Jr. / Community College 540 Students 0.12 0% 0% 0.12 Church 560 1000 sq. ft. 0.55 0% 0% 0.55 Day Care Center 565 Students 0.81 0% 0% 0.81 Others Not Specified 1000 sq. ft. 0.55 0% 0% 0.55 City of Schertz, Texas Roadway Impact Fee Study Freese and Nichols, Inc. Page 13 With approval by the City Engineer, a local study may also be conducted by an Applicant to confirm rates in Trip Generation or to change rates reflecting local conditions. In such cases, a minimum of three similar sites should be counted. Selected sites should be isolated in nature with driveways that specifically serve the development and not other land uses. The results should be plotted on the scatter diagram of the selected land use contained in Trip Generation for comparison purposes. It is recommended that no change be approved unless the results show a variation of at least fifteen percent across the range of the sample size surveyed. Trip Length Trip lengths (in miles) are used in conjunction with site trip generation to estimate vehicle -miles of travel. Trip length data was based on information generated by modeling developed in the 2017 Schertz Master Thoroughfare Plan (MTP) and travel survey information. Travel characteristics were used to determine average trip lengths for common land use types. Table 6 summarizes the average trip lengths compiled from the forecast model. These trip lengths represent the average distance that a vehicle will travel between an origin and destination of which either the origin or destination contains the land -use category identified below. A localization adjustment was made to these to net out the portion of trip length on the federal highway system since the impact fee system does not include federal facilities in the Chapter 395 legislation. This localization adjustment was determined using the 2017 MTP model data. Data compiled by the 2017 MTP model represents the best available information on trip lengths for this area. Origin and Destination Adjustments The assessment of an individual development's impact fee is based on the premise that each vehicle -trip has an origin and a destination and that the development end should pay for one -half of the cost necessary to complete each trip. To prevent the potential of double charging, trip lengths were divided by two to reflect half of the vehicle trip associated with development. Table 6 illustrates the adjusted trip length. Finally, as the service area structure was based on a six -mile boundary, those land uses that exhibited trip lengths greater than six miles would be truncated to this threshold. City of Schertz, Texas Roadway Impact Fee Study Freese and Nichols, Inc. Page 14 TABLE 6: TRIP LENGTHS AND ADIUSTMENTS City of Schertz, Texas Roadway Impact Fee Study Freese and Nichols, Inc. Page 15 Wit =; "'Local za" ; Residential Single - family detached housing 210 DU 14.03 6.73 3.37 Apartment 220 DU 14.03 6.73 3.37 Continuing Care Retirement Community 255 DU 14.03 6.73 3.37 Others Not Specified DU 14.03 6.73 3.37 Office General Office Building 710 1000 sq. ft. 15.91 7.64 3.82 Medical / Dental Office 720 1000 sq. ft. 15.91 7.64 3.82 Retail / Commercial Hotel 310 Rooms 13.31 6.39 3.19 All Suites Hotel 311 Rooms 13.31 6.39 3.19 Motel 320 Rooms 13.31 6.39 3.19 Movie Theater with Matinee 444 Screens 12.76 6.12 3.06 Building Materials and Lumber store 812 1000 sq. ft. 11.88 5.70 2.85 Free standing Discount Superstore 813 1000 sq. ft. 11.88 5.70 2.85 Hardware /Paint Store 816 1000 sq. ft. 11.88 5.70 2.85 Garden Center 817 1000 sq. ft. 11.88 5.70 2.85 Nursery (Wholesale) 818 1000 sq. ft. 11.88 5.70 2.85 Shopping Center 820 1000 sq. ft. 11.88 5.70 2.85 Automobile Sales 841 1000 sq. ft. 11.88 5.70 2.85 Auto Parts Sales 843 1000 sq. ft. 11.88 5.70 2.85 Tire Store 848 1000 sq. ft. 11.88 5.70 2.85 Tire Superstore 849 1000 sq. ft. 11.88 5.70 2.85 Supermarket 850 1000 sq. ft. 11.88 5.70 2.85 Convenience Market with Gasoline Pumps 853 Fueling Positions 12.76 6.12 3.06 Discount Club 857 1000 sq. ft. 11.88 5.70 2.85 Home Improvement Superstore 862 1000 sq. ft. 11.88 5.70 2.85 Electronic Superstore 863 1000 sq. ft. 11.88 5.70 2.85 Toy Superstore 864 1000 sq. ft. 11.88 5.70 2.85 Apparel Store 876 1000 sq. ft. 11.88 5.70 2.85 Arts and Crafts Store 879 1000 sq. ft. 11.88 5.70 2.85 Pharmacy with Drive Thru 881 1000 sq. ft. 11.88 5.70 2.85 Furniture Store 890 1000 sq. ft. 11.88 5.70 2.85 Bank with Drive Thru 912 1000 sq. ft. 12.76 6.12 3.06 Restaurant 932 1000 sq. ft. 12.76 6.12 3.06 Fast food with Drive Thru 934 1000 sq. ft. 12.76 6.12 3.06 Quick Lubrication Vehicle Stop 941 Serving Positions 12.76 6.12 3.06 Automotive Care Center 942 1000 sq. ft. 12.76 6.12 3.06 Others Not Specified 1000 sq. ft. 11.88 5.70 2.85 Light Industrial General Light Industrial 110 1000 sq. ft. 15.91 7.64 3.82 Manufacturing 140 1000 sq. ft. 15.91 7.64 3.82 Warehouse 150 1000 sq. ft. 15.91 7.64 3.82 Mini Warehouse (Self Storage) 151 1000 sq. ft. 15.91 7.64 3.82 High -Cube Warehouse /Distribution Center 152 1000 sq. ft. 15.91 7.64 3.82 Utilities 170 1000 sq. ft. 15.91 7.64 3.82 Others Not Specified 1000 sq. ft. 15.91 7.64 3.82 Institutional Private School (K-12) 536 Students 9.23 4.43 2.22 Jr. / Community College 540 Students 22.34 10.72 5.36 Church 560 1000 sq. ft. 13.81 6.63 3.31 Day Care Center 565 Students 13.81 6.63 3.31 Others Not Specified 1000 sq. ft. 13.81 6.63 3.31 City of Schertz, Texas Roadway Impact Fee Study Freese and Nichols, Inc. Page 15 Service Unit Equivalency Table The result of combining the trip generation and trip length information is an equivalency table which establishes the service unit rate for various land uses. These service unit rates are based on an appropriate development unit for each land use. For example, a dwelling unit is the basis for residential uses, while 1,000 gross square feet of floor area is the basis for office, commercial, and industrial uses. Other less common land uses use appropriate independent variables. Separate rates have been established for specific land uses within the broader categories of residential, commercial, industrial, and institutional to reflect the differences between land uses within the categories. However, even with these specific land use types, information is not available for every conceivable land use; so engineering judgement must be used when needed. The equivalency table is illustrated in Table 7. City of Schertz, Texas Roadway Impact Fee Study Freese and Nichols, Inc. Page 16 TABLE 7: LAND USE VEHICLE -MILE EQUIVALENCY .., ... ,..... iTE " .. -.: FYev Ate. Tr`Iir1aI "x.17eIp ' , .'ehTi "1'er . l'andiisc, Clade.•. Unit wl�tlons ien lh'evilif Residential Single - family detached housing 210 DU 1.00 3.37 3.37 Apartment 220 DU 0.62 3.37 2.09 Continuing Care Retirement Community 255 DU 0.16 3.37 0.54 Others Not Specified DU 1.00 3.37 3.37 Office General Office Building 710 1000 sq. ft. 1.49 3.82 5.69 Medical / Dental Office 720 1000 sq. ft. 3.57 182 13.64 Retail ! Commercial Hotel 310 Rooms 0.60 3.19 1.91 All Suites Hotel 311 Rooms 0.40 3.19 1.28 Motel 320 Rooms 0.47 3.19 1.50 Movie Theater with Matinee 444 Screens 1719 3.06 52.60 Building Materials and Lumber store 812 1000 sq. ft. 3.37 185 9.60 Free standing Discount Superstore 813 1000 sq. ft. 3.13 2.85 8.92 Hardware /Paint Store 816 1000 sq. ft. 2.23 185 6.36 Garden Center 817 1000 sq. ft. 6.94 2.85 19.78 Nursery (Wholesale) 818 1000 sq. ft. 3.88 185 11.06 Shopping Center 820 1000 sq. ft. 1.48 2.85 4.23 Automobile Sales 841 1000 sq. ft. 1.57 185 4.47 Auto Parts Sales 843 1000 sq. ft. 2.63 2.85 7.50 Tire Store 848 1000 sq. ft. 2.57 185 7.32 Tire Superstore 849 1000 sq. ft. 1.31 2.85 3.73 Supermarket 850 1000 sq. ft. 2.48 2.85 7.07 Convenience Market with Gasoline Pumps 853 Fueling Positions 2.10 3.06 6.43 Discount Club 857 1000 sq. ft. 4.18 2.85 11.91 Home Improvement Superstore 862 1000 sq. ft. 0.65 2.85 1.85 Electronic Superstore 863 1000 sq. ft. 1.22 2.85 3.48 Toy Superstore 864 1000 sq. ft. 4.99 185 14.22 Apparel Store 876 1000 sq. ft. 3.83 2.85 10.92 Arts and Crafts Store 879 1000 sq. ft. 6.21 185 17.70 Pharmacy with Drive Thru 881 1000 sq. ft. 3.77 2.85 10.74 Furniture Store 890 1000 sq. ft. 0.07 2.85 0.20 Bank with Drive Thin 912 1000 sq. ft. 6.64 3.06 20.32 Restaurant 932 1000 sq. ft. 3.11 3.06 9.52 Fast food with Drive Thru 934 1000 sq. ft. 8.72 3.06 26.68 Quick Lubrication Vehicle Stop 941 Serving Positions 2.34 106 7.16 Automotive Care Center 942 1000 sq. ft. 3.11 3.06 9.52 Others Not Specified 1000 sq. ft. 1.48 185 4.23 light Industrial General Light Industrial 110 1000 sq. ft. 0.97 3.82 3.70 Manufacturing 140 1000 sq. ft. 0.73 3.82 2.79 Warehouse 150 1000 sq. ft. 0.32 3.82 1.22 Mini Warehouse (Self Storage) 151 1000 sq. ft. 0.26 3.82 0.99 High -Cube Warehouse /Distribution Center 152 1000 sq. ft. 0.12 3.82 0.46 Utilities 170 1000 sq. ft. 0.76 3.82 2.90 Others Not Specified 1000 sq. ft. 0.97 182 3.70 Institutional Private School (K-12) 536 Students 0.17 2.22 0.38 Jr. / Commnunity College 540 Students 0.12 5.36 0.64 Church 560 1000 sq. ft. 0.55 3.31 1.82 Day Care Center 565 Students 0.81 3.31 2.68 Others Not Specified 1000 sq. ft. 0.55 331 1.82 City of Schertz, Texas Roadway Impact Fee Study Freese and Nichols, Inc. Page 17 5.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS An inventory of major roadways that are designated as arterial and /or collector facilities on the Master Thoroughfare Plan was conducted to determine: 1) capacity provided by the existing roadway system, 2) the demand currently placed on the system, and 3) the potential existence of deficiencies on the system. Any deficiencies found to occur will be carried over in the impact fee calculations (netting out capacity made available by the CIP). Data for the inventory was obtained from the Master Thoroughfare Plan, field reconnaissance, and peak hour traffic volume count data. The roadways were divided into segments based on changes in lane configuration, major intersections, city limits or area development that may influence roadway characteristics. For the assessment of individual segments, lane capacities were assigned to each segment based on roadway functional class defined by the Master Thoroughfare Plan and type of existing cross - section, as listed in Table 8. Roadway hourly volume capacities are based on general carrying capacity values and reflect level -of- service (LOS) "D" operation based upon generally accepted capacities as defined in AAMPO planning references, which has been identified as the minimum acceptable traffic operational condition by cities. TABLE 8: ROADWAY FACILITY VEHICLE -MILE LANE CAPACITIES Divided Arterial* DA 675 Divided Collector* DC 550 Undivided Arterial UA 625 Undivided Collector UC 500 *Facilities with a two -way left turn lane (TWLTL) treated as a divided facility and marked with a Special Arterial (SA) or Special Collector (SC) designation. 5.1 EXISTING VOLUMES Existing directional PM peak hour volumes were obtained from automated traffic counts conducted in May 2015. Automated traffic counts at 30 separate locations were collected on major roadways throughout the city. In an effort to minimize the total number of counts, data was collected at locations where traffic volumes would typify link volumes on the major segments within the immediate area. For segments not counted, existing volumes were used or estimates were developed based on data from adjoining roadway counts. City of Schertz, Texas Roadway Impact Fee Study Freese and Nichols, Inc. Page 18 This data was compiled for roadway segments throughout the city and entered into the database for use in calculations. A summary of volumes by roadway segment is included in the Appendix B as part of the existing capital improvements database. 5.2 VEHICLE -MILES OF EXISTING CAPACITY SUPPLY An analysis of the total capacity for each service area was performed. For each roadway segment, the existing vehicle -miles of capacity supplied were calculated using the following: Vehicle -Miles of Capacity = Link capacity per peak hour per lane x No. of Lanes x Length of segment (miles) A summary of the current capacity available on the roadway system by service area is detailed below. 5.3 VEHICLE -MILES OF EXISTING DEMAND The level of current usage in terms of vehicle -miles was calculated for each roadway segment. The vehicle- miles of existing demand were calculated by the following equation: Vehicle -Miles of Demand = PM peak hour volume x Length of segment (miles) The total vehicle -miles of demand by service area is also listed below. 5.4 VEHICLE -MILES OF EXISTING EXCESS CAPACITY AND DEFICIENCIES For each roadway segment, the existing vehicle -miles of excess capacity and /or deficiencies were calculated and are listed in Table 9. Each direction was evaluated to determine if vehicle demands exceeded the available capacity. If demand exceeded capacity in one or both directions, the deficiency is deducted from the supply associated with the impact fee capital improvement plan. A summary of peak hour excess capacity and deficiencies is also shown in the table. Any deficiencies identified under current operations will be carried over to the impact fee calculation. A detailed listing of existing excess capacity and deficiencies by roadway segment is also located in the Appendix B. City of Schertz, Texas Roadway Impact Fee Study Freese and Nichols, Inc. Page 19 TABLE 9. PEAK HOUR VEHICLE -MILES OF EXISTING CAPACITY, DEMAND, EXCESS CAPACITY AND DEFICIENCIES 1 12,708 2,938 10,047 277 2 37,321 20,846 16,690 215 3 15,917 7,479 9,067 629 4 1,478 130 1,348 0 Total 67,424 31,393 37,151 1,121 PROJECTED Chapter 395 requires a description of all capital improvements or facility expansions and their costs necessitated by and attributable to new development within the service area. This section describes the projected growth, vehicle -miles of new demand, capital improvements program, vehicle -miles of new capacity supplied, and costs of the roadway improvements. 6.1 PROJECTED GROWTH The projected growth for the roadway service area is represented by the increase in the number of new vehicle -miles of demand generated over the 10 -year planning period. The basis for the calculation of new demand is the population and employment projections that were prepared as part of the Schertz Land Use Assumptions (LUA) Report for Impact Fees dated October 2017 by Freese and Nichols with a growth rate approved by the Schertz CIAC on May 13, 2015. Estimates of population and employment were prepared for the years 2017 and 2027. Population data was provided in terms of the number of dwelling units and persons. Employment data was broken into three classes of employees that include basic, retail and service, comprising a variety of employment groupings. Basic employment generally encompasses the industrial and manufacturing uses; retail employment includes commercial and retail uses; and service employment generally encompasses government and office uses. A summary of the projected growth is summarized in Table 4. 6.1.1 Projected Vehicle -Miles of New Demand Projected vehicle -miles of demand were calculated based on the net growth expected to occur over the 10 -year planning period, and on the associated service unit generation for each of the population and employment data components (basic, service and retail). Separate calculations were performed for each City of Schertz, Texas Roadway Impact Fee Study Freese and Nichols, Inc. Page 20 data component and were then aggregated for each service area. Vehicle -miles of demand for population growth were based on dwelling units (residential). Vehicle -miles of demand for employment were based on the number of employees, and then converted to square footage of building space using estimates of square footage per employee for industrial, office and retail uses. The 10 -year projected vehicle -miles of demand by service area are summarized in Table 10. The Appendix C details the derivation of the projected demand calculations. TABLE 10. 10 -YEAR PROIECTED SERVICE UNITS OF DEMAND 1 10,461 2 17,905 3 14,918 4 124 Total 43,408 The impact fee CIP is aimed at facilitating long -term growth in Schertz. The City has identified the City- funded transportation projects needed to accommodate the projected growth within the City. The CIP for Roadway Impact Fees can be made up of: • Recently completed projects with excess capacity available to serve new growth; • Projects currently under construction; and • Remaining projects needed to complete the City's Master Thoroughfare Plan. All arterial and collector facilities in the currently adopted Master Thoroughfare Plan not to the ultimate build -out were included in the impact fee CIP to provide flexibility in the development of the community due to currently rapid rates of development. The only exception is the FM 3009 extension which was excluded due to the high cost and undetermined scope and timing of the project. No completed (recoupment) projects were included in this initial study. 6.2.1 Eligible Projects Legislative mandate stipulates that the impact fee CIP contain only those roadways which are included on the City's official Master Thoroughfare Plan that are classified as arterial or collector status facilities. Impact fee legislation also allows for the recoupment of costs for previously constructed facilities and City of Schertz, Texas Roadway Impact Fee Study Freese and Nichols, Inc. Page 21 projects currently under construction; however, after consideration, none of the projects were included for recoupment. All of these projects conform to the Master Thoroughfare Plan requirements and will consider only the costs incurred by the City for facility implementation. 6.2.2 Eligible Costs In general, those costs associated with the design, right -of -way acquisition, and construction and financing of all items necessary to implement the roadway projects identified in the capital improvements plan are eligible. These estimates are based on the ultimate roadway section identified by functional classification in the 2017 Master Thoroughfare Plan Report with an excerpt of these assumed sections in the Appendix F. It is important to note that upon completion of the capital improvements identified in the CIP, the city must recalculate the impact fee using the actual costs and make refunds if the actual cost is less than the impact fee paid by greater than 10 percent. To prevent this situation, conservative (low) estimates of project cost are considered. Chapter 395.012 identifies roadway costs eligible for impact fee recovery. The law states that: "An impact fee may be imposed only to pay the cost of constructing capital improvements for facility expansions, including and limited to the construction contract price, surveying and engineering fees, land acquisition costs, including land purchases, court awards and costs, attorney fees, and expert witness fees; and fees actually paid or contracted to be paid to an independent qualified engineer or financial consultant preparing or updating the capital improvements plan who is not an employee of the political subdivision." "Projected interest charges and other finance costs may be included in determining the amount of impact fees only if the impact fees are used for the payment of principal and interest on bonds, notes, or other obligations issued by or on behalf of the political subdivision to finance the capital improvements or facility expansions identified in the capital improvements plan and are not used to reimburse bond funds expended for facilities that are not identified in the capital improvements plan." The following details the individual cost components of the impact fee CIP. Construction: Construction costs include those costs which are normally associated with construction, including: paving, dirt work (including sub -grade preparation, embankment fill and excavation), clearing and grubbing, retaining walls or other slope protection measures, and City of Schertz, Texas Roadway Impact Fee Study Freese and Nichols, Inc. Page 22 general drainage items which are necessary in order to build the roadway and allow the roadway to fulfill its vehicle carrying capability. Individual items may include; bridges, culverts, inlets and storm sewers, junction boxes, manholes, curbs and /or gutters, and channel linings and other erosion protection appurtenances. Other items included in cost estimates may include: sidewalks, traffic control devices at select locations (initial cost only), ancillary adjustments to existing utilities, and minimal sodding /landscaping. Engineering: These are the costs associated with the design and surveying necessary to construct the roadway. Because the law specifically references fees, it has generally been understood that in -house City design and surveying cannot be included. Only those services that are contracted out can be included and it may be necessary to use outside design and surveying firms to perform the work. For planned projects, a percentage based on typical engineering contracts was used to estimate these fees. Right -of -Way: Any land acquisition cost estimated to be necessary to construct a roadway can be included in the cost estimate. For planning purposes, only the additional amount of land needed to bring a roadway right -of -way to thoroughfare standard was considered. For example, if a 120' right -of -way for an arterial road was needed and 80' of right -of -way currently existed, only 40' would be considered in the acquisition cost. The cost for right -of -way may vary based on location of project and was based on data from the most current County Appraisal District data. Debt Service: Predicted interest charges and finance costs may be included in determining the amount of impact fees only if the impact fees are used for the payment of principle and interest on bonds, notes, or other obligations issued by the city to finance capital improvements identified in the impact fee capital improvements plans. They cannot be used to reimburse bond funds for other facilities. This cost was determined through a credit analysis found in Appendix 1. Previous Assessments: The cost for any previous assessments collected by the City on projects identified on the impact fee CIP must be removed from program consideration. As this is a new impact fee program, there are no previous assessments to consider in the initial calculation. City of Schertz, Texas Roadway Impact Fee Study Freese and Nichols, Inc. Page 23 Study Updates: The fees paid or contracted to be paid to an independent qualified engineer or financial consultant preparing or updating the capital improvements plan who is not an employee of the political subdivision can be included in the impact fees Only the cost necessitated by new development is considered for impact fee calculations. For example, if only 60% of the capacity provided by the impact fee CIP is needed over the ten -year window, then only 60% of the cost associated with those facilities will be considered. This can be seen in Service Area 1 as another example, where net capacity supplied by the CIP is 42,189 vehicle -miles (Table 12) while the projected demand is 10,461 vehicle -miles (Table 10). Therefore, only the portion of cost attributed to the projected demand, 24.8 percent, is considered in the impact fee cost per service unit calculation in the next phase of the study's Impact Fee Report. This calculation is shown for each service area in Table 13. 6.2.3 Impact Fee CIP The proposed CIP consists of 71 project segments over the four service areas and entail the buildout of the full Master Thoroughfare Plan network, as seen in Figure 2. By including the full network, there is flexibility in the impact fee program funds to adapt to development needs and ensure credit is given to developers building thoroughfare roadways. Project costs were developed based on unit cost estimates compiled by Freese and Nichols. Individual project costs were developed for engineering, right -of -way, and construction, as found in the Appendix E. Each roadway segment uses the Master Thoroughfare Plan's defined functional classification to determine the ultimate roadway standard for each link. Additionally, impact fee study update costs were attributed to the project costs. For recently completed projects, actual costs must be input to meet legislative mandates, but no completed projects were included in this initial impact fee program. The cost for the Impact Fee CIP (IFCIP) program totals $229.0 million, excluding debt service. Debt service costs attributable to new development will be included in the cost per service unit calculation analysis as defined in the credit analysis. Figure 2 and Table 11 illustrate and list the capital improvement projects and their associated total cost for the impact fee program. City of Schertz, Texas Roadway Impact Fee Study Freese and Nichols, Inc. Page 24 City of Schertz, Texas Roadway Impact Fee Study Freese and Nichols, Inc. Page 25 Saw Area Project W Roadway From TO Project Status Length (m it No- Of Type Lanes Rdwy Thoroughfare Plan Description Pct. in Serv. Area Total Project Cost 1 1 FM 2252 JH 35 FM 482 New 0.32 4 DA Principal Arterial 100% $1,566,800 1 2 FM 2252 FM 482 Railroad Tricks New 0.64 4 DA Secondary Arterial 100% $3,146,000 q/X 3 FM 2252 Railroad Tracks N City Limits New 0,22 4 DA Secondary Arterial 50% $509,850 1/2 4 N/S Connector (1) N 35 Railroad Tracks New 1,25 4 DA Secondary Arterial 50% $3,202,650 1 5 E/W Connector (1) NUS Connector (1) FM 2252 New 0.99 4 DA Secondary Arterial 100% $5,513,000 1 6 EAN Connector (2) NIS Connector (1) FM 2252 New 0.99 2 LC Commercial Collector B 100% $4,269,000 1 7 FM 432 FM 2252 Hubertus Rd New 1.05 4 DA Principal Arterial 100% $5,456,100 1 8 FM 482 Hubertus Rd Railroad Tracks New 1.00 4 DA Principal Arterial 100% $5,147,800 1 9 FM 482 800' W of Fresenhahn Friesenhatin Ln New 0.15 4 DA Principal Arterial 100% $754,100 I/X 10 FM 482 Fresenhahn Ln Schwab Rd New 0.59 4 DA Principal Arterial 50% $1,530,000 1 11 FM 482 Schwab Rd E City Limits New 1.20 4 DA Principal Arterial 100% $6,205,500 1 12 Hubertus Rd N 35 FM 482 New 0.57 4 DA Principal Arterial 100% $2,855,700 1 13 Hubertus Rd FM 482 N City Limits New 0.30 4 DA Principal Arterial 100% $1,572,300 1 14 Friesermahn To H 35 FM 482 New 0.72 3 SO Commercial Collector A 100% $1,343,600 1 15 Schwab Rd N 35 FM 482 New 0.63 6 DA Principal Arterial 100% $4,374,700 1 16 E/W Connector (3) Hubertus Rd David Lack Blvd New 1.59 3 SO Commercial Collector A 100% $6,110,000 1 17 Eckhardt Rd Froboese Ln Green Valley Rd New 1.11 2 US Residential Collector 100% $3,727,100 1 18 Schwab Rd H 35 S City Limits New 1.14 4 DA Secondary Arterial 100% $5,680,700 1 19 Fropoese Ln Schwab Rd Eckhardt Rd New 0.57 2 LIC Residential Collector 100% $2,030,400 1 20 Frodoese Ln 2200'E of Eckhardt E City Limits New 0.26 2 UC Residential Collector 100% $890,000 1 21 Green Valley Rd W City Limits E City Limits New 0.87 4 DA Secondary Arterial 100% $4,199,500 1 22 Homestead Pkwy End Ex Homestead Pkwy S City Limits New 0.33 2 LO Residential Collector 100% $1,178,500 1 23 Country Club Blvd Scenic Links S City Limits New 0.35 2 DO Residential Collector 100% $1,257,100 1 24 E/W Connector (4) Country Club Blvd Homestead Pkwy New 0.77 2 LO Residential Collector 100% $2,671,200 1 25 E/W Connector (4) Schwab Rd Eckhardt Rd New 0.45 2 DO Residential Collector 100% $1,602,000 1 26 FM 1103 IN 35 Old Wiederstem Rd New 0.70 4 DA Principal Arterial 100% $2,000,000 1 27 N/S Connector (1) N 35 Old Wiederstem Rd New 0.55 4 DA Secondary Arterial 100% $2,667,000 1 28 N/S Connector (2) R 35 Old Wiederstent Rd New 0.73 4 DA Secondary Arterial 100% $3,635,700 1 29 SAN Connector (5) N/S Connector (1) FM 1103 New 2.00 2 US Residential Collector 100% $7,097,200 I/X 30 Old Wiederstem Rd NIS Connector (11 CherTv Tree Dr New 2.17 4 DA Secondary Arterial 50% $5.143.600 Sub-total SA 1 24.22 $97,337,100 2 31 Doerr Ln N City Limits Lookout Rd New 0.91 3 SC Commercial Collector A 100% $3,249,900 2/1 4 N/S Connector (1) N 35 Railroad Tracks New 1.25 4 DA Secondary Arterial 50% $3,130,900 2 32 FAN Connector (2) FM 3009 NIS Connector (1) New 0.81 2 LIC Commercial Collector B 100% $3,386,200 2 33 E/W Connector (6) FM 3009 NIS Connector (1) New 0.81 2 LO Commercial Collector B 100% $3,386,100 2 34 Mid-Cities Pkwy N 35 FM 3009 New 0.98 3 SC Commercial Collector A 100% $3,293,700 2 35 E/W Connector (1) FM 3009 N/S Connector (1) New 0.81 4 DA Secondary Arterial 100% $4,190,900 2 36 E/W Connector (7) W City Limits Doerr Ln New 0.65 3 SO Commercial Collector A 100% $2,231,100 2 37 Lookout Rd Tri-County Pkwy Schertz Pkwy New 0.74 3 SO Commercial Collector A 100% $2,743,600 2 38 Four Oaks Ln End of Ex .Four Oaks Ln NIS Connector (1) New 0.54 3 SO Commercial Collector A 100% $1,977,300 2 39 Wiederstain Rd E City Limits FM 3009 New 0.64 4 DA Secondary Arterial 100% $3,079,800 2 40 Waderstem Rd Schanz Pkwy W City Limits New 0.41 2 Uc Residential Collector 100% $1,294,700 2 41 Baptist Health Or Ripps-Kreusler Wiederstein Rd New 0.27 3 SC Commercial Collector A 100% $992,900 2 42 Ripps-Kreusler Baptist Health Or End of Rippe Kreusler New 0.22 3 SC Commercial Collector A 100% $803,900 2 43 Maske Rd FM 1518 Oak St New 0.54 3 SC Commercial Collector A 100% $1,827,600 2 44 Macke Rd Realignment Oak St Schanz Peery New 0.88 2 LIC Residential Collector 100% $3,645,200 2 45 FM 1518/Main St Masks Rd Oak St New 1.30 3 SA Secondary Arterial 100% $4,494,500 2 46 FM 1518 N City Limits SA 3 Limit New 0.36 6 DA Principal Arterial 100% $436,300 213 47 FM 1518 SA 3 Limit Schanz Pkwy Ext. New 0.39 6 DA Principal Arterial 50% $222,650 2 48 FM 78/John Peterson Sled W City Limits E City Limits New 1.81 6 DA Principal Arterial 100% $2,683780 Sub-total SA 2 14.34 $47,071,030 City of Sch ertz, Texas Roadway Impact Fee Study Freese and Nichols, Inc. Page 26 SON Project Project Area Ni Roadway 3/2 47 FM 1518 3 49 FM 1518 3 50 Schaefer Rd 3/X 51 RAF - Bumette 31X 52 Lower Seguin Rd 3 53 Lower Seguin Rd 3 54 Lower Seguin Rd 3 55 NIS Connector (3) 3 56 NIS Connector (3) 3 57 N/S Connector (4) 3 58 N/S Connector (4) 3/X 59 W Ware Seguin Rd 3 60 W Ware Seguin Rd 3 61 NIS Connector (5) 3 62 NIS Connector (5) 3 63 Trainer Hale Rd (NIS) 3 64 Trainer Hale Rd (E/W) 3 65 Ware Seguin Rd 3 66 E Ware Seguin Rd 3/4 67 Graytown Rd 3 68 NIS Connector (6) 3 69 E/W Connector (8) Sub-total SA 3 DA 4/3 67 Graytown Rd 4 70 Binz-Engleman Rd 4 71 Scenic Lake Dr Sub-total SA 4 Totals: TABLE 11: IMPACT FEE CIP LISTING (CONTINUED) Pct. in Serv. Air 50% 100% 100% 50% 50% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 50% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 50% 100% 100% Boeing Dr IN 10 New 1.11 3 SA Secondary Rural Arterial 50% W City Limits Graytown Rd New 1.30 3 SA Secondary Rural Arterial 100% Binz-Engleman Rd IH 10 New 0.77 3 SC Commercial Collector A 100% 3.19 65.08 Totals: Engineering Cost Right-of-Way Cost Construction Cost $14,149,150 $10,633,600 204.131.830 TOTAL NET COST $228,914,580 Future Impact Fee Update Cost* $100,000 TOTAL IMPLEMENTATION COST $229,014,580 Notes: DA- Divided arterial Recoup- Recoupment Project SA- Special arterial (with two way left turn lane) New - New Project SC- Special collector (with two way left turn lane) Cost for (2) 5 year updates LJC- Undivided collector indcates roadway half in/half out of City Limits indicates roadway split between two service areas Total Project Cost $222,650 $5,165,000 $1,536,700 $1,279,500 $686,450 $6,998,900 $7,860,400 $764,000 $1,380,400 $894,600 $725,000 $900,550 $2,236,900 $3,780,500 $3,227,400 $8,020,500 $7,710,300 $4,736,300 $4,739,900 $2,000,600 $1,712,600 $8,482,300 $75,061,450 $2,000,600 $4,667,000 $2,777,400 $9,445,000 $228,914,580 City of Sch ertz, Texas Roadway Impact Fee Study Freese and Nichols, Inc. Page 27 Project Length No- Of Type Thoroughfare Plan From TO Status Inc it Lanes Rdwy Description SA 2 Limit Schertz Pkwy Ext, New 0.39 6 DA Principal Arterial Schanz Pkwy Ext. IH 10 New 4.09 6 DA Principal Arterial W City Limits FM 1518 New 0.48 2 LIC Residential Collector Schaefer Rd E City Limits New 0.55 4 DA Secondary Arterial W City Limits E of Tates Or New 0.35 3 SA Secondary Rural Arterial E of Tates Or W of Canopy Bend New 1.76 3 SA Secondary Rural Arterial W of Canopy Bend E City Limits New 1.72 4 DA Secondary Arterial N City Limits S City Limits New 0.15 4 DA Principal Arterial N City Limits S City Limits New 0.27 4 DA Principal Arterial N City Limits S City Limits New 0.26 2 LID Residential Collector N City Limits S City Limits New 0.21 2 LID Residential Collector W City Limits Boeing Or New 0,57 2 LIC Residential Collector Boeing Dr NIS Connector (5) New 0,67 2 LIC Residential Collector Lower Seguin Rd W Ware Seguin Rd New 1.10 2 LIC Residential Collector W Ware Seguin Rd E Ware Seguin Rd New 0.93 2 LIC Residential Collector Weir Rd IN 10 New 1.66 4 DA Principal Arterial FM 1518 Trainer Hale Rd (NIS) New 1.51 4 DA Secondary Arterial Graytown Rd NIS Connector (5) New 1.35 3 SA Secondary Rural Arterial N/S Connector (5) FM 1518 New 1.41 3 SA Secondary Rural Arterial Boeing Dr IN 10 New 1.11 3 SA Secondary Rural Arterial Ware Seguin Rd IN 10 New 0.47 3 SC Commercial Collector A IN 10 E City Limits Now 2.33 3 SC Commercial Collector A 23.33 Pct. in Serv. Air 50% 100% 100% 50% 50% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 50% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 50% 100% 100% Boeing Dr IN 10 New 1.11 3 SA Secondary Rural Arterial 50% W City Limits Graytown Rd New 1.30 3 SA Secondary Rural Arterial 100% Binz-Engleman Rd IH 10 New 0.77 3 SC Commercial Collector A 100% 3.19 65.08 Totals: Engineering Cost Right-of-Way Cost Construction Cost $14,149,150 $10,633,600 204.131.830 TOTAL NET COST $228,914,580 Future Impact Fee Update Cost* $100,000 TOTAL IMPLEMENTATION COST $229,014,580 Notes: DA- Divided arterial Recoup- Recoupment Project SA- Special arterial (with two way left turn lane) New - New Project SC- Special collector (with two way left turn lane) Cost for (2) 5 year updates LJC- Undivided collector indcates roadway half in/half out of City Limits indicates roadway split between two service areas Total Project Cost $222,650 $5,165,000 $1,536,700 $1,279,500 $686,450 $6,998,900 $7,860,400 $764,000 $1,380,400 $894,600 $725,000 $900,550 $2,236,900 $3,780,500 $3,227,400 $8,020,500 $7,710,300 $4,736,300 $4,739,900 $2,000,600 $1,712,600 $8,482,300 $75,061,450 $2,000,600 $4,667,000 $2,777,400 $9,445,000 $228,914,580 City of Sch ertz, Texas Roadway Impact Fee Study Freese and Nichols, Inc. Page 27 6.2.4 Projected Vehicle -Miles Capacity Available for New Growth The vehicle -miles of new capacity supply were calculated similar to the vehicle -miles of existing capacity supplied. The equation used was: Vehicle -Miles of New Capacity = Link capacity per peak hour per lane x No. of Lanes x Length of segment (miles) Vehicle -miles of new supply provided by the CIP are listed in Table 12. While projects listed in the CIP have not been built, the existing utilization on CIP roadways and system deficiencies on the current network (by service area) have been removed from the total supply to properly account for new "net" capacity available for consumption by new growth. Table 12, Column E, depicts net availability of supply by the CIP. Appendix D details capacity calculations provided by the CIP program. TABLE 12: CAPACITY AND NET CAPACITY PROVIDED BY THE PROPOSED CIP *All current network deficiencies (Table 9) are located on CIP roadways and therefore accounted for in Column B, Existing Utilization, of this table. As part of this initial program assessment, the current network deficiencies listed in Table 9 (calculated in Appendix B) are all located on CIP roadways. Future updates may find deficiencies on other system facilities which are not captured as part of the CIP analysis. These system deficiencies are deducted from the total capacity supplied by the CIP based on the premise that improvements from the CIP program (full network implementation) will alleviate issues that currently exist due to a limited network. A comparison of net capacity provided by the proposed CIP relative to 10 -year needs is listed below in Table 13. An analysis reveals an adequately matched overall impact fee CIP program to address growth attributable to new development. City of Schertz, Texas Roadway Impact Fee Study Freese and Nichols, Inc. Page 28 TABLE 13: PROJECTED DEMAND AND NET CAPACITY PROVIDED BY THE PROPOSED CIP 6.2.5 Cost of Roadway Improvements The total IFCIP cost, including study update costs, and cost of net capacity supplied to implement the roadway improvements plan projects by service area is shown in Table 14. If traffic exists on proposed CIP project roadways or there are any deficiencies present on the current network in each respective service area (existing utilization), the total system cost is adjusted to reflect the net capacity being made available by the impact fee program. In other words, only the unused portion of the CIP and its associated costs are considered eligible. A detailed listing by project segment in each service area can be found in Appendix F. Appendix H details system costs by service area. TABLE 14: SUMMARY OF ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS PLAN COST ANALYSIS 1 $97,374,686 $5,917,209 $91,457,477 2 $47,091,987 $13,072,601 $34,019,386 3 $75,100,115 $11,795,549 $63,304,566 4 $9,447,792 $365,723 $9,082,070 Total $229,014,580 $31,151,082 $197,863,498 City of Schertz, Texas Roadway Impact Fee Study Freese and Nichols, Inc. Page 29 7.0 CALCULATION This chapter discusses the calculation of the cost per service unit and the calculation of roadway impact fees. The roadway impact fee will vary by the particular land use, service area, and size of the development. Examples are included to better illustrate the method by which the roadway impact fees are calculated. 7.1 COST PER SERVICE UNIT The cost per service unit is calculated by dividing the cost of the CIP necessitated and attributable to new demand (net cost) by the projected service units of growth over the 10 -year planning period. 7.1.1 Cost Attributable to New Development Generally, the cost per service unit varies by service area because of; the net capacity being provided by the proposed projects, variations in cost of CIP and, the number of service units necessitated by new growth in each impact fee service area. Where net capacity supplied is greater than demand, the cost per service unit is simply the cost of the net capacity divided by the number of service units provided. In this case, onlythe portion of the CIP necessitated by new development is used in the calculation. If net capacity supplied is less than projected new demand, then the cost per service unit is calculated by dividing the total cost of net supply by the portion of new demand attributable and necessary by development. The result is generally a decrease in the cost per service unit, because such cost is spread over the larger number of service units of growth. This is shown in Table 15 in Columns A -C calculating the cost attributable to new development through the percent of CIP capacity attributable calculated in Table 13. The debt service costs for the portion of CIP costs was determined in the credit analysis study performed by Eddie Peacock, PLLC. Based on 3 bond series over the 10 -year period with 3% interest rates, the cost of debt service attributable to new development is shown in Table 15 with a detailed breakdown in Appendix 1. The resultant total cost of the impact fee program attributable to new development in the 10 -year period is calculated by summing this debt service cost with the aforementioned cost attributable from the CIP cost. City of Schertz, Texas Roadway Impact Fee Study Freese and Nichols, Inc. Page 30 TABLE 15: ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS PLAN COST ATTRIBUTABLE TO NEW DEVELOPMENT 1 $91,457,477 24.6 $22,529,530 $2,679,760 $25,209,290 2 $34,019,386 98.3 $33,446,663 $3,978,291 $37,424,954 3 $63,304,566 38.1 $24,088,331 $2,865,171 $26,953,502 4 $9,082,070 3.8 $349,635 $41,588 $391,223 Total $197,863,498 42.1 $80,414,159 $9,564,810 $89,978,969 7.1.2 Credit Analysis Per Chapter 395, the cost of the CIP must be credited for ad- valorem tax generated through new development either through a credit analysis or a flat 50% credit. The City of Schertz opted to perform the credit analysis in lieu of the 50% credit with Eddie Peacock, PLLC performing the calculation. The resulting CIP credit is listed in Table 16 and detailed further in Appendix I. IL FIR 1.1 11101=0111 ' ► _ W111610 ".111 1 $25,209,290 $7,974,490 $17,234,800 2 $37,424,954 $13,649,051 $23,775,903 3 $26,953,502 $11,371,991 $15,581,511 4 $391,223 $94,525 $296,698 Total $89,978,969 $33,090,057 $56,888,912 7.1.3 Maximum Cost per Service Unit Calculation Table 17 lists the results of the cost per service unit calculation by service area. The base cost per service unit reflects the true burden to the City for the implementation of the roadway capital improvements program. As per state law, a credit for the portion of ad- valorem tax revenues generated by improvements over the program period must be given. Based on the credit analysis the maximum collection rate after credit reflects the maximum amount per service unit that can be charged to be in compliance with the state statute. Appendix H details the maximum fee per service unit calculation for each service area. City of Schertz, Texas Roadway Impact Fee Study Freese and Nichols, Inc. Page 31 TABLE 17: COST PER SERVICE UNIT SUMMARY 7.2 CALCULATION OF ROADWAY IMPACT FEES The calculation of roadway impact fees for new development involves a two -step process. Step One is the calculation of the total number of service units that will be generated by the development. Step Two is the calculation of the impact fee due by the new development. Step 1: Determine number of service units (vehicle- miles) generated by the development using the equivalency table. No. of Development x Vehicle -miles = Development's Units per development unit Vehicle -miles Step 2: Calculate the impact fee based on the fee per service unit for the service area where the development is located. Development's x Fee per = Impact Fee due Vehicle -miles vehicle -mile from Development City of Schertz, Texas Roadway Impact Fee Study Freese and Nichols, Inc. Page 32 Examples: The following fees would be assessed to new developments in Schertz in Service Area 1 if the cost per service unit were $1,647.00 Single - Family Dwelling 1 dwelling unit x 3.37 vehicle - miles /dwelling unit = 3.37 vehicle -miles 3.37 vehicle -miles x $1,647.00 /vehicle -mile = $5,550.39 10,000 square foot (s.f.) Office Building 10 (1,000 s.f. units) x 5.69 vehicle - miles /1,000 s.f. units = 56.90 vehicle -miles 56.90 vehicle -miles x $1,647.00 /vehicle -mile = $93,714.30 20,000 s.f. Retail Center 20 (1,000 s.f. units) x 4.23 vehicle - miles /1,000 s.f. units = 84.60 vehicle -miles 84.60 vehicle -miles x $1,647.00 /vehicle -mile = $139,336.20 100,000 s.f. Warehouse 100 (1,000 s.f. units) x 1.22 vehicle - miles /1,000 s.f. units = 122.00 vehicle -miles 122.00 vehicle -miles x $1,647.00 /vehicle -mile = $200,934.00 City of Schertz, Texas Roadway Impact Fee Study Freese and Nichols, Inc. Page 33 APPENDICES Appendix A: Roadway Impact Fee Definitions ROADWAY IMPACT FEE DEFINITIONS Average Trip Length - the average actual travel distance between two points. The average trip length by specific land use varies. Diverted Trip - similar to pass -by trip, but a diversion is made from the regular route to make an interim stop. Impact Fee - a charge or assessment imposed by a city against new development to generate revenue for funding or recouping roadway improvements necessitated and attributable to new development. Maximum Fee Per Service Unit - the highest impact fee that may be collected by the City per vehicle -mile of supply. Calculated by dividing the costs of the capital improvements by the total number of vehicle- miles of demand expected in the 10 -year planning period. Pass -by Trip - a trip made as an intermediate stop on the way from an origin to a primary trip destination. For example, a stop at a convenience store on the way to office from home. PM Peak Hour - the hour when the highest volume of traffic typically occurs. Data collection revealed the peak hour of travel to be between 5:00 and 6:00 pm. PM Peak Hour Traffic Counts - the number of vehicles passing a certain point during the peak hours of travel. Traffic counts are conducted during the PM peak hour because the greatest demand for roadway capacity occurs during this hour. Primary Trip - a trip made for the specific purpose of visiting a destination; for example, from home to office. Roadway Demand - the demand placed on the roadway network as a result of development. Determined by multiplying the trip generation of a specific land use by the average trip length. Roadway Supply (or Capacity) - the number of service units provided by a segment of roadway over a period of time. Determined by multiplying the lane capacity by the roadway length. Service Area - the area within the city boundaries to be served by capital improvements. Criteria for developing the service area structure include: 1) restricted to six -mile limit by legislation (to ensure proximity of roadway improvements to development), 2) conforms to census or forecast model boundaries, 3) projects on CIP as boundaries, 4) effort to match roadway supply with projected demand, and 5) city limit boundaries. Service Unit - a measure of use or generation attributable to new development for roadway improvements. Also used to measure supply provided by existing and proposed roadway improvements. Trip - a single, one - direction vehicle movement from an origin to a destination. Trip Generation - the total trip ends for a land use over a given period of time or the total of all trips entering and exiting a site during that designated time. Used in the development of 10 -year traffic demand projections and the equivalency table. Based primarily on data prepared by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE). Vehicle - for impact fee purposes, any motorized appurtenance that carries passengers and /or goods on the roadway system during peak periods of travel. Vehicle -mile - a unit used to express both supply and demand provided by, and placed on, the roadway system. A combination of a number of vehicles traveling during a given time period and the distance which those vehicles travel in miles Appendix B: Existing Conditions Analysis DEFINITIONS LANES The total number of lanes in both directions available for travel. TYPE The type of roadway (used in determining capacity): DA = divided arterial UA = undivided arterial DC = divided collector UC = undivided collector SC = special collector (roadway with continuous left turn) SA = special arterial (roadway with continuous left turn) PK -HR VOLUME The existing volume of cars on the roadway segment traveling during the afternoon (P.M.) peak hour of travel. A and B indicate the two directions of travel. Direction A is a northbound or eastbound and direction B is southbound or westbound. If only one half of the roadway is located within the service area (see in service area), the opposing direction will have no volume in the service area. IN SERVICE AREA If the roadway is located on the boundary of the service area (with the city limits running along the centerline of the roadway), then half of the roadway is inventoried in the service area and the other half is not. This value is either 50% or 100 %. VEH -MI SUPPLY TOTAL The number of total service units (vehicle - miles) supplied within the service area based on the length and established capacity of the roadway type. VEH -MI TOTAL The total service unit (vehicle -mile) demand created by existing traffic on the DEMAND PK -HR roadway segment in the afternoon peak hour. EXCESS CAPACITY The number of service units supplied but unused by existing traffic in the PK -HR VEH -MI afternoon peak hour. EXISTING DEFICIENCIES The number of service units of demand in excess of the service units supplied. PK -HR VEH -MI NOTE: Excess capacity and existing deficiencies are calculated separately for each direction. It is possible to have excess capacity in one direction and an existing deficiency in the other. When both directions have excess capacity or deficiencies, the total for both directions are presented. Schertz Roadway Impact Fee Study Existing Capital improvements Analysis Se" Area Roadway From To A B Length No. of (m j) Lanes Type C Lane CapacityServ. Pct. in Peak Hour Area A D Volume B Total Ax BxC VMT Supply P, Hr Total AxD VMT Demand :f Pk Hr Total Excess TotalVMT Capacity Total VMT: Deficiency. 1 FM2252 IH 35 Railroad Tracks 0.87 2 UA 625 100% 73 250 323 1084 280 804: 0 1/X FM2252 Railroad Tracks NCity Limits 0.22 2 UA 625 50% 0 250 250 138 55 83 0' 1 FM482 FM2252 Hubertus Rd 1.05 2 U 625 100% 46 52 98 1315 103 `. 1212 104 1 FM482 Hubertus Rd Railroad Tracks 1.00 2 UA 625 1001 46 52 98 1252 98 1154' So`: 1 FM482 Railroad Tracks Friesenhahn Ln 0.18 2 UA 625 100% 46 52 98 222 17 204` 0 1/X FM482 Friesenhahn Ln ECity Limits 0.59 2 UA 625 50% 46 0 46 369 27 `. 342` '0< 1 Hubertus Rd IH 35 FM482 0.57 2 U 625 100% 30 57 87 708 49 659 -0'. 1 Friesenhahn Ln IH 35 FM482 0.72 2 UC 500 100% 50 50 100 717 72 6451 !:0' 1 Schwab Rd IH 35 Railroad Tracks 0.53 3 SA 675 100% 120 315 435 721 232 > 489 '.`0 1 Eckhardt Rd IH 35 S City Limits 1.17 2 UA 625 100% 19 11 30 1466 35 1431 0 1 Schwab Rd IH 35 End of Schwab Rd 0.36 2 UA 625 100% 3 2 5 454 2 452. 0 1 Country Club Blvd IH 35 Northcliffe Golf Club 0.46 2 D 550 100% 50 50 100 507 46 461 is 0:` 1 Country Club Blvd Northcliffe Golf Club End of Ex Country Club'. 0.39 2 D 550 100% 50 50 100 434 39 395' :0 1 FM 1103 IH 35 Old Wiederstein Rd 0.70 2 UA 625 100% 590 1020 1610 877 1129 25 277: 1 Belmont Pkwy IH 35 Old Wiederstein Rd 0.74 2 UC 500 100% 20 20 40 739 30 710 <0 1/X Old Wiederstein Rd Cibolo Valley Dr Cherry Tree Dr 2.17 2 U 625 50% 0 177 177 1356 384 972 -0 1/X Wiederestein Rd IH 35 Old Wiederstein Rd 0.56 2 UA 625 501% 607 0 607 348 338 10= `0': Sub -Tote/ 12.29 <12,708 2,938 10,047 277': 2 FM 3009 NCity Limits IH 35 1.62 4 D 675 100% 1010 900 1910 4368 3090 1278: 0 2 Doerr Ln Bell N Dr Lookout Rd 0.91 2 UC 500 100% 50 50 100 913 91 : 822` 0 ". 2 Lookout Rd Doerr Ln Schanz Pkwy 0.62 2 UC 500 100% 133 219 352 623 219 404` 0 2 Four Oaks Ln FM3009 End of Four Oaks Ln 0.33 2 U 500 100% 20 20 40 328 13 315` <0 2/X Schertz Pkwy Lookout Rd Nof IH 35 0.51 2 UA 625 50% 50 0 50 321 26 295: 0' 2 Schertz Pkwy N of 11135 IH 35 0.23 2 UA 625 100% 50 50 100 290 23 267 : 0 2 Schertz Pkwy IH 35 FM78 /John Peterson Bl 3.14 4 D 675 100% 712 753 1465 8471 4596 3875: '0' 2 FM3009 IH 35 S of Woodland Oaks Dr 1.53 5 SA 675 100% 869 980 1849 4129 2828 : 1301 0 2/X FM 3009 S of Woodland Oaks Dr Live Oak Rd 0.47 5 SA 675 50% 0 980 980 640 465 175` '0 2 FM 3009 Live Oak Rd FM 78 /John Peterson BI 1.16 5 SA 675 100% 869 980 1849 3124 2140 `. 985: `0- 2 Wiederstein Rd FM3009 WCity limits 1.45 2 U 500 100% 100 100 200 1449 290 1159! `0 2 Savannah Dr Schertz Pkwy WCityLimits 0.90 2 U 500 100% 50 50 100 905 90 814: 0 2 Live Oak Rd Schanz Pkwy FM3009 6.86 2 UC 500 100% 100 100 200 858 172 686' 0 2 Maske Rd FM 1518 Schertz Pkwy 1,23 2 UC 500 100% 97 105 202 1225 247 978 0` 2 Borgfeld Rd FM3009 ECity Limits 0.43 4 UC 500 100% 509 423 932 859 400 459' <0` 2 FM 1518 /Main St Maske Rd Oak St 1.30 2 UA 625 100% 397 351 748 1623 971 652: =0: 2 FM 1518 /Main St Oak St Aviation Blvd 0.24 4 UA 625 100% 351 397 748 600 179 : 420 0 2 FM 1518 /Main St Aviation Blvd FM 78 /John Peterson BI 0.29 2 UA 625 100% 351 397 748 366 219 147 '.0 2 FM 1518 NCity Limits SA3 Limit 0.36 2 U 625 100% 755 508 1263 452 457 42 47 2/3 FM 1518 SA3 Limit Schertz Pkwy Ext. 0.39 2 UA 625 50% 755 0 755 245 296 0" 51= 2 Aviation Blvd WCityLimits FM 1518 0.53 2 U 625 100% 613 438 1051 659 554 105 0" 2 FM78 /John Peterson BI Cibolo Creek Schertz Pkwy 0.67 5 SA 675 100% 1525 1096 2621 1809 1756 170' 117''. 2 FM78 /John Peterson BI Schertz Pkwv E City Limits 1.14 5 SA 675 100% 998 520 1518 3065 1723 1342 2 Sub -Total 20.31 37,321 20,846 16,690 215i' 3/2 FM 1518 SA2 Limit Schertz Pkwy Ext. 0.39 2 UA 625 50% 0 508 508 245 199 46 0 3 FM 1518 Schertz Pkwy Ext, Lower Seguin Rd 1.31 2 UA 625 100% 755 508 1263 1638 1655 153 .170`. 3 FM 1518 Lower Seguin Rd Trainer Hale Rd 1.93 2 UA 625 100% 790 538 1328 2417 2568 168. 3191 3 FM 1518 Trainer Hale Rd IH 10 0.85 2 UA 625 100% 790 538 1328 1057 1123 : 74 139-: 3 Schaefer Rd W End of Schaefer E of FM 1518 0.48 2 UC 500 100% 100 100 200 478 96 383; 0 3/X Schaefer Rd E of FM 1518 E City Limits 0.55 2 UC 500 50% 100 0 100 277 55 222 3/X Schaefer Rd W City Limits RAF - Burnette 0.14 2 UC 500 50% 100 0 100 69 14 : 55> 0 3/X RAF - Burnette Schaefer Rd ECity Limits 0.56 2 UC 500 50% 50 0 50 278 28 : 250'. 0 3/X Lower Seguin Rd W City Limits Eof Tates Dr 0.35 2 U 500 50% 304 0 304 175 107 69: `0 3/X Lower Seguin Rd E of Tates Dr FM 1518 2.27 2 UC 500 50% 304 188 492 2272 1118 1154 0 3 Lower Seguin Rd FM 1518 ECity Limits 1.78 2 U 500 100% 37 16 53 : 1783 94 1688 '0i. 3 Ware Seguin Rd Boeing Dr E -S Bend in Ware Segu 0.71 2 UA 625 1001 19 20 39 884 28 857. : 0! 3 Ware Seguin Rd E -S Bend in Ware Seguin R S -E Bend in Ware Saga 0.92 2 UC 500 100% 20 19 39 916 36 881 <0 3 Ware Seguin Rd S -E Bend in Ware Seguin R FM 1518 1 Al 2 UC 500 100% 20 19 39 1412 55 1357: '0'`. 3/4 Graytown Rd Boeing Dr IH 10 1.11 2 UA 625 50% 238 0 238 697 265 431= 0 3 Pfeil Rd Ware Seguin Rd IH 10 1.32 2 UC 500 100! 22 8 30 1319 40 1279 01: Sub -Total 16.08 15,917 7,479 9,067. 6295 4/3 Graytown Rd Boeing Dr IH 10 1.11 2 UA 625 50% 0 89 89 697 99 597: "0. 4 Scenic Lake Dr Boeing Dr IH 10 0.78 2 UC 500 100% 20 20 40 781 31 750': '0 `. Sub -Total 1,90 1,478 130 1,3485 '0 Total 50.57 67,424 :.31,393 37,151 1,921 Notes: DA- Divided arterial Direction A= Northbound or Eastbound UA- Undivided arterial Direction B= Southbound or Westbound SA- Special arterial with dual -left turn lane */X indcates roadway half in /half out of City Limits DC- Divided collector UC- Undivided collector Appendix C: Projected 10 -Year Growth (Vehicle -Miles of New Demand) Vehicle -Mile Trip Generation by Service Area, Schertz Impact Fee Based on September 2017 land Use Assumptions by FNI Fstimated Pe.,ide.wiai nm4h Vehicle -M'le Tdn (' na Linn SerNce Area Added Dwelling Units Vehicle -Miles per DU Total Vehicle -Miles 1 1,061 3.37 3,576 2 1,389 3.37 4,681 3 3,445 3.37 11,610 4 20 3.37 67 Estimated Basic Emulnvment Growth Vhirle -Mile Generation (1.500 SF/emnlnvee) Service Area Added Employees Square Feet per em p. Total S uare Feet Vehicle -Miles Per 1000fSF Total Vehicle -Miles 1 694 1,500 1,041,000 170 3,852 2 1,751 1,500 2,626,500 3.70 9,718 3 365 1,500 547,500 170 2,026 4 0 1,500 0 3.70 0 Fstimated .4enrire Fmnlnvmant ('-4h Vahirla -Mile Genaratinn 1500 SF1P.- Invee) SerNce Area Added Employees Square Feet per em p. Total S uare Feet Vehicle -Miles Per 1000lSF Total Vehicle -Miles 1 595 500 297,500 5.69 1,693 2 419 500 209,500 5.69 1,192 3 106 500 53,000 5.69 302 4 20 500 10,000 5.69 57 Fstimated Retail Fmnlnvmant (gym h Vahicla-Mila Renaratinn 11 non RF /amn1rni ) SerNce Area Added Employees Square Feet per em p. Total S uare Feet Vehicle -Miles Per 1000fSF Total Vehicle -Miles 1 317 1,000 317,000 4.23 1,341 2 547 1,000 547,000 4.23 2,314 3 232 1,000 232,000 4.23 981 4 0 1,000 0 4.23 0 Vehicle -mile Generation Summary SeNlce Area Residential Growth Vehicle -Miles Basic Growth Vehicle -Miles Service Growth Vehicle -Miles Retail Growth Vehicle -Miles -- Total -- Growth Vehicle- Miles' 1 3,576 3,852 1,693 1,341 - -- 10,461 - 2 4,681 9,718 1,192 2,314 17,905- 3 11,610 2,026 302 981 -- .14,918- 4 67 0 57 0 -------- -124 - Totals 19,934 15,596 3,243 4,636 - - - -- 43,408 - SUEquivalency Residential DU 3.37 Basic Employ SF 3.70 Service Employ SF 5.69 Retail Employ SF 4.23 Appendix D: Roadway Capital Improvements Plan Definitions LANES The total number of lanes in both directions available for travel. TYPE The type of roadway (used in determining capacity): DA = divided arterial UA = undivided arterial SA = special arterial (arterial with continuous left turn) DC = divided collector UC = undivided collector SC = special collector (arterial with continuous left turn) PK -HR VOLUME The existing volumes of cars on the roadway segment traveling during the afternoon (P.M.) peak hour of travel. IN SERVICE AREA If the roadway is located on the boundary of the service area (with the city limits running along the centerline of the roadway), then half of the roadway is inventoried in the service area and the other half is not. This value is either 50% or 100 %. VEH -MI SUPPLY The number of total service units (vehicle- miles) supplied within PK -HR TOTAL the service area, based on the length and established capacity of the roadway type. VEH -MI TOTAL The total service unit (vehicle -mile) demand created by DEMAND PK -HR existing traffic on the roadway segment in the afternoon peak hour. EXCESS CAPACITY The number of service units supplied but unused by PK -HR VEH -MI existing traffic in the afternoon peak hour. CIP VEH -MI The number of service units used by existing traffic in excess of DEFICIENCY the available service units supplied by the roadway in the afternoon peak hour. � o o o 0 0 00 0 0...0 0 00 0 00 0 0 o 0 0 00 0 00 0 00 of o 0 0 00 0 00 0 o a - U r V) 2 NO (9 O O O W W 'O M1 V O' m 0 O 0 O N O O MI F O O O O O O O t«6 N V N r d@ VI N M M O N 0 O O V N M 'M OM I M ' .O � .N W Q . M O O m V N o V . h . O . h m W O O . m 9. F W h NcO N O.N N V h M� W N'h O N MN MM h V.M V W O> N H 'O <p M M O N h M U5 r r S � 2 M M O O O O M M W (O N F O O N O O O O O O O O O O O O O O h 00 O O O O O O O E F-o = m N Q N N M Q d O d c4 ?D f9 t9 iQ 6 0 4 4 0 61 d Q d O O 4 d Q d d O d 4 4 4 0 0 0 0 4 M O 0 0 o N o a M - N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 cn ¢ Q ¢ w m ¢ ¢ Q ¢ m@ m m o o O o m °° m °° O° m m° m O m O O O m o o o N 5 . m o c c c C a U o U..' .ga9J .o .o N ,o N N N 'C 'C _ d N Lo,. N N N N N A < o o Q o o o o 'C Q Q O ¢ O ¢ O o o Q o o 4 '�' U U U U U U¢ U U .`, U U U I U U U 'a u m a m R a m iu m m is m m m m m m m �t m m o m m m 'm m m m F, m m o m m E sa m m m N C G o C G (} G U U U C C C G is G C C p ❑ a o 0 0 Q1 C C c C c E = E a o 5 a o a a 'oo ._ o o -aa' o 0 o N N N o N N N ° av a"i aoi w a a` a` a` o. a`. a a oai m a"i - a c w ooi E- E E E- E E E cn v> u> zn E E E v> m v ta w m m v u5 v) m w E yr E E E va E E E o ° o a cc o a o v ° o as °J : d d d d d U d d d d Q d d U d U U d U U d U U U U d d d U Q U Q U U U Q U U U o � 2 J M (p N N d) O> O La N c) z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z a .E .E x .E .E .E .E .E tY m h c c c Ci c f= -o a o o J N o o o U 2 U Y U U U U o s a@ to U o r va F tL fl' z CC LL LL Z fr Li. N W fE_ z 1L LL❑ ii w W W w w w Z W 0 0 0 LL U J CC Z Z iA_ Z❑ u) Z J a a � o m o O � GSi X C aai aai z ii � z J Rs n aai N N O 4 M C O C N N 9 W C J 0 6 4 T w M W N N V��' Ip O o sn v° srs U U cNV v °' z cn v �n v> o a u5 s W `c U U o 0 o a o o M M rn v5 °o c u M M cn a M o° U c cai o u m M M U t/> U M 2 2 M� LL LL z z !.i. Z LL rn ?? S LL � N w vt U uJ ? z z z LL LL Z I.I_ F w O O O O EL o o p o O S O O U CS 'O 'O a -O C C T S] U U Q O 'a, U U tJ U J T N N N C !t! G 41 0 fS U G G M C O C G C r G N tt1 w t(? C o o N N N N N C C A O m .O .> C? a C 3 N N N U U U a. m w �' 3 U 3 0 0 w �' U U ° U U U ;,7,0`. �' i j Ua U U CJ C3 0 0 s s w s o o m o o °a '> `'> 0 0 K I LL. IL z w w IL LL LL L Z Z tL V1 W w u) LL LL 0 Z U W W W z z w O ❑ z W w W W m1 LL .O .° d' u7 CR r a2 O O - .- N m e- N X N X X' o � ,- •- .`- ,- •- •- ,- •- •- .`- •- ,- �- •- ,- ,- •- ,- •- •- •- •- •- •- •- •- - •- N O ri of o......0 o o o o o o o . o . . o . . o o ....o o o 75 -Ta -cz -c5 �5 -c -c5 -c < 0 0 0 0 a a¢¢ a¢ 0 < Q¢ 0 0 0 0 0 0 < < so O. L 2 . Q Q. -p -p 2- E- .2- E E E 0- a`. 0- E E E E E !Y o o cr [2 w CK w Of E E o 0 to a) < < < < < < < oO � M M . O. N N N chD � Iq M 't MI M 3 3 z z z z z z z z z zl z z zo z z z zo z z z z z z z z z z z z z z ZI z z z x -0 LU tis 0 a. I Q. U) T D W, o U) 0 V) U) .1 U) w Cl) w w co co (n U) m z 3� z I za O LU E X t z, z, < C) U) R m 0. 2, oz U<) U) w z z z z 0 z 0 CL N 0 0 0 & o E & mu U) co of vo) V) U) c fn ai c W Q 0 0 C) U) U) co U) w U) U) a5 w Q U) U) m I X x W-1 O O Appendix E: Roadway Improvement Plan Cost Analysis 8 3 s 2 8 8 8 8 8 3 8 3 8 8 8 8 s 3 8 3 8 8 8 8 8 3 8 3 8 o g 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 O q q m 15 15 16 Ill 16 14 4 16 1� - <O 14 4 14 c4 14 li 1: 1� 15 13 ll� 15 �7 Ill 14 -7 a - - - - - - - - - - - w 0 8 8 8 2 8 8 8 8 8 s 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 2 8 8 °° 8 8 8 8 8 o0 c� �q cD (D n cD q cl� �q n N N oa v� cr� N (q q in v� n "I oO N cR � cl� IQ IQ M �q 13� 1� testa ,4 c\i 4 1 1 - N N - - "i 6 1 D - - - - - o; a -1 e; 2 a a -1 11; 2 71 v; -" ;; -1 -" - - . - - -" -I I 0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . °O . . . . . . . . . 0 -D q Iq 10 q 1� �D CO q 1� LO q 0? ° N q ml LO P� N 1� ct 0 0 �� o 0 0 0 0 � o ° o 0 0 ° o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 °F9 0 0 0 � N o � o 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lo 4 an � di ro 75 a -�a -F� -6 — — — — — - m m m t -ra g- cL 't 't 't, T� 1� oo < —o —o - — — o < < < < < o o o o < < o < < < < < < < < < < -m -F� -Fo -Fo 76 co -F, -�6 7� 'F� -Z6 -�a --�a -za 'ffi le -ffi 16 76 16 �a 21 2- S., .2- 2 2 2 2 �2 o E E 2o ct E clt tt ct c� L �t E ol E E E E E E E U3 u) co u) E o- E E u) u) u) E u) E E E u) E E E o o In u, c� cf c� o o o o o o < < < < < U < < < < < < < U Q U U Q U U Q U U U U < < < U < U < Z I N O o O . . O. . . . . . O. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 c5 6 ('i N l 6 0 6 0 0 . . . . . . . . . . z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z 0 o o 2 2 2 z- Z` z w U) 0 Q U) Lu I Lu U) w m w 0 0 0 z z z 0' 9') z I C c N tab 10 10 N w N LU 'T' U) T 'N �: tit U') 0, Z5 >z m Z5 b Z5 6 6 i2 2 2 2c m o o 0 0 0 Q o 0 o u E ��E 2'R :�R :2 2 if - . I L. 2 z I w Z w w :f :f (D 3: 0 w w z z w 0 ❑ �2 :1 ,2 �2 t2 — .- — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — O. o o O 8 8 8 .1 1. .1 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. .1 1. 1. 1. OM NO V 1. .1 .1 1 1. V Na 1. yy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O .0 �: cl� ll� 0 1� Iq IQ MO clz 00 11 O -i q N N N M N q q 1: M Ffi 14 C6 14 1 vs U -D ID cD 1� Iz c� -D �q 10 cD Iq cli m ll� D c6 q O 14 4 11: ll� ml m �T o F. Lu in m 75 75 75 m Q Q 76 m < �5 �3 'Fo m 75 c, -m 6 �t' m m t z -6 z _ °a < 0 0 0 < o 0 < U0 < 0 0 u Q C) 0 < < < r y < < < io -F m m m m m -M ct Of x m o w 2 2 1 .2- Z t Z3 21, i�l 2� 2� 2 2 o o . . . w w - E E E o E E E o j) CL u) E E o E E E E M it . , D� af of o o o u) of ol lo o o u) w u) to U CJ U7 J) Li < U U U U U < < < < < < U < < < < < < U U U U U U < < < < < U U < K ❑ D u) u) (n ❑ u) ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ u) u) ❑ ❑ ❑ n n n D > ❑ ❑ (n u) In (o v) u) u) u) -6 Z Ic! 2 . O 4 c5 c5 , — . O. . . . . . . . . . . . I N . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 z z z z z z z z z zi o m u) z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z( z z zi LU m us in z- z, m o m Lu Lu u) (n co u) o w �22 Lu A Lu w o u) u) u) u) w El it g E m ❑ p E 8� 9 u) 22 15 5 N m o o u) a� co z w z z z z m 1 6 z m, co Fn 15 m k6 x oe ae 2 .2 2 & & .2 .2 Z5 I o -2 1 m o 1 38 U o o o co u) . . . . 0 0 Q 0 c c o Ly � � to u) @ of co w z z z z Lu (D z X x x Ni ml O 4i ig 0 F- Appendix F: Roadway Project Cost Estimates Master Thoroughfare Plan Roadway Sections Freeways, Limited Access The freeway is typically uninterrupted with grade separations at intersections and ramped entries and exits to and from they crossroads as on 1 -35. However, limited access r,• { freeways may also be interrupted for signalized arterial roadway crossings. a a I I , Freeways typically operate at free flow speeds over 55 mph and have two or more lanes in a7a�N�tia{RC? GGWP¢FI4 ¢,iTtI�TCGmti each travel direction. Freeways are typically r� M ff"ao- R bra f*&,*N 'Ptw N1S barrier or median separated, or in the example of the managed lanes under design for 1 -35, can be grade separated from the rest of the corridor where ROW is constrained. The managed lanes element is intended to help maintain a free -flow speed, even during times of peak congestion on adjacent facilities. Freeways, especially controlled access, are typically paralleled by service roads that serve as the interface between the freeway and the adjacent community's arterial and collector street network. Source: Figure 11. 1-35 Managed lanes illustrative - View from Schertz Parkway. Principal Arterials The recommended ROW for principal arterials ranges from 120 to 130 feet. The ROW is intended to accommodate higher volumes and levels of mobility, providing substantial regional access and statewide travel. A ROW of 120 feet allows for four travel lanes and associated spaces. Where six travel lanes are needed, a typical section of 130 feet can be used. Urban principal arterial roadways provide the predominant passageways through the urbanized portions of the community and connect to the regional freeway network, typically providing for curb and gutter drainage. Intersections are provided at all arterial, collector and local roadways and as needed allowing for local land access directly to the facility. Intersections with arterial roadways are typically signalized and provisions made for one or more left turn lanes and occasionally right -turn lanes to facilitate the through movements along the arterial. Principal urban arterial roadways provide at least two travel lanes in each direction plus a center median area for separations of traffic. The median area may be used to provide channelized left -turn lanes, continuous left -turn lanes, and /or streetscape. Where traffic operational Chapter 3. Thoroughfare System Plan analyses support the need for greater throughput capacity, a six -lane section may be considered — as is the case for the ultimate build out of FM 1518 south of FM 78. Access management practices should be employed to minimize the impacts of property access (i.e., driveways) on the principal arterial facility. Sidewalks, five to ten feet in width, should be provided along either sides of the roadway, buffered from travel lanes. A divided median is key for this classification of roadway, and a median width minimum of 16 feet is included. A divided median of sufficient width allows area for dedicated left turn lanes at intersections and provides access management for fewer turning conflicts, and preservation of traffic flow. The median may be raised, or surfaced depending on the adjacent land use. Driveway access onto principal arterials should be limited by access management and spacing requirements, and parking along arterial roadways is generally prohibited. The illustrations below show typical sections for four and six travel lanes with surfaced medians. • High degree of regional mobility, higher traffic volumes and operational speeds • Access is carefully managed • Curb and gutter section with underground stormwater utilities and drainage • Examples include Roy Richard Drive (FM 3009), FM 78, FM 1103, and FM 1518 south of FM 78. Figure 13. Six -Lane Principal Arterial Section Chapter 3. Thoroughfare System Plan Secondary Arterial The ROW for a secondary arterial in Schertz is 90 feet wide. The arterial is intended to accommodate medium volumes and local mobility, and provide for connections to neighboring communities. Secondary arterial roadways are intended for local trips, so design speeds should also be notably lower than principal arterials. A ROW of 90 feet allows for four travel lanes, and space to buffer different travel modes. A divided median is also important for this classification of roadway, allowing some area for reduced width left turn lanes at minor intersections and provides access management for fewer turning conflicts. Additional ROW may be preferred at major intersections. Driveway access to Secondary Arterials should also be guided by access management and spacing requirements. Parking along secondary arterial roadways is generally prohibited, unless parallel parking bays are provided in addition to travel lanes, which may be desirable in a potential mixed -use transit oriented district north of 1 -35. Bicycle accommodation is intended to be provided on a shared -use path (or hike - and -bike path), buffered from the roadway. • Cross -Town mobility • Accommodates medium traffic volumes and operational speeds • Managed Access • Four -lane divided • Curb and gutter drainage • Examples include Lower Seguin Road east of FM 1518, Wiederstein /Old Wiederstein Road, and the east -west portion of Trainer Hale Road. Figure 1. Secondary Arterial Section — Wederstein Road Chapter 3. Thoroughfare System Plan Secondary Rural Arterial Rural Secondary Arterial roadways carry traffic across significant segments of the city, connect principal arterials to collectors and accommodate moderate volumes at higher speeds. This section is intended for use where adjacent, planned land uses are lower intensity, and access points fewer than the urban section would provide. The recommended ROW for Secondary Rural Arterials is 90 feet and is intended to include a three -lane section, with two travel lanes and a surfaced median. Travel lanes should be 12 feet wide with 6- to 8- foot -wide shoulders to accommodate emergency parking, extended site lines, and bicycles. Wide areas at the edge of paved shoulders provide for stormwater drainage and buffer from the roadway from adjacent property. Where sidewalks are provided, they should be between the drainage channel and the edge of the ROW. Driveways should still be guided by access management principles. A two -way left - turn lane in the center of the section provides buffer distance from oncoming traffic and left turn opportunities without obstructing the through- movement. An adjacent 20- foot -wide trail easement allows for accommodating pedestrians and bicycles on a shared -use path (or hike - and -bike path) sufficiently buffered from the travel way, and opportunities for tree growth. • Cross -town mobility • Accommodates medium traffic volumes and higher operational speeds • Access is managed • Two -lane divided • Open section drainage Examples include Lower Seguin Road west of Hollering Vine and adjacent to Randolph AFB, and Ware Seguin Road west of FM 1518. Chapter 3. Thoroughfare System Plan Collector roadways serve to provide access to higher functional class facilities, access to residential areas, and provide access and circulation to commercial areas. They are designed for short trips, lower speeds, and connections between residential and commercial areas. They are differentiated from arterial streets by their length and degree of access to adjacent development where driveway access is seldom limited. The recommended ROW for Collector roadways is 70 feet wide. The pavement width of 40 feet is wide enough to provide different layouts of lane striping to accommodate adjacent uses — whether it is on street parking, or bike lanes, or a center -turn lane, the width is intended to be flexible over time as needs change. Three typical sections are provided: one residential section with on street bike lanes, one commercial section with a middle turn lane for frequent driveways and turn - movements, and one commercial section with on street parking. • Collection and distribution of traffic • Speeds and volumes dependent on adjacent land uses and neighborhoods served • Access to development and neighborhoods • Connectivity to arterial and residential collector streets Typical Residential Collector — 70 -foot ROW: 7 -foot buffered bike lanes accommodate bicycles of all comfort levels. Examples include Ray Corbett Drive, Live Oak Road, Wiederstein Road west of FM 3009, Country Club Boulevard, Eckhardt Road, and segments of Ware Seguin Road. '- •- • • •' Chapter 3. Thoroughfare System Plan Typical Commercial Collectors — 70 -foot ROW — applicable in Southern Schertz near 1 -10 and northern Schertz near 1 -35. The 12- foot -wide outside lanes can accommodate more experienced bicycles. A shared - used path on one side accommodates less experienced bicycles. Figure 18. Commercial Collector (TOD) - Example: New Streets in TOD area LOCI Residential and Commercial/industrial Streets The primary function of local streets is to provide access to and from properties. Local streets feed to and from the collector street network, but occasionally may tie directly to arterial streets. The urban local residential street is described in the Schertz Unified Development Code as a 30 -foot pavement width, with curb - and - gutter drainage and minimum 5- foot -wide sidewalks on each side of the street, buffered from the curb. Local residential streets have a 50- foot -wide ROW. Local commercial /industrial streets are described as 42 feet of pavement, with curb and gutter drainage, 5 -foot sidewalks, and a 60- foot -wide ROW. Local streets are not illustrated on the MTP map, but are encouraged to be developed to increase connectivity, lessen block lengths, and encourage active and non -auto modes of travel for people on foot, pedestrians in wheelchairs, and people on bike. Chapter 3. Thoroughfare System Plan Impact Fee CIP Project Cost Estimates City of Schertz Impact Fee Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Estimate FM 2252 IH -35 to FM 482 Functional Classification: Principal Arterial No. of Lanes: 4 Length (If): 1,690 Right -of -Way Width (ft.): 120 Median Type: Raised - - - - - - Pavement Width (Edge to Edge): 48 Description: Widening of roadway to thoroughfare standard Shared -Use Path bicycle facility Item No. Item Description Quantity Unit Item Cost Unit Cost Pavement Markings & Signage Item Cost 1 Right of Way Preparation 17 STA $ 3,000.00 $ 51,000 2 Unclassified Street Excavation 4,200 CY $ 20.00 $ 84,000 3 3" HMAC (Type "D ") 9,100 SY $ 18.00 $ 163,800 4 10" Flex Base 11,300 SY $ 18.00 $ 203,400 5 6" Moisture Conditioned Subgrade 11,300 SY $ 7.00 $ 79,100 6 TX -5 Geogrid 11,300 SY $ 1.00 $ 11,300 7 6" Monolithic Concrete Curb & Gutter 6,760 LF $ 25.00 $ 169,000 8 4" Concrete Sidewalk and Ramps 2,800 SY $ 50.00 $ 140,000 9 Block Sodding and Topsoil 9,950 SY $ 5.00 $ 49,750 Item No. Item Description Pct. Of Paving Allowance Item Cost 10 Pavement Markings & Signage 2% $ 19,100 11 Traffic Control 5% $ 47,600 12 Erosion Control 3% $ 28,600 13 Drainage Improvements (RCP, Inlets, MH, Outfalls) 20% $ 190,300 Item No. Item Description Notes Allowance Item Cost 14 Landscaping /Illumination None $ $ 15 Drainage Structures None $ $ - 16 Bridge Structures None - $ $ - 17 Traffic Signals None - - - $ $ - 18 Other None - - - $ $ - Item Description Construction Engineering /Survey /Testing Right -of -Way Acquisition 2017 Impact Fee Update City of Schertz I, II, & III Construction Subtotal: $ 1,236,950 Mobilization 5% $ 61,900 Contineencv 10% $ 129,900 Notes Allowance Item Cost - $ 1,428,800 7% $ 100,000 Cost per sq. ft.: $ 0.75 $ 38,000 $ 38,000 Freese and Nichols, Inc. Updated: 612017 2 City of Schertz Impact Fee Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Estimate FM 2252 FM 482 to Railroad Tracks Functional Classification: Secondary Arterial No. of Lanes: 4 Length (If): 3,379 Right -of -Way Width (ft.): 90 Median Type: Raised Pavement Width (Edge to Edge): 48 Description: Widening of roadway to thoroughfare standard Shared -Use Path bicycle facility Item No. Item Description Quantity Unit Item Cost Unit Cost Pavement Markings & Signage Item Cost 1 Right of Way Preparation 34 STA $ 3,000.00 $ 102,000 2 Unclassified Street Excavation 8,300 CY $ 20.00 $ 166,000 3 3" HMAC (Type "D ") 18,100 SY $ 18.00 $ 325,800 4 10" Flex Base 22,600 SY $ 18.00 $ 406,800 5 6" Moisture Conditioned Subgrade 22,600 SY $ 7.00 $ 158,200 6 TX -5 Geogrid 22,600 SY $ 1.00 $ 22,600 7 6" Monolithic Concrete Curb & Gutter 13,520 LF $ 25.00 $ 338,000 8 4" Concrete Sidewalk and Ramps 5,600 SY $ 50.00 $ 280,000 9 Block Sodding and Topsoil 8,640 SY $ 5.00 $ 43,200 Item No. Item Description Pct. Of Paving Allowance Item Cost 10 Pavement Markings & Signage 2% $ 36,900 11 Traffic Control 5% $ 92,200 12 Erosion Control 3% $ 55,300 13 Drainage Improvements (RCP, Inlets, MH, Outfalls) 20% $ 368,600 Item No. Item Description Notes Allowance 14 Landscaping /Illumination None $ $ 15 Drainage Structures None $ $ 16 Bridge Structures None - - - $ $ 17 Traffic Signals None $ $ 18 Other At -grade RR crossing $ 150,000 $ Item Description Construction Engineering /Survey /Testing Right -of -Way Acquisition 2017 Impact Fee Update City of Schertz I, II, & III Construction Subtotal: $ Mobilization 5% $ Contineencv 10% $ Item Cost 150,000 150,000 2,545,600 127,300 267,300 Notes Allowance Item Cost - $ 2,940,200 7% $ 205,800 Cost per sq. ft.: $ 0.75 $ $ - Freese and Nichols, Inc. Updated: 612017 3 City of Schertz Impact Fee Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Estimate FM 2252 Railroad Tracks to N. City Limits Functional Classification: Secondary Arterial = No. of Lanes: 4 Length (If): 1,162 Right -of -Way Width (ft.): 90 Median Type: Raised Pavement Width (Edge to Edge): 48 Description: Widening of roadway to thoroughfare standard Shared -Use Path bicycle facility Item No. Item Description Quantity Unit Item Cost Unit Cost Pavement Markings & Signage Item Cost 1 Right of Way Preparation 12 STA $ 3,000.00 $ 36,000 2 Unclassified Street Excavation 2,900 CY $ 20.00 $ 58,000 3 3" HMAC (Type "D ") 6,200 SY $ 18.00 $ 111,600 4 10" Flex Base 7,800 SY $ 18.00 $ 140,400 5 6" Moisture Conditioned Subgrade 7,800 SY $ 7.00 $ 54,600 6 TX -5 Geogrid 7,800 SY $ 1.00 $ 7,800 7 6" Monolithic Concrete Curb & Gutter 4,650 LF $ 25.00 $ 116,250 8 4" Concrete Sidewalk and Ramps 1,900 SY $ 50.00 $ 95,000 9 Block Sodding and Topsoil 2,970 SY $ 5.00 $ 14,850 Item No. Item Description Pct. Of Paving Allowance Item Cost 10 Pavement Markings & Signage 2% $ 12,700 11 Traffic Control 5% $ 31,800 12 Erosion Control 3% $ 19,100 13 Drainage Improvements (RCP, Inlets, MH, Outfalls) 20% $ 126,900 Item No. Item Description Notes Allowance Item Cost 14 Landscaping /Illumination None $ $ 15 Drainage Structures None $ $ 16 Bridge Structures None $ $ - 17 Traffic Signals None $ $ 18 Other None - $ $ - Item Description Construction Engineering /Survey /Testing Right -of -Way Acquisition 2017 Impact Fee Update City of Schertz I, II, & III Construction Subtotal: $ 825,000 Mobilization 5% $ 41,300 Contineencv 10% $ 86,700 Notes Allowance Item Cost - $ 953,000 7% $ 66,700 Cost per sq. ft.: $ 0.75 $ $ - Freese and Nichols, Inc. Updated: 612017 4 City of Schertz Impact Fee Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Estimate N/S CONNECTOR (1) IH -35 to Railroad Tracks Functional Classification: Secondary Arterial No. of Lanes: 4 Length (If): 6,600 Right -of -Way Width (ft.): 90 Median Type: Raised Pavement Width (Edge to Edge): 48 Description: Construction of new roadway to thoroughfare standard Shared -Use Path bicycle facility Item No. Item Description Quantity Unit Item Cost Unit Cost Pavement Markings & Signage Item Cost 1 Right of Way Preparation 66 STA $ 3,000.00 $ 198,000 2 Unclassified Street Excavation 16,200 CY $ 20.00 $ 324,000 3 3" HMAC (Type "D ") 35,200 SY $ 18.00 $ 633,600 4 10" Flex Base 44,000 SY $ 18.00 $ 792,000 5 6" Moisture Conditioned Subgrade 44,000 SY $ 7.00 $ 308,000 6 TX -5 Geogrid 44,000 SY $ 1.00 $ 44,000 7 6" Monolithic Concrete Curb & Gutter 26,400 LF $ 25.00 $ 660,000 8 4" Concrete Sidewalk and Ramps 11,000 SY $ 50.00 $ 550,000 9 Block Sodding and Topsoil 16,870 SY $ 5.00 $ 84,350 Item No. Item Description Pct. Of Paving Allowance Item Cost 10 Pavement Markings & Signage 2% $ 71,900 11 Traffic Control 5% $ 179,700 12 Erosion Control 3% $ 107,900 13 Drainage Improvements (RCP, Inlets, MH, Outfalls) 20% $ 718,800 Item No. Item Description Notes Allowance 14 Landscaping /Illumination None - $ $ 15 Drainage Structures None $ $ 16 Bridge Structures None $ $ 17 Traffic Signals None $ $ 18 Other At -grade RR crossing- $ 150,000 $ Item Description Construction Engineering /Survey /Testing Right -of -Way Acquisition 2017 Impact Fee Update City of Schertz I, II, & III Construction Subtotal: $ Mobilization 5% $ Contineencv 10% $ Item Cost 150,000 150,000 4,822,250 241,200 506,400 Notes Allowance Item Cost - $ 5,569,900 7% $ 389,900 Cost per sq. ft.: $ 0.75 $ 445,500 $ 445,500 Freese and Nichols, Inc. Updated: 612017 5 City of Schertz Impact Fee Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Estimate E/W CONNECTOR (1) N/S Connector (1) to FM 2252 Functional Classification: Secondary Arterial - No. of Lanes: 4 Length (If): 5,227 Right -of -Way Width (ft.): 90 Median Type: Raised Pavement Width (Edge to Edge): 62 Description: Construction of new roadway to thoroughfare standard On- street bicycle facility (Pavement: 7' + T) Item No. Item Description Quantity Unit Item Cost Unit Cost Pavement Markings & Signage Item Cost 1 Right of Way Preparation 53 STA $ 3,000.00 $ 159,000 2 Unclassified Street Excavation 15,800 CY $ 20.00 $ 316,000 3 3" HMAC (Type "D ") 36,100 SY $ 18.00 $ 649,800 4 10" Flex Base 43,000 SY $ 18.00 $ 774,000 5 6" Moisture Conditioned Subgrade 43,000 SY $ 7.00 $ 301,000 6 TX -5 Geogrid 43,000 SY $ 1.00 $ 43,000 7 6" Monolithic Concrete Curb & Gutter 20,910 LF $ 25.00 $ 522,750 8 4" Concrete Sidewalk and Ramps 5,800 SY $ 50.00 $ 290,000 9 Block Sodding and Topsoil 8,130 SY $ 5.00 $ 40,650 Item No. Item Description Pct. Of Paving Allowance Item Cost 10 Pavement Markings & Signage 2% $ 62,000 11 Traffic Control 5% $ 154,900 12 Erosion Control 3% $ 92,900 13 Drainage Improvements (RCP, Inlets, MH, Outfalls) 20% $ 619,300 Item No. Item Description Notes Allowance 14 Landscaping /Illumination None $ $ 15 Drainage Structures None - $ - $ 16 Bridge Structures None - - - $ $ 17 Traffic Signals None - - - $ $ 18 Other At -grade RR crossing- $ 150,000 $ Item Description Construction Engineering /Survey /Testing Right -of -Way Acquisition 2017 Impact Fee Update City of Schertz I, II, & III Construction Subtotal: $ Mobilization 5% $ Contineencv 10% $ Item Cost 150,000 15 ©,000 4,175, 300 208,800 438,500 Notes Allowance Item Cost - $ 4,822,600 7% $ 337,600 Cost per sq. ft.: $ 0.75 $ 352,800 $ 352,800 Freese and Nichols, Inc. Updated: 612017 6 City of Schertz Impact Fee Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Estimate E/W CONNECTOR (2) N/S Connector (1) to FM 2252 Functional Classification: Commercial Collector B No. of Lanes: 2 Length (If): 5,227 Right -of -Way Width (ft.): 70 Median Type: None Pavement Width (Edge to Edge): 42 Description: Construction of new roadway to thoroughfare standard On- street parking (9' + 9') Item No. Item Description Quantity Unit Item Cost Unit Cost Pavement Markings & Signage Item Cost 1 Right of Way Preparation 53 STA $ 3,000.00 $ 159,000 2 Unclassified Street Excavation 10,300 CY $ 20.00 $ 206,000 3 3" HMAC (Type "D ") 24,400 SY $ 18.00 $ 439,200 4 10" Flex Base 27,900 SY $ 18.00 $ 502,200 5 6" Moisture Conditioned Subgrade 27,900 SY $ 7.00 $ 195,300 6 TX -5 Geogrid 27,900 SY $ 1.00 $ 27,900 7 6" Monolithic Concrete Curb & Gutter 10,460 LF $ 25.00 $ 261,500 8 4" Concrete Sidewalk and Ramps 13,900 SY $ 50.00 $ 695,000 9 Block Sodding and Topsoil 0 SY $ 5.00 $ - Item No. Item Description Pct. Of Paving Allowance Item Cost 10 Pavement Markings & Signage 2% $ 49,800 11 Traffic Control 5% $ 124,400 12 Erosion Control 3% $ 74,600 13 Drainage Improvements (RCP, Inlets, MH, Outfalls) 20% $ 497,300 Item No. Item Description Notes Allowance Item Cost 14 Landscaping /Illumination None $ $ 15 Drainage Structures None $ $ - 16 Bridge Structures None $ $ - 17 Traffic Signals None $ $ - 18 Other None $ $ - Item Description Construction Engineering /Survey /Testing Right -of -Way Acquisition 2017 Impact Fee Update City of Schertz I, II, & III Construction Subtotal: $ 3,232,200 Mobilization 5% $ 161,700 Contineencv 10% $ 339,400 Notes Allowance Item Cost - $ 3,733,300 7% $ 261,300 Cost per sq. ft.: $ 0.75 $ 274,400 $ 274,400 Freese and Nichols, Inc. Updated: 612017 City of Schertz Impact Fee Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Estimate FM 482 FM 2252 to Hubertus Rd Functional Classification: Principal Arterial No. of Lanes: 4 Length (If): 5,544 Right -of -Way Width (ft.): 120 Median Type: Raised - - - - - - Pavement Width (Edge to Edge): 48 Description: Widening of roadway to thoroughfare standard Shared -Use Path bicycle facility Item No. Item Description Quantity Unit Item Cost Unit Cost Pavement Markings & Signage Item Cost 1 Right of Way Preparation 56 STA $ 3,000.00 $ 168,000 2 Unclassified Street Excavation 13,600 CY $ 20.00 $ 272,000 3 3" HMAC (Type "D ") 29,600 SY $ 18.00 $ 532,800 4 10" Flex Base 37,000 SY $ 18.00 $ 666,000 5 6" Moisture Conditioned Subgrade 37,000 SY $ 7.00 $ 259,000 6 TX -5 Geogrid 37,000 SY $ 1.00 $ 37,000 7 6" Monolithic Concrete Curb & Gutter 22,180 LF $ 25.00 $ 554,500 8 4" Concrete Sidewalk and Ramps 9,200 SY $ 50.00 $ 460,000 9 Block Sodding and Topsoil 32,650 SY $ 5.00 $ 163,250 Item No. Item Description Pct. Of Paving Allowance Item Cost 10 Pavement Markings & Signage 2% $ 62,300 11 Traffic Control 5% $ 155,700 12 Erosion Control 3% $ 93,400 13 Drainage Improvements (RCP, Inlets, MH, Outfalls) 20% $ 622,600 Item No. Item Description Notes Allowance Item Cost 14 Landscaping /Illumination None $ - $ - 15 Drainage Structures 2 Minor Crossings $ 200,000 $ 200,000 16 Bridge Structures None $ - $ - 17 Traffic Signals None $ $ - 18 Other None - - - - $ $ Item Description Construction Engineering /Survey /Testing Right -of -Way Acquisition 2017 Impact Fee Update City of Schertz I, II, & III Construction Subtotal: $ 4,246,550 Mobilization 5% $ 212,400 Contineencv 10% $ 445,900 Notes Allowance Item Cost - $ 4,904,900 7% $ 343,300 Cost per sq. ft.: $ 0.75 $ 207,900 $ 207,900 Freese and Nichols, Inc. Updated: 612017 8 City of Schertz Impact Fee Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Estimate FM 482 Hubertus Rd to Railroad Tracks Functional Classification: Principal Arterial No. of Lanes: 4 Length (If): 5,280 Right -of -Way Width (ft.): 120 Median Type: Raised - - - - - - Pavement Width (Edge to Edge): 48 Description: Widening of roadway to thoroughfare standard Shared -Use Path bicycle facility Item No. Item Description Quantity Unit Item Cost Unit Cost Pavement Markings & Signage Item Cost 1 Right of Way Preparation 53 STA $ 3,000.00 $ 159,000 2 Unclassified Street Excavation 13,000 CY $ 20.00 $ 260,000 3 3" HMAC (Type "D ") 28,200 SY $ 18.00 $ 507,600 4 10" Flex Base 35,200 SY $ 18.00 $ 633,600 5 6" Moisture Conditioned Subgrade 35,200 SY $ 7.00 $ 246,400 6 TX -5 Geogrid 35,200 SY $ 1.00 $ 35,200 7 6" Monolithic Concrete Curb & Gutter 21,120 LF $ 25.00 $ 528,000 8 4" Concrete Sidewalk and Ramps 8,800 SY $ 50.00 $ 440,000 9 Block Sodding and Topsoil 31,090 SY $ 5.00 $ 155,450 Item No. Item Description Pct. Of Paving Allowance Item Cost 10 Pavement Markings & Signage 2% $ 59,400 11 Traffic Control 5% $ 148,300 12 Erosion Control 3% $ 89,000 13 Drainage Improvements (RCP, Inlets, MH, Outfalls) 20% $ 593,100 Item No. Item Description Notes Allowance 14 Landscaping /Illumination None $ $ 15 Drainage Structures None $ $ 16 Bridge Structures None $ $ 17 Traffic Signals None $ $ 18 Other At -grade RR crossing- $ 150,000 $ Item Description Construction Engineering /Survey /Testing Right -of -Way Acquisition 2017 Impact Fee Update City of Schertz I, II, & III Construction Subtotal: $ Mobilization 5% $ Contineencv 10% $ Item Cost 150,000 150,000 4,005,050 200,300 420,600 Notes Allowance Item Cost - $ 4,626,000 7% $ 323,800 Cost per sq. ft.: $ 0.75 $ 198,000 $ 198,000 Freese and Nichols, Inc. Updated: 612017 9 City of Schertz Impact Fee Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Estimate FM 482 800' West of Friesenhahn Ln. to Friesenhahn Ln. Functional Classification: Principal Arterial No. of Lanes: 4 Length (►f): 800 Right -of -Way Width (ft.): 120 Median Type: Raised - - - - - - Pavement Width (Edge to Edge): 48 Description: Widening of roadway to thoroughfare standard Shared -Use Path bicycle facility Item No. Item Description Quantity Unit Item Cost Unit Cost Pavement Markings & Signage Item Cost 1 Right of Way Preparation 8 STA $ 3,000.00 $ 24,000 2 Unclassified Street Excavation 2,000 CY $ 20.00 $ 40,000 3 3" HMAC (Type "D ") 4,300 SY $ 18.00 $ 77,400 4 10" Flex Base 5,400 SY $ 18.00 $ 97,200 5 6" Moisture Conditioned Subgrade 5,400 SY $ 7.00 $ 37,800 6 TX -5 Geogrid 5,400 SY $ 1.00 $ 5,400 7 6" Monolithic Concrete Curb & Gutter 3,200 LF $ 25.00 $ 80,000 8 4" Concrete Sidewalk and Ramps 1,300 SY $ 50.00 $ 65,000 9 Block Sodding and Topsoil 4,710 SY $ 5.00 $ 23,550 Item No. Item Description Pct. Of Paving Allowance Item Cost 10 Pavement Markings & Signage 2% $ 9,100 11 Traffic Control 5% $ 22,600 12 Erosion Control 3% $ 13,600 13 Drainage Improvements (RCP, Inlets, MH, Outfalls) 20% $ 90,100 Item No. Item Description Notes Allowance Item Cost 14 Landscaping /Illumination None $ $ 15 Drainage Structures None $ $ - 16 Bridge Structures None $ $ - 17 Traffic Signals None - - - $ $ - 18 Other None - - - $ $ - Item Description Construction Engineering /Survey /Testing Right -of -Way Acquisition 2017 Impact Fee Update City of Schertz I, II, & III Construction Subtotal: $ 585,750 Mobilization 5% - $ 29,300 Contineencv 10% $ 61,600 Notes Allowance Item Cost - $ 676,700 7% $ 47,400 Cost per sq. ft.: $ 0.75 $ 30,000 $ 30,000 Freese and Nichols, Inc. Updated: 612017 10 City of Schertz Impact Fee Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Estimate FM 482 Friesenhahn Ln. to Schwab Rd. Functional Classification: Principal Arterial No. of Lanes: 4 Length (If): 3,115 Right -of -Way Width (ft.): 120 Median Type: Raised - - - - - - - Pavement Width (Edge to Edge): 48 Description: Widening of roadway to thoroughfare standard Shared -Use Path bicycle facility Item No. Item Description Quantity Unit Item Cost Unit Cost Pavement Markings & Signage Item Cost 1 Right of Way Preparation 32 STA $ 3,000.00 $ 96,000 2 Unclassified Street Excavation 7,700 CY $ 20.00 $ 154,000 3 3" HMAC (Type "D ") 16,700 SY $ 18.00 $ 300,600 4 10" Flex Base 20,800 SY $ 18.00 $ 374,400 5 6" Moisture Conditioned Subgrade 20,800 SY $ 7.00 $ 145,600 6 TX -5 Geogrid 20,800 SY $ 1.00 $ 20,800 7 6" Monolithic Concrete Curb & Gutter 12,470 LF $ 25.00 $ 311,750 8 4" Concrete Sidewalk and Ramps 5,200 SY $ 50.00 $ 260,000 9 Block Sodding and Topsoil 18,350 SY $ 5.00 $ 91,750 Item No. Item Description Pct. Of Paving Allowance Item Cost 10 Pavement Markings & Signage 2% $ 35,100 11 Traffic Control 5% $ 87,800 12 Erosion Control 3% $ 52,700 13 Drainage Improvements (RCP, Inlets, MH, Outfalls) 20% $ 351,000 Item No. Item Description Notes Allowance Item Cost 14 Landscaping /Illumination None $ - $ - 15 Drainage Structures 1 Minor Crossing $ 100;000 $ 100,000 16 Bridge Structures None - - - $ - $ - 17 Traffic Signals None - - - $ $ - 18 Other None $ $ Item Description Construction Engineering /Survey /Testing Right -of -Way Acquisition 2017 Impact Fee Update City of Schertz I, II, & III Construction Subtotal: $ 2,381,500 Mobilization 5% $ 119,100 Contineencv 10% $ 250,100 Notes Allowance Item Cost - $ 2,750,700 7% $ 192,500 Cost per sq. ft.: $ 0.75 $ 116,800 $ 116,800 Freese and Nichols, Inc. Updated: 612017 City of Schertz Impact Fee Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Estimate FM 482 Schwab Rd. to E. City Limits Functional Classification: Principal Arterial No. of Lanes: 4 Length (If): 6,336 Right -of -Way Width (ft.): 120 Median Type: Raised - - - - - - Pavement Width (Edge to Edge): 48 Description: Widening of roadway to thoroughfare standard Shared -Use Path bicycle facility Item No. Item Description Quantity Unit Item Cost Unit Cost Pavement Markings & Signage Item Cost 1 Right of Way Preparation 64 STA $ 3,000.00 $ 192,000 2 Unclassified Street Excavation 15,500 CY $ 20.00 $ 310,000 3 3" HMAC (Type "D ") 33,800 SY $ 18.00 $ 608,400 4 10" Flex Base 42,300 SY $ 18.00 $ 761,400 5 6" Moisture Conditioned Subgrade 42,300 SY $ 7.00 $ 296,100 6 TX -5 Geogrid 42,300 SY $ 1.00 $ 42,300 7 6" Monolithic Concrete Curb & Gutter 25,350 LF $ 25.00 $ 633,750 8 4" Concrete Sidewalk and Ramps 10,600 SY $ 50.00 $ 530,000 9 Block Sodding and Topsoil 37,310 SY $ 5.00 $ 186,550 Item No. Item Description Pct. Of Paving Allowance Item Cost 10 Pavement Markings & Signage 2% $ 71,300 11 Traffic Control 5% $ 178,100 12 Erosion Control 3% $ 106,900 13 Drainage Improvements (RCP, Inlets, MH, Outfalls) 20% $ 712,100 Item No. Item Description Notes Allowance Item Cost 14 Landscaping /Illumination None $ - $ - 15 Drainage Structures 2 Minor Crossings $ 200,000 $ 200,000 16 Bridge Structures None - - $ - $ - 17 Traffic Signals None $ $ - 18 Other None $ $ - Item Description Construction Engineering /Survey /Testing Right -of -Way Acquisition 2017 Impact Fee Update City of Schertz I, II, & III Construction Subtotal: $ 4,828,900 Mobilization 5% $ 241,500 Contineencv 10% $ 507,100 Notes Allowance Item Cost - $ 5,577,500 7% $ 390,400 Cost per sq. ft.: $ 0.75 $ 237,600 $ 237,600 Freese and Nichols, Inc. Updated: 612017 12 City of Schertz Impact Fee Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Estimate HUBERTUS ROAD IH -35 to FM 482 Functional Classification: Principal Arterial No. of Lanes: 4 =_ Length (If): 3,010 Right -of -Way Width (ft.): 120 Median Type: Raised - - - - - - Pavement Width (Edge to Edge): 48 Description: Widening of roadway to thoroughfare standard Shared -Use Path bicycle facility Item No. Item Description Quantity Unit Item Cost Unit Cost Pavement Markings & Signage Item Cost 1 Right of Way Preparation 31 STA $ 3,000.00 $ 93,000 2 Unclassified Street Excavation 7,400 CY $ 20.00 $ 148,000 3 3" HMAC (Type "D ") 16,100 SY $ 18.00 $ 289,800 4 10" Flex Base 20,100 SY $ 18.00 $ 361,800 5 6" Moisture Conditioned Subgrade 20,100 SY $ 7.00 $ 140,700 6 TX -5 Geogrid 20,100 SY $ 1.00 $ 20,100 7 6" Monolithic Concrete Curb & Gutter 12,040 LF $ 25.00 $ 301,000 8 4" Concrete Sidewalk and Ramps 5,000 SY $ 50.00 $ 250,000 9 Block Sodding and Topsoil 17,720 SY $ 5.00 $ 88,600 Item No. Item Description Pct. Of Paving Allowance Item Cost 10 Pavement Markings & Signage 2% $ 33,900 11 Traffic Control 5% $ 84,700 12 Erosion Control 3% $ 50,800 13 Drainage Improvements (RCP, Inlets, MH, Outfalls) 20%_ $ 338,600 Item No. Item Description Notes Allowance Item Cost 14 Landscaping /Illumination None $ $ - 15 Drainage Structures None $ $ - 16 Bridge Structures None $ $ - 17 Traffic Signals None $ $ - 18 Other None $ $ - Item Description Construction Engineering /Survey /Testing Right -of -Way Acquisition 2017 Impact Fee Update City of Schertz I, II, & III Construction Subtotal: $ 2,201,000 Mobilization 5% $ 110,100 Contineencv 10% $ 231,200 Notes Allowance Item Cost - $ 2,542,300 7% $ 178,000 Cost per sq. ft.: $ 0.75 $ 135,400 $ 135,400 Freese and Nichols, Inc. Updated: 612017 13 City of Schertz Impact Fee Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Estimate HUBERTUS ROAD FM 482 to N. City Limits Functional Classification: Principal Arterial No. of Lanes: 4 Length (If): 1,584 Right -of -Way Width (ft.): 120 - - - - Median Type: Raised Pavement Width (Edge to Edge): 48 Description: Construction of new roadway to thoroughfare standard Shared -Use Path bicycle facility Item No. Item Description Quantity Unit Item Cost Unit Cost Pavement Markings & Signage Item Cost 1 Right of Way Preparation 16 STA $ 3,000.00 $ 48,000 2 Unclassified Street Excavation 3,900 CY $ 20.00 $ 78,000 3 3" HMAC (Type "D ") 8,500 SY $ 18.00 $ 153,000 4 10" Flex Base 10,600 SY $ 18.00 $ 190,800 5 6" Moisture Conditioned Subgrade 10,600 SY $ 7.00 $ 74,200 6 TX -5 Geogrid 10,600 SY $ 1.00 $ 10,600 7 6" Monolithic Concrete Curb & Gutter 6,340 LF $ 25.00 $ 158,500 8 4" Concrete Sidewalk and Ramps 2,600 SY $ 50.00 $ 130,000 9 Block Sodding and Topsoil 9,330 SY $ 5.00 $ 46,650 Item No. Item Description Pct. Of Paving Allowance Item Cost 10 Pavement Markings & Signage 2% $ 17,800 11 Traffic Control 5% $ 44,500 12 Erosion Control 3% $ 26,700 13 Drainage Improvements (RCP, Inlets, MH, Outfalls) 20% $ 178,000 Item No. Item Description Notes Allowance Item Cost 14 Landscaping /Illumination None $ $ 15 Drainage Structures None $ $ - 16 Bridge Structures None - - $ $ - 17 Traffic Signals None $ $ - 18 Other None $ $ - Item Description Construction Engineering /Survey /Testing Right -of -Way Acquisition 2017 Impact Fee Update City of Schertz I, II, & III Construction Subtotal: $ 1,156,750 Mobilization 5% $ 57,900 Contineencv 10% $ 121,500 Notes Allowance Item Cost - $ 1,336,200 7% $ 93,500 Cost per sq. ft.: $ 0.75 $ 142,600 $ 142,600 Freese and Nichols, Inc. Updated: 612017 14 City of Schertz Impact Fee Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Estimate Functional Classification: Length (If): Right -of -Way Width (ft.): Median Type: Pavement Width (Edge to Edge) Description: FRIESENHAHN LANE IH -35 to FM 482 Commercial Collector A No. of Lanes: 3 1,690 70 Two -Way Left Turn Lane 38 Widening of roadway to thoroughfare standard Shared -Use Path bicycle facility Item No. Item Description Quantity Unit Item Cost Unit Cost Pavement Markings & Signage Item Cost 1 Right of Way Preparation 17 STA $ 3,000.00 $ 51,000 2 Unclassified Street Excavation 3,100 CY $ 20.00 $ 62,000 3 3" HMAC (Type "D ") 7,200 SY $ 18.00 $ 129,600 4 10" Flex Base 8,300 SY $ 18.00 $ 149,400 5 6" Moisture Conditioned Subgrade 8,300 SY $ 7.00 $ 58,100 6 TX -5 Geogrid 8,300 SY $ 1.00 $ 8,300 7 6" Monolithic Concrete Curb & Gutter 3,380 LF $ 25.00 $ 84,500 8 4" Concrete Sidewalk and Ramps 2,800 SY $ 50.00 $ 140,000 9 Block Sodding and Topsoil 2,820 SY $ 5.00 $ 14,100 Item No. Item Description Pct. Of Paving Allowance Item Cost 10 Pavement Markings & Signage 2% $ 14,000 11 Traffic Control 5% $ 34,900 12 Erosion Control 3% $ 21,000 13 Drainage Improvements (RCP, Inlets, MH, Outfalls) 20% $ 139,400 Item No. Item Description Notes Allowance 14 Landscaping /Illumination None $ $ 15 Drainage Structures None $ $ 16 Bridge Structures None $ $ 17 Traffic Signals None $ $ 18 Other At -grade RR crossing $ 150,000 $ Item Description Construction Engineering /Survey /Testing Right -of -Way Acquisition 2017 Impact Fee Update City of Schertz I, II, & III Construction Subtotal: $ Mobilization 5% $ Contineencv 10% $ Item Cost 150,000 150,000' 1,056,300 52,900 111,000 Notes Allowance Item Cost - $ 1,220,200 7% $ 85,400 Cost per sq. ft.: $ 0.75 $ 38,000 $ 38,000 Freese and Nichols, Inc. Updated: 612017 15 City of Schertz Impact Fee Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Estimate SCHWAB ROAD IH -35 to FM 482 Functional Classification: Principal Arterial No. of Lanes: 6 Length (If): 3,326 Right -of -Way Width (ft.): 200 Median Type: Raised - - - - - - Pavement Width (Edge to Edge): 68 - - - - - - Description: Widening of roadway to thoroughfare standard - - - Shared -Use Path bicycle facility Item No. Item Description Quantity Unit Item Cost Unit Cost Pavement Markings & Signage Item Cost 1 Right of Way Preparation 34 STA $ 3,000.00 $ 102,000 2 Unclassified Street Excavation 10,900 CY $ 20.00 $ 218,000 3 3" HMAC (Type "D ") 25,200 SY $ 18.00 $ 453,600 4 10" Flex Base 29,600 SY $ 18.00 $ 532,800 5 6" Moisture Conditioned Subgrade 29,600 SY $ 7.00 $ 207,200 6 TX -5 Geogrid 29,600 SY $ 1.00 $ 29,600 7 6" Monolithic Concrete Curb & Gutter 13,310 LF $ 25.00 $ 332,750 8 4" Concrete Sidewalk and Ramps 5,500 SY $ 50.00 $ 275,000 9 Block Sodding and Topsoil 41,760 SY $ 5.00 $ 208,800 Item No. Item Description Pct. Of Paving Allowance Item Cost 10 Pavement Markings & Signage 2% $ 47,200 11 Traffic Control 5% $ 118,000 12 Erosion Control 3% $ 70,800 13 Drainage Improvements (RCP, Inlets, MH, Outfalls) 20% $ 472,000 Item No. Item Description Notes Allowance Item Cost 14 Landscaping /Illumination None $ - $ - 15 Drainage Structures 1 Minor Crossing $ 100,000 $ 100,000 16 Bridge Structures None $ - $ - 17 Traffic Signals None $ - $ - 18 Other At -grade RR crossing - - $ 150,000 $ 150,000 Item Description Construction Engineering /Survey /Testing Right -of -Way Acquisition 2017 Impact Fee Update City of Schertz I, II, & III Construction Subtotal: $ 3,317,750 Mobilization 5% $ 165,900 Contineencv 10% $ 348,400 Notes Allowance Item Cost - $ 3,832,100 7% $ 268,200 Cost per sq. ft.: $ 0.75 $ 274,400 $ 274,400 Freese and Nichols, Inc. Updated: 612017 16 City of Schertz Impact Fee Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Estimate Functional Classification: Length (If): Right -of -Way Width (ft.): Median Type: Pavement Width (Edge to Edge) Description: E/W CONNECTOR (3) Hubertus Rd. to David Lack Blvd. Commercial Collector A No. of Lanes: 3 8,395 70 Two -Way Left Turn Lane 38 Construction of new roadway to thoroughfare standard Shared -Use Path bicycle facility Item No. Item Description Quantity Unit Item Cost Unit Cost Pavement Markings & Signage Item Cost 1 Right of Way Preparation 84 STA $ 3,000.00 $ 252,000 2 Unclassified Street Excavation 15,100 CY $ 20.00 $ 302,000 3 3" HMAC (Type "D ") 35,500 SY $ 18.00 $ 639,000 4 10" Flex Base 41,100 SY $ 18.00 $ 739,800 5 6" Moisture Conditioned Subgrade 41,100 SY $ 7.00 $ 287,700 6 TX -5 Geogrid 41,100 SY $ 1.00 $ 41,100 7 6" Monolithic Concrete Curb & Gutter 16,800 LF $ 25.00 $ 420,000 8 4" Concrete Sidewalk and Ramps 14,000 SY $ 50.00 $ 700,000 9 Block Sodding and Topsoil 13,990 SY $ 5.00 $ 69,950 Item No. Item Description Pct. Of Paving Allowance Item Cost 10 Pavement Markings & Signage 2% $ 69,100 11 Traffic Control 5% $ 172,600 12 Erosion Control 3% $ 103,600 13 Drainage Improvements (RCP, Inlets, MH, Outfalls) 20% $ 690,400 Item No. Item Description Notes Allowance Item Cost 14 Landscaping /Illumination None $ - $ - 15 Drainage Structures 1 Minor Crossing $ 100,000 $ 100,000 16 Bridge Structures None - - - $ - $ - 17 Traffic Signals None - - - $ $ - 18 Other None $ $ - Item Description Construction Engineering /Survey /Testing Right -of -Way Acquisition 2017 Impact Fee Update City of Schertz I, II, & III Construction Subtotal: $ 4,587,250 Mobilization 5% $ 229,400 Contineencv 10% $ 481,700 Notes Allowance Item Cost - $ 5,298,400 7% $ 370,900 Cost per sq. ft.: $ 0.75 $ 440,700 $ 440,700 Freese and Nichols, Inc. Updated: 612017 17 City of Schertz Impact Fee Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Estimate ECKHARDT ROAD Froboese Ln. to Green Valley Rd. Functional Classification: Residential Collector No. of Lanes: 2 Length (If): 5,861 Right -of -Way Width (ft.): 70 Median Type: None Pavement Width (Edge to Edge): 38 Description: Widening of roadway to thoroughfare standard On- street bicycle facility (Pavement: 7' + T) Item No. Item Description Quantity Unit Item Cost Unit Cost Pavement Markings & Signage Item Cost 1 Right of Way Preparation 59 STA $ 3,000.00 $ 177,000 2 Unclassified Street Excavation 10,600 CY $ 20.00 $ 212,000 3 3" HMAC (Type "D ") 24,800 SY $ 18.00 $ 446,400 4 10" Flex Base 28,700 SY $ 18.00 $ 516,600 5 6" Moisture Conditioned Subgrade 28,700 SY $ 7.00 $ 200,900 6 TX -5 Geogrid 28,700 SY $ 1.00 $ 28,700 7 6" Monolithic Concrete Curb & Gutter 11,730 LF $ 25.00 $ 293,250 8 4" Concrete Sidewalk and Ramps 6,500 SY $ 50.00 $ 325,000 9 Block Sodding and Topsoil 13,020 SY $ 5.00 $ 65,100 Item No. Item Description Pct. Of Paving Allowance Item Cost 10 Pavement Markings & Signage 2% $ 45,300 11 Traffic Control 5% $ 113,300 12 Erosion Control 3% $ 68,000 13 Drainage Improvements (RCP, Inlets, MH, Outfalls) 20% $ 453,000 Item No. Item Description Notes Allowance Item Cost 14 Landscaping /Illumination None $ $ 15 Drainage Structures None $ $ - 16 Bridge Structures None $ $ - 17 Traffic Signals None - - $ $ - 18 Other None $ $ - Item Description Construction Engineering /Survey /Testing Right -of -Way Acquisition 2017 Impact Fee Update City of Schertz I, II, & III Construction Subtotal: $ 2,944,550 Mobilization 5% $ 147,300 Contineencv 10% $ 309,200 Notes Allowance Item Cost - $ 3,401,100 7% $ 238,100 Cost per sq. ft.: $ 0.75 $ 87,900 $ 87,900 Freese and Nichols, Inc. Updated: 612017 18 City of Schertz Impact Fee Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Estimate SCHWAB ROAD IH -35 to S. City Limits Functional Classification: Secondary Arterial =_ No. of Lanes: 4 Length (If): 6,019 Right -of -Way Width (ft.): 90 Median Type: Raised Pavement Width (Edge to Edge): 48 Description: Construction of new roadway to thoroughfare standard Shared -Use Path bicycle facility Item No. Item Description Quantity Unit Item Cost Unit Cost Pavement Markings & Signage Item Cost 1 Right of Way Preparation 61 STA $ 3,000.00 $ 183,000 2 Unclassified Street Excavation 14,800 CY $ 20.00 $ 296,000 3 3" HMAC (Type "D ") 32,200 SY $ 18.00 $ 579,600 4 10" Flex Base 40,200 SY $ 18.00 $ 723,600 5 6" Moisture Conditioned Subgrade 40,200 SY $ 7.00 $ 281,400 6 TX -5 Geogrid 40,200 SY $ 1.00 $ 40,200 7 6" Monolithic Concrete Curb & Gutter 24,080 LF $ 25.00 $ 602,000 8 4" Concrete Sidewalk and Ramps 10,000 SY $ 50.00 $ 500,000 9 Block Sodding and Topsoil 15,380 SY $ 5.00 $ 76,900 Item No. Item Description Pct. Of Paving Allowance Item Cost 10 Pavement Markings & Signage 2% $ 65,700 11 Traffic Control 5% $ 164,200 12 Erosion Control 3% $ 98,500 13 Drainage Improvements (RCP, Inlets, MH, Outfalls) 20% $ 656,600 Item No. Item Description Notes Allowance Item Cost 14 Landscaping /Illumination None $ $ 15 Drainage Structures None $ $ - 16 Bridge Structures None $ $ - 17 Traffic Signals None $ $ - 18 Other None $ $ - Item Description Construction Engineering /Survey /Testing Right -of -Way Acquisition 2017 Impact Fee Update City of Schertz I, II, & III Construction Subtotal: $ 4,267,700 Mobilization 5% - $ 213,400 Contineencv 10% $ 448,200 Notes Allowance Item Cost - $ 4,929,300 7% $ 345,100 Cost per sq. ft.: $ 0.75 $ 406,300 $ 406,300 Freese and Nichols, Inc. Updated: 612017 19 City of Schertz Impact Fee Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Estimate FROBOESE LANE Schwab Rd. to Eckhardt Rd. Functional Classification: Residential Collector No. of Lanes: 2 Length (If): 3,010 Right -of -Way Width (ft.): 70 Median Type: None Pavement Width (Edge to Edge): 38 Description: Construction of new roadway to thoroughfare standard - On- street bicycle facility (Pavement: 7' + T) Item No. Item Description Quantity Unit Item Cost Unit Cost Pavement Markings & Signage Item Cost 1 Right of Way Preparation 31 STA $ 3,000.00 $ 93,000 2 Unclassified Street Excavation 5,400 CY $ 20.00 $ 108,000 3 3" HMAC (Type "D ") 12,800 SY $ 18.00 $ 230,400 4 10" Flex Base 14,800 SY $ 18.00 $ 266,400 5 6" Moisture Conditioned Subgrade 14,800 SY $ 7.00 $ 103,600 6 TX -5 Geogrid 14,800 SY $ 1.00 $ 14,800 7 6" Monolithic Concrete Curb & Gutter 6,020 LF $ 25.00 $ 150,500 8 4" Concrete Sidewalk and Ramps 3,300 SY $ 50.00 $ 165,000 9 Block Sodding and Topsoil 6,690 SY $ 5.00 $ 33,450 Item No. Item Description Pct. Of Paving Allowance Item Cost 10 Pavement Markings & Signage 2% $ 23,400 11 Traffic Control 5% $ 58,300 12 Erosion Control 3% $ 35,000 13 Drainage Improvements (RCP, Inlets, MH, Outfalls) 20% $ 233,100 Item No. Item Description Notes Allowance Item Cost 14 Landscaping /Illumination None $ - $ 15 Drainage Structures None - $ $ - 16 Bridge Structures None - - - $ - $ - 17 Traffic Signals None - - - $ - $ - 18 Other None - - - $ - $ - Item Description Construction Engineering /Survey /Testing Right -of -Way Acquisition 2017 Impact Fee Update City of Schertz I, II, & III Construction Subtotal: $ 1,514,950 Mobilization 5% $ 75,800 Contineencv 10% $ 159,100 Notes Allowance Item Cost - $ 1,749,900 7% $ 122,500 Cost per sq. ft.: $ 0.75 $ 158,000 $ 158,000 Freese and Nichols, Inc. Updated: 612017 20 City of Schertz Impact Fee Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Estimate FROBOESE LANE E/W Break Pt. 1 to E/W Break Pt. 2 Functional Classification: Residential Collector No. of Lanes: 2 Length (If): 1,380 Right -of -Way Width (ft.): 70 Median Type: None Pavement Width (Edge to Edge): 38 Description: Widening of roadway to thoroughfare standard On- street bicycle facility (Pavement: 7' + T) Item No. Item Description Quantity Unit Item Cost Unit Cost Pavement Markings & Signage Item Cost 1 Right of Way Preparation 14 STA $ 3,000.00 $ 42,000 2 Unclassified Street Excavation 2,500 CY $ 20.00 $ 50,000 3 3" HMAC (Type "D ") 5,900 SY $ 18.00 $ 106,200 4 10" Flex Base 6,800 SY $ 18.00 $ 122,400 5 6" Moisture Conditioned Subgrade 6,800 SY $ 7.00 $ 47,600 6 TX -5 Geogrid 6,800 SY $ 1.00 $ 6,800 7 6" Monolithic Concrete Curb & Gutter 2,760 LF $ 25.00 $ 69,000 8 4" Concrete Sidewalk and Ramps 1,500 SY $ 50.00 $ 75,000 9 Block Sodding and Topsoil 3,070 SY $ 5.00 $ 15,350 Item No. Item Description Pct. Of Paving Allowance Item Cost 10 Pavement Markings & Signage 2% $ 10,700 11 Traffic Control 5% $ 26,800 12 Erosion Control 3% $ 16,100 13 Drainage Improvements (RCP, Inlets, MH, Outfalls) 20% $ 106,900 Item No. Item Description Notes Allowance Item Cost 14 Landscaping /Illumination None $ $ 15 Drainage Structures None $ $ - 16 Bridge Structures None $ $ - 17 Traffic Signals None $ $ - 18 Other None $ $ - Item Description Construction Engineering /Survey /Testing Right -of -Way Acquisition 2017 Impact Fee Update City of Schertz I, II, & III Construction Subtotal: $ 694,850 Mobilization 5% $ 34,800 Contineencv 10% $ 73,000 Notes Allowance Item Cost - $ 802,700 7% $ 56,200 Cost per sq. ft.: $ 0.75 $ 31,100 $ 31,100 Freese and Nichols, Inc. Updated: 612017 21 City of Schertz Impact Fee Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Estimate GREEN VALLEY ROAD W. City Limits to E. City Limits Functional Classification: Secondary Arterial No. of Lanes: 4 =_ Length (If): 4,594 Right -of -Way Width (ft.): 90 Median Type: Raised Pavement Width (Edge to Edge): 48 Description: Widening of roadway to thoroughfare standard Shared -Use Path bicycle facility Item No. Item Description Quantity Unit Item Cost Unit Cost Pavement Markings & Signage Item Cost 1 Right of Way Preparation 46 STA $ 3,000.00 $ 138,000 2 Unclassified Street Excavation 11,300 CY $ 20.00 $ 226,000 3 3" HMAC (Type "D ") 24,500 SY $ 18.00 $ 441,000 4 10" Flex Base 30,700 SY $ 18.00 $ 552,600 5 6" Moisture Conditioned Subgrade 30,700 SY $ 7.00 $ 214,900 6 TX -5 Geogrid 30,700 SY $ 1.00 $ 30,700 7 6" Monolithic Concrete Curb & Gutter 18,380 LF $ 25.00 $ 459,500 8 4" Concrete Sidewalk and Ramps 7,700 SY $ 50.00 $ 385,000 9 Block Sodding and Topsoil 11,740 SY $ 5.00 $ 58,700 Item No. Item Description Pct. Of Paving Allowance Item Cost 10 Pavement Markings & Signage 2% $ 50,200 11 Traffic Control 5% $ 125,400 12 Erosion Control 3% $ 75,200 13 Drainage Improvements (RCP, Inlets, MH, Outfalls) 20% $ 501,300 Item No. Item Description Notes Allowance Item Cost 14 Landscaping /Illumination None $ $ 15 Drainage Structures None $ $ - 16 Bridge Structures None - - $ $ - 17 Traffic Signals None $ $ - 18 Other None - - $ $ - Item Description Construction Engineering /Survey /Testing Right -of -Way Acquisition 2017 Impact Fee Update City of Schertz I, II, & III Construction Subtotal: $ 3,258,500 Mobilization 5% $ 163,000 Contineencv 10% $ 342,200 Notes Allowance Item Cost - $ 3,763,700 7% $ 263,500 Cost per sq. ft.: $ 0.75 $ 172,300 $ 172,300 Freese and Nichols, Inc. Updated: 612017 22 City of Schertz Impact Fee Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Estimate HOMESTEAD PARKWAY Existing Homestead Pkwy. to S. City Limits Functional Classification: Residential Collector No. of Lanes: 2 Length (If): 1,742 Right -of -Way Width (ft.): 70 Median Type: None Pavement Width (Edge to Edge): 38 Description: Construction of new roadway to thoroughfare standard On- street bicycle facility (Pavement: 7' + T) Item No. Item Description Quantity Unit Item Cost Unit Cost Pavement Markings & Signage Item Cost 1 Right of Way Preparation 18 STA $ 3,000.00 $ 54,000 2 Unclassified Street Excavation 3,200 Cy $ 20.00 $ 64,000 3 3" HMAC (Type "D ") 7,400 SY $ 18.00 $ 133,200 4 10" Flex Base 8,600 SY $ 18.00 $ 154,800 5 6" Moisture Conditioned Subgrade 8,600 SY $ 7.00 $ 60,200 6 TX -5 Geogrid 8,600 SY $ 1.00 $ 8,600 7 6" Monolithic Concrete Curb & Gutter 3,490 LF $ 25.00 $ 87,250 8 4" Concrete Sidewalk and Ramps 1,900 SY $ 50.00 $ 95,000 9 Block Sodding and Topsoil 3,870 SY $ 5.00 $ 19,350 Item No. Item Description Pct. Of Paving Allowance Item Cost 10 Pavement Markings & Signage 2% $ 13,600 11 Traffic Control 5% $ 33,900 12 Erosion Control 3% $ 20,300 13 Drainage Improvements (RCP, Inlets, MH, Outfalls) 20% $ 135,300 Item No. Item Description Notes Allowance Item Cost 14 Landscaping /Illumination None $ $ 15 Drainage Structures None - - $ $ - 16 Bridge Structures None $ $ - 17 Traffic Signals None $ $ - 18 Other None $ $ - Item Description Construction Engineering /Survey /Testing Right -of -Way Acquisition 2017 Impact Fee Update City of Schertz I, II, & III Construction Subtotal: $ 879,500 Mobilization 5% $ 44,000 Contineencv 10% $ 92,400 Notes Allowance Item Cost - $ 1,015,900 7% $ 71,100 Cost per sq. ft.: $ 0.75 $ 91,500 $ 91,500 Freese and Nichols, Inc. Updated: 612017 23 City of Schertz Impact Fee Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Estimate COUNTRY CLUB BOULEVARD Scenic Links to S. City Limits Functional Classification: Residential Collector No. of Lanes: 2 Length (If): 1,848 Right -of -Way Width (ft.): 70 Median Type: None Pavement Width (Edge to Edge): 38 Description: Construction of new roadway to thoroughfare standard - On- street bicycle facility (Pavement: 7' + T) Item No. Item Description Quantity Unit Item Cost Unit Cost Pavement Markings & Signage Item Cost 1 Right of Way Preparation 19 STA $ 3,000.00 $ 57,000 2 Unclassified Street Excavation 3,400 CY $ 20.00 $ 68,000 3 3" HMAC (Type "D ") 7,900 SY $ 18.00 $ 142,200 4 10" Flex Base 9,100 SY $ 18.00 $ 163,800 5 6" Moisture Conditioned Subgrade 9,100 SY $ 7.00 $ 63,700 6 TX -5 Geogrid 9,100 SY $ 1.00 $ 9,100 7 6" Monolithic Concrete Curb & Gutter 3,700 LF $ 25.00 $ 92,500 8 4" Concrete Sidewalk and Ramps 2,100 SY $ 50.00 $ 105,000 9 Block Sodding and Topsoil 4,110 SY $ 5.00 $ 20,550 Item No. Item Description Pct. Of Paving Allowance Item Cost 10 Pavement Markings & Signage 2% $ 14,500 11 Traffic Control 5% $ 36,100 12 Erosion Control 3% $ 21,700 13 Drainage Improvements (RCP, Inlets, MH, Outfalls) 20% $ 144,400 Item No. Item Description Notes Allowance Item Cost 14 Landscaping /Illumination None $ $ 15 Drainage Structures None $ $ - 16 Bridge Structures None $ - $ - 17 Traffic Signals None $ $ - 18 Other None $ $ - Item Description Construction Engineering /Survey /Testing Right -of -Way Acquisition 2017 Impact Fee Update City of Schertz I, II, & III Construction Subtotal: $ 938,550 Mobilization 5% $ 47,000 Contineencv 10% $ 98,600 Notes Allowance Item Cost - $ 1,084,200 7% $ 75,900 Cost per sq. ft.: $ 0.75 $ 97,000 $ 97,000 Freese and Nichols, Inc. Updated: 612017 24 City of Schertz Impact Fee Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Estimate E/W CONNECTOR (4) Country Club Blvd. to Homestead Pkwy. Functional Classification: Residential Collector No. of Lanes: 2 Length (If): 4,073 Right -of -Way Width (ft.): 70 Median Type: None Pavement Width (Edge to Edge): 38 Description: Construction of new roadway to thoroughfare standard On- street bicycle facility (Pavement: 7' + T) Item No. Item Description Quantity Unit Item Cost Unit Cost Pavement Markings & Signage Item Cost 1 Right of Way Preparation 41 STA $ 3,000.00 $ 123,000 2 Unclassified Street Excavation 7,400 CY $ 20.00 $ 148,000 3 3" HMAC (Type "D ") 17,200 SY $ 18.00 $ 309,600 4 10" Flex Base 20,000 SY $ 18.00 $ 360,000 5 6" Moisture Conditioned Subgrade 20,000 SY $ 7.00 $ 140,000 6 TX -5 Geogrid 20,000 SY $ 1.00 $ 20,000 7 6" Monolithic Concrete Curb & Gutter 8,150 LF $ 25.00 $ 203,750 8 4" Concrete Sidewalk and Ramps 4,500 SY $ 50.00 $ 225,000 9 Block Sodding and Topsoil 9,050 SY $ 5.00 $ 45,250 Item No. Item Description Pct. Of Paving Allowance Item Cost 10 Pavement Markings & Signage 2% $ 30,600 11 Traffic Control 5% $ 76,500 12 Erosion Control 3% $ 45,900 13 Drainage Improvements (RCP, Inlets, MH, Outfalls) 20% $ 305,900 Item No. Item Description Notes Allowance Item Cost 14 Landscaping /Illumination None $ $ 15 Drainage Structures None $ $ - 16 Bridge Structures None $ $ - 17 Traffic Signals None $ $ - 18 Other None $ $ - Item Description Construction Engineering /Survey /Testing Right -of -Way Acquisition 2017 Impact Fee Update City of Schertz I, II, & III Construction Subtotal: $ 1,988,250 Mobilization 5% $ 99,500 Contineencv 10% $ 208,800 Notes Allowance Item Cost - $ 2,296,600 7% $ 160,800 Cost per sq. ft.: $ 0.75 $ 213,800 $ 213,800 Freese and Nichols, Inc. Updated: 612017 25 City of Schertz Impact Fee Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Estimate E/W CONNECTOR (4) Schwab Rd. to Eckhardt Rd. Functional Classification: Residential Collector No. of Lanes: 2 Length (If): 2,376 Right -of -Way Width (ft.): 70 Median Type: None Pavement Width (Edge to Edge): 38 - - - - - Description: Construction of new roadway to thoroughfare standard On- street bicycle facility (Pavement: 7' + T) Item No. Item Description Quantity Unit Item Cost Unit Cost Pavement Markings & Signage Item Cost 1 Right of Way Preparation 24 STA $ 3,000.00 $ 72,000 2 Unclassified Street Excavation 4,300 CY $ 20.00 $ 86,000 3 3" HMAC (Type "D ") 10,100 SY $ 18.00 $ 181,800 4 10" Flex Base 11,700 SY $ 18.00 $ 210,600 5 6" Moisture Conditioned Subgrade 11,700 SY $ 7.00 $ 81,900 6 TX -5 Geogrid 11,700 SY $ 1.00 $ 11,700 7 6" Monolithic Concrete Curb & Gutter 4,760 LF $ 25.00 $ 119,000 8 4" Concrete Sidewalk and Ramps 2,600 SY $ 50.00 $ 130,000 9 Block Sodding and Topsoil 5,280 SY $ 5.00 $ 26,400 Item No. Item Description Pct. Of Paving Allowance Item Cost 10 Pavement Markings & Signage 2% $ 18,400 11 Traffic Control 5% $ 46,000 12 Erosion Control 3% $ 27,600 13 Drainage Improvements (RCP, Inlets, MH, Outfalls) 20% $ 183,900 Item No. Item Description Notes Allowance Item Cost 14 Landscaping /Illumination None $ $ 15 Drainage Structures None - $ $ - 16 Bridge Structures None - - - - $ $ - 17 Traffic Signals None $ $ - 18 Other None $ $ - Item Description Construction Engineering /Survey /Testing Right -of -Way Acquisition 2017 Impact Fee Update City of Schertz I, II, & III Construction Subtotal: $ 1,195,300 Mobilization 5% $ 59,800 Contineencv 10% $ 125,600 Notes Allowance Item Cost - $ 1,380,700 7% $ 96,600 Cost per sq. ft.: $ 0.75 $ 124,700 $ 124,700 Freese and Nichols, Inc. Updated: 612017 26 City of Schertz Impact Fee Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Estimate FM 1103 IH -35 to Old Wiederstein Rd. Functional Classification: Principal Arterial No. of Lanes: 4 Length (If): 3,696 Right -of -Way Width (ft.): 130 Median Type: Raised - - - - - - Pavement Width (Edge to Edge): 48 Description: Widening of roadway to thoroughfare standard funded through City Go Bonds, TxDOT, and AAMPO. City contribution anticipated at $2,000,000 Item Description Notes Allowance Item Cost Construction City contribution - - - $ 2,000,000 Engineering /Survey /Testing 7% $ - Right -of -Way Acquisition Cost per sq. ft.: $ 0.75 $ - $ - 2017 Impact Fee Update Freese and Nichols, Inc. City of Schertz Updated: 612017 27 City of Schertz Impact Fee Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Estimate N/S CONNECTOR (1) IH -35 to Old Wiederstein Rd. Functional Classification: Secondary Arterial No. of Lanes: 4 Length (If): 2,904 Right -of -Way Width (ft.): 90 Median Type: Raised Pavement Width (Edge to Edge): 48 Description: Widening of roadway to thoroughfare standard Shared -Use Path bicycle facility Item No. Item Description Quantity Unit Item Cost Unit Cost Pavement Markings & Signage Item Cost 1 Right of Way Preparation 30 STA $ 3,000.00 $ 90,000 2 Unclassified Street Excavation 7,100 CY $ 20.00 $ 142,000 3 3" HMAC (Type "D ") 15,500 SY $ 18.00 $ 279,000 4 10" Flex Base 19,400 SY $ 18.00 $ 349,200 5 6" Moisture Conditioned Subgrade 19,400 SY $ 7.00 $ 135,800 6 TX -5 Geogrid 19,400 SY $ 1.00 $ 19,400 7 6" Monolithic Concrete Curb & Gutter 11,620 LF $ 25.00 $ 290,500 8 4" Concrete Sidewalk and Ramps 4,800 SY $ 50.00 $ 240,000 9 Block Sodding and Topsoil 7,420 SY $ 5.00 $ 37,100 Item No. Item Description Pct. Of Paving Allowance Item Cost 10 Pavement Markings & Signage 2% $ 31,700 11 Traffic Control 5% $ 79,200 12 Erosion Control 3% $ 47,500 13 Drainage Improvements (RCP, Inlets, MH, Outfalls) 20% $ 316,600 Item No. Item Description Notes Allowance Item Cost 14 Landscaping /Illumination None $ - $ - 15 Drainage Structures 1 Minor Crossing $ 100,000 $ 100,000 16 Bridge Structures None $ - $ - 17 Traffic Signals None $ $ - 18 Other None $ $ Item Description Construction Engineering /Survey /Testing Right -of -Way Acquisition 2017 Impact Fee Update City of Schertz I, II, & III Construction Subtotal: $ 2,158,000 Mobilization 5% $ 107,900 Contineencv 10% $ 226,600 Notes Allowance Item Cost - $ 2,492,500 7% $ 174,500 Cost per sq. ft.: $ 0.75 $ $ - Freese and Nichols, Inc. Updated: 612017 28 City of Schertz Impact Fee Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Estimate Functional Classification: Length (If): Right -of -Way Width (ft.): Median Type: Pavement Width (Edge to Edge) Description: N/S CONNECTOR (2) IH -35 to Old Wiederstein Rd. Secondary Arterial No. of Lanes: 4 3,854 90 Raised 48 Construction of new roadwa Shared -Use Path bicycle facil hfare standard Item No. Item Description Quantity Unit Item Cost Unit Cost Pavement Markings & Signage Item Cost 1 Right of Way Preparation 39 STA $ 3,000.00 $ 117,000 2 Unclassified Street Excavation 9,500 CY $ 20.00 $ 190,000 3 3" HMAC (Type "D ") 20,600 SY $ 18.00 $ 370,800 4 10" Flex Base 25,700 SY $ 18.00 $ 462,600 5 6" Moisture Conditioned Subgrade 25,700 SY $ 7.00 $ 179,900 6 TX -5 Geogrid 25,700 SY $ 1.00 $ 25,700 7 6" Monolithic Concrete Curb & Gutter 15,420 LF $ 25.00 $ 385,500 8 4" Concrete Sidewalk and Ramps 6,400 SY $ 50.00 $ 320,000 9 Block Sodding and Topsoil 9,850 SY $ 5.00 $ 49,250 Item No. Item Description Pct. Of Paving Allowance Item Cost 10 Pavement Markings & Signage 2% $ 42,100 11 Traffic Control 5% $ 105,100 12 Erosion Control 3% $ 63,100 13 Drainage Improvements (RCP, Inlets, MH, Outfalls) 20% $ 420,200 Item No. Item Description Notes Allowance Item Cost 14 Landscaping /Illumination None $ $ 15 Drainage Structures None $ $ - 16 Bridge Structures None $ $ - 17 Traffic Signals None - - $ $ - 18 Other None $ $ - Item Description Construction Engineering /Survey /Testing Right -of -Way Acquisition 2017 Impact Fee Update City of Schertz I, II, & III Construction Subtotal: $ 2,731,250 Mobilization 5% $ 136,600 Contineencv 10% $ 286,800 Notes Allowance Item Cost - $ 3,154,700 7% $ 220,800 Cost per sq. ft.: $ 0.75 $ 260,200 $ 260,200 Freese and Nichols, Inc. Updated: 612017 29 City of Schertz Impact Fee Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Estimate E/W CONNECTOR (5) N/S Connector (1) to FM 1103 Functional Classification: Residential Collector No. of Lanes: 2 Length (If): 10,552 Right -of -Way Width (ft.): 70 Median Type: None Pavement Width (Edge to Edge): 38 Description: Construction of new roadway to thoroughfare standard On- street bicycle facility (Pavement: 7' + T) Item No. Item Description Quantity Unit Item Cost Unit Cost Pavement Markings & Signage Item Cost 1 Right of Way Preparation 106 STA $ 3,000.00 $ 318,000 2 Unclassified Street Excavation 19,000 CY $ 20.00 $ 380,000 3 3" HMAC (Type "D ") 44,600 SY $ 18.00 $ 802,800 4 10" Flex Base 51,600 SY $ 18.00 $ 928,800 5 6" Moisture Conditioned Subgrade 51,600 SY $ 7.00 $ 361,200 6 TX -5 Geogrid 51,600 SY $ 1.00 $ 51,600 7 6" Monolithic Concrete Curb & Gutter 21,110 LF $ 25.00 $ 527,750 8 4" Concrete Sidewalk and Ramps 11,700 SY $ 50.00 $ 585,000 9 Block Sodding and Topsoil 23,450 SY $ 5.00 $ 117,250 Item No. Item Description Pct. Of Paving Allowance Item Cost 10 Pavement Markings & Signage 2% $ 81,500 11 Traffic Control 5% $ 203,700 12 Erosion Control 3% $ 122,200 13 Drainage Improvements (RCP, Inlets, MH, Outfalls) 20% $ 814,500 Item No. Item Description Notes Allowance Item Cost 14 Landscaping /Illumination None $ - $ 15 Drainage Structures None $ $ - 16 Bridge Structures None $ $ - 17 Traffic Signals None $ $ - 18 Other None $ $ - Item Description Construction Engineering /Survey /Testing Right -of -Way Acquisition 2017 Impact Fee Update City of Schertz I, II, & III Construction Subtotal: $ 5,294,300 Mobilization 5% $ 264,800 Contineencv 10% $ 556,000 Notes Allowance Item Cost - $ 6,115,100 7% $ 428,100 Cost per sq. ft.: $ 0.75 $ 554,000 $ 554,000 Freese and Nichols, Inc. Updated: 612017 30 City of Schertz Impact Fee Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Estimate OLD WIEDERSTEIN ROAD N/S Connector (1) to Cherry Tree Dr. Functional Classification: Secondary Arterial No. of Lanes: 4 =_ Length (If): 11,458 Right -of -Way Width (ft.): 90 Median Type: Raised Pavement Width (Edge to Edge): 48 Description: Widening of roadway to thoroughfare standard Shared -Use Path bicycle facility Item No. Item Description Quantity Unit Item Cost Unit Cost Pavement Markings & Signage Item Cost 1 Right of Way Preparation 115 STA $ 3,000.00 $ 345,000 2 Unclassified Street Excavation 28,100 CY $ 20.00 $ 562,000 3 3" HMAC (Type "D ") 61,200 SY $ 18.00 $ 1,101,600 4 10" Flex Base 76,400 SY $ 18.00 $ 1,375,200 5 6" Moisture Conditioned Subgrade 76,400 SY $ 7.00 $ 534,800 6 TX -5 Geogrid 76,400 SY $ 1.00 $ 76,400 7 6" Monolithic Concrete Curb & Gutter 45,840 LF $ 25.00 $ 1,146,000 8 4" Concrete Sidewalk and Ramps 19,100 SY $ 50.00 $ 955,000 9 Block Sodding and Topsoil 29,280 SY $ 5.00 $ 146,400 Item No. Item Description Pct. Of Paving Allowance Item Cost 10 Pavement Markings & Signage 2% $ 124,900 11 Traffic Control 5% $ 312,200 12 Erosion Control 3% $ 187,300 13 Drainage Improvements (RCP, Inlets, MH, Outfalls) 20% $ 1,248,500 Item No. Item Description Notes Allowance Item Cost 14 Landscaping /Illumination None $ $ 15 Drainage Structures None $ $ - 16 Bridge Structures None $ $ - 17 Traffic Signals None $ $ - 18 Other None $ - $ - Item Description Construction Engineering /Survey /Testing Right -of -Way Acquisition 2017 Impact Fee Update City of Schertz I, II, & III Construction Subtotal: $ 8,115,300 Mobilization 5% $ 405,800 Contineencv 10% $ 852,200 Notes Allowance Item Cost - $ 9,373,300 7% $ 656,100 Cost per sq. ft.: $ 0.75 $ 257,800 $ 257,800 Freese and Nichols, Inc. Updated: 612017 31 City of Schertz Impact Fee Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Estimate DOERR LANE N. City Limits to Lookout Rd. Functional Classification: Commercial Collector A No. of Lanes: 3 Length (If): 4,805 Right -of -Way Width (ft.): 70 Median Type: Two -Way Left Turn Lane Pavement Width (Edge to Edge): 38 Description: Widening of roadway to thoroughfare standard Shared -Use Path bicycle facility Item No. Item Description Quantity Unit Item Cost Unit Cost Pavement Markings & Signage Item Cost 1 Right of Way Preparation 49 STA $ 3,000.00 $ 147,000 2 Unclassified Street Excavation 8,700 CY $ 20.00 $ 174,000 3 3" HMAC (Type "D ") 20,300 SY $ 18.00 $ 365,400 4 10" Flex Base 23,500 SY $ 18.00 $ 423,000 5 6" Moisture Conditioned Subgrade 23,500 SY $ 4.00 $ 94,000 6 TX -5 Geogrid 23,500 SY $ 1.00 $ 23,500 7 6" Monolithic Concrete Curb & Gutter 9,610 LF $ 25.00 $ 240,250 8 4" Concrete Sidewalk and Ramps 8,000 SY $ 50.00 $ 400,000 9 Block Sodding and Topsoil 8,010 SY $ 5.00 $ 40,050 Item No. Item Description Pct. Of Paving Allowance Item Cost 10 Pavement Markings & Signage 2% $ 38,200 11 Traffic Control 5% $ 95,400 12 Erosion Control 3% $ 57,300 13 Drainage Improvements (RCP, Inlets, MH, Outfalls) 20% $ 381,500 Item No. Item Description Notes Allowance 14 Landscaping /Illumination None $ $ 15 Drainage Structures None - $ $ 16 Bridge Structures None $ $ 17 Traffic Signals None - - - $ $ 18 Other At -grade RR crossing- $ 150,000 $ Item Description Construction Engineering /Survey /Testing Right -of -Way Acquisition 2017 Impact Fee Update City of Schertz I, II, & III Construction Subtotal: $ Mobilization 5% $ Contineencv 10% $ Item Cost 150,000 15©,000 2,629,600 131,500 276,200 Notes Allowance Item Cost - $ 3,037,300 7% $ 212,600 Cost per sq. ft.: $ 0.75 $ $ - Freese and Nichols, Inc. Updated: 612017 32 City of Schertz Impact Fee Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Estimate E/W CONNECTOR (2) FM 3009 to N/S Connector (1) Functional Classification: Commercial Collector B No. of Lanes: 2 Length (If): 4,277 Right -of -Way Width (ft.): 70 Median Type: None Pavement Width (Edge to Edge): 42 - - - - - - - Description: Construction of new roadway to thoroughfare standard - On- street parking (9' + 9') Item No. Item Description Quantity Unit Item Cost Unit Cost Pavement Markings & Signage Item Cost 1 Right of Way Preparation 43 STA $ 3,000.00 $ 129,000 2 Unclassified Street Excavation 8,400 CY $ 20.00 $ 168,000 3 3" HMAC (Type "D ") 20,000 SY $ 18.00 $ 360,000 4 10" Flex Base 22,900 SY $ 18.00 $ 412,200 5 6" Moisture Conditioned Subgrade 22,900 SY $ 4.00 $ 91,600 6 TX -5 Geogrid 22,900 SY $ 1.00 $ 22,900 7 6" Monolithic Concrete Curb & Gutter 8,560 LF $ 25.00 $ 214,000 8 4" Concrete Sidewalk and Ramps 11,400 SY $ 50.00 $ 570,000 9 Block Sodding and Topsoil 0 SY $ 5.00 $ - Item No. Item Description Pct. Of Paving Allowance Item Cost 10 Pavement Markings & Signage 2% $ 39,400 11 Traffic Control 5% $ 98,400 12 Erosion Control 3% $ 59,100 13 Drainage Improvements (RCP, Inlets, MH, Outfalls) 20% $ 393,600 Item No. Item Description Notes Allowance Item Cost 14 Landscaping /Illumination None $ ? $ 15 Drainage Structures None $ $ - 16 Bridge Structures None $ $ - 17 Traffic Signals None - $ $ - 18 Other None $ $ - Item Description Construction Engineering /Survey /Testing Right -of -Way Acquisition 2017 Impact Fee Update City of Schertz I, II, & III Construction Subtotal: $ 2,558,200 Mobilization 5% $ 128,000 Contineencv 10% $ 268,700 Notes Allowance Item Cost - $ 2,954,900 7% $ 206,800 Cost per sq. ft.: $ 0.75 $ 224,500 $ 224,500 Freese and Nichols, Inc. Updated: 612017 33 City of Schertz Impact Fee Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Estimate E/W CONNECTOR (6) FM 3009 to N/S Connector (1) Functional Classification: Commercial Collector B No. of Lanes: 2 Length (If): 4,277 Right -of -Way Width (ft.): 70 Median Type: None Pavement Width (Edge to Edge): 42 Description: Construction of new roadway to thoroughfare standard On- street parking (9' + 9') Item No. Item Description Quantity Unit Item Cost Unit Cost Pavement Markings & Signage Item Cost 1 Right of Way Preparation 43 STA $ 3,000.00 $ 129,000 2 Unclassified Street Excavation 8,400 CY $ 20.00 $ 168,000 3 3" HMAC (Type "D ") 20,000 SY $ 18.00 $ 360,000 4 10" Flex Base 22,900 SY $ 18.00 $ 412,200 5 6" Moisture Conditioned Subgrade 22,900 SY $ 4.00 $ 91,600 6 TX -5 Geogrid 22,900 SY $ 1.00 $ 22,900 7 6" Monolithic Concrete Curb & Gutter 8,560 LF $ 25.00 $ 214,000 8 4" Concrete Sidewalk and Ramps 11,400 SY $ 50.00 $ 570,000 9 Block Sodding and Topsoil 0 SY $ 5.00 $ - Item No. Item Description Pct. Of Paving Allowance Item Cost 10 Pavement Markings & Signage 2% $ 39,400 11 Traffic Control 5% $ 98,400 12 Erosion Control 3% $ 59,100 13 Drainage Improvements (RCP, Inlets, MH, Outfalls) 20% $ 393,600 Item No. Item Description Notes Allowance Item Cost 14 Landscaping /Illumination None $ $ 15 Drainage Structures None - $ $ - 16 Bridge Structures None $ $ - 17 Traffic Signals None $ $ - 18 Other None $ $ - Item Description Construction Engineering /Survey /Testing Right -of -Way Acquisition 2017 Impact Fee Update City of Schertz I, II, & III Construction Subtotal: $ 2,558,200 Mobilization 5% $ 127,900 Contineencv 10% $ 268,700 Notes Allowance Item Cost - $ 2,954,800 7% $ 206,800 Cost per sq. ft.: $ 0.75 $ 224,500 $ 224,500 Freese and Nichols, Inc. Updated: 612017 34 City of Schertz Impact Fee Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Estimate MID - CITIES PARKWAY IH -35 to FM 3009 Functional Classification: Commercial Collector A No. of Lanes: 3 Length (If): 5,174 Right -of -Way Width (ft.): 70 - - - - - Median Type: Two -Way Left Turn Lane Pavement Width (Edge to Edge): 38 Description: Widening of roadway to thoroughfare standard Shared -Use Path bicycle facility Item No. Item Description Quantity Unit Item Cost Unit Cost Pavement Markings & Signage Item Cost 1 Right of Way Preparation 52 STA $ 3,000.00 $ 156,000 2 Unclassified Street Excavation 9,300 CY $ 20.00 $ 186,000 3 3" HMAC (Type "D ") 21,900 SY $ 18.00 $ 394,200 4 10" Flex Base 25,300 SY $ 18.00 $ 455,400 5 6" Moisture Conditioned Subgrade 25,300 SY $ 4.00 $ 101,200 6 TX -5 Geogrid 25,300 SY $ 1.00 $ 25,300 7 6" Monolithic Concrete Curb & Gutter 10,350 LF $ 25.00 $ 258,750 8 4" Concrete Sidewalk and Ramps 8,600 SY $ 50.00 $ 430,000 9 Block Sodding and Topsoil 8,620 SY $ 5.00 $ 43,100 Item No. Item Description Pct. Of Paving Allowance Item Cost 10 Pavement Markings & Signage 2% $ 41,000 11 Traffic Control 5% $ 102,500 12 Erosion Control 3% $ 61,500 13 Drainage Improvements (RCP, Inlets, MH, Outfalls) 20% $ 410,000 Item No. Item Description Notes Allowance Item Cost 14 Landscaping /Illumination None - $ $ 15 Drainage Structures None $ $ - 16 Bridge Structures None $ $ - 17 Traffic Signals None $ $ - 18 Other None - - - $ $ - Item Description Construction Engineering /Survey /Testing Right -of -Way Acquisition 2017 Impact Fee Update City of Schertz I, II, & III Construction Subtotal: $ 2,664,950 Mobilization 5% $ 133,300 Contineencv 10% $ 279,900 Notes Allowance Item Cost - $ 3,078,200 7% $ 215,500 Cost per sq. ft.: $ 0.75 $ $ - Freese and Nichols, Inc. Updated: 612017 35 City of Schertz Impact Fee Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Estimate E/W CONNECTOR (1) FM 3009 to N/S Connector (1) Functional Classification: Secondary Arterial No. of Lanes: 4 Length (If): 4,277 Right -of -Way Width (ft.): 90 Median Type: Raised Pavement Width (Edge to Edge): 62 Description: Construction of new roadway to thoroughfare standard On- street bicycle facility (Pavement: 7' + T) Item No. Item Description Quantity Unit Item Cost Unit Cost Pavement Markings & Signage Item Cost 1 Right of Way Preparation 43 STA $ 3,000.00 $ 129,000 2 Unclassified Street Excavation 12,900 CY $ 20.00 $ 258,000 3 3" HMAC (Type "D ") 29,500 SY $ 18.00 $ 531,000 4 10" Flex Base 35,200 SY $ 18.00 $ 633,600 5 6" Moisture Conditioned Subgrade 35,200 SY $ 4.00 $ 140,800 6 TX -5 Geogrid 35,200 SY $ 1.00 $ 35,200 7 6" Monolithic Concrete Curb & Gutter 17,110 LF $ 25.00 $ 427,750 8 4" Concrete Sidewalk and Ramps 4,800 SY $ 50.00 $ 240,000 9 Block Sodding and Topsoil 6,650 SY $ 5.00 $ 33,250 Item No. Item Description Pct. Of Paving Allowance Item Cost 10 Pavement Markings & Signage 2% $ 48,600 11 Traffic Control 5% $ 121,500 12 Erosion Control 3% $ 72,900 13 Drainage Improvements (RCP, Inlets, MH, Outfalls) 20% $ 485,800 Item No. Item Description Notes Allowance Item Cost 14 Landscaping /Illumination None $ $ 15 Drainage Structures None $ $ - 16 Bridge Structures None $ $ - 17 Traffic Signals None $ $ - 18 Other None $ $ - Item Description Construction Engineering /Survey /Testing Right -of -Way Acquisition 2017 Impact Fee Update City of Schertz I, II, & III Construction Subtotal: $ 3,157,400 Mobilization 5% $ 157,900 Contineencv 10% $ 331,600 Notes Allowance Item Cost - $ 3,646,900 7% $ 255,300 Cost per sq. ft.: $ 0.75 $ 288,700 $ 288,700 Freese and Nichols, Inc. Updated: 612017 36 City of Schertz Impact Fee Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Estimate E/W CONNECTOR (7) W. City Limits to Doerr Ln. Functional Classification: Commercial Collector A No. of Lanes: 3 Length (If): 3,432 Right -of -Way Width (ft.): 70 Median Type: Two -Way Left Turn Lane Pavement Width (Edge to Edge): 38 Description: Construction of new roadway to thoroughfare standard Item No. Item Description Quantity Unit Item Cost Unit Cost Pavement Markings & Signage Item Cost 1 Right of Way Preparation 35 STA $ 3,000.00 $ 105,000 2 Unclassified Street Excavation 6,200 CY $ 20.00 $ 124,000 3 3" HMAC (Type "D ") 14,500 SY $ 18.00 $ 261,000 4 10" Flex Base 16,800 SY $ 18.00 $ 302,400 5 6" Moisture Conditioned Subgrade 16,800 SY $ 4.00 $ 67,200 6 TX -5 Geogrid 16,800 SY $ 1.00 $ 16,800 7 6" Monolithic Concrete Curb & Gutter 6,870 LF $ 25.00 $ 171,750 8 4" Concrete Sidewalk and Ramps 3,800 SY $ 50.00 $ 190,000 9 Block Sodding and Topsoil 7,630 SY $ 5.00 $ 38,150 Item No. Item Description Pct. Of Paving Allowance Item Cost 10 Pavement Markings & Signage 2% $ 25,600 11 Traffic Control 5% $ 63,900 12 Erosion Control 3% $ 38,300 13 Drainage Improvements (RCP, Inlets, MH, Outfalls) 20% $ 255,300 Item No. Item Description Notes Allowance Item Cost 14 Landscaping /Illumination None $ $ - 15 Drainage Structures None $ $ - 16 Bridge Structures None - - - $ $ - 17 Traffic Signals None - - $ $ - 18 Other None $ $ - Item Description Construction Engineering /Survey /Testing Right -of -Way Acquisition 2017 Impact Fee Update City of Schertz I, II, & III Construction Subtotal: $ 1,659,400 Mobilization 5% $ 83,000 Contineencv 10% $ 174,300 Notes Allowance Item Cost - $ 1,916,700 7% $ 134,200 Cost per sq. ft.: $ 0.75 $ 180,200 $ 180,200 Freese and Nichols, Inc. Updated: 612017 37 City of Schertz Impact Fee Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Estimate LOOKOUT ROAD Tri- County Pkwy. to Schertz Pkwy. Functional Classification: Commercial Collector A No. of Lanes: 3 Length (If): 3,907 Right -of -Way Width (ft.): 70 Median Type: Two -Way Left Turn Lane Pavement Width (Edge to Edge): 38 Description: Widening of roadway to thoroughfare standard Shared -Use Path bicycle facility Item No. Item Description Quantity Unit Item Cost Unit Cost Pavement Markings & Signage Item Cost 1 Right of Way Preparation 40 STA $ 3,000.00 $ 120,000 2 Unclassified Street Excavation 7,100 CY $ 20.00 $ 142,000 3 3" HMAC (Type "D ") 16,500 SY $ 18.00 $ 297,000 4 10" Flex Base 19,200 SY $ 18.00 $ 345,600 5 6" Moisture Conditioned Subgrade 19,200 SY $ 4.00 $ 76,800 6 TX -5 Geogrid 19,200 SY $ 1.00 $ 19,200 7 6" Monolithic Concrete Curb & Gutter 7,820 LF $ 25.00 $ 195,500 8 4" Concrete Sidewalk and Ramps 6,500 SY $ 50.00 $ 325,000 9 Block Sodding and Topsoil 6,510 SY $ 5.00 $ 32,550 Item No. Item Description Pct. Of Paving Allowance Item Cost 10 Pavement Markings & Signage 2% $ 31,100 11 Traffic Control 5% $ 77,700 12 Erosion Control 3% $ 46,700 13 Drainage Improvements (RCP, Inlets, MH, Outfalls) 20% $ 310,800 Item No. Item Description Notes Allowance Item Cost 14 Landscaping /Illumination None $ - $ - 15 Drainage Structures 2 Minor Crossings $ 200,000 $ 200,000 16 Bridge Structures None $ - $ - 17 Traffic Signals None - - $ $ - 18 Other None $ $ Item Description Construction Engineering /Survey /Testing Right -of -Way Acquisition 2017 Impact Fee Update City of Schertz I, II, & III Construction Subtotal: $ 2,219,950 Mobilization 5% - $ 111,000 Contineencv 10% $ 233,100 Notes Allowance Item Cost - $ 2,564,100 7% $ 179,500 Cost per sq. ft.: $ 0.75 $ $ - Freese and Nichols, Inc. Updated: 612017 38 City of Schertz Impact Fee Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Estimate FOUR OAKS LANE Existing Four Oaks Ln. to N/S Connector (1) Functional Classification: Length (If): Right -of -Way Width (ft.): Median Type: Pavement Width (Edge to Edge) Description: Commercial Collector A No. of Lanes: 3 2,851 70 Two -Way Left Turn Lane J 38 Construction of new roadway to thoroughfare standard Shared -Use Path bicycle facility Item No. Item Description Quantity Unit Item Cost Unit Cost Pavement Markings & Signage Item Cost 1 Right of Way Preparation 29 STA $ 3,000.00 $ 87,000 2 Unclassified Street Excavation 5,200 CY $ 20.00 $ 104,000 3 3" HMAC (Type "D ") 12,100 SY $ 18.00 $ 217,800 4 10" Flex Base 14,000 SY $ 18.00 $ 252,000 5 6" Moisture Conditioned Subgrade 14,000 SY $ 4.00 $ 56,000 6 TX -5 Geogrid 14,000 SY $ 1.00 $ 14,000 7 6" Monolithic Concrete Curb & Gutter 5,710 LF $ 25.00 $ 142,750 8 4" Concrete Sidewalk and Ramps 4,800 SY $ 50.00 $ 240,000 9 Block Sodding and Topsoil 4,750 SY $ 5.00 $ 23,750 Item No. Item Description Pct. Of Paving Allowance Item Cost 10 Pavement Markings & Signage 2% $ 22,800 11 Traffic Control 5% $ 56,900 12 Erosion Control 3% $ 34,200 13 Drainage Improvements (RCP, Inlets, MH, Outfalls) 20% $ 227,500 Item No. Item Description Notes Allowance Item Cost 14 Landscaping /Illumination None $ $ 15 Drainage Structures None $ $ - 16 Bridge Structures None $ $ - 17 Traffic Signals None $ $ - 18 Other None $ - $ - Item Description Construction Engineering /Survey /Testing Right -of -Way Acquisition 2017 Impact Fee Update City of Schertz I, II, & III Construction Subtotal: $ 1,478,700 Mobilization 5% $ 74,000 Contineencv 10% $ 155,300 Notes Allowance Item Cost - $ 1,708,000 7% $ 119,600 Cost per sq. ft.: $ 0.75 $ 149,700 $ 149,700 Freese and Nichols, Inc. Updated: 612017 39 City of Schertz Impact Fee Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Estimate Functional Classification: Length (If): Right -of -Way Width (ft.): Median Type: Pavement Width (Edge to Edge) Description: E. City Limits to FM 3009 Secondary Arterial No. of Lanes: 4 3,379 90 Raised 48 Construction of new roadway to thoroughfare standard Shared -Use Path bicycle facility Item No. Item Description Quantity Unit Item Cost Unit Cost Pavement Markings & Signage Item Cost 1 Right of Way Preparation 34 STA $ 3,000.00 $ 102,000 2 Unclassified Street Excavation 8,300 CY $ 20.00 $ 166,000 3 3" HMAC (Type "D ") 18,100 SY $ 18.00 $ 325,800 4 10" Flex Base 22,600 SY $ 18.00 $ 406,800 5 6" Moisture Conditioned Subgrade 22,600 SY $ 4.00 $ 90,400 6 TX -5 Geogrid 22,600 SY $ 1.00 $ 22,600 7 6" Monolithic Concrete Curb & Gutter 13,520 LF $ 25.00 $ 338,000 8 4" Concrete Sidewalk and Ramps 5,600 SY $ 50.00 $ 280,000 9 Block Sodding and Topsoil 8,640 SY $ 5.00 $ 43,200 Item No. Item Description Pct. Of Paving Allowance Item Cost 10 Pavement Markings & Signage 2% $ 35,500 11 Traffic Control 5% $ 88,800 12 Erosion Control 3% $ 53,300 13 Drainage Improvements (RCP, Inlets, MH, Outfalls) 20% $ 355,000 Item No. Item Description Notes Allowance Item Cost 14 Landscaping /Illumination None $ $ 15 Drainage Structures None $ $ - 16 Bridge Structures None $ $ - 17 Traffic Signals None $ $ - 18 Other None $ $ - Item Description Construction Engineering /Survey /Testing Right -of -Way Acquisition 2017 Impact Fee Update City of Schertz I, II, & III Construction Subtotal: $ 2,307,400 Mobilization 5% $ 115,400 Contineencv 10% $ 242,300 Notes Allowance Item Cost - $ 2,665,100 7% $ 186,600 Cost per sq. ft.: $ 0.75 $ 228,100 $ 228,100 Freese and Nichols, Inc. Updated: 612017 40 City of Schertz Impact Fee Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Estimate WIEDERSTEIN ROAD W. City Limits to Schertz Pkwy. Functional Classification: Residential Collector No. of Lanes: 2 Length (If): 2,165 Right -of -Way Width (ft.): 70 Median Type: None Pavement Width (Edge to Edge): 38 Description: Reconstruction of roadway to thoroughfare standard On- street bicycle facility (Pavement: 7' + T) Item No. Item Description Quantity Unit Item Cost Unit Cost Pavement Markings & Signage Item Cost 1 Right of Way Preparation 22 STA $ 3,000.00 $ 66,000 2 Unclassified Street Excavation 3,900 CY $ 20.00 $ 78,000 3 3" HMAC (Type "D ") 9,200 SY $ 18.00 $ 165,600 4 10" Flex Base 10,600 SY $ 18.00 $ 190,800 5 6" Moisture Conditioned Subgrade 10,600 SY $ 4.00 $ 42,400 6 TX -5 Geogrid 10,600 SY $ 1.00 $ 10,600 7 6" Monolithic Concrete Curb & Gutter 4,330 LF $ 25.00 $ 108,250 8 4" Concrete Sidewalk and Ramps 2,400 SY $ 50.00 $ 120,000 9 Block Sodding and Topsoil 4,810 SY $ 5.00 $ 24,050 Item No. Item Description Pct. Of Paving Allowance Item Cost 10 Pavement Markings & Signage 2% $ 16,200 11 Traffic Control 5% $ 40,300 12 Erosion Control 3% $ 24,200 13 Drainage Improvements (RCP, Inlets, MH, Outfalls) 20% $ 161,200 Item No. Item Description Notes Allowance Item Cost 14 Landscaping /Illumination None $ $ 15 Drainage Structures None $ $ - 16 Bridge Structures None $ $ - 17 Traffic Signals None - - $ $ - 18 Other None $ $ - Item Description Construction Engineering /Survey /Testing Right -of -Way Acquisition 2017 Impact Fee Update City of Schertz I, II, & III Construction Subtotal: $ 1,047,600 Mobilization 5% $ 52,400 Contineencv 10% $ 110,000 Notes Allowance Item Cost - $ 1,210,000 7% $ 84,700 Cost per sq. ft.: $ 0.75 $ $ - Freese and Nichols, Inc. Updated: 612017 41 City of Schertz Impact Fee Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Estimate BAPTIST HEALTH DRIVE Ripps - Kreusler to Wiederstein Rd. Functional Classification: Commercial Collector A No. of Lanes: 3 Length (If): 1,426 Right -of -Way Width (ft.): 70 Median Type: TWLTL Pavement Width (Edge to Edge): 38 Description: Construction of new roadway to thoroughfare standard Shared -Use Path bicycle facility Item No. Item Description Quantity Unit Item Cost Unit Cost Pavement Markings & Signage Item Cost 1 Right of Way Preparation 15 STA $ 3,000.00 $ 45,000 2 Unclassified Street Excavation 2,600 CY $ 20.00 $ 52,000 3 3" HMAC (Type "D ") 6,100 SY $ 18.00 $ 109,800 4 10" Flex Base 7,000 SY $ 18.00 $ 126,000 5 6" Moisture Conditioned Subgrade 7,000 SY $ 4.00 $ 28,000 6 TX -5 Geogrid 7,000 SY $ 1.00 $ 7,000 7 6" Monolithic Concrete Curb & Gutter 2,860 LF $ 25.00 $ 71,500 8 4" Concrete Sidewalk and Ramps 2,400 SY $ 50.00 $ 120,000 9 Block Sodding and Topsoil 2,380 SY $ 5.00 $ 11,900 Item No. Item Description Pct. Of Paving Allowance Item Cost 10 Pavement Markings & Signage 2% $ 11,500 11 Traffic Control 5% $ 28,600 12 Erosion Control 3% $ 17,200 13 Drainage Improvements (RCP, Inlets, MH, Outfalls) 20% $ 114,300 Item No. Item Description Notes Allowance Item Cost 14 Landscaping /Illumination None $ $ 15 Drainage Structures None $ $ - 16 Bridge Structures None - - - - $ $ - 17 Traffic Signals None $ $ - 18 Other None $ $ - Item Description Construction Engineering /Survey /Testing Right -of -Way Acquisition 2017 Impact Fee Update City of Schertz I, II, & III Construction Subtotal: $ 742,800 Mobilization 5% $ 37,200 Contineencv 10% $ 78,000 Notes Allowance Item Cost - $ 858,000 7% $ 60,100 Cost per sq. ft.: $ 0.75 $ 74,800 $ 74,800 Freese and Nichols, Inc. Updated: 612017 42 City of Schertz Impact Fee Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Estimate RIPPS- KREUSLER Baptist Health Dr. to End of Alignment Functional Classification: Commercial Collector A No. of Lanes: 3 Length (If): 1,162 Right -of -Way Width (ft.): 70 Median Type: TWLTL Pavement Width (Edge to Edge): 38 Description: Construction of new roadway to thoroughfare standard Shared -Use Path bicycle facility Item No. Item Description Quantity Unit Item Cost Unit Cost Pavement Markings & Signage Item Cost 1 Right of Way Preparation 12 STA $ 3,000.00 $ 36,000 2 Unclassified Street Excavation 2,100 CY $ 20.00 $ 42,000 3 3" HMAC (Type "D ") 5,000 SY $ 18.00 $ 90,000 4 10" Flex Base 5,700 SY $ 18.00 $ 102,600 5 6" Moisture Conditioned Subgrade 5,700 SY $ 4.00 $ 22,800 6 TX -5 Geogrid 5,700 SY $ 1.00 $ 5,700 7 6" Monolithic Concrete Curb & Gutter 2,330 LF $ 25.00 $ 58,250 8 4" Concrete Sidewalk and Ramps 1,900 SY $ 50.00 $ 95,000 9 Block Sodding and Topsoil 1,940 SY $ 5.00 $ 9,700 Item No. Item Description Pct. Of Paving Allowance Item Cost 10 Pavement Markings & Signage 2% $ 9,300 11 Traffic Control 5% $ 23,200 12 Erosion Control 3% $ 13,900 13 Drainage Improvements (RCP, Inlets, MH, Outfalls) 20% $ 92,500 Item No. Item Description Notes Allowance Item Cost 14 Landscaping /Illumination None $ $ 15 Drainage Structures None $ $ - 16 Bridge Structures None $ $ - 17 Traffic Signals None - - - $ $ - 18 Other None - - - $ $ - Item Description Construction Engineering /Survey /Testing Right -of -Way Acquisition 2017 Impact Fee Update City of Schertz I, II, & III Construction Subtotal: $ 600,950 Mobilization 5% $ 30,100 Contineencv 10% $ 63,200 Notes Allowance Item Cost - $ 694,300 7% $ 48,600 Cost per sq. ft.: $ 0.75 $ 61,000 $ 61,000 Freese and Nichols, Inc. Updated: 612017 43 City of Schertz Impact Fee Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Estimate MASKE ROAD FM 1518 to Oak St. Functional Classification: Commercial Collector A No. of Lanes: 3 Length (If): 2,851 Right -of -Way Width (ft.): 70 Median Type: Two -Way Left Turn Lane Pavement Width (Edge to Edge): 38 Description: Widening of roadway to thoroughfare standard Shared -Use Path bicycle facility Item No. Item Description Quantity Unit Item Cost Unit Cost Pavement Markings & Signage Item Cost 1 Right of Way Preparation 29 STA $ 3,000.00 $ 87,000 2 Unclassified Street Excavation 5,200 CY $ 20.00 $ 104,000 3 3" HMAC (Type "D ") 12,100 SY $ 18.00 $ 217,800 4 10" Flex Base 14,000 SY $ 18.00 $ 252,000 5 6" Moisture Conditioned Subgrade 14,000 SY $ 4.00 $ 56,000 6 TX -5 Geogrid 14,000 SY $ 1.00 $ 14,000 7 6" Monolithic Concrete Curb & Gutter 5,710 LF $ 25.00 $ 142,750 8 4" Concrete Sidewalk and Ramps 4,800 SY $ 50.00 $ 240,000 9 Block Sodding and Topsoil 4,750 SY $ 5.00 $ 23,750 Item No. Item Description Pct. Of Paving Allowance Item Cost 10 Pavement Markings & Signage 2% $ 22,800 11 Traffic Control 5% $ 56,900 12 Erosion Control 3% $ 34,200 13 Drainage Improvements (RCP, Inlets, MH, Outfalls) 20% $ 227,500 Item No. Item Description Notes Allowance Item Cost 14 Landscaping /Illumination None $ $ 15 Drainage Structures None $ $ - 16 Bridge Structures None $ $ - 17 Traffic Signals None $ $ - 18 Other None $ $ - Item Description Construction Engineering /Survey /Testing Right -of -Way Acquisition 2017 Impact Fee Update City of Schertz I, II, & III Construction Subtotal: $ 1,478,700 Mobilization 5% $ 74,000 Contineencv 10% $ 155,300 Notes Allowance Item Cost - $ 1,708,000 7% $ 119,600 Cost per sq. ft.: $ 0.75 $ $ - Freese and Nichols, Inc. Updated: 612017 44 City of Schertz Impact Fee Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Estimate MASKE ROAD Oak St. to Schertz Pkwy. Functional Classification: Residential Collector No. of Lanes: 2 Length (If): 4,646 Right -of -Way Width (ft.): 70 Median Type: None Pavement Width (Edge to Edge): 38 Description: Construction of new roadway to thoroughfare standard On- street bicycle facility (Pavement: 7' + T) Item No. Item Description Quantity Unit Item Cost Unit Cost Pavement Markings & Signage Item Cost 1 Right of Way Preparation 47 STA $ 3,000.00 $ 141,000 2 Unclassified Street Excavation 8,400 CY $ 20.00 $ 168,000 3 3" HMAC (Type "D ") 19,700 SY $ 18.00 $ 354,600 4 10" Flex Base 22,800 SY $ 18.00 $ 410,400 5 6" Moisture Conditioned Subgrade 22,800 SY $ 4.00 $ 91,200 6 TX -5 Geogrid 22,800 SY $ 1.00 $ 22,800 7 6" Monolithic Concrete Curb & Gutter 9,300 LF $ 25.00 $ 232,500 8 4" Concrete Sidewalk and Ramps 5,200 SY $ 50.00 $ 260,000 9 Block Sodding and Topsoil 10,330 SY $ 5.00 $ 51,650 Item No. Item Description Pct. Of Paving Allowance Item Cost 10 Pavement Markings & Signage 2% $ 34,700 11 Traffic Control 5% $ 86,700 12 Erosion Control 3% $ 52,000 13 Drainage Improvements (RCP, Inlets, MH, Outfalls) 20% $ 346,500 Item No. Item Description Notes Allowance Item Cost 14 Landscaping /Illumination None $ - $ - 15 Drainage Structures 1 Major Crossing $ 500,000 $ 500,000 16 Bridge Structures None $ - $ - 17 Traffic Signals None - - $ $ - 18 Other None $ $ - Item Description Construction Engineering /Survey /Testing Right -of -Way Acquisition 2017 Impact Fee Update City of Schertz I, II, & III Construction Subtotal: $ 2,752,050 Mobilization 5% $ 137,700 Contineencv 10% $ 289,000 Notes Allowance Item Cost - $ 3,178,800 7% $ 222,500 Cost per sq. ft.: $ 0.75 $ 243,900 $ 243,900 Freese and Nichols, Inc. Updated: 612017 45 City of Schertz Impact Fee Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Estimate Functional Classification: Length (If): Right -of -Way Width (ft.): Median Type: Pavement Width (Edge to Edge) Description: FM 1518 Maske Rd. to Oak St. Secondary Arterial = No. of Lanes: 3 -_ 6.864 70 Two -Way Left Turn Lane 38 Widening of roadway to thoroughfare standard; special section Shared -Use Path bicycle facility Item No. Item Description Quantity Unit Item Cost Unit Cost Pavement Markings & Signage Item Cost 1 Right of Way Preparation 69 STA $ 3,000.00 $ 207,000 2 Unclassified Street Excavation 12,400 CY $ 20.00 $ 248,000 3 3" HMAC (Type "D ") 29,000 SY $ 18.00 $ 522,000 4 10" Flex Base 33,600 SY $ 18.00 $ 604,800 5 6" Moisture Conditioned Subgrade 33,600 SY $ 4.00 $ 134,400 6 TX -5 Geogrid 33,600 SY $ 1.00 $ 33,600 7 6" Monolithic Concrete Curb & Gutter 13,730 LF $ 25.00 $ 343,250 8 4" Concrete Sidewalk and Ramps 11,400 SY $ 50.00 $ 570,000 9 Block Sodding and Topsoil 11,440 SY $ 5.00 $ 57,200 Item No. Item Description Pct. Of Paving Allowance Item Cost 10 Pavement Markings & Signage 2% $ 54,500 11 Traffic Control 5% $ 136,100 12 Erosion Control 3% $ 81,700 13 Drainage Improvements (RCP, Inlets, MH, Outfalls) 20% $ 544,100 Item No. Item Description Notes Allowance Item Cost 14 Landscaping /Illumination None - $ - $ - 15 Drainage Structures 1 Minor Crossing $ 100,000 $ 100,000 16 Bridge Structures None $ - $ - 17 Traffic Signals None $ $ - 18 Other None $ $ Item Description Construction Engineering /Survey /Testing Right -of -Way Acquisition 2017 Impact Fee Update City of Schertz I, II, & III Construction Subtotal: $ 3,636,650 Mobilization 5% $ 181,900 Contineencv 10% $ 381,900 Notes Allowance Item Cost - $ 4,200,500 7% $ 294,000 Cost per sq. ft.: $ 0.75 $ $ - Freese and Nichols, Inc. Updated: 612017 46 City of Schertz Impact Fee Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Estimate FM 1518 N. City Limits to Service Area 3 Limit Functional Classification: Principal Arterial No. of Lanes: 6 Length (If): 1,901 Right -of -Way Width (ft.): 130 Median Type: Raised - - - - - - Pavement Width (Edge to Edge): 68 Description: Widening of roadway to thoroughfare standard Shared -Use Path bicycle facility Item No. Item Description Quantity Unit Item Cost Unit Cost Pavement Markings & Signage Item Cost 1 Right of Way Preparation 20 STA $ 3,000.00 $ 60,000 2 Unclassified Street Excavation 6,200 CY $ 20.00 $ 124,000 3 3" HMAC (Type "D ") 14,400 SY $ 18.00 $ 259,200 4 10" Flex Base 16,900 SY $ 18.00 $ 304,200 5 6" Moisture Conditioned Subgrade 16,900 SY $ 4.00 $ 67,600 6 TX -5 Geogrid 16,900 SY $ 1.00 $ 16,900 7 6" Monolithic Concrete Curb & Gutter 7,610 LF $ 25.00 $ 190,250 8 4" Concrete Sidewalk and Ramps 3,200 SY $ 50.00 $ 160,000 9 Block Sodding and Topsoil 9,080 SY $ 5.00 $ 45,400 Item No. Item Description Pct. Of Paving Allowance Item Cost 10 Pavement Markings & Signage 2% $ 24,600 11 Traffic Control 5% $ 61,400 12 Erosion Control 3% $ 36,900 13 Drainage Improvements (RCP, Inlets, MH, Outfalls) 20% $ 245,600 Item No. Item Description Notes Allowance Item Cost 14 Landscaping /Illumination None $ - $ - 15 Drainage Structures 1 Minor Crossing $ 100,000 = $ 100,000 16 Bridge Structures None $ - $ - 17 Traffic Signals None $ $ - 18 Other None $ - $ - Item Description Construction Engineering /Survey /Testing Right -of -Way Acquisition 2017 Impact Fee Update City of Schertz I, II, & III Construction Subtotal: $ 1,696,050 Mobilization 5% $ 84,900 Contineencv 10% $ 178,100 Notes Allowance Item Cost City Contribution (TxDOT) 20% $ 391,800 7% $ 27,400 Cost per sq. ft.: $ 0.75 $ 17,100 $ 17,100 Freese and Nichols, Inc. Updated: 612017 47 City of Schertz Impact Fee Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Estimate FM 1518 Service Area 3 Limit to Schertz Pkwy. Extension Functional Classification: Principal Arterial No. of Lanes: 6 Length (If): 2,059 Right -of -Way Width (ft.): 130 Median Type: Raised - - - - - - Pavement Width (Edge to Edge): 68 Description: Widening of roadway to thoroughfare standard Shared -Use Path bicycle facility Item No. Item Description Quantity Unit Item Cost Unit Cost Pavement Markings & Signage Item Cost 1 Right of Way Preparation 21 STA $ 3,000.00 $ 63,000 2 Unclassified Street Excavation 6,800 CY $ 20.00 $ 136,000 3 3" HMAC (Type "D ") 15,600 SY $ 18.00 $ 280,800 4 10" Flex Base 18,400 SY $ 18.00 $ 331,200 5 6" Moisture Conditioned Subgrade 18,400 SY $ 4.00 $ 73,600 6 TX -5 Geogrid 18,400 SY $ 1.00 $ 18,400 7 6" Monolithic Concrete Curb & Gutter 8,240 LF $ 25.00 $ 206,000 8 4" Concrete Sidewalk and Ramps 3,400 SY $ 50.00 $ 170,000 9 Block Sodding and Topsoil 9,840 SY $ 5.00 $ 49,200 Item No. Item Description Pct. Of Paving Allowance Item Cost 10 Pavement Markings & Signage 2% $ 26,600 11 Traffic Control 5% $ 66,500 12 Erosion Control 3% $ 39,900 13 Drainage Improvements (RCP, Inlets, MH, Outfalls) 20%_ $ 265,700 Item No. Item Description Notes Allowance Item Cost 14 Landscaping /Illumination None $ $ 15 Drainage Structures None $ $ - 16 Bridge Structures None - - - $ $ - 17 Traffic Signals None $ $ - 18 Other None $ $ - Item Description Construction Engineering /Survey /Testing Right -of -Way Acquisition 2017 Impact Fee Update City of Schertz I, II, & III Construction Subtotal: $ 1,726,900 Mobilization 5% $ 86,400 Contineencv 10% $ 181,400 Notes Allowance Item Cost City Contribution (TxDOT) 20% $ 398,900 7% $ 27,900 Cost per sq. ft.: $ 0.75 $ 18,500 $ 18,500 Freese and Nichols, Inc. Updated: 612017 48 City of Schertz Impact Fee Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Estimate FM 78 /JOHN PETERSON BOULEVARD W. City Limits to E. City Limits Functional Classification: Principal Arterial No. of Lanes: 6 Length (If): 9,557 Right -of -Way Width (ft.): 120 Median Type: Raised - - - - - - Pavement Width (Edge to Edge): 68 Description: Widening of roadway to thoroughfare standard Shared -Use Path bicycle facility Item No. Item Description Quantity Unit Item Cost Unit Cost Pavement Markings & Signage Item Cost 1 Right of Way Preparation 96 STA $ 3,000.00 $ 288,000 2 Unclassified Street Excavation 31,200 CY $ 20.00 $ 624,000 3 3" HMAC (Type "D ") 72,300 SY $ 18.00 $ 1,301,400 4 10" Flex Base 85,000 SY $ 18.00 $ 1,530,000 5 6" Moisture Conditioned Subgrade 85,000 SY $ 4.00 $ 340,000 6 TX -5 Geogrid 85,000 SY $ 1.00 $ 85,000 7 6" Monolithic Concrete Curb & Gutter 38,230 LF $ 25.00 $ 955,750 8 4" Concrete Sidewalk and Ramps 15,900 SY $ 50.00 $ 795,000 9 Block Sodding and Topsoil 35,040 SY $ 5.00 $ 175,200 Item No. Item Description Pct. Of Paving Allowance Item Cost 10 Pavement Markings & Signage 2% $ 121,900 11 Traffic Control 5% $ 304,800 12 Erosion Control 3% $ 182,900 13 Drainage Improvements (RCP, Inlets, MH, Outfalls) 20% $ 1,218,900 Item No. Item Description Notes Allowance Item Cost 14 Landscaping /Illumination None $ - $ - 15 Drainage Structures 1 Minor Crossing $ 100,000 $ 100,000 16 Bridge Structures 1/2 Bridge on Either End $ 2,835,000 $ 2,835,000 17 Traffic Signals None $ - $ - 18 Other None $ - $ Item Description Construction Engineering /Survey /Testing Right -of -Way Acquisition 2017 Impact Fee Update City of Schertz I, II, & III Construction Subtotal: $ 10,857,850 Mobilization 5% = $ 542,900 Contineencv 10% = $ 1,140,100 Notes Allowance Item Cost City Contribution (TxDOT) 20% $ 2,508,180 7% $ 175,600 Cost per sq. ft.: $ 0.75 $ $ - Freese and Nichols, Inc. Updated: 612017 49 City of Schertz Impact Fee Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Estimate FM 1518 Schertz Pkwy. Extension to IH -10 Functional Classification: Principal Arterial No. of Lanes: 6 Length (If): 21,595 Right -of -Way Width (ft.): 130 Median Type: Raised - - - - - - Pavement Width (Edge to Edge): 68 Description: Widening of roadway to thoroughfare standard Shared -Use Path bicycle facility Item No. Item Description Quantity Unit Item Cost Unit Cost Pavement Markings & Signage Item Cost 1 Right of Way Preparation 216 STA $ 3,000.00 $ 648,000 2 Unclassified Street Excavation 70,400 CY $ 20.00 $ 1,408,000 3 3" HMAC (Type "D ") 163,200 SY $ 18.00 $ 2,937,600 4 10" Flex Base 192,000 SY $ 18.00 $ 3,456,000 5 6" Moisture Conditioned Subgrade 192,000 SY $ 4.00 $ 768,000 6 TX -5 Geogrid 192,000 SY $ 1.00 $ 192,000 7 6" Monolithic Concrete Curb & Gutter 86,390 LF $ 25.00 $ 2,159,750 8 4" Concrete Sidewalk and Ramps 36,000 SY $ 50.00 $ 1,800,000 9 Block Sodding and Topsoil 103,180 SY $ 5.00 $ 515,900 Item No. Item Description Pct. Of Paving Allowance Item Cost 10 Pavement Markings & Signage 2% $ 277,800 11 Traffic Control 5% $ 694,300 12 Erosion Control 3% $ 416,600 13 Drainage Improvements (RCP, Inlets, MH, Outfalls) 20% $ 2,777,100 Item No. Item Description Notes Allowance Item Cost 14 Landscaping /Illumination None $ - $ - 15 Drainage Structures 3 Minor Crossings - $ 300,000 $ 300,000 16 Bridge Structures 1 Bridge $ 1,890,000 $ 1,890,000 17 Traffic Signals None - - - $ - $ - 18 Other None - - - $ - $ Item Description Construction Engineering /Survey /Testing Right -of -Way Acquisition 2017 Impact Fee Update City of Schertz I, II, & III Construction Subtotal: $ 20,241,050 Mobilization 5% $ 1,012,100 Contineencv 10% $ 2,125,400 Notes Allowance Item Cost City Contribution (TxDOT) 20% $ 4,675,700 7% $ 327,300 Cost per sq. ft.: $ 0.75 $ 162,000 $ 162,000 Freese and Nichols, Inc. Updated: 612017 50 City of Schertz Impact Fee Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Estimate SCHAEFER ROAD W. City Limits to FM 1518 Functional Classification: Residential Collector No. of Lanes: 2 Length (If): 2,534 Right -of -Way Width (ft.): 70 Median Type: None Pavement Width (Edge to Edge): 38 Description: Widening of roadway to thoroughfare standard On- street bicycle facility (Pavement: 7' + T) Item No. Item Description Quantity Unit Item Cost Unit Cost Pavement Markings & Signage Item Cost 1 Right of Way Preparation 26 STA $ 3,000.00 $ 78,000 2 Unclassified Street Excavation 4,600 CY $ 20.00 $ 92,000 3 3" HMAC (Type "D ") 10,800 SY $ 18.00 $ 194,400 4 10" Flex Base 12,400 SY $ 18.00 $ 223,200 5 6" Moisture Conditioned Subgrade 12,400 SY $ 4.00 $ 49,600 6 TX -5 Geogrid 12,400 SY $ 1.00 $ 12,400 7 6" Monolithic Concrete Curb & Gutter 5,070 LF $ 25.00 $ 126,750 8 4" Concrete Sidewalk and Ramps 2,800 SY $ 50.00 $ 140,000 9 Block Sodding and Topsoil 5,630 SY $ 5.00 $ 28,150 Item No. Item Description Pct. Of Paving Allowance Item Cost 10 Pavement Markings & Signage 2% $ 18,900 11 Traffic Control 5% $ 47,300 12 Erosion Control 3% $ 28,400 13 Drainage Improvements (RCP, Inlets, MH, Outfalls) 20% $ 188,900 Item No. Item Description Notes Allowance Item Cost 14 Landscaping /Illumination None $ $ 15 Drainage Structures None - - $ $ - 16 Bridge Structures None $ $ - 17 Traffic Signals None $ $ - 18 Other None $ $ - Item Description Construction Engineering /Survey /Testing Right -of -Way Acquisition 2017 Impact Fee Update City of Schertz I, II, & III Construction Subtotal: $ 1,228,000 Mobilization 5% $ 61,400 Contineencv 10% $ 129,000 Notes Allowance Item Cost - $ 1,418,400 7% $ 99,300 Cost per sq. ft.: $ 0.75 $ 19,000 $ 19,000 Freese and Nichols, Inc. Updated: 612017 51 City of Schertz Impact Fee Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Estimate RAF- BURNETTE Schaefer Rd. to E. City Limits Functional Classification: Secondary Arterial No. of Lanes: 4 Length (If): 2,904 - Right -of -Way Width (ft.): 90 Median Type: Raised Pavement Width (Edge to Edge): 48 Description: Widening of roadway to thoroughfare standard Shared -Use Path bicycle facility Item No. Item Description Quantity Unit Item Cost Unit Cost Pavement Markings & Signage Item Cost 1 Right of Way Preparation 30 STA $ 3,000.00 $ 90,000 2 Unclassified Street Excavation 7,100 CY $ 20.00 $ 142,000 3 3" HMAC (Type "D ") 15,500 SY $ 18.00 $ 279,000 4 10" Flex Base 19,400 SY $ 18.00 $ 349,200 5 6" Moisture Conditioned Subgrade 19,400 SY $ 4.00 $ 77,600 6 TX -5 Geogrid 19,400 SY $ 1.00 $ 19,400 7 6" Monolithic Concrete Curb & Gutter 11,620 LF $ 25.00 $ 290,500 8 4" Concrete Sidewalk and Ramps 4,800 SY $ 50.00 $ 240,000 9 Block Sodding and Topsoil 7,420 SY $ 5.00 $ 37,100 Item No. Item Description Pct. Of Paving Allowance Item Cost 10 Pavement Markings & Signage 2% $ 30,500 11 Traffic Control 5% $ 76,300 12 Erosion Control 3% $ 45,800 13 Drainage Improvements (RCP, Inlets, MH, Outfalls) 20% $ 305,000 Item No. Item Description Notes Allowance Item Cost 14 Landscaping /Illumination None $ $ - 15 Drainage Structures None - $ $ - 16 Bridge Structures None $ $ - 17 Traffic Signals None $ $ - 18 Other None - - - - $ $ - Item Description Construction Engineering /Survey /Testing Right -of -Way Acquisition 2017 Impact Fee Update City of Schertz I, II, & III Construction Subtotal: $ 1,982,400 Mobilization 5% $ 99,200 Contineencv 10% $ 208,200 Notes Allowance Item Cost - $ 2,289,800 7% $ 160,300 Cost per sq. ft.: $ 0.75 $ 108,900 $ 108,900 Freese and Nichols, Inc. Updated: 612017 52 City of Schertz Impact Fee Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Estimate LOWER SEGUIN ROAD W. City Limits to E. of Tates Dr. Functional Classification: Secondary Rural Arterial No. of Lanes: 3 Length (If): 1,848 Right -of -Way Width (ft.): 90 Median Type: Two -Way Left Turn Lane Pavement Width (Edge to Edge): 48 Description: Widening of roadway to thoroughfare standard Shared -Use Path bicycle facility Item No. Item Description Quantity Unit Item Cost Unit Cost Pavement Markings & Signage Item Cost 1 Right of Way Preparation 19 STA $ 3,000.00 $ 57,000 2 Unclassified Street Excavation 4,100 CY $ 20.00 $ 82,000 3 3" HMAC (Type "D ") 9,900 SY $ 18.00 $ 178,200 4 10" Flex Base 11,100 SY $ 18.00 $ 199,800 5 6" Moisture Conditioned Subgrade 11,100 SY $ 4.00 $ 44,400 6 TX -5 Geogrid 11,100 SY $ 1.00 $ 11,100 7 6" Monolithic Concrete Curb & Gutter 3,700 LF $ 25.00 $ 92,500 8 4" Concrete Sidewalk and Ramps 3,100 SY $ 50.00 $ 155,000 9 Block Sodding and Topsoil 5,130 SY $ 5.00 $ 25,650 Item No. Item Description Pct. Of Paving Allowance Item Cost 10 Pavement Markings & Signage 2% $ 17,000 11 Traffic Control 5% $ 42,300 12 Erosion Control 3% $ 25,400 13 Drainage Improvements (RCP, Inlets, MH, Outfalls) 20% $ 169,200 Item No. Item Description Notes Allowance Item Cost 14 Landscaping /Illumination None $ $ 15 Drainage Structures None $ $ - 16 Bridge Structures None $ $ - 17 Traffic Signals None $ $ - 18 Other None $ $ - Item Description Construction Engineering /Survey /Testing Right -of -Way Acquisition 2017 Impact Fee Update City of Schertz I, II, & III Construction Subtotal: $ 1,099,550 Mobilization 5% $ 55,000 Contineencv 10% $ 115,500 Notes Allowance Item Cost - $ 1,270,100 7% $ 88,900 Cost per sq. ft.: $ 0.75 $ 13,900 $ 13,900 Freese and Nichols, Inc. Updated: 612017 53 City of Schertz Impact Fee Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Estimate LOWER SEGUIN ROAD E. of Tates Dr. to W. of Canopy Bend /Aranda Ln. Functional Classification: Secondary Rural Arterial No. of Lanes: 3 Length (If): 9,293 Right -of -Way Width (ft.): 90 Median Type: Two -Way Left Turn Lane Pavement Width (Edge to Edge): 48 Description: Widening of roadway to thoroughfare standard Shared -Use Path bicycle facility Item No. Item Description Quantity Unit $ Unit Cost 1 Right of Way Preparation 93 STA $ 3,000.00 $ 2 Unclassified Street Excavation 20,500 CY $ 20.00 $ 3 3" HMAC (Type "D ") 49,600 SY $ 18.00 $ 4 10" Flex Base 51,700 SY $ 18.00 $ 5 6" Moisture Conditioned Subgrade 51,700 SY $ 4.00 $ 6 TX -5 Geogrid 51,700 SY $ 1.00 $ 7 6" Monolithic Concrete Curb & Gutter 0 LF $ 25.00 $ 8 4" Concrete Sidewalk and Ramps 10,300 SY $ 50.00 $ 9 Block Sodding and Topsoil 33,040 SY $ 5.00 $ Item No. Item Description 10 Pavement Markings & Signage 11 Traffic Control 12 Erosion Control 13 Drainage Improvements (RCP, Inlets, MH, Outfalls) Item Cost 279,000 410,000 892,800 930,600 206,800 51,700 515,000 165,200 Pct. Of Paving Item Description Item Cost 2% $ 69,100 5% $ 172,600 3% $ 103,600 20% $ 690,300 Item No. Item Description Notes Allowance 14 Landscaping /Illumination None $ $ 15 Drainage Structures None $ $ 16 Bridge Structures 1 Bridge $ 1,120,000 $ 17 Traffic Signals None $ - $ 18 Other None $ $ Item Description Construction Engineering /Survey /Testing Right -of -Way Acquisition I, II, & III Construction Subtotal: $ Mobilization 5% $ Contineencv 10% $ Item Cost 1,120,000 1,120,000 5,606,700 280,400 588,800 Notes Allowance Item Cost - $ 6,475,900 7% $ 453,300 Cost per sq. ft.: $ 0.75 $ 69,700 $ 69,700 2017 Impact Fee Update Freese and Nichols, Inc. City of Schertz Updated: 612017 54 City of Schertz Impact Fee Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Estimate LOWER SEGUIN ROAD W. of Canopy Bend /Aranda Ln. to E. City Limits Functional Classification: Secondary Arterial No. of Lanes: 4 Length (If): 9,082 Right -of -Way Width (ft.): 90 Median Type: Raised Pavement Width (Edge to Edge): 48 Description: Widening of roadway to thoroughfare standard Shared -Use Path bicycle facility Item No. Item Description Quantity Unit Item Cost Unit Cost Pavement Markings & Signage Item Cost 1 Right of Way Preparation 91 STA $ 3,000.00 $ 273,000 2 Unclassified Street Excavation 22,300 CY $ 20.00 $ 446,000 3 3" HMAC (Type "D ") 48,500 SY $ 18.00 $ 873,000 4 10" Flex Base 60,600 SY $ 18.00 $ 1,090,800 5 6" Moisture Conditioned Subgrade 60,600 SY $ 4.00 $ 242,400 6 TX -5 Geogrid 60,600 SY $ 1.00 $ 60,600 7 6" Monolithic Concrete Curb & Gutter 36,330 LF $ 25.00 $ 908,250 8 4" Concrete Sidewalk and Ramps 15,100 SY $ 50.00 $ 755,000 9 Block Sodding and Topsoil 23,210 SY $ 5.00 $ 116,050 Item No. Item Description Pct. Of Paving Allowance Item Cost 10 Pavement Markings & Signage 2% $ 95,400 11 Traffic Control 5% = $ 238,300 12 Erosion Control 3% $ 143,000 13 Drainage Improvements (RCP, Inlets, MH, Outfalls) 20% $ 953,100 Item No. Item Description Notes Allowance Item Cost 14 Landscaping /Illumination None $ $ 15 Drainage Structures None $ $ - 16 Bridge Structures None $ $ - 17 Traffic Signals None $ $ - 18 Other None $ $ - Item Description Construction Engineering /Survey /Testing Right -of -Way Acquisition 2017 Impact Fee Update City of Schertz I, II, & III Construction Subtotal: $ 6,194,900 Mobilization 5% $ 309,800 Contineencv 10% $ 650,500 Notes Allowance Item Cost - $ 7,155,200 7% $ 500,900 Cost per sq. ft.: $ 0.75 $ 204,300 $ 204,300 Freese and Nichols, Inc. Updated: 612017 55 City of Schertz Impact Fee Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Estimate N/S Connector (3) N. City Limits to S. City Limits Functional Classification: Principal Arterial No. of Lanes: 4 Length (If): 792 Right -of -Way Width (ft.): 120 Median Type: Raised - - - - - - - Pavement Width (Edge to Edge): 48 Description: Construction of new roadway to thoroughfare standard Shared -Use Path bicycle facility Item No. Item Description Quantity Unit Item Cost Unit Cost Pavement Markings & Signage Item Cost 1 Right of Way Preparation 8 STA $ 3,000.00 $ 24,000 2 Unclassified Street Excavation 2,000 CY $ 20.00 $ 40,000 3 3" HMAC (Type "D ") 4,300 SY $ 18.00 $ 77,400 4 10" Flex Base 5,300 SY $ 18.00 $ 95,400 5 6" Moisture Conditioned Subgrade 5,300 SY $ 4.00 $ 21,200 6 TX -5 Geogrid 5,300 SY $ 1.00 $ 5,300 7 6" Monolithic Concrete Curb & Gutter 3,170 LF $ 25.00 $ 79,250 8 4" Concrete Sidewalk and Ramps 1,300 SY $ 50.00 $ 65,000 9 Block Sodding and Topsoil 4,660 SY $ 5.00 $ 23,300 Item No. Item Description Pct. Of Paving Allowance Item Cost 10 Pavement Markings & Signage 2% $ 8,700 11 Traffic Control 5% $ 21,600 12 Erosion Control 3% $ 13,000 13 Drainage Improvements (RCP, Inlets, MH, Outfalls) 20% _ $ 86,200 Item No. Item Description Notes Allowance Item Cost 14 Landscaping /Illumination None $ $ 15 Drainage Structures None - $ $ - 16 Bridge Structures None $ $ - 17 Traffic Signals None $ $ - 18 Other None $ $ - Item Description Construction Engineering /Survey /Testing Right -of -Way Acquisition 2017 Impact Fee Update City of Schertz I, II, & III Construction Subtotal: $ 560,350 Mobilization 5% $ 28,100 Contineencv 10% $ 58,900 Notes Allowance Item Cost - $ 647,400 7% $ 45,300 Cost per sq. ft.: $ 0.75 $ 71,300 $ 71,300 Freese and Nichols, Inc. Updated: 612017 56 City of Schertz Impact Fee Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Estimate N/S Connector (3) N. City Limits to S. City Limits Functional Classification: Principal Arterial No. of Lanes: 4 Length (If): 1,426 Right -of -Way Width (ft.): 120 Median Type: Raised - - - - - - - Pavement Width (Edge to Edge): 48 Description: Construction of new roadway to thoroughfare standard Shared -Use Path bicycle facility Item No. Item Description Quantity Unit Item Cost Unit Cost Pavement Markings & Signage Item Cost 1 Right of Way Preparation 15 STA $ 3,000.00 $ 45,000 2 Unclassified Street Excavation 3,500 CY $ 20.00 $ 70,000 3 3" HMAC (Type "D ") 7,700 SY $ 18.00 $ 138,600 4 10" Flex Base 9,600 SY $ 18.00 $ 172,800 5 6" Moisture Conditioned Subgrade 9,600 SY $ 4.00 $ 38,400 6 TX -5 Geogrid 9,600 SY $ 1.00 $ 9,600 7 6" Monolithic Concrete Curb & Gutter 5,710 LF $ 25.00 $ 142,750 8 4" Concrete Sidewalk and Ramps 2,400 SY $ 50.00 $ 120,000 9 Block Sodding and Topsoil 8,400 SY $ 5.00 $ 42,000 Item No. Item Description Pct. Of Paving Allowance Item Cost 10 Pavement Markings & Signage 2% $ 15,600 11 Traffic Control 5% $ 39,000 12 Erosion Control 3% $ 23,400 13 Drainage Improvements (RCP, Inlets, MH, Outfalls) 20% $ 155,900 Item No. Item Description Notes Allowance Item Cost 14 Landscaping /Illumination None $ $ 15 Drainage Structures None - - $ $ - 16 Bridge Structures None $ $ - 17 Traffic Signals None - - $ $ - 18 Other None $ $ - Item Description Construction Engineering /Survey /Testing Right -of -Way Acquisition 2017 Impact Fee Update City of Schertz I, II, & III Construction Subtotal: $ 1,013,050 Mobilization 5% $ 50,700 Contineencv 10% $ 106,400 Notes Allowance Item Cost - $ 1,170,200 7% $ 81,900 Cost per sq. ft.: $ 0.75 $ 128,300 $ 128,300 Freese and Nichols, Inc. Updated: 612017 57 City of Schertz Impact Fee Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Estimate N/S Connector (4) N. City Limits to S. City Limits Functional Classification: Residential Collector - No. of Lanes: 2 Length (If): 1,373 Right -of -Way Width (ft.): 70 Median Type: None Pavement Width (Edge to Edge): 38 Description: Construction of new roadway to thoroughfare standard On- street bicycle facility (Pavement: 7' + T) Item No. Item Description Quantity Unit Item Cost Unit Cost Pavement Markings & Signage Item Cost 1 Right of Way Preparation 14 STA $ 3,000.00 $ 42,000 2 Unclassified Street Excavation 2,500 CY $ 20.00 $ 50,000 3 3" HMAC (Type "D ") 5,800 SY $ 18.00 $ 104,400 4 10" Flex Base 6,800 SY $ 18.00 $ 122,400 5 6" Moisture Conditioned Subgrade 6,800 SY $ 4.00 $ 27,200 6 TX -5 Geogrid 6,800 SY $ 1.00 $ 6,800 7 6" Monolithic Concrete Curb & Gutter 2,750 LF $ 25.00 $ 68,750 8 4" Concrete Sidewalk and Ramps 1,500 SY $ 50.00 $ 75,000 9 Block Sodding and Topsoil 3,050 SY $ 5.00 $ 15,250 Item No. Item Description Pct. Of Paving Allowance Item Cost 10 Pavement Markings & Signage 2% $ 10,300 11 Traffic Control 5% $ 25,600 12 Erosion Control 3% $ 15,400 13 Drainage Improvements (RCP, Inlets, MH, Outfalls) 20% $ 102,400 Item No. Item Description Notes Allowance Item Cost 14 Landscaping /Illumination None $ $ 15 Drainage Structures None $ $ - 16 Bridge Structures None $ $ - 17 Traffic Signals None $ $ - 18 Other None $ $ - Item Description Construction Engineering /Survey /Testing Right -of -Way Acquisition 2017 Impact Fee Update City of Schertz I, II, & III Construction Subtotal: $ 665,500 Mobilization 5% $ 33,300 Contineencv 10% $ 69,900 Notes Allowance Item Cost - $ 768,700 7% $ 53,800 Cost per sq. ft.: $ 0.75 $ 72,100 $ 72,100 Freese and Nichols, Inc. Updated: 612017 58 City of Schertz Impact Fee Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Estimate N/S Connector (4) N. City Limits to S. City Limits Functional Classification: Residential Collector No. of Lanes: 2 Length (If): 1,109 Right -of -Way Width (ft.): 70 Median Type: None Pavement Width (Edge to Edge): 38 Description: Construction of new roadway to thoroughfare standard On- street bicycle facility (Pavement: 7' + T) Item No. Item Description Quantity Unit Item Cost Unit Cost Pavement Markings & Signage Item Cost 1 Right of Way Preparation 12 STA $ 3,000.00 $ 36,000 2 Unclassified Street Excavation 2,000 CY $ 20.00 $ 40,000 3 3" HMAC (Type "D ") 4,700 SY $ 18.00 $ 84,600 4 10" Flex Base 5,500 SY $ 18.00 $ 99,000 5 6" Moisture Conditioned Subgrade 5,500 SY $ 4.00 $ 22,000 6 TX -5 Geogrid 5,500 SY $ 1.00 $ 5,500 7 6" Monolithic Concrete Curb & Gutter 2,220 LF $ 25.00 $ 55,500 8 4" Concrete Sidewalk and Ramps 1,200 SY $ 50.00 $ 60,000 9 Block Sodding and Topsoil 2,460 SY $ 5.00 $ 12,300 Item No. Item Description Pct. Of Paving Allowance Item Cost 10 Pavement Markings & Signage 2% $ 8,300 11 Traffic Control 5% $ 20,800 12 Erosion Control 3% $ 12,500 13 Drainage Improvements (RCP, Inlets, MH, Outfalls) 20% $ 83,000 Item No. Item Description Notes Allowance Item Cost 14 Landscaping /Illumination None $ $ 15 Drainage Structures None $ $ - 16 Bridge Structures None $ $ - 17 Traffic Signals None - $ $ - 18 Other None - - - - $ $ - Item Description Construction Engineering /Survey /Testing Right -of -Way Acquisition 2017 Impact Fee Update City of Schertz I, II, & III Construction Subtotal: $ 539,500 Mobilization 5% $ 27,000 Contineencv 10% $ 56,700 Notes Allowance Item Cost - $ 623,200 7% $ 43,600 Cost per sq. ft.: $ 0.75 $ 58,200 $ 58,200 Freese and Nichols, Inc. Updated: 612017 59 City of Schertz Impact Fee Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Estimate Functional Classification: Length (If): Right -of -Way Width (ft.): Median Type: Pavement Width (Edge to Edge) Description: WEST WARE SEGUIN ROAD W. City Limits to Boeing Dr. Residential Collector No. of Lanes: 2 3,010 70 None 1 38 Reconstruction of roadway to thoroughfare standard On- street bicycle facility (Pavement: 7' + T) Item No. Item Description Quantity Unit Item Cost Unit Cost Pavement Markings & Signage Item Cost 1 Right of Way Preparation 31 STA $ 3,000.00 $ 93,000 2 Unclassified Street Excavation 5,400 CY $ 20.00 $ 108,000 3 3" HMAC (Type "D ") 12,800 SY $ 18.00 $ 230,400 4 10" Flex Base 14,800 SY $ 18.00 $ 266,400 5 6" Moisture Conditioned Subgrade 14,800 SY $ 4.00 $ 59,200 6 TX -5 Geogrid 14,800 SY $ 1.00 $ 14,800 7 6" Monolithic Concrete Curb & Gutter 6,020 LF $ 25.00 $ 150,500 8 4" Concrete Sidewalk and Ramps 3,300 SY $ 50.00 $ 165,000 9 Block Sodding and Topsoil 6,690 SY $ 5.00 $ 33,450 Item No. Item Description Pct. Of Paving Allowance Item Cost 10 Pavement Markings & Signage 2% $ 22,500 11 Traffic Control 5% $ 56,100 12 Erosion Control 3% $ 33,700 13 Drainage Improvements (RCP, Inlets, MH, Outfalls) 20% $ 224,200 Item No. Item Description Notes Allowance Item Cost 14 Landscaping /Illumination None $ $ 15 Drainage Structures None $ $ - 16 Bridge Structures None $ $ - 17 Traffic Signals None $ $ - 18 Other None $ $ - Item Description Construction Engineering /Survey /Testing Right -of -Way Acquisition 2017 Impact Fee Update City of Schertz I, II, & III Construction Subtotal: $ 1,457,250 Mobilization 5% $ 72,900 Contineencv 10% $ 153,100 Notes Allowance Item Cost - $ 1,683,300 7% $ 117,800 Cost per sq. ft.: $ 0.75 $ $ - Freese and Nichols, Inc. Updated: 612017 60 City of Schertz Impact Fee Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Estimate WEST WARE SEGUIN ROAD Boeing Dr. to N/S Connector (5) Functional Classification: Residential Collector No. of Lanes: 2 Length (If): 3,538 Right -of -Way Width (ft.): 70 Median Type: None Pavement Width (Edge to Edge): 38 Description: Reconstruction of roadway to thoroughfare standard On- street bicycle facility (Pavement: 7' + T) Item No. Item Description Quantity Unit Item Cost Unit Cost Pavement Markings & Signage Item Cost 1 Right of Way Preparation 36 STA $ 3,000.00 $ 108,000 2 Unclassified Street Excavation 6,400 CY $ 20.00 $ 128,000 3 3" HMAC (Type "D ") 15,000 SY $ 18.00 $ 270,000 4 10" Flex Base 17,300 SY $ 18.00 $ 311,400 5 6" Moisture Conditioned Subgrade 17,300 SY $ 4.00 $ 69,200 6 TX -5 Geogrid 17,300 SY $ 1.00 $ 17,300 7 6" Monolithic Concrete Curb & Gutter 7,080 LF $ 25.00 $ 177,000 8 4" Concrete Sidewalk and Ramps 3,900 SY $ 50.00 $ 195,000 9 Block Sodding and Topsoil 7,860 SY $ 5.00 $ 39,300 Item No. Item Description Pct. Of Paving Allowance Item Cost 10 Pavement Markings & Signage 2% $ 26,400 11 Traffic Control 5% $ 65,800 12 Erosion Control 3% $ 39,500 13 Drainage Improvements (RCP, Inlets, MH, Outfalls) 20% $ 263,100 Item No. Item Description Notes Allowance Item Cost 14 Landscaping /Illumination None $ - $ - 15 Drainage Structures 1 Minor Crossing $ 100,000 $ 100,000 16 Bridge Structures None $ - $ - 17 Traffic Signals None - - $ $ - 18 Other None $ $ Item Description Construction Engineering /Survey /Testing Right -of -Way Acquisition 2017 Impact Fee Update City of Schertz I, II, & III Construction Subtotal: $ 1,810,000 Mobilization 5% $ 90,500 Contineencv 10% $ 190,100 Notes Allowance Item Cost - $ 2,090,600 7% $ 146,300 Cost per sq. ft.: $ 0.75 $ $ - Freese and Nichols, Inc. Updated: 612017 61 City of Schertz Impact Fee Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Estimate N/S CONNECTOR (S) Lower Seguin Rd. to W. Ware Seguin Rd. Functional Classification: Residential Collector No. of Lanes: 2 Length (If): 5,808 Right -of -Way Width (ft.): 70 Median Type: None Pavement Width (Edge to Edge): 38 Description: Construction of new roadway to thoroughfare standard On- street bicycle facility (Pavement: 7' + T) Item No. Item Description Quantity Unit Item Cost Unit Cost Pavement Markings & Signage Item Cost 1 Right of Way Preparation 59 STA $ 3,000.00 $ 177,000 2 Unclassified Street Excavation 10,500 CY $ 20.00 $ 210,000 3 3" HMAC (Type "D ") 24,600 SY $ 18.00 $ 442,800 4 10" Flex Base 28,400 SY $ 18.00 $ 511,200 5 6" Moisture Conditioned Subgrade 28,400 SY $ 4.00 $ 113,600 6 TX -5 Geogrid 28,400 SY $ 1.00 $ 28,400 7 6" Monolithic Concrete Curb & Gutter 11,620 LF $ 25.00 $ 290,500 8 4" Concrete Sidewalk and Ramps 6,500 SY $ 50.00 $ 325,000 9 Block Sodding and Topsoil 12,910 SY $ 5.00 $ 64,550 Item No. Item Description Pct. Of Paving Allowance Item Cost 10 Pavement Markings & Signage 2% $ 43,300 11 Traffic Control 5% $ 108,200 12 Erosion Control 3% $ 64,900 13 Drainage Improvements (RCP, Inlets, MH, Outfalls) 20% $ 432,700 Item No. Item Description Notes Allowance Item Cost 14 Landscaping /Illumination None $ $ 15 Drainage Structures None - $ $ - 16 Bridge Structures None $ $ - 17 Traffic Signals None - - $ $ - 18 Other None $ $ - Item Description Construction Engineering /Survey /Testing Right -of -Way Acquisition 2017 Impact Fee Update City of Schertz I, II, & III Construction Subtotal: $ 2,812,150 Mobilization 5% $ 140,700 Contineencv 10% $ 295,300 Notes Allowance Item Cost - $ 3,248,200 7% $ 227,400 Cost per sq. ft.: $ 0.75 $ 304,900 $ 304,900 Freese and Nichols, Inc. Updated: 612017 62 City of Schertz Impact Fee Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Estimate N/S CONNECTOR (S) W. Ware Seguin Rd. to E. Ware Seguin Rd. Functional Classification: Residential Collector No. of Lanes: 2 Length (If): 4,910 Right -of -Way Width (ft.): 70 Median Type: None Pavement Width (Edge to Edge): 38 Description: Reconstruction of roadway to thoroughfare standard On- street bicycle facility (Pavement: 7' + T) Item No. Item Description Quantity Unit Item Cost Unit Cost Pavement Markings & Signage Item Cost 1 Right of Way Preparation 50 STA $ 3,000.00 $ 150,000 2 Unclassified Street Excavation 8,900 CY $ 20.00 $ 178,000 3 3" HMAC (Type "D ") 20,800 SY $ 18.00 $ 374,400 4 10" Flex Base 24,100 SY $ 18.00 $ 433,800 5 6" Moisture Conditioned Subgrade 24,100 SY $ 4.00 $ 96,400 6 TX -5 Geogrid 24,100 SY $ 1.00 $ 24,100 7 6" Monolithic Concrete Curb & Gutter 9,830 LF $ 25.00 $ 245,750 8 4" Concrete Sidewalk and Ramps 5,500 SY $ 50.00 $ 275,000 9 Block Sodding and Topsoil 10,910 SY $ 5.00 $ 54,550 Item No. Item Description Pct. Of Paving Allowance Item Cost 10 Pavement Markings & Signage 2% $ 36,700 11 Traffic Control 5% $ 91,600 12 Erosion Control 3% $ 55,000 13 Drainage Improvements (RCP, Inlets, MH, Outfalls) 20% $ 366,400 Item No. Item Description Notes Allowance Item Cost 14 Landscaping /Illumination None $ - $ - 15 Drainage Structures 2 Minor Crossings - $ 200,000 $ 200,000 16 Bridge Structures None $ - $ - 17 Traffic Signals None $ $ - 18 Other None $ - $ Item Description Construction Engineering /Survey /Testing Right -of -Way Acquisition 2017 Impact Fee Update City of Schertz I, II, & III Construction Subtotal: $ 2,581,700 Mobilization 5% = $ 129,100 Contineencv 10% $ 271,100 Notes Allowance Item Cost - $ 2,981,900 7% $ 208,700 Cost per sq. ft.: $ 0.75 $ 36,800 $ 36,800 Freese and Nichols, Inc. Updated: 612017 63 City of Schertz Impact Fee Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Estimate TRAINER HALE ROAD (N /S) Weir Rd. to IH -10 Functional Classification: Principal Arterial No. of Lanes: 4 Length (If): 8,765 Right -of -Way Width (ft.): 120 - - - - Median Type: Raised Pavement Width (Edge to Edge): 48 Description: Widening of roadway to thoroughfare standard Shared -Use Path bicycle facility Item No. Item Description Quantity Unit Item Cost Unit Cost Pavement Markings & Signage Item Cost 1 Right of Way Preparation 88 STA $ 3,000.00 $ 264,000 2 Unclassified Street Excavation 21,500 CY $ 20.00 $ 430,000 3 3" HMAC (Type "D ") 46,800 SY $ 18.00 $ 842,400 4 10" Flex Base 58,500 SY $ 18.00 $ 1,053,000 5 6" Moisture Conditioned Subgrade 58,500 SY $ 4.00 $ 234,000 6 TX -5 Geogrid 58,500 SY $ 1.00 $ 58,500 7 6" Monolithic Concrete Curb & Gutter 35,060 LF $ 25.00 $ 876,500 8 4" Concrete Sidewalk and Ramps 14,600 SY $ 50.00 $ 730,000 9 Block Sodding and Topsoil 51,610 SY $ 5.00 $ 258,050 Item No. Item Description Pct. Of Paving Allowance Item Cost 10 Pavement Markings & Signage 2% $ 95,000 11 Traffic Control 5% $ 237,400 12 Erosion Control 3% $ 142,400 13 Drainage Improvements (RCP, Inlets, MH, Outfalls) 20% $ 949,300 Item No. Item Description Notes Allowance Item Cost 14 Landscaping /Illumination None $ $ 15 Drainage Structures None $ $ - 16 Bridge Structures None $ $ - 17 Traffic Signals None $ $ - 18 Other None $ $ - Item Description Construction Engineering /Survey /Testing Right -of -Way Acquisition 2017 Impact Fee Update City of Schertz I, II, & III Construction Subtotal: $ 6,170,550 Mobilization 5% $ 308,600 Contineencv 10% $ 648,000 Notes Allowance Item Cost - $ 7,127,200 7% $ 498,900 Cost per sq. ft.: $ 0.75 $ 394,400 $ 394,400 Freese and Nichols, Inc. Updated: 612017 64 City of Schertz Impact Fee Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Estimate TRAINER HALE ROAD (E /W) FM 1518 to Trainer Hale Rd. (N /S) Functional Classification: Secondary Arterial No. of Lanes: 4 Length (If): 7,973 Right -of -Way Width (ft.): 90 - - - Median Type: Raised - - - - - - - Pavement Width (Edge to Edge): 48 Description: Widening of roadway to thoroughfare standard Shared -Use Path bicycle facility Item No. Item Description Quantity Unit Item Cost Unit Cost Pavement Markings & Signage Item Cost 1 Right of Way Preparation 80 STA $ 3,000.00 $ 240,000 2 Unclassified Street Excavation 19,500 CY $ 20.00 $ 390,000 3 3" HMAC (Type "D ") 42,600 SY $ 18.00 $ 766,800 4 10" Flex Base 53,200 SY $ 18.00 $ 957,600 5 6" Moisture Conditioned Subgrade 53,200 SY $ 4.00 $ 212,800 6 TX -5 Geogrid 53,200 SY $ 1.00 $ 53,200 7 6" Monolithic Concrete Curb & Gutter 31,900 LF $ 25.00 $ 797,500 8 4" Concrete Sidewalk and Ramps 13,300 SY $ 50.00 $ 665,000 9 Block Sodding and Topsoil 20,370 SY $ 5.00 $ 101,850 Item No. Item Description Pct. Of Paving Allowance Item Cost 10 Pavement Markings & Signage 2% $ 83,700 11 Traffic Control 5% $ 209,300 12 Erosion Control 3% $ 125,600 13 Drainage Improvements (RCP, Inlets, MH, Outfalls) 20% $ 837,000 Item No. Item Description Notes Allowance Item Cost 14 Landscaping /Illumination None - $ $ 15 Drainage Structures None $ $ - 16 Bridge Structures 1 Bridge $ 750,000 $ 750,000 17 Traffic Signals None $ - $ - 18 Other None $ - $ Item Description Construction Engineering /Survey /Testing Right -of -Way Acquisition 2017 Impact Fee Update City of Schertz I, II, & III Construction Subtotal: $ 6,190,350 Mobilization 5% $ 309,600 Contineencv 10% $ 650,000 Notes Allowance Item Cost - $ 7,150,000 7% $ 500,500 Cost per sq. ft.: $ 0.75 $ 59,800 $ 59,800 Freese and Nichols, Inc. Updated: 612017 65 City of Schertz Impact Fee Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Estimate Functional Classification: Length (If): Right -of -Way Width (ft.): Median Type: Pavement Width (Edge to Edge) Description: WARE SEGUIN ROAD Graytown Rd. to N/S Connector (5) Secondary Rural Arterial No. of Lanes: 3 7,128 90 Two -Way Left Turn Lane 48 Construction of new roadway to thoroughfare standard Shared -Use Path bicycle facility Item No. Item Description Quantity Unit Item Cost Unit Cost 1 Right of Way Preparation 72 STA $ 3,000.00 $ 2 Unclassified Street Excavation 15,700 CY $ 20.00 $ 3 3" HMAC (Type "D ") 38,100 SY $ 18.00 $ 4 10" Flex Base 39,600 SY $ 18.00 $ 5 6" Moisture Conditioned Subgrade 39,600 SY $ 4.00 $ 6 TX -5 Geogrid 39,600 SY $ 1.00 $ 7 6" Monolithic Concrete Curb & Gutter 0 LF $ 25.00 $ 8 4" Concrete Sidewalk and Ramps 7,900 SY $ 50.00 $ 9 Block Sodding and Topsoil 25,340 SY $ 5.00 $ Item No. Item Description 10 Pavement Markings & Signage 11 Traffic Control 12 Erosion Control 13 Drainage Improvements (RCP, Inlets, MH, Outfalls) Item Cost 216,000 314,000 685,800 712,800 158,400 39,600 395,000 126,700 Pct. Of Paving Item Cost 2% $ 53,000 5% $ 132,500 3% $ 79,500 20% $ 529,700 Item No. Item Description Notes Allowance Item Cost 14 Landscaping /Illumination None $ $ 15 Drainage Structures None $ $ - 16 Bridge Structures None - - $ $ - 17 Traffic Signals None - - - $ $ - 18 Other None - - - - $ $ - Item Description Construction Engineering /Survey /Testing Right -of -Way Acquisition I, II, & III Construction Subtotal: $ 3,443,000 Mobilization 5% $ 172,200 Contineencv 10% $ 361,600 Notes Allowance Item Cost - $ 3,976,800 7% $ 278,400 Cost per sq. ft.: $ 0.75 $ 481,100 $ 481,100 2017 Impact Fee Update Freese and Nichols, Inc. City of Schertz Updated: 612017 66 City of Schertz Impact Fee Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Estimate Functional Classification: Length (If): Right -of -Way Width (ft.): Median Type: Pavement Width (Edge to Edge) Description: EAST WARE SEGUIN ROAD N/S Connector (5) to FM 1518 Secondary Rural Arterial No. of Lanes: 3 7,445 90 Two -Way Left Turn Lane 48 Widening of roadway to thoroughfare standard Shared -Use Path bicycle facility Item No. Item Description Quantity Unit 14 Unit Cost 1 Right of Way Preparation 75 STA $ 3,000.00 $ 2 Unclassified Street Excavation 16,400 CY $ 20.00 $ 3 3" HMAC (Type "D ") 39,800 SY $ 18.00 $ 4 10" Flex Base 41,400 SY $ 18.00 $ 5 6" Moisture Conditioned Subgrade 41,400 SY $ 4.00 $ 6 TX -5 Geogrid 41,400 SY $ 1.00 $ 7 6" Monolithic Concrete Curb & Gutter 0 LF $ 25.00 $ 8 4" Concrete Sidewalk and Ramps 8,300 SY $ 50.00 $ 9 Block Sodding and Topsoil 26,470 SY $ 5.00 $ Item No. Item Description 10 Pavement Markings & Signage 11 Traffic Control 12 Erosion Control 13 Drainage Improvements (RCP, Inlets, MH, Outfalls) Item Cost 225,000 328,000 716,400 745,200 165,600 41,400 415,000 132,350 Pct. Of Paving Item Cost 2% $ 55,400 5% $ 138,500 3% $ 83,100 20% $ 553,800 Item No. Item Description Notes Allowance 14 Landscaping /Illumination None $ - $ 15 Drainage Structures 1 Minor Crossing $ 100,000 $ 16 Bridge Structures None $ - $ 17 Traffic Signals None $ $ 18 Other None $ $ Item Description Construction Engineering /Survey /Testing Right -of -Way Acquisition I, II, & III Construction Subtotal: $ Mobilization 5% $ Contineencv 10% $ Item Cost 100,000 100,000 3,699,750 185,000 388,500 Notes Allowance Item Cost - $ 4,273,300 7% $ 299,100 Cost per sq. ft.: $ 0.75 $ 167,500 $ 167,500 2017 Impact Fee Update Freese and Nichols, Inc. City of Schertz Updated: 612017 67 City of Schertz Impact Fee Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Estimate GRAYTOWN ROAD Boeing Dr. to IH -10 Functional Classification: Secondary Rural Arterial No. of Lanes: 3 Length (If): 5,861 Right -of -Way Width (ft.): 90 Median Type: TWLTL Pavement Width (Edge to Edge): 48 - - - - - Description: Widening of roadway to thoroughfare standard - - Shared -Use Path bicycle facility Item No. Item Description Quantity Unit $ Unit Cost 1 Right of Way Preparation 59 STA $ 3,000.00 $ 2 Unclassified Street Excavation 12,900 CY $ 20.00 $ 3 3" HMAC (Type "D ") 31,300 SY $ 18.00 $ 4 10" Flex Base 32,600 SY $ 18.00 $ 5 6" Moisture Conditioned Subgrade 32,600 SY $ 4.00 $ 6 TX -5 Geogrid 32,600 SY $ 1.00 $ 7 6" Monolithic Concrete Curb & Gutter 0 LF $ 25.00 $ 8 4" Concrete Sidewalk and Ramps 6,500 SY $ 50.00 $ 9 Block Sodding and Topsoil 20,840 SY $ 5.00 $ Item No. Item Description 10 Pavement Markings & Signage 11 Traffic Control 12 Erosion Control 13 Drainage Improvements (RCP, Inlets, MH, Outfalls) Item Cost 177,000 258,000 563,400 586,800 130,400 32,600 325,000 104,200 Pct. Of Paving Item Description Item Cost 2% - $ 43,600 5% $ 108,900 3% $ 65,400 20% $ 435,500 Item No. Item Description Notes Allowance 14 Landscaping /Illumination None $ - $ 15 Drainage Structures 3 Minor Crossings $ 300,000 - $ 16 Bridge Structures None $ - $ 17 Traffic Signals None - $ $ 18 Other None $ $ Item Description Construction Engineering /Survey /Testing Right -of -Way Acquisition I, II, & III Construction Subtotal: $ Mobilization 5% $ Contineencv 10% $ Item Cost 300,000 300,000 3,130,800 156,600 328,800 Notes Allowance Item Cost - $ 3,616,200 7% $ 253,100 Cost per sq. ft.: $ 0.75 $ 131,900 $ 131,900 2017 Impact Fee Update Freese and Nichols, Inc. City of Schertz Updated: 612017 68 City of Schertz Impact Fee Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Estimate N/S CONNECTOR (6) Ware Seguin Rd. to IH -10 Functional Classification: Commercial Collector A No. of Lanes: 3 Length (If): 2,482 - - Right -of -Way Width (ft.): 70 Median Type: TWLTL Pavement Width (Edge to Edge): 38 Description: Construction of new roadway to thoroughfare standard Shared -Use Path bicycle facility Item No. Item Description Quantity Unit Item Cost Unit Cost Pavement Markings & Signage Item Cost 1 Right of Way Preparation 25 STA $ 3,000.00 $ 75,000 2 Unclassified Street Excavation 4,500 CY $ 20.00 $ 90,000 3 3" HMAC (Type "D ") 10,500 SY $ 18.00 $ 189,000 4 10" Flex Base 12,200 SY $ 18.00 $ 219,600 5 6" Moisture Conditioned Subgrade 12,200 SY $ 4.00 $ 48,800 6 TX -5 Geogrid 12,200 SY $ 1.00 $ 12,200 7 6" Monolithic Concrete Curb & Gutter 4,970 LF $ 25.00 $ 124,250 8 4" Concrete Sidewalk and Ramps 4,100 SY $ 50.00 $ 205,000 9 Block Sodding and Topsoil 4,140 SY $ 5.00 $ 20,700 Item No. Item Description Pct. Of Paving Allowance Item Cost 10 Pavement Markings & Signage 2% $ 19,700 11 Traffic Control 5% $ 49,300 12 Erosion Control 3% $ 29,600 13 Drainage Improvements (RCP, Inlets, MH, Outfalls) 20% $ 197,000 Item No. Item Description Notes Allowance Item Cost 14 Landscaping /Illumination None $ $ 15 Drainage Structures None $ $ - 16 Bridge Structures None - - - $ $ - 17 Traffic Signals None - - - $ $ - 18 Other None - - - $ $ - Item Description Construction Engineering /Survey /Testing Right -of -Way Acquisition 2017 Impact Fee Update City of Schertz I, II, & III Construction Subtotal: $ 1,280,150 Mobilization 5% $ 64,100 Contineencv 10% $ 134,500 Notes Allowance Item Cost - $ 1,478,800 7% $ 103,500 Cost per sq. ft.: $ 0.75 $ 130,300 $ 130,300 Freese and Nichols, Inc. Updated: 612017 69 City of Schertz Impact Fee Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Estimate E/W CONNECTOR (8) IH 10 to E. City Limits Functional Classification: Commercial Collector A No. of Lanes: 3 Length (If): 12,302 Right -of -Way Width (ft.): 70 Median Type: TWLTL Pavement Width (Edge to Edge): 38 - - - - - - - Description: Construction of new roadway to thoroughfare standard Shared -Use Path bicycle facility Item No. Item Description Quantity Unit Item Cost Unit Cost Pavement Markings & Signage Item Cost 1 Right of Way Preparation 124 STA $ 3,000.00 $ 372,000 2 Unclassified Street Excavation 22,100 CY $ 20.00 $ 442,000 3 3" HMAC (Type "D ") 52,000 SY $ 18.00 $ 936,000 4 10" Flex Base 60,200 SY $ 18.00 $ 1,083,600 5 6" Moisture Conditioned Subgrade 60,200 SY $ 4.00 $ 240,800 6 TX -5 Geogrid 60,200 SY $ 1.00 $ 60,200 7 6" Monolithic Concrete Curb & Gutter 24,610 LF $ 25.00 $ 615,250 8 4" Concrete Sidewalk and Ramps 20,500 SY $ 50.00 $ 1,025,000 9 Block Sodding and Topsoil 20,500 SY $ 5.00 $ 102,500 Item No. Item Description Pct. Of Paving Allowance Item Cost 10 Pavement Markings & Signage 2% $ 97,600 11 Traffic Control 5% $ 243,900 12 Erosion Control 3% $ 146,400 13 Drainage Improvements (RCP, Inlets, MH, Outfalls) 20% $ 975,500 Item No. Item Description Notes Allowance Item Cost 14 Landscaping /Illumination None $ $ 15 Drainage Structures None - - $ $ - 16 Bridge Structures None $ $ - 17 Traffic Signals None $ $ - 18 Other None $ - $ - Item Description Construction Engineering /Survey /Testing Right -of -Way Acquisition 2017 Impact Fee Update City of Schertz I, II, & III Construction Subtotal: $ 6,340,750 Mobilization 5% $ 317,100 Contineencv 10% $ 665,800 Notes Allowance Item Cost - $ 7,323,700 7% $ 512,700 Cost per sq. ft.: $ 0.75 $ 645,900 $ 645,900 Freese and Nichols, Inc. Updated: 612017 70 City of Schertz Impact Fee Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Estimate Functional Classification: Length (If): Right -of -Way Width (ft.): Median Type: Pavement Width (Edge to Edge) Description: BINZ- ENGLEMAN ROAD W. City Limits to Graytown Rd. Secondary Rural Arterial No. of Lanes: 3 6,864 90 Two -Way Left Turn Lane 48 Construction of new roadway to thoroughfare standard Shared -Use Path bicycle facility Item No. Item Description Quantity Unit $ Unit Cost 1 Right of Way Preparation 69 STA $ 3,000.00 $ 2 Unclassified Street Excavation 18,400 CY $ 20.00 $ 3 3" HMAC (Type "D ") 36,700 SY $ 18.00 $ 4 10" Flex Base 38,200 SY $ 18.00 $ 5 6" Moisture Conditioned Subgrade 38,200 SY $ 4.00 $ 6 TX -5 Geogrid 38,200 SY $ 1.00 $ 7 6" Monolithic Concrete Curb & Gutter 0 LF $ 25.00 $ 8 4" Concrete Sidewalk and Ramps 7,600 SY $ 50.00 $ 9 Block Sodding and Topsoil 24,410 SY $ 5.00 $ Item No. Item Description 10 Pavement Markings & Signage 11 Traffic Control 12 Erosion Control 13 Drainage Improvements (RCP, Inlets, MH, Outfalls) Item Cost 207,000 368,000 660,600 687,600 152,800 38,200 380,000 122,050 Pct. Of Paving Item Description Item Cost 2% $ 52,400 5% $ 130,900 3% $ 78,500 20% $ 523,300 Item No. Item Description Notes Allowance Item Cost 14 Landscaping /Illumination None - - - $ - $ 15 Drainage Structures None - $ - $ - 16 Bridge Structures None $ - $ - 17 Traffic Signals None $ - $ - 18 Other None - - - $ - $ - Item Description Construction Engineering /Survey /Testing Right -of -Way Acquisition I, II, & III Construction Subtotal: $ 3,401,350 Mobilization 5% - $ 170,100 Contineencv 10% $ 357,200 Notes Allowance Item Cost - $ 3,928,700 7% $ 275,000 Cost per sq. ft.: $ 0.75 $ 463,300 $ 463,300 2017 Impact Fee Update Freese and Nichols, Inc. City of Schertz Updated: 612017 71 City of Schertz Impact Fee Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Estimate SCENIC LAKE DRIVE Binz - Engleman Rd. to IH -10 Functional Classification: Commercial Collector A No. of Lanes: 3 Length (If): 4,066 Right -of -Way Width (ft.): 70 Median Type: Two -Way Left Turn Lane Pavement Width (Edge to Edge): 38 Description: Widening of roadway to thoroughfare standard Shared -Use Path bicycle facility Item No. Item Description Quantity Unit Item Cost Unit Cost Pavement Markings & Signage Item Cost 1 Right of Way Preparation 41 STA $ 3,000.00 $ 123,000 2 Unclassified Street Excavation 7,300 CY $ 20.00 $ 146,000 3 3" HMAC (Type "D ") 17,200 SY $ 18.00 $ 309,600 4 10" Flex Base 19,900 SY $ 18.00 $ 358,200 5 6" Moisture Conditioned Subgrade 19,900 SY $ 4.00 $ 79,600 6 TX -5 Geogrid 19,900 SY $ 1.00 $ 19,900 7 6" Monolithic Concrete Curb & Gutter 8,140 LF $ 25.00 $ 203,500 8 4" Concrete Sidewalk and Ramps 6,800 SY $ 50.00 $ 340,000 9 Block Sodding and Topsoil 6,780 SY $ 5.00 $ 33,900 Item No. Item Description Pct. Of Paving Allowance Item Cost 10 Pavement Markings & Signage 2% $ 32,300 11 Traffic Control 5% $ 80,700 12 Erosion Control 3% $ 48,500 13 Drainage Improvements (RCP, Inlets, MH, Outfalls) 20% $ 322,800 Item No. Item Description Notes Allowance Item Cost 14 Landscaping /Illumination None $ - $ - 15 Drainage Structures 1 Minor Crossing $ 100,000 $ 100,000 16 Bridge Structures None $ - $ - 17 Traffic Signals None $ $ - 18 Other None $ $ Item Description Construction Engineering /Survey /Testing Right -of -Way Acquisition 2017 Impact Fee Update City of Schertz I, II, & 111 Construction Subtotal: $ 2,198,000 Mobilization 5% $ 109,900 Contineencv 10% $ 230,800 Notes Allowance Item Cost - $ 2,538,700 7% $ 177,700 Cost per sq. ft.: $ 0.75 $ 61,000 $ 61,000 Freese and Nichols, Inc. Updated: 612017 Appendix G: Land Use Assumptions Report LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS Prepared for: City of Schertz 141611TWUll 1 I WAMAIZITI October 2017 Prepared by: FREESE AND NICHOLS, INC. 2711 North Haskell Avenue, Suite 3300 Dallas, Texas 75204 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 PURPOSE ....................................................................................................................... ............................... 2 1.1 Land Use Assumptions Report Elements ....................................................... ..............................2 2.0 METHODOLOGY ........................................................................................................... ..............................3 3.0 ROADWAY SERVICE AREAS .................................................................................... ..............................4 3.1 Roadway Service Areas ........................................................................................ ............................... 5 3.2 Data Format ............................................................................................................... ..............................6 4.0 HISTORICAL DATA ..................................................................................................... ..............................7 5.0 BASE YEAR DATA ........................................................................................................ ..............................8 5.1 Population Growth ................................................................................................ ............................... 8 5.2 Population Growth Rate ...................................................................................... ............................... 8 5.3 Additional Growth Indicators ............................................................................. ..............................9 5.4 Existing Land Use .................................................................................................. .............................10 5.5 2017 Employment ................................................................................................ .............................11 6.0 TEN -YEAR GROWTH ASSUMPTIONS .............................................................. ............................... 13 6.1 Population 2027 .................................................................................................... .............................14 6.2 Employment 2027 ................................................................................................ .............................17 7.0 SUMMARY .................................................................................................................... .............................18 1.0 PURPOSE Chapter 395 of the Texas Local Government Code prescribes the process by which cities in Texas must formulate impact fees. An initial step in the impact fee development process is the establishment of land use assumptions which address growth and development for a ten -year planning period (TLGC Section 395.001(5)) for the years 2017 -2027. These land use assumptions, which also include population and employment projections, will become the basis for the preparation of capital improvement plans for roadway facilities. Statutory requirements mandate that impact fees be updated (at least) every five years. This report, in conjunction with the roadway capital improvements plan, form the initial key components of an impact fee program. To assist the City of Schertz in determining the need and timing of capital improvements to serve future development, a reasonable estimation of future growth is required. The purpose of this report is to formulate growth and development projections based upon assumptions pertaining to the type, location, quantity and timing of various future land uses within the community and to establish and document the methodology used for preparing the growth and land use assumptions. 1.1 LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS REPORT ELEMENTS This report contains the following components: • Methodology - Explanation of the general methodology used to prepare the land use assumptions. • Data Collection Zones and Service Area - Explanation of data collection zones (traffic analysis zones), and division of the city into impact fee service areas for roadway facilities. • Historical Data — Information on historic population trends for Schertz and Guadalupe, Bexar, and Comal Counties. • Base Year Data - Information on population, employment, and land use for Schertz as of 2015 for each roadway service area. • Ten -Year Growth Assumptions - Population and employment growth assumptions for ten years by impact fee service area. • Summary - Brief synopsis of the land use assumptions report. Land Use Assumptions Roadway Impact Fee Study Freese and Nichols, Inc. Page 2 2.0 METHODOLOGY Based upon the growth assumptions and the capital improvements needed to support growth, it is possible to develop an impact fee structure which fairly allocates improvement costs to growth areas in relationship to their impact upon the entire infrastructure system. The data in this report has been formulated using reasonable and generally accepted planning principles for the preparation of impact fee systems in Texas. These land use assumptions and future growth projections take into consideration several factors influencing development patterns, including the following: • The character, type, density, and quantity of existing development • Anticipated future land use (City's Future Land Use Plan Map); • Availability of land for future expansion; • Current and historical growth trends of population and development within the city; • Location and configuration of vacant land; • Growth of employment per the Alamo Area Metropolitan Planning Organization ( AAMPO); • Known or anticipated development projects within the city, as identified by City Staff. A series of work tasks were undertaken in the development of this report and are described below: 1. A kick -off meeting was held to describe the general methodological approach in the study. 2. Current data of population and housing was collected from the city and other acceptable sources to serve as a basis for future growth. 3. A base year (2017) estimate was developed using city building permit data, U.S. Census and periodic population, household occupancy and household size data, and employment data from AAMPO. 4. A growth rate was determined based upon an analysis of data from recent building permit data, Texas Development Water Board, past growth trends and anticipated development to occur over the next ten -year planning period. A compound annual growth rate of 3.5% is recommended for the planning period. 5. A ten -year projection (2027) was prepared using the recommended growth rate, Staff input, and consideration of the future allocation of population and employment in the AAMPO regional traffic forecast model. Finally, adjustments were then made to consider known or anticipated development activity within the ten -year planning period. Land Use Assumptions Roadway Impact Fee Study Freese and Nichols, Inc. Page 3 6. Base and ten -year demographics were prepared for the various roadway service areas which, in turn, correlate with the current municipal limits of Schertz. 3.0 ROADWAY SERVICE Service areas are required by State Law to define the area served by the Roadway Impact program. Chapter 395 requires that service areas be defined to ensure that facility improvements are located in proximity to the area that is generating needs. Roadway service areas are different from water /wastewater impact fee service areas in that roadway service areas can consider only current city limits but not the extra - territorial jurisdiction (ETJ) while water /wastewater service areas can include both the city limits and ETJ. This is primarily because roadway networks are "open" systems to both local and regional use as opposed to a defined limit of service that is provided within water and wastewater systems. The result is that new development can only be assessed an impact fee based on the cost of necessary capital improvements within that service area. Chapter 395 stipulates that roadway service areas be limited to a six -mile maximum dimension, but must be limited to within the current city limits. Although the roadway service areas only recognize current municipal limits, an analysis including the ETJ was conducted in order to consider long -term coverage of the ultimate corporate boundaries relative to the six -mile maximum for the impact fee program. Figure 1 illustrates the roadway impact fee service areas within the ETJ. Land Use Assumptions Roadway Impact Fee Study Freese and Nichols, Inc. Page 4 3.1 ROADWAY SERVICE AREAS Figure 2 illustrates the derived service area structure for roadway facilities. These service areas conform to the current city limits of Schertz. Land Use Assumptions Roadway Impact Fee Study Freese and Nichols, Inc. Page 5 3.2 DATA FORMAT The existing database, as well as the future projections, was formulated according to the following format and categories: Service Area Correlates to the roadway service areas identified on the attached map. The city limits serve as the roadway service area boundary. Housing Units (2017) All living units including single - family, duplex, multi - family and group quarters existing at the middle of 2017. The number of existing housing units has been estimated for the base year (2017) population estimate. Housing Units (2027) Projected housing units by service zone for the year 2027 (ten -year growth projections). Population (2017) Existing estimated population for the base year (2017). Population (2027) Projected population by service zone for the year 2027 (ten -year growth projection). Employment (2017 -27) Employment data is aggregated to three employment sectors and include Basic, Retail and Service, as provided by AAM PO. These service sectors serve as the basis for nonresidential trip generation. The following details which types of businesses fall within each of the three sectors. Service -- Land use activities which provide personal and professional services such as financial, insurance, government, and other professional and administrative offices. Retail -- Land use activities which provide for the retail sale of goods that primarily serve households and whose location choice is oriented toward the household sector such as grocery stores, restaurants, etc. Basic -- Land use activities that produce goods and services such as those that are exported outside the local economy; manufacturing, construction, transportation, wholesale trade, warehousing and other industrial uses. AAMPO prepares employment estimates at the Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ) level, but some adjustments were needed to consider areas within the limits of the city. Land Use Assumptions Roadway Impact Fee Study Freese and Nichols, Inc. Page 6 Figure 3: Historic Population Growth; City of Schertz, Comal County and Guadalupe County, and Bexar County 35,000 30,0(}0 25,000 20,000 15,000 10,000 5,OW Land Use Assumptions Freese and Nichols, Inc. HISTORICAL Schertz is located approximately 16 miles northeast of downtown San Antonio and lies in Guadalupe, Bexar, and Comal Counties. Over the past several years, the Alamo Area region has experienced steady population and employment growth. Figure 3 depicts the historic population growth for the City of Schertz and Comal, Guadalupe, and Bexar Counties. Comal and Guadalupe Counties have maintained steady growth over the last 40 years with compound annual growth rates (CAGR) around 3.5 percent. Meanwhile, Bexar County, which encompasses the City of San Antonio has maintained a slower growth rate of 1.8 percent. The City of Schertz's population statistics begin in 1990. Between 1990 and 2010, population growth was steady with a CAGR between 3.5 and 4.5 percent. All indicators suggest that the city and regional population growth will continue in the near future. Roadway Impact Fee Study Page 7 5.0 BASE YEAR T This section provides information and documents the data used to derive the 2017 base year population estimate for the City of Schertz. 5.1 POPULATION GROWTH One method of predicting future growth is looking at past growth. Schertz has experienced steady growth over the past decade. Past growth trends from the U.S. Census were examined in conjunction with single family building permit data from the city (Figure 4). The city estimates a 2016 population estimate of 39,453 residents in Schertz using the U.S. Census Intercensal population data of previous years. 5.2 POPULATION GROWTH RATE A compound annual growth rate (CAGR) allows for a general assessment of growth, considering periodic increases and decreases in residential population growth coinciding with changing economic conditions. Various sources were used to derive past growth rates (Table 1). These sources indicated rates of growth between 2.6 and 4.1 percent. Based upon this data, analysis Land Use Assumptions Freese and Nichols, Inc. Figure 4: Schertz Population Growth Trends Table 1: Growth Rates Source Growth U.S. Census (5- Year)* 3.4% U.S. Census (10- Year) ** 3.5% Future Growth Projection 3.5% *CAGR Based on 2011 -2016 Intercensal Data * *CAGR Based on 2006 -2016 Intercensal Data Roadway Impact Fee Study Page 8 Figure 5: Historic New Building Permits Source: City of Schertz Building Permits Table 2. Regional Growth Comparison Land Use Assumptions Freese and Nichols, Inc. of 10 -year forecasts, and City Staff input, a 3.5 percent compound annual growth rate was determined to be an appropriate assumption for the 10 -year study period. It is believed to account for periods of rapid and stable growth expected to occur in the future. This rate was recommended by the Schertz Capital Improvements Advisory Committee on May 13, 2015. 5.3 ADDITIONAL GROWTH INDICATORS Residential building permit data is also an indicator of recent growth trends. Cumulative single family residential building permits issued since 2000 are shown in Figure S. Annual single family residential building permits are shown to the left, depicting the overall trend in annual permits. Although building permits issued decreased after 2003, the issuance has remained steady over the last few of years. From 2011 to 2016, the trend shows a rate that will maintain permit issuance and growth in the future. Local population projections shown in Table 2 indicate that growth will continue in Schertz in the future. These population projections from the Texas Water Development Board (TWDB), City of Schertz Parks Plan and City of Schertz Population Projections indicate robust growth is likely and will continue for the next 35 years. Roadway Impact Fee Study Page 9 5.4 EXISTING LAND USE In any evaluation and projection of future land use patterns, a documentation of existing conditions is essential. Analysis of existing land use patterns was prepared based on Schertz's 2013 Sector Plan and 2002 Comprehensive Plan, which includes current city limits and the ET1. This also serves to document the present physical condition of the city with regard to any infrastructure deficiencies that may exist. Land Use Assumptions Roadway Impact Fee Study Freese and Nichols, Inc. Page 10 5.5 2017 EMPLOYMENT 2017 base employment was calculated using data from AAMPO. This information provided a breakout of employment by Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ) for 2010. Figure 6 shows the location of the TAZs in each service area. For assumption purposes, these numbers were grown uniformly with specific adjustments made to TAZs to match estimates provided bythe city. It is important to note that the TAZs do not follow city limits in some locations, so adjustments were made based on the locations of existing land uses and upon the percentage of each TAZ located within city limits. AAMPO employment data was categorized as basic, retail, and service (see page 6 for a description of the employment categories). Using this data, the total employment could be found for basic, retail and service businesses in each service area (SA). Table 3 details 2017 employment within Schertz's city limits for each TAZ. Table 3. 2017 Employment by Service Area Land Use Assumptions Roadway Impact Fee Study Freese and Nichols, Inc. Page 11 r � "s. ✓ �� f 1 0� 1144 / 114$ �` ✓" 770 # 1112 '4 1r 1121"' "° ` 5 i� �� 1143 tu'@ t � 1106, of ° ?71 F 1113 1457 E 11 2 '�� X y 7111$ 4 1 1145 ; 2a 1088 E` ' 772'x' 7 ?81 1123 4 tm�°�� 1167 i�� �,..,� 10 9. a 1124 y �. 1144 101` caw w J 524 W!" 1116 » ,„ . ` f ;,1125 1 95 kt� _ N COMNtNdCtv.9ERMCGr: grrPGR%4NITY 5 Land Use Assumptions Freese and Nichols, Inc. 779*'° rzwr rxnrox:r.�xrxu+o` "0" �. rt1;1',,„� 1094 778 1^780 w ^ ' �� , .� S�bow y,,aar 1140 4 d' i Service Areas e as 2 Excludetl from IFEE dl 2(ETJ) Excluded from IFEE IETJ) r 7$5 0 1 2 3_ t Miles ;. S FN J08 N0 SRZ1535fi 2017 Schertz Roadway Impact Fee , eArras,m:m GATE September s,l 7 6 SCALE 1:80,000 Traffic Analysis Zones Figure °RAFTS° Dare Roadway Impact Fee Study Page 12 6.0 TEN-YEAR GROWTH ASSUMPTIONS Projected growth has been characterized in two forms: population and employment. A series of assumptions were made to arrive at reasonable growth rates for population and employment. The following assumptions have been made as a basis from which ten -year projections could be initiated. • Future land uses will occur based on similar trends of the past and consistent with the Future Land Use Plan Map, • The city will be able to finance the necessary improvements to accommodate growth, • School facilities will accommodate increases in population, and • Densities will be as projected in the Sector Plans. The ten -year projections are based upon the 3.5 percent growth rate discussed earlier and considers past trends of the city. This rate corresponds with the historical average growth rate and the amount of growth expected over the next ten years. Table 4 details the ten -year population projection. Table 4. Year 2017 and 2027 Service Area Population and Dwelling Units Land Use Assumptions Roadway Impact Fee Study Freese and Nichols, Inc. Page 13 6.1 POPULATION 2027 The city has experienced steady growth over the past decade. The city's 2000 population stood at just over 18,000 residents. By the end of the decade, Schertz's population neared 32,000 in 2010 and a current 2017 estimate of 40,339. Although population estimates from the ETJ cannot be taken into account when calculating land use assumptions, the growing population within the ETJ should be monitored as the city plans its future. Using a 3.5 percent compound annual growth rate, the projected 2027 population for the city is 56,902 (Figure 7). Figure 7: Ten -Year Population Growth Projection Land Use Assumptions Roadway Impact Fee Study Freese and Nichols, Inc. Page 14 Table 5: Projected Dwelling Unit Estimations Avg. No. of Annual Permits: 581 Building permit calculations were derived using the U.S. Census information of 2.85 persons per household and base year population estimate. Between 2004 and 2014, the city issued an average of 377 building permits a year with the highest number of permits, 535, being issued in 2005 and the lowest number of permits, 254, issued in 2012. The city may average 581 new dwelling units a year over the next ten -year period (Table 5 and Figure 8). This average number is reflective of the type of construction which would likely occur based upon population projections and are accounting for both single - family and multi - family construction. Figure 8: Projected Dwelling Unit Estimations Land Use Assumptions Roadway Impact Fee Study Freese and Nichols, Inc. Page 15 An additional factor affecting overall population growth within Schertz is the construction of The Crossvine, a planned development in the southern sector of Schertz east of FM 1518. The master plan for this area includes between 2,300 and 2,400 single - family homes. The Crossvine Development The City has been reviewing its Comprehensive Plan and Future Land Use Plan in the area to the west of the Crossvine. This area is south of Randolph Air Force Base and is impacted by restrictions based on the Air Impact Compatible Use Zones (AICUZ) as outlined in the Joint Base San Antonio (JBSA) Randolph Joint Land Use Study (JLUS). The recently updated JBSA Randolph JLUS recommends significantly reduced residential densities for this area. Additionally, a lack of sewer capacity and concerns about allowing septic systems on half acre lots will likely reduce densities in this area from what is designated on the Future Land Use Plan. As sewer capacity is provided to the area to the east of FM 1518 pressure for corresponding increases in densities will likely continue to be experienced. Continuing residential development pressure in the northern part of Schertz, along IH -35 as well as pressure along IH -35 from New Braunfels in the north will impact the distribution of development, resulting in population and employment growth, around the City. Land Use Assumptions Roadway Impact Fee Study Freese and Nichols, Inc. Page 16 6.2 EMPLOYMENT 2027 Employment data for the year 2027 was based upon data provided by AAMPO and the City of Schertz. Data from AAMPO in the years 2025 and 2040 was used to interpolate the projected year 2027. The data was then adjusted to match growth rate and allocation expectations by the City. The 2027 employment by TAZ as listed in Table 6. It is important to note that TAZs do not follow city limits. City Staff input was received to verify employment assumptions in each TAZ regarding known or anticipated development to occur, projections of future land use needs and employee projections within each TAZ located within city limits. The employment numbers in Table 6 show the derived employment of each TAZ within Schertz's municipal boundary. Over 5,000 jobs are forecasted to be added to the city over the ten -year planning period and represents an increase of 45 percent. This increase corresponds to an annual growth rate of 3.8 percent. Table 6. 2025 Employment by Service Area Land Use Assumptions Roadway Impact Fee Study Freese and Nichols, Inc. Page 17 7.0 SUMMARY • The existing 2017 population for Schertz stands at approximately 40,339 persons, with an existing estimated employment of 11,201 jobs. • An average annual growth rate of 3.5 percent was used to calculate the Schertz ten -year growth projections. This growth rate is based upon the State Water Board Projections, the Parks Plan, City forecasts, historical U.S. Census data, as well as Building Permit information received from the City. • Ten -year (2027) population growth is forecasted to be 56,902 persons, with an employment of 16,247 jobs. Land Use Assumptions Roadway Impact Fee Study Freese and Nichols, Inc. Page 18 Table 7. Land Use Assumptions 2017 -2027 Summary Land Use Assumptions Roadway Impact Fee Study Freese and Nichols, Inc. Page 19 'Population Schertz Total 44;5 56,9f}2 16;a6 3.Si Service Area 1 9,239 12,211 2,972 2.8% Service Area 2 28,280 32,169 3,889 1.3% Service Area 3 2,809 12,454 9,645 16.1% Servi c Area 4 11 68 57 20.0% Dwelling Units; Schertz Total 14,407 24;322 Service Area 1 3,300 4,361 1,061 2.8% Service Area 2 10,100 11,489 1,389 1.3% Service Area 3 1,003 4,448 3,445 16.1% Service Area 4 4 24 20 20.0% Employment 5chertzTotal 11,201. 16,247 :5,046 3: Service Area 1 2,206 3,812 1,606 5.6% Basic 1,120 1,814 694 4.9% Reta i 1 468 785 317 5.3% Service 618 1,213 595 7.0% Servi ceArea 2 8,587 11,304 2,717 2.8% Basic 3,287 5,038 1,751 4.4% Reta i 1 2,449 2,996 547 2.0% Service 2,851 3,270 419 1.4% Servi ceArea 3 408 1,111 703 103% Basic 232 597 365 9.9% Reta i 1 108 340 232 12.2% Service 68 174 106 9.9% Servi c Area 4 0 20 20 Basic 0 0 0 - Reta i 1 0 0 0 - Service 0 20 20 - Land Use Assumptions Roadway Impact Fee Study Freese and Nichols, Inc. Page 19 Appendix H: Roadway Service Area Analysis Summary 3 LL E m � Q N E � R @ Q R � d' Q L V s .2 N M v s � N N O W y d o ro o � (V r c+l N H3 fR EA fA fA � I p a U a+ M rn W N M E a$ V N V I ° O U i ti ° s m o°rn � o M crno rn rn mp Q� N rn CD m N 3 U a N N v rn m i Z Ln M co � m V a > O O a � o O En En En O U a s �- m J a � s p 6 M m y � 3 Z a G N a p p z O V A M d C a p w j U L,5 � fA � sA 64 M O o o U a V O mOM 0 W U a N Z rn M m c6 rn 9 9 A o � o m ti N o cornF� u°i p Ie�� rn rn T � t0 C t V N N d Z N N � r . w � a U m a t a a a Q N N N'o N N 'o M N G F- o o � � U r Z y Z � , O 0 0 0 r r z Q LL Q U y m Z Z w O z Q Z v f U j U z d WO w W N lo ❑ W , O n r > m x m U Z U N� _ _ Q OU U O m In ZW F U m o _z 0 0 0 w w U Z~ W Q Z r p z z> r a z o z U w w 00<3: UQ > N 0 Z g U d z R o_ o_ o_ o o „ r _o g r r w W t W W W O Q O Z U 0 W > > > g U O > OU > Q Q Q Q> Q r U r x Q w z r o z o w r 0 0 0 2 O U U O Appendix 1: Debt Service and Credit Analysis CITY OF SCHERTZ SCHEDULE OF PROJECTED DEBT ISSUANCE AND NET INTEREST COST [1] ROADWAY AREA 1 IMPACT FEE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN FOR THE TEN YEAR PERIOD 2018 TO 2027 TOTAL CIP INTEREST EXPENSE GROWTH YEAR YEAR DEBT ISSUE TEN YEAR PERIOD 2018 -2027 RELATED INTEREST INTEREST TOTAL 100.00% SERIES ALL SERIES 1 2018 7,509,843 225,295 225,295 225,295 2 2019 - 216,911 216,911 216,911 3 2020 - 208,275 208,275 208,275 4 2021 7,509,843 424,675 424,675 424,675 5 2022 - 407,128 407,128 407,128 6 2023 - 389,055 389,055 389,055 7 2024 7,509,843 595,736 595,736 595,736 8 2025 - 568,178 568,178 568,178 9 2026 - 539,793 539,793 539,793 10 2027 - 510,556 510,556 510,556 22,529,530 4,085,603 4,085,603 4,085,603 INTEREST REVENUE GROWTH AVG BAL TEN YEAR PERIOD 2018 -2027 RELATED 1 2018 7,509,843 30,039 30,039 30,039 2 2019 6,758,859 54,071 54,071 54,071 3 2020 6,007,875 72,094 72,094 72,094 4 2021 5,256,890 84,110 84,110 84,110 5 2022 4,505,906 90,118 90,118 90,118 6 2023 3,754,922 90,118 90,118 90,118 7 2024 3,003,937 84,110 84,110 84,110 8 2025 2,252,953 72,094 72,094 72,094 9 2026 1,501,969 54,071 54,071 54,071 10 2027 750,984 30,039 30,039 30,039 660,866 660,866 660,866 1 660,866 660,866 660,866 4 504,661 504,661 504,661 7 240,315 240,315 240,315 1,405,843 1,405,843 1,405,843 NET INTEREST EXPENSE $ 2,679,760 $ 2,679,760 [1] Assumptions: 1) Total Area 1 CIP cost is financed by 3 bond series, 2) interest rate on bond series is 3 %, 3) bond proceeds are fully expended equally over the 10 year period, and 4) the investment rate of return is capped at 4% at the end of the 10 year period, assuming 0.4% annual growth rate. CITY OF SCHERTZ SCHEDULE OF PROJECTED DEBT ISSUANCE AND NET INTEREST COST [1] ROADWAY AREA 2 IMPACT FEE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN FOR THE TEN YEAR PERIOD 2018 TO 2027 TOTAL CIP INTEREST EXPENSE GROWTH YEAR YEAR DEBT ISSUE TEN YEAR PERIOD 2018 -2027 RELATED INTEREST INTEREST TOTAL 100.00% SERIES ALL SERIES 1 2018 11,148,888 334,467 334,467 334,467 2 2019 - 322,019 322,019 322,019 3 2020 - 309,198 309,198 309,198 4 2021 11,148,888 630,460 630,460 630,460 5 2022 - 604,411 604,411 604,411 6 2023 - 577,580 577,580 577,580 7 2024 11,148,888 884,411 884,411 884,411 8 2025 - 843,499 843,499 843,499 9 2026 - 801,360 801,360 801,360 10 2027 - 757,957 757,957 757,957 33,446,663 6,065,363 6,065,363 6,065,363 INTEREST REVENUE GROWTH AVG BAL TEN YEAR PERIOD 2018 -2027 RELATED 1 2018 11,148,888 44,596 44,596 44,596 2 2019 10,033,999 80,272 80,272 80,272 3 2020 8,919,110 107,029 107,029 107,029 4 2021 7,804,221 124,868 124,868 124,868 5 2022 6,689,333 133,787 133,787 133,787 6 2023 5,574,444 133,787 133,787 133,787 7 2024 4,459,555 124,868 124,868 124,868 8 2025 3,344,666 107,029 107,029 107,029 9 2026 2,229,778 80,272 80,272 80,272 10 2027 1,114,889 44,596 44,596 44,596 981,102 981,102 981,102 1 981,102 981,102 981,102 4 749,205 749,205 749,205 7 356,764 356,764 356,764 2,087,072 2,087,072 2,087,072 NET INTEREST EXPENSE $ 3,978,291 $ 3,978,291 [1] Assumptions: 1) Total Area 2 CIP cost is financed by 3 bond series, 2) interest rate on bond series is 3 %, 3) bond proceeds are fully expended equally over the 10 year period, and 4) the investment rate of return is capped at 4% at the end of the 10 year period, assuming 0.4% annual growth rate. CITY OF SCHERTZ SCHEDULE OF PROJECTED DEBT ISSUANCE AND NET INTEREST COST [1] ROADWAY AREA 3 IMPACT FEE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN FOR THE TEN YEAR PERIOD 2018 TO 2027 TOTAL CIP INTEREST EXPENSE GROWTH YEAR YEAR DEBT ISSUE TEN YEAR PERIOD 2018 -2027 RELATED INTEREST INTEREST TOTAL 100.00% SERIES ALL SERIES 1 2018 8,029,444 240,883 240,883 240,883 2 2019 - 231,919 231,919 231,919 3 2020 - 222,685 222,685 222,685 4 2021 8,029,444 454,058 454,058 454,058 5 2022 - 435,297 435,297 435,297 6 2023 - 415,974 415,974 415,974 7 2024 8,029,444 636,954 636,954 636,954 8 2025 - 607,489 607,489 607,489 9 2026 - 577,141 577,141 577,141 10 2027 - 545,881 545,881 545,881 24,088,331 4,368,282 4,368,282 4,368,282 INTEREST REVENUE GROWTH AVG BAL TEN YEAR PERIOD 2018 -2027 RELATED 1 2018 8,029,444 32,118 32,118 32,118 2 2019 7,226,499 57,812 57,812 57,812 3 2020 6,423,555 77,083 77,083 77,083 4 2021 5,620,611 89,930 89,930 89,930 5 2022 4,817,666 96,353 96,353 96,353 6 2023 4,014,722 96,353 96,353 96,353 7 2024 3,211,777 89,930 89,930 89,930 8 2025 2,408,833 77,083 77,083 77,083 9 2026 1,605,889 57,812 57,812 57,812 10 2027 802,944 32,118 32,118 32,118 706,591 706,591 706,591 1 706,591 706,591 706,591 4 539,579 539,579 539,579 7 256,942 256,942 256,942 1,503,112 1,503,112 1,503,112 NET INTEREST EXPENSE $ 2,865,171 $ 2,865,171 [1] Assumptions: 1) Total Area 3 CIP cost is financed by 3 bond series, 2) interest rate on bond series is 3 %, 3) bond proceeds are fully expended equally over the 10 year period, and 4) the investment rate of return is capped at 4% at the end of the 10 year period, assuming 0.4% annual growth rate. CITY OF SCHERTZ SCHEDULE OF PROJECTED DEBT ISSUANCE AND NET INTEREST COST [1] ROADWAY AREA 4 IMPACT FEE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN FOR THE TEN YEAR PERIOD 2018 TO 2027 TOTAL CIP INTEREST EXPENSE GROWTH YEAR YEAR DEBT ISSUE TEN YEAR PERIOD 2018 -2027 RELATED INTEREST INTEREST TOTAL 100.00% SERIES ALL SERIES 1 2018 116,545 3,496 3,496 3,496 2 2019 - 3,366 3,366 3,366 3 2020 - 3,232 3,232 3,232 4 2021 116,545 6,591 6,591 6,591 5 2022 - 6,318 6,318 6,318 6 2023 - 6,038 6,038 6,038 7 2024 116,545 9,245 9,245 9,245 8 2025 - 8,818 8,818 8,818 9 2026 - 8,377 8,377 8,377 10 2027 - 7,923 7,923 7,923 349,635 63,405 63,405 63,405 INTEREST REVENUE GROWTH AVG BAL TEN YEAR PERIOD 2018 -2027 RELATED 1 2018 116,545 466 466 466 2 2019 104,891 839 839 839 3 2020 93,236 1,119 1,119 1,119 4 2021 81,582 1,305 1,305 1,305 5 2022 69,927 1,399 1,399 1,399 6 2023 58,273 1,399 1,399 1,399 7 2024 46,618 1,305 1,305 1,305 8 2025 34,964 1,119 1,119 1,119 9 2026 23,309 839 839 839 10 2027 11,655 466 466 466 10,256 10,256 10,256 1 10,256 10,256 10,256 4 7,832 7,832 7,832 7 3,729 3,729 3,729 21,817 21,817 21,817 NET INTEREST EXPENSE $ 41,588 $ 41,588 [1] Assumptions: 1) Total Area 4 CIP cost is financed by 3 bond series, 2) interest rate on bond series is 3 %, 3) bond proceeds are fully expended equally over the 10 year period, and 4) the investment rate of return is capped at 4% at the end of the 10 year period, assuming 0.4% annual growth rate. City of Schertz, Texas 2017 Roadway Impact Fee Update Plan for Awarding the Roadway Impact Fee Credit Texas Local Government Code Section 395 "Financing Capital Improvements Required by New Development in Municipalities, Counties, and Certain Other Local Governments" requires the Capital Improvements Plan (CIP) to contain specific enumeration of a plan for awarding the impact fee credit. Section 395.014, Texas Local Government Code states: "... (a) The political subdivision shall use qualified professionals to prepare the capital improvements plan and to calculate the impact fee. The capital improvements plan must contain specific enumeration of the following items: (7) A plan for awarding: (A) a credit for the portion of ad valorem tax and utility service revenues generated by new service units during the program period that is used for the payment of improvements, including the payment of debt, that are included in the capital improvements plan; or (B) In the alternative, a credit equal to 50 percent of the total projected cost of implementing the capital improvements plan...." City of Schertz street CIP improvements are funded from long term debt. The portion of ad valorem tax generated by the new service units during the program period is estimated to equal the interest and sinking (I &S) tax levy to fund ten years of debt service payments for the long term debt that are issued to fund the growth related street CIP projects. To estimate the growth related street CIP debt service amount, the FY17 -18 annual budgeted AS tax levy is adjusted proportionately for voter approved street CIP projects. The figures used in this calculation are as follows: Annual Amount of Ad Valorem Tax Generated by New Development Used for the Payment of Debt 1 Total voter appro\/ed tax supported debt obligations [1] $68,375,000 2 Voter approved amount for streets, sidewalks & drainage [1] $27,000,000 3 Percentage of voter approved debt allocated for streets, sidewalks & drainage Line 2 / Line 1 39.49% 4 2018 I &S Fund tax levy 6,030,353 5 Annual Amount of Ad Valorem Tax Generated by New Development Used for the Payment of Debt (Line 3 X Line 4) $2,381,273 [1] Source: City of Schertz 2014 -15 Debt Information Summary The maximum impact fee is expressed in dollars per vehicle -mile. The RWIF credit per vehicle -mile is calculated by dividing the annual portion of estimated property tax by the current total vehicle -mile of demand: Roadway Impact Fee Credit Per Vehicle -Mile (Veh -Mi 1 Annual Amount of Ad Valorem Tax Generated by New Development Used for the Payment of Debt $2,381,273 2 Current Veh -Mi of Demand 17,181 3 RWIF Credit per Veh -Mi Line 1 / Line 2 $138.60 The $138.60 credit per vehicle mile is multiplied times the ten -year cumulative total of vehicle miles of demand by service area to equal the CIP credit by service area. Prepared by. Eddie Peacock, Consultant Eddie Peacock, PLLC Page 1 of 4 City of Schertz, Texas 2017 Roadway Impact Fee Update Plan for Awarding the Roadway Impact Fee Credit The cumulative total vehicle -miles by service area are derived from the total projected ten year demand of vehicle miles by service area applied equally over the ten -year period. Service Area 1 Ten Year Cumulative Total of Veh -Mi of New Demand Yri Yd Annual Annual Cumulative 1 Vehicle Miles of New Demand 1,046 1,791 1,046 2 Vehicle Miles of New Demand 1,046 1,791 2,092 3 Vehicle Miles of New Demand 1,046 1,791 3,138 4 Vehicle Miles of New Demand 1,046 1,791 41184 5 Vehicle Miles of New Demand 1,046 1,791 5,231 6 Vehicle Miles of New Demand 1,046 1,791 6,277 7 Vehicle Miles of New Demand 1,046 1,791 7,323 8 Vehicle Miles of New Demand 1,046 1,791 8,369 9 Vehicle Miles of New Demand 1,046 1,791 9,415 10 Vehicle Miles of New Demand 1,0461 1,791 1 10,461 17,905 TOTAL 10,4611 1 17,905 57,536 Service Area 2 Ten Year Cumulative Total of Veh -Mi of New Demand Yd Annual Cumulative 1 Vehicle Miles of New Demand 1,791 1,791 2 Vehicle Miles of New Demand 1,791 3,581 3 Vehicle Miles of New Demand 1,791 5,372 4 Vehicle Miles of New Demand 1,791 7,162 5 Vehicle Miles of New Demand 1,791 8,953 6 Vehicle Miles of New Demand 1,791 10,743 7 Vehicle Miles of New Demand 1,791 12,534 8 Vehicle Miles of New Demand 1,791 14,324 9 Vehicle Miles of New Demand 1,791 16,115 10 Vehicle Miles of New Demand 1,791 17,905 TOTAL 1 17,905 98,478 Service Area 3 Ten Year Cumulative Total of Veh -Mi of New Demand Yri Annual Cumulative 1 Vehicle Miles of New Demand 1,492 1,492 2 Vehicle Miles of New Demand 1,492 2,984 3 Vehicle Miles of New Demand 1,492 4,475 4 Vehicle Miles of New Demand 1,492 5,967 5 Vehicle Miles of New Demand 1,492 7,459 6 Vehicle Miles of New Demand 1,492 8,951 7 Vehicle Miles of New Demand 1,492 10,443 8 Vehicle Miles of New Demand 1,492 11,934 9 Vehicle Miles of New Demand 1,492 13,426 10 Vehicle Miles of New Demand 11492 14,918 TOTAL 14,9181 1 2,049 Prepared by: Eddie Peacock, Consultant Eddie Peacock, PLLC Page 2 of 4 City of Schertz, Texas 2017 Roadway Impact Fee Update Plan for Awarding the Roadway Impact Fee Credit Service Area 4 Ten Year Cumulative Total of Veh -Mi of New Demand Yri (B) Annual (D) Cumulative 1 Vehicle Miles of New Demand 12 Annual 12 2 Vehicle Miles of New Demand 12 Demand 25 3 Vehicle Miles of New Demand 12 Area 37 4 Vehicle Miles of New Demand 12 Service Area 50 5 Vehicle Miles of New Demand 12 $138.60 62 6 Vehicle Miles of New Demand 12 98,478 74 7 Vehicle Miles of New Demand 12 1,492 87 8 Vehicle Miles of New Demand 12 124 99 9 Vehicle Miles of New Demand 12 Totals 112 10 Vehicle Miles of New Demand 12 $33,090,057 124 to Growth TOTAL 1241 1 682 The $138.60 credit per vehicle mile is multiplied times the ten year cumulative total of vehicle miles of demand by service area to equal the CIP credit by service area: City of Schertz 2017 Roadway Impact Fee Study Update New Roadway Vehicle -Miles and Credit per Service Area - 10 Year Impact Fee Period (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) (G) Projected 10yr Annual 10 YR Cumulative $ PER CIP Credit Service Demand Demand Demand VEH -MI by Area (veh- miles) (veh - miles) Total CREDIT Service Area 1 10,461 1,046 57,536 $138.60 $7,974,490 2 17,905 1,791 98,478 $138.60 $13,649,051 3 14,918 1,492 82,049 $138.60 $11,371,991 4 124 12 682 $138.60 $94,525 Totals 43,408 4,341 238,745 $138.60 $33,090,057 Calculation of the maximum impact fee after the credit by service area (column 1) is illustrated in the following table: City of Schertz 2017 Impact Fee Study Update Calculation of the Maximum Impact Fee After the the Credit b Service Area (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) (G) (H) (1) (C) X (D) (F) -(E) (F) /(A) (G) /(A) Cost Projected 10yr Annual Cumulative $ PER CIP Credit Cost Attributable Base Maximum Service Demand Demand Demand VEH -MI by Attributable to Growth Maximum Impact Fee Area veh-miles) (veh-miles) Total CREDIT Service Area to Growth Less Credit Impact Fee after Credit 1 10,461 1,046 57,536 $138.60 $7,974,490 25,209,290 $17,234,800 $2,409.84 $1,647.53 2 17,905 1,791 98,478 $138.60 $13,649,051 37,424,954 $23,775,903 $2,090.20 $1,327.89 3 14,918 1,492 82,049 $138.60 $11,371,991 26,953,502 $15,581,511 $1,806.78 $1,044.48 4 124 12 682 $138.60 $94,525 391,223 $296,698 $3,155.02 $2,392.72 Totals 43,408 4,341 238,745 $138.60 $33,090,057 89,978,969 $56,888,912 $2,072.87 $1,310.56 The CIP credit by service area (column E) is subtracted from the cost attributable to growth by service area (column F) to result in the cost attributable to growth less credit by service area (column G). Prepared by: Eddie Peacock, Consultant Eddie Peacock, PLLC Page 3 of 4 City of Schertz, Texas 2017 Roadway Impact Fee Update Plan for Awarding the Roadway Impact Fee Credit The maximum impact fee per vehicle -mile after the credit per service area (column 1) is calculated by dividing the cost attributable to growth less credit (column G) divided by the projected 10 year demand (Column A). A comparison to the base maximum impact fee and 50% reduction follows: City of Schertz 2017 Roadway Impact Fee Study Update Comparison of the Base Maximum Impact Fee to the 50% Maximum Impact Fee and Maximum Impact fee after the Credit by Service Area (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) 50% Alternative After the Credit Base Fee per Maximum Fee Maximum % of Base Maximum Fee Service Maximum Service Unit per Single Family Impact Fee after Maximum per Single Family Area I Impact Fee @ 50% Discount 1 Dwelling Unit 1 the Credit Impact Fee Dwelling Unit 1 1 $2,409.84 $1,204.92 $4,060.58 $1,647.53 68.37% $5,552.18 2 $2,090.20 $1,045.10 $3,521.99 $1,327.89 63.53% $4,474.99 3 $1,806.78 $903.39 $3,044.42 $1,044.48 57.81% $3,519.90 4 $3,155.02 $1,577.51 $5,316.21 $2,392.72 75.84% $8,063.47 [11 Based on service unit equivalency of 3.37 veh -miles per development unit. Prepared by: Eddie Peacock, Consultant Eddie Peacock, PLLC Page 4 of 4 LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS Prepared for: City of Schertz 141611TWUll 1 I WAMAIZITI October 2017 Prepared by: FREESE AND NICHOLS, INC. 2711 North Haskell Avenue, Suite 3300 Dallas, Texas 75204 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 PURPOSE ....................................................................................................................... ............................... 2 1.1 Land Use Assumptions Report Elements ....................................................... ..............................2 2.0 METHODOLOGY ........................................................................................................... ..............................3 3.0 ROADWAY SERVICE AREAS .................................................................................... ..............................4 3.1 Roadway Service Areas ........................................................................................ ............................... 5 3.2 Data Format ............................................................................................................... ..............................6 4.0 HISTORICAL DATA ..................................................................................................... ..............................7 5.0 BASE YEAR DATA ........................................................................................................ ..............................8 5.1 Population Growth ................................................................................................ ............................... 8 5.2 Population Growth Rate ...................................................................................... ............................... 8 5.3 Additional Growth Indicators ............................................................................. ..............................9 5.4 Existing Land Use .................................................................................................. .............................10 5.5 2017 Employment ................................................................................................ .............................11 6.0 TEN -YEAR GROWTH ASSUMPTIONS .............................................................. ............................... 13 6.1 Population 2027 .................................................................................................... .............................14 6.2 Employment 2027 ................................................................................................ .............................17 7.0 SUMMARY .................................................................................................................... .............................18 1.0 PURPOSE Chapter 395 of the Texas Local Government Code prescribes the process by which cities in Texas must formulate impact fees. An initial step in the impact fee development process is the establishment of land use assumptions which address growth and development for a ten -year planning period (TLGC Section 395.001(5)) for the years 2017 -2027. These land use assumptions, which also include population and employment projections, will become the basis for the preparation of capital improvement plans for roadway facilities. Statutory requirements mandate that impact fees be updated (at least) every five years. This report, in conjunction with the roadway capital improvements plan, form the initial key components of an impact fee program. To assist the City of Schertz in determining the need and timing of capital improvements to serve future development, a reasonable estimation of future growth is required. The purpose of this report is to formulate growth and development projections based upon assumptions pertaining to the type, location, quantity and timing of various future land uses within the community and to establish and document the methodology used for preparing the growth and land use assumptions. 1.1 LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS REPORT ELEMENTS This report contains the following components: • Methodology - Explanation of the general methodology used to prepare the land use assumptions. • Data Collection Zones and Service Area - Explanation of data collection zones (traffic analysis zones), and division of the city into impact fee service areas for roadway facilities. • Historical Data — Information on historic population trends for Schertz and Guadalupe, Bexar, and Comal Counties. • Base Year Data - Information on population, employment, and land use for Schertz as of 2015 for each roadway service area. • Ten -Year Growth Assumptions - Population and employment growth assumptions for ten years by impact fee service area. • Summary - Brief synopsis of the land use assumptions report. Land Use Assumptions Roadway Impact Fee Study Freese and Nichols, Inc. Page 2 2.0 METHODOLOGY Based upon the growth assumptions and the capital improvements needed to support growth, it is possible to develop an impact fee structure which fairly allocates improvement costs to growth areas in relationship to their impact upon the entire infrastructure system. The data in this report has been formulated using reasonable and generally accepted planning principles for the preparation of impact fee systems in Texas. These land use assumptions and future growth projections take into consideration several factors influencing development patterns, including the following: • The character, type, density, and quantity of existing development • Anticipated future land use (City's Future Land Use Plan Map); • Availability of land for future expansion; • Current and historical growth trends of population and development within the city; • Location and configuration of vacant land; • Growth of employment per the Alamo Area Metropolitan Planning Organization ( AAMPO); • Known or anticipated development projects within the city, as identified by City Staff. A series of work tasks were undertaken in the development of this report and are described below: 1. A kick -off meeting was held to describe the general methodological approach in the study. 2. Current data of population and housing was collected from the city and other acceptable sources to serve as a basis for future growth. 3. A base year (2017) estimate was developed using city building permit data, U.S. Census and periodic population, household occupancy and household size data, and employment data from AAMPO. 4. A growth rate was determined based upon an analysis of data from recent building permit data, Texas Development Water Board, past growth trends and anticipated development to occur over the next ten -year planning period. A compound annual growth rate of 3.5% is recommended for the planning period. 5. A ten -year projection (2027) was prepared using the recommended growth rate, Staff input, and consideration of the future allocation of population and employment in the AAMPO regional traffic forecast model. Finally, adjustments were then made to consider known or anticipated development activity within the ten -year planning period. Land Use Assumptions Roadway Impact Fee Study Freese and Nichols, Inc. Page 3 6. Base and ten -year demographics were prepared for the various roadway service areas which, in turn, correlate with the current municipal limits of Schertz. 3.0 ROADWAY SERVICE Service areas are required by State Law to define the area served by the Roadway Impact program. Chapter 395 requires that service areas be defined to ensure that facility improvements are located in proximity to the area that is generating needs. Roadway service areas are different from water /wastewater impact fee service areas in that roadway service areas can consider only current city limits but not the extra - territorial jurisdiction (ETJ) while water /wastewater service areas can include both the city limits and ETJ. This is primarily because roadway networks are "open" systems to both local and regional use as opposed to a defined limit of service that is provided within water and wastewater systems. The result is that new development can only be assessed an impact fee based on the cost of necessary capital improvements within that service area. Chapter 395 stipulates that roadway service areas be limited to a six -mile maximum dimension, but must be limited to within the current city limits. Although the roadway service areas only recognize current municipal limits, an analysis including the ETJ was conducted in order to consider long -term coverage of the ultimate corporate boundaries relative to the six -mile maximum for the impact fee program. Figure 1 illustrates the roadway impact fee service areas within the ETJ. Land Use Assumptions Roadway Impact Fee Study Freese and Nichols, Inc. Page 4 3.1 ROADWAY SERVICE AREAS Figure 2 illustrates the derived service area structure for roadway facilities. These service areas conform to the current city limits of Schertz. Land Use Assumptions Roadway Impact Fee Study Freese and Nichols, Inc. Page 5 3.2 DATA FORMAT The existing database, as well as the future projections, was formulated according to the following format and categories: Service Area Correlates to the roadway service areas identified on the attached map. The city limits serve as the roadway service area boundary. Housing Units (2017) All living units including single - family, duplex, multi - family and group quarters existing at the middle of 2017. The number of existing housing units has been estimated for the base year (2017) population estimate. Housing Units (2027) Projected housing units by service zone for the year 2027 (ten -year growth projections). Population (2017) Existing estimated population for the base year (2017). Population (2027) Projected population by service zone for the year 2027 (ten -year growth projection). Employment (2017 -27) Employment data is aggregated to three employment sectors and include Basic, Retail and Service, as provided by AAM PO. These service sectors serve as the basis for nonresidential trip generation. The following details which types of businesses fall within each of the three sectors. Service -- Land use activities which provide personal and professional services such as financial, insurance, government, and other professional and administrative offices. Retail -- Land use activities which provide for the retail sale of goods that primarily serve households and whose location choice is oriented toward the household sector such as grocery stores, restaurants, etc. Basic -- Land use activities that produce goods and services such as those that are exported outside the local economy; manufacturing, construction, transportation, wholesale trade, warehousing and other industrial uses. AAMPO prepares employment estimates at the Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ) level, but some adjustments were needed to consider areas within the limits of the city. Land Use Assumptions Roadway Impact Fee Study Freese and Nichols, Inc. Page 6 Figure 3: Historic Population Growth; City of Schertz, Comal County and Guadalupe County, and Bexar County 35,000 30,0(}0 25,000 20,000 15,000 10,000 5,OW Land Use Assumptions Freese and Nichols, Inc. HISTORICAL Schertz is located approximately 16 miles northeast of downtown San Antonio and lies in Guadalupe, Bexar, and Comal Counties. Over the past several years, the Alamo Area region has experienced steady population and employment growth. Figure 3 depicts the historic population growth for the City of Schertz and Comal, Guadalupe, and Bexar Counties. Comal and Guadalupe Counties have maintained steady growth over the last 40 years with compound annual growth rates (CAGR) around 3.5 percent. Meanwhile, Bexar County, which encompasses the City of San Antonio has maintained a slower growth rate of 1.8 percent. The City of Schertz's population statistics begin in 1990. Between 1990 and 2010, population growth was steady with a CAGR between 3.5 and 4.5 percent. All indicators suggest that the city and regional population growth will continue in the near future. Roadway Impact Fee Study Page 7 5.0 BASE YEAR T This section provides information and documents the data used to derive the 2017 base year population estimate for the City of Schertz. 5.1 POPULATION GROWTH One method of predicting future growth is looking at past growth. Schertz has experienced steady growth over the past decade. Past growth trends from the U.S. Census were examined in conjunction with single family building permit data from the city (Figure 4). The city estimates a 2016 population estimate of 39,453 residents in Schertz using the U.S. Census Intercensal population data of previous years. 5.2 POPULATION GROWTH RATE A compound annual growth rate (CAGR) allows for a general assessment of growth, considering periodic increases and decreases in residential population growth coinciding with changing economic conditions. Various sources were used to derive past growth rates (Table 1). These sources indicated rates of growth between 2.6 and 4.1 percent. Based upon this data, analysis Land Use Assumptions Freese and Nichols, Inc. Figure 4: Schertz Population Growth Trends Table 1: Growth Rates Source Growth U.S. Census (5- Year)* 3.4% U.S. Census (10- Year) ** 3.5% Future Growth Projection 3.5% *CAGR Based on 2011 -2016 Intercensal Data * *CAGR Based on 2006 -2016 Intercensal Data Roadway Impact Fee Study Page 8 Figure 5: Historic New Building Permits Source: City of Schertz Building Permits Table 2. Regional Growth Comparison Land Use Assumptions Freese and Nichols, Inc. of 10 -year forecasts, and City Staff input, a 3.5 percent compound annual growth rate was determined to be an appropriate assumption for the 10 -year study period. It is believed to account for periods of rapid and stable growth expected to occur in the future. This rate was recommended by the Schertz Capital Improvements Advisory Committee on May 13, 2015. 5.3 ADDITIONAL GROWTH INDICATORS Residential building permit data is also an indicator of recent growth trends. Cumulative single family residential building permits issued since 2000 are shown in Figure S. Annual single family residential building permits are shown to the left, depicting the overall trend in annual permits. Although building permits issued decreased after 2003, the issuance has remained steady over the last few of years. From 2011 to 2016, the trend shows a rate that will maintain permit issuance and growth in the future. Local population projections shown in Table 2 indicate that growth will continue in Schertz in the future. These population projections from the Texas Water Development Board (TWDB), City of Schertz Parks Plan and City of Schertz Population Projections indicate robust growth is likely and will continue for the next 35 years. Roadway Impact Fee Study Page 9 5.4 EXISTING LAND USE In any evaluation and projection of future land use patterns, a documentation of existing conditions is essential. Analysis of existing land use patterns was prepared based on Schertz's 2013 Sector Plan and 2002 Comprehensive Plan, which includes current city limits and the ET1. This also serves to document the present physical condition of the city with regard to any infrastructure deficiencies that may exist. Land Use Assumptions Roadway Impact Fee Study Freese and Nichols, Inc. Page 10 5.5 2017 EMPLOYMENT 2017 base employment was calculated using data from AAMPO. This information provided a breakout of employment by Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ) for 2010. Figure 6 shows the location of the TAZs in each service area. For assumption purposes, these numbers were grown uniformly with specific adjustments made to TAZs to match estimates provided bythe city. It is important to note that the TAZs do not follow city limits in some locations, so adjustments were made based on the locations of existing land uses and upon the percentage of each TAZ located within city limits. AAMPO employment data was categorized as basic, retail, and service (see page 6 for a description of the employment categories). Using this data, the total employment could be found for basic, retail and service businesses in each service area (SA). Table 3 details 2017 employment within Schertz's city limits for each TAZ. Table 3. 2017 Employment by Service Area Land Use Assumptions Roadway Impact Fee Study Freese and Nichols, Inc. Page 11 r � "s. ✓ �� f 1 0� 1144 / 114$ �` ✓" 770 # 1112 '4 1r 1121"' "° ` 5 i� �� 1143 tu'@ t � 1106, of ° ?71 F 1113 1457 E 11 2 '�� X y 7111$ 4 1 1145 ; 2a 1088 E` ' 772'x' 7 ?81 1123 4 tm�°�� 1167 i�� �,..,� 10 9. a 1124 y �. 1144 101` caw w J 524 W!" 1116 » ,„ . ` f ;,1125 1 95 kt� _ N COMNtNdCtv.9ERMCGr: grrPGR%4NITY 5 Land Use Assumptions Freese and Nichols, Inc. 779*'° rzwr rxnrox:r.�xrxu+o` "0" �. rt1;1',,„� 1094 778 1^780 w ^ ' �� , .� S�bow y,,aar 1140 4 d' i Service Areas e as 2 Excludetl from IFEE dl 2(ETJ) Excluded from IFEE IETJ) r 7$5 0 1 2 3_ t Miles ;. S FN J08 N0 SRZ1535fi 2017 Schertz Roadway Impact Fee , eArras,m:m GATE September s,l 7 6 SCALE 1:80,000 Traffic Analysis Zones Figure °RAFTS° Dare Roadway Impact Fee Study Page 12 6.0 TEN-YEAR GROWTH ASSUMPTIONS Projected growth has been characterized in two forms: population and employment. A series of assumptions were made to arrive at reasonable growth rates for population and employment. The following assumptions have been made as a basis from which ten -year projections could be initiated. • Future land uses will occur based on similar trends of the past and consistent with the Future Land Use Plan Map, • The city will be able to finance the necessary improvements to accommodate growth, • School facilities will accommodate increases in population, and • Densities will be as projected in the Sector Plans. The ten -year projections are based upon the 3.5 percent growth rate discussed earlier and considers past trends of the city. This rate corresponds with the historical average growth rate and the amount of growth expected over the next ten years. Table 4 details the ten -year population projection. Table 4. Year 2017 and 2027 Service Area Population and Dwelling Units Land Use Assumptions Roadway Impact Fee Study Freese and Nichols, Inc. Page 13 6.1 POPULATION 2027 The city has experienced steady growth over the past decade. The city's 2000 population stood at just over 18,000 residents. By the end of the decade, Schertz's population neared 32,000 in 2010 and a current 2017 estimate of 40,339. Although population estimates from the ETJ cannot be taken into account when calculating land use assumptions, the growing population within the ETJ should be monitored as the city plans its future. Using a 3.5 percent compound annual growth rate, the projected 2027 population for the city is 56,902 (Figure 7). Figure 7: Ten -Year Population Growth Projection Land Use Assumptions Roadway Impact Fee Study Freese and Nichols, Inc. Page 14 Table 5: Projected Dwelling Unit Estimations Avg. No. of Annual Permits: 581 Building permit calculations were derived using the U.S. Census information of 2.85 persons per household and base year population estimate. Between 2004 and 2014, the city issued an average of 377 building permits a year with the highest number of permits, 535, being issued in 2005 and the lowest number of permits, 254, issued in 2012. The city may average 581 new dwelling units a year over the next ten -year period (Table 5 and Figure 8). This average number is reflective of the type of construction which would likely occur based upon population projections and are accounting for both single - family and multi - family construction. Figure 8: Projected Dwelling Unit Estimations Land Use Assumptions Roadway Impact Fee Study Freese and Nichols, Inc. Page 15 An additional factor affecting overall population growth within Schertz is the construction of The Crossvine, a planned development in the southern sector of Schertz east of FM 1518. The master plan for this area includes between 2,300 and 2,400 single - family homes. The Crossvine Development The City has been reviewing its Comprehensive Plan and Future Land Use Plan in the area to the west of the Crossvine. This area is south of Randolph Air Force Base and is impacted by restrictions based on the Air Impact Compatible Use Zones (AICUZ) as outlined in the Joint Base San Antonio (JBSA) Randolph Joint Land Use Study (JLUS). The recently updated JBSA Randolph JLUS recommends significantly reduced residential densities for this area. Additionally, a lack of sewer capacity and concerns about allowing septic systems on half acre lots will likely reduce densities in this area from what is designated on the Future Land Use Plan. As sewer capacity is provided to the area to the east of FM 1518 pressure for corresponding increases in densities will likely continue to be experienced. Continuing residential development pressure in the northern part of Schertz, along IH -35 as well as pressure along IH -35 from New Braunfels in the north will impact the distribution of development, resulting in population and employment growth, around the City. Land Use Assumptions Roadway Impact Fee Study Freese and Nichols, Inc. Page 16 6.2 EMPLOYMENT 2027 Employment data for the year 2027 was based upon data provided by AAMPO and the City of Schertz. Data from AAMPO in the years 2025 and 2040 was used to interpolate the projected year 2027. The data was then adjusted to match growth rate and allocation expectations by the City. The 2027 employment by TAZ as listed in Table 6. It is important to note that TAZs do not follow city limits. City Staff input was received to verify employment assumptions in each TAZ regarding known or anticipated development to occur, projections of future land use needs and employee projections within each TAZ located within city limits. The employment numbers in Table 6 show the derived employment of each TAZ within Schertz's municipal boundary. Over 5,000 jobs are forecasted to be added to the city over the ten -year planning period and represents an increase of 45 percent. This increase corresponds to an annual growth rate of 3.8 percent. Table 6. 2025 Employment by Service Area Land Use Assumptions Roadway Impact Fee Study Freese and Nichols, Inc. Page 17 7.0 SUMMARY • The existing 2017 population for Schertz stands at approximately 40,339 persons, with an existing estimated employment of 11,201 jobs. • An average annual growth rate of 3.5 percent was used to calculate the Schertz ten -year growth projections. This growth rate is based upon the State Water Board Projections, the Parks Plan, City forecasts, historical U.S. Census data, as well as Building Permit information received from the City. • Ten -year (2027) population growth is forecasted to be 56,902 persons, with an employment of 16,247 jobs. Land Use Assumptions Roadway Impact Fee Study Freese and Nichols, Inc. Page 18 Table 7. Land Use Assumptions 2017 -2027 Summary Land Use Assumptions Roadway Impact Fee Study Freese and Nichols, Inc. Page 19 'Population Schertz Total 44;5 56,9f}2 16;a6 3.Si Service Area 1 9,239 12,211 2,972 2.8% Service Area 2 28,280 32,169 3,889 1.3% Service Area 3 2,809 12,454 9,645 16.1% Servi c Area 4 11 68 57 20.0% Dwelling Units; Schertz Total 14,407 24;322 Service Area 1 3,300 4,361 1,061 2.8% Service Area 2 10,100 11,489 1,389 1.3% Service Area 3 1,003 4,448 3,445 16.1% Service Area 4 4 24 20 20.0% Employment 5chertzTotal 11,201. 16,247 :5,046 3: Service Area 1 2,206 3,812 1,606 5.6% Basic 1,120 1,814 694 4.9% Reta i 1 468 785 317 5.3% Service 618 1,213 595 7.0% Servi ceArea 2 8,587 11,304 2,717 2.8% Basic 3,287 5,038 1,751 4.4% Reta i 1 2,449 2,996 547 2.0% Service 2,851 3,270 419 1.4% Servi ceArea 3 408 1,111 703 103% Basic 232 597 365 9.9% Reta i 1 108 340 232 12.2% Service 68 174 106 9.9% Servi c Area 4 0 20 20 Basic 0 0 0 - Reta i 1 0 0 0 - Service 0 20 20 - Land Use Assumptions Roadway Impact Fee Study Freese and Nichols, Inc. Page 19 Roadway Impact Fee Study Land Use Assumptions Freese and Nichols, Inc. Page 20 ffit March 5, 2018 The Honorable Michael Carpenter, Mayor and Members of the Schertz City Council City of Schertz 1400 Schertz Parkway Schertz, TX 78154 :Roadway Impact Fee Capital Improvements Advisory Committee Recommendations Dear Mayor Carpenter and Members of the City Council: The City of Schertz Capital Improvements Advisory Committee (CIAC) has been working with City staff and the consulting firm of Freese and Nichols, Inc. (FNI), since October, 2017, on the guiding documents and policy considerations for a Roadway Impact Fee program to potentially be implemented by the City. In accordance with Texas Local Government Code (TLGC) Chapter 395, the CIAC is tasked with providing a recommendation to City Council regarding Roadway Impact Fees. After consideration of the Land Use Assumptions, Capital Improvements Plan for Roadway Facilities, the Roadway Impact Fee Study Report prepared by FNI, and input gathered and presented by staff from City Boards and Commissions and focus groups from the development and business community, the CIAC recommends the following: ® Adoption of the Roadway Impact Fee cost per service unit for residential development of $600 during the first two years of the program, $800 during the third year, $900 during the fourth year, and $1,000 during the fifth year. Based on those fee amounts, the collection rate for a single family dwelling unit will be $2,022 during years one and two, and $2,696, $3,033, and $3,370 during years three, four, and five, respectively. a Adoption of the Roadway Impact Fee cost per service unit for non - residential development of $100 during the first three years and increasing to $175 for years four and five. The CIAC further recommends the following phase -in schedule for the assessment of the proposed fees: ® Development on a lot for which a plat has been recorded prior to adoption of the roadway impact fee ordinance will not be charged the fee for any complete building permit application submitted within 18 months after the adoption of the impact fee. 1400 Schertz Parkway Schertz, Texas 78154 210- 619 -1000 ® Development on a lot for which a preliminary plat was approved prior to adoption . of the ordinance will not be charged an impact fee for any complete building permit application submitted within 1 year after the adoption of the impact fee. ® Any other development will be charged an impact fee for a complete building permit application submitted after the date of adoption of the ordinance. The CIAC agreed that the Impact Fee Program as described above is necessary to assist in the funding for critical roadway projects needed to accommodate future growth, while maintaining the character and quality of life envisioned by City residents in the Comprehensive Plan. Sincerely, f $.< Michael Dahle Chairman, CIAO cc:Brian James, Acting City Manager 10 Commercial Place, Bldg #2 Schertz, Texas 78154 210 -619 -1823 Special Meeting of the Capital Improvements Advisory Committee Minutes February 7, 2018 The Capital Improvements Advisory Committee convened on Wednesday, February 7, 2018 at 6:00 P.M. in the Council Chambers, 1400 Schertz Parkway, Bldg. 4 Schertz, Texas. Members Present: Staff Present: Michael Dahle Brian James, Acting City Manager Richard Braud Lesa Wood, Director of Planning and Community Ken Greenwald Development Gordon Rae Kathy Woodlee, City Engineer LaDonna Bacon Daniel Santee, City Attorney Tim Brown Dr. Mark Penshorn Members Absent: Glen Outlaw Ernest Evans 1. Call to order by each governing Mr. Dahle called the CIAC meeting to order at 6:00 2 A. Hold a public hearing, discussion, and possible action to approve recommendation to City Council regarding adoption of a Roadway Impact Fee. Kathy Woodlee, City Engineer, gave a presentation on the background and purpose for the Roadway Impact Fee Study, and the Impact fee Cost per Service Unit Calculations. Mrs. Woodlee presented the explanation for the special scheduled meeting as the need to discuss the policy consideration options to have a possible action to approve recommendation to City Council The special consideration options are needed to establish the actual impact fees to be charged. Mrs. Woodlee indicated to the Committee the special policy considerations include: if the Road way Impact Fee should be the same rate city -wide, vs. different fee in different service areas; if there should be different fee rates for residential vs. non - residential; if there should be a cap established for the maximum total fee charged; if there should be incremental fee increases; and if there should be a phase -in of fee imposition. Mrs. Woodlee indicated that Staff recommends approval of same rate City -Wide; adoption of different fee rates for residential vs. non - residential development; no cap for maximum fee collected for development; adoption of incremental increases to residential fees; and no incremental increases over the first 5 years for non - residential fees. Additionally, Staff recommends the establishment of a phase -in plan so that development on property for which a plat is recorded prior to adoption of the roadway impact fee ordinance will not be charged the fee for building permits submitted within 18 months after adoption and development on a property for which a preliminary plat is approved prior to the adoption of the roadway impact fee ordinance will not be charged the fee for building permits submitted within 12 months after adoption. Mrs. Woodlee provided exhibits in her presentation including comparison of roadway impact fees and other costs of development among Schertz and other municipalities. She also presented some potential fee generation based on the staff recommended rates per service unit and typical annual development distributed among the service areas. Mrs. Woodlee explained the role of the CIAC and the need for a written recommendation regarding the rate(s) and policy considerations to City Council from the CIAC. Mr. Dahle opened the Public Hearing at 6:20 P.M. There were no residents who spoke. Mr. Dahle closed the public hearing at 6:21 P.M. There was a discussion between the Committee and staff regarding the Roadway Impact Fee Study, and the special policy considerations regarding fee rates for residential vs. non- residential, not establishing a cap for maximum fee, incremental increases, and phase -in of fee imposition. There was a brief discussion regarding water and sewer impact fee and the fact that the City is charging the maximum allowable rates for those. Committee and staff had a discussion changing the staff - recommended service unit rate for non - residential to to incorporate an incremental increase from $100 to $175 in the fourth and fifth years. Mr. James brought up the discussion regarding recommendation for approval on the vehicle mile credit basis for roads constructed. Mr. James briefly discussed the rough proportionality mechanism. Mr. Brand motioned to approve recommendation that we adopt r adjustment to non - residential fees in( year. Mr. Greenwald seconded the n 3. Adjournment. Chairman Dahle adjourned the CIA1 the Capital Improvements Advisory Committee makes a impact fee amounts as recommended by staff with the from $100 per service unit to $175 per service unit in the fourth he vote was 7 -0, motion carried. =21100551 THE STATE OF TEXAS COUNTIES TIES OF BEXAR, COMAL, AND GUADALUPE r I E, SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO before me, the undersigned authority, on the 91h day *f February 2018, to verify which witness my hand and seal of office. Notary Publi State of exas SAN ANTONIO EXPRESS -NEWS AND mySA.com I B5 Wil lead governments around the world to tighten emis- sions regulations and shift their economies away from fossil fuels. "Technology and in- novation is more of a theme that it has ever been before," said Yergin, author of The Prize, the definitive history of the oil industry, "The focus of the oil and gas industry is on production, but it's also on using an immense amount Tito West / For the Express-News of data." Stacked drilling pipe is stacked at Abraxus Petroleum's Shut Eye Unit oil well Bartenders in Bexar County poured $46 million These issues will shape located south of San Antonio near Jourdanton in 2017. The energy industry is in worth of beer, wine and liquor in January. the discussion at research � flux, shaken up in part by the surge in U.S. oil and gas production. - I T J741A7ZX_!MJ= in Bexar County 1. AT&T Center: $847,842 2. JW Marriott San Antonio Hitt Country Resort & Spa: $743,685 3. La Cantera Resort & Spa: $506,474 4. Hyatt Regency Hitt Country Resort and Spa: $491,608 S. Alamodome: $399,354 6. Howl at the Moon: $389,751 7. Hotel Emma: $379,249 8. Grand Hyatt San Antonio: $361,963 9. Chelsea's Catering and Bar Service: $306,730 10. The Rustic: $302,085 11. Twin Peaks, 702 NW Loop 410: $278,357 12. Sugars: $260,193 13. Mad Dogs: $249,800 14. Topgoif USA San Antonio: $243,603 15. Bohanan's Prime Steaks and Seafood: $235,305 16. Ojos Locos Sports Cantina: $232,015 17. Boudro's Texas Bistro: $228,568 18. Mi Tierra Caf6 Y Panaderfa: $226,674 19. The Esquire Tavern: $224,350 20. Perfect 10 Mens Club: $208,529 Source: Texas comptroller's office 4110W 0 FIFACUREW&CIa"I JW Marriott San Antonio Hill Country Resort & Spa, with almost $744,000 in alcohol sales. Taking the third place slot locally in January was DH San Antonio Beveo Inc., the contractor for the La Cantera Resort & Spa — selling about $506,00o worth of booze. HRHC Inc., the caterer for Hyatt Regency Hill Country Resort and Spa, came in fourth locally, 1:6A&3AU_1.W From page Bi hot summer day. Warnken said "the name of the game is the performance aspect ... we need to make sure that all of our resources are avail- able." If those resources aren't available and the system sees shortages ERGOT said it "antici- pates voluntary load reductions and an in- crease in power sold in the market by industrial si were to fall off a celebrity unnoticed," he said. "Maybe a bracelet be- comes unhinged, falls on the red carpet, gets kicked, or an earring falls off and gets kicked and nobody notices. They don't notice until later it's gone. We hold our breaths until all the ba- bies come home the next day.,, Celebrity branding is a huge business bump overall for jewelers, and red carpets are a huge part of that. Aside from the custom- ary media coverage, stars bring attention to the jewelry they wear on their social media accounts. A celebrity's reach there can bring in millions of views, leading some companies to pay the famous to bor- row jewels for social me- dia purposes alone. But not Martin Katz. As a small independent jeweler without stores all over the world, it doesn't make sense for him to build that expense into his advertising budget. serving more than $491,000 in alcohol in January. And the Alamodome rounded out the local top five with about $399,000 in sales in January. San Antonio may want to drink up while it can do so cheaply- the beer industry is warning that President Donald Trump's proposed to percent tariff on imported aluminum could raise prices on canned beer. jfechter@express-news.net I Twitter: @JFreports facilities in response to higher power prices dur- ing peak demand." ERGOT spokeswoman Leslie Sopko said the grid operator has only bad three systemwide rotating power outages in its en- tire history, in Dec. 1989, April 2006, and Feb. 2011. Public Utility Commis- sion of Texas spokesman Mike Hoke said in an emailed statement that ERGOT, retail providers and distribution utilities operate programs "that compensate customers who can temporarily Trustey would not comment on whether Forevermark Diamonds pays stars to wear their jewels. Trends in red carpet jewelry are hard to identi- fy since there are so many evergreen looks. Forev- ermark's Trustey said ear climbers and chandelier earrings were big for the company this awards season, starting with the Golden Globes. Kate Hud- son was among the stars to don climbers on that firm IHS Markit's,37th annual CERAWeek when it opens in Houston on Monday, an event that attracts the biggest names in the industry, including CEOs, government offi- cials and political leaders. This year's headliners include U.S. Secretary of Energy and former Texas governor Rick Perry, U.S. Secretary of the Interior Ryan Zinke, OPEC Secre- tary General Mohammad Sanusi Barkindo and Saudi Aramco CEO Amin Nasser. Yergin, the vice chair- man of IHS Markit, will lead conversations about the future of an industry in flux, shaken up in part by the surge in U.S. oil and gas production that has upended global trade and geopolitics by flood- ing markets with cheap and plentiful petroleum extracted from vast shale reserves in Texas and elsewhere. The U.S., now among the world's top crude oil producers, is expected to pump out an average of io.6 million barrels a day this year, surpassing Saudi Arabia and nearing Russia in output. The U.S. is also produc- ing and exporting record amounts of natural gas to countries in Latin Amer- ica and Asia, where de- mand has grown as part of an effort to reduce emissions with cleaner- burning energy sources. The U.S. became a net exporter of natural gas last year for the first time since 1957, driven in part reduce their demand or operate their own genera- tion if outages of large power plants occur dur- ing extreme weather conditions." The PUC regulates the state's elec- tric, telecommunication, and water and sewer utilities. The warnings come after the state set and broke multiple winter peak use records in Janu- ary, setting the current winter record the morn- ing of Jan. 17 when Tex- ans used more than 65,731 megawatts of power. Most carpet. , Also, I would say statement necklaces. Alli- son Williams wore an incredible 43-carat bib necklace to the Golden Globes which was in- credible as well, so expect to see a lot more of those," Trustey said. Katz said the Oscars prompt many celebrities to gravitate toward dia- monds, but he's not en- tirely sold on the practice. "To me, sometimes there is more of a stylized fashionable statement that's made with color," he said. Colored jewels can read younger and more relat- able, "So that it doesn't look like they're bor- rowed," Katz explained. But diamonds, for many, are forever. Trustey recalled the 2014 Academy Awards, when Margot Robbie dyed her blonde hair dark brown and wore a stun- ning classic diamond necklace. "It was her first time there. It was right after `(The) Wolf of Wall Street' and she came out chan- neling old Hollywood glamour and she was by a massive expansion in cross-border pipelines to Mexico and overseas ship- ments of liquified natural gas z by Houston's Che- niere Energy. The prolific Permian Basin in West Texas has accounted for much of the growth, and major oil companies including Ex- xon Mobil and Chevron Corp. are expanding oper- ations in that region and crunching troves of data to make the most of their investments. "The impact Texas has on the global oil market is as large as it has ever been," Yergin said. "Dif- ferent players are trying to understand how the structure of the market is changing." But OPEC, which last year lifted global oil prices with a sustained cut in production, remains a key player in determining the state of the market. OPEC Secretary-General Mo- bammad Sanusi Barkindo will join Yergin and Fatih Birol, executive director of the International Energy Agency, for a discussion about changes in the glob- al energy economy. U.S. producers, mean- while, remain focused on advancing hydraulic frac- turing and drilling tech- niques to produce more oil and gas at lower costs. Digital technology, mean- while, is further trans- forming oil field opera- tions, said Andrew Smart, who leads the global ener- gy practice for researcher and consultant Accenture. of the state was gripped by a prolonged cold, and temperatures in San An- tonio that morning hover- ed in the 20S — but there were no rolling blackouts. The most recent black- out occurred in February 2011 when a cold snap gripped Texas. ERGOT forced utilities to shed load to keep the system stable, and at the time CPS was called on to shed hundreds of mega- watts of power. rdruzin@express-news.net I Twitter. @druzjourno wearing a 6o-carat dia- mond Riviera necklace as well as a 14-carat ring, and her overall look, I would say, was about $2.5 Mil- lion," she said. Trustey said Forev- ermark Diamonds will customize jewelry for red carpets. Last year, celebrity stylist Karla Welch de- signed a pair of diamond ear dusters for Sarah Paulson and recently for Elisabeth Moss when she won her Emmy. Once the jewels are returned, the jeweler can attempt to sell them as is. More com- monly, they are taken apart and repurposed to make other pieces. Elizabeth Taylor and Joan Collins were among stars known to collect their own extravagant jewelry, but that practice has dwindled, if not be- come extinct. "I used to have a lot of celebrity clients, but over the years what has hap- pened with celebrity as an advertisement — they are gifted at so many things, they are loaned so many things. They virtually have no need to buy any- thing," Katz said. Accenture, which will present at the conference's sessions on innovation, found in a recent survey that oil production compa- nies have already begun to adopt digital tools to speed production and expect to invest in tech- nologies such as robotics in the coming years. "We will continue to be a premier player in the global energy mix," said Jack Gerard, president and CEO of the American Petroleum Institute, a trade group. "Who would have thought it six or seven years ago?" Oil and gas, however, will share the CERAWeek spotlight with renewable technologies and dis- cussions about the role wind and solar power will play as governments around the world enact policies to lower emis- sions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases to meet targets un- der the United Nations climate accord ratified last year. Meanwhile, fuel- efficient and electric vehi- cles are lessening the transportation industry's reliance on oil. Gasoline and diesel accounts for about 70 percent of U.S. demand for crude. Last year, the confer- ence discussed if and when oil demand will peak in the coming de- cades. This year, Yergin expects a more nuanced conversation about how best to use a mix of differ- ent energy sources and technologies to reduce emissions and push the industry into a more effi- cient and cleaner future. "Now," he said. "it's more of a question of what an energy transition actu- ally means." Legal NOU00s The City of San Antonio's Board of Adjustment will hold a Public Hearing at 1:00 PM., on Monday, March 19, 2018 at the Cliff Morton Development and Busi- ness Services Center, 1901 South Alamo Street, to consider the following items: CASE NO. A-18-040 Applicant: Joseph Garcia Lot 8, Block 8, NCB 583 906 East Crockett Street "RM-4 H AHOD" Residential Mixed Historic Airport Hazard Overlay District A request for 1) a special exception to allow a six foot six inch tall predominately open fence in the front yard and 11 a request for a special exception to allow a six foot six me solid screen fence in the front yard of the property and 3) a two foot and eleven inch variance from the three foot side setback to allow a detached patio cover to be one inch from the side property line, CASE NO. A18-045 Applicant: Richard Rabago Lot 15, Block 1, NCB 13862 5802 Drive TZ-5 AHOD" Residential Single-Family Airport Hazard Overlay District A request for a four foot variance from the five foot side setback requirement to allow a metal carport to be one foot from the side property line. CASE NO. AIS-048 Applicant: Enrique Guerrero Lot 22, NCB 2402 205 Del Valle Alley 'R_4 AHOD" Residential Single-Family Airport Hazard Overlay District A request for 1) a 2' variance from the 5' side setback on the west side to allow the house to be 3' awar, from the property line 2) a 2'5" variance from the 5' side setback on the east side to allow the house to be 27" away from the property line, 3) a 17" variance from the 20' rear setback to allow the house to be as near as 3' from the rear property line. CASE NO. A18-049 Applicant: Edward A. Hernandez Lot S 75 Ft of 14, Block 25, NCB 6446 1 755 Center Street North TZA EP -1 AHOD" Residential Single-Family Facility Parking/Traffic Control Airport Hazard Overlay District A request for a 1) a twelve foot variance from the twenty foot rear setback to allow an addition to be as near as eight feet from the rear property line. CASE NO. A-18-050 Applicant: Joann Handley Lot 8, Block 4, NCB 17721 16815 Winding Oak Drive R-4 AHOD" Residential Single-Family Airport Hazard Overlay District A request for nine foot and eleven inch variance from the required ten foot front setback to allow a carport to be one inch from the front property line. CASE NO. A-18-051 Applicant: Charles Pope Lot 22, NCB 9503 2510 SW Military Drive 1-2 AHOD" Heavy Industrial Airport Hazard Overlay District A request for an eight foot variance form the 15 foot Type B landscape bufferyard requirement to allow a bufferyard to be as narrow as seven feet. CASE NO. A-18-02 Applicant: Charles Pope Lot 7, Block 16, NCB 14477 Loop 410 at Poteet Jourdanton Freeway "C-2S AHOD" Commercial Airport Hazard Overlay District A request for a seven foot variance from the 15 foot Type B landscaped bufferyard requirement Now a bufferyard to be as narrow as eight feet in width. CASE NO. A-18-053 Applicant: Jennifer Wolf Lot P-23, P-9, P-9B, P-9C, P-21, P-22, P-23 & CB 4361 P-9, P-9B, & P-20G ABS, District Generally ,.,t 34361 'C-3` General Commercial r, ct Generally lo cared southwest of the in- tersection of Loop 1604 and Potranco Road. Known as Parcel 418973 A request for 1) a 15 foot variance from the 45 foot maximum sign height for a secondary sign to allow a sign to be 60 feet tall and 2) 162.5 square foot variance from the 487.5 square foot maximum area for a secondary sign to allow the same sign to be 650 square feet and 3) a 19'11" variance from the 20 foot maximum sign height to allow a sign to be 39.11 square foot and 4) 124.9 square foot variance from the 125 square foot maximum to allow a sign to be 249.9 square feet in area and 5) an 80 foot variance from the 150 foot distance requirement between two proposed signs along Loop 1604 Frontage Road to allow two signs to be 70 feet apart. CASE NO. A-18-054 Applicant: Angela Menchaca Lot 8, Block 2, NCB 2826 338 Simon "R-6 AHOD" Residential Single-Family Airport Hazard Overlay District A request for a two and a half foot variance from the five foot side setback require- ment to allow an attached two-story room addition to be built two and a half feet from the side property line. CASE NO. A18-055 Applicant: Cynthia Neal Lot 15, Block 5, NCB 10186 103 Gazel Drive "R-4 AHOD" Residential Single-Family Airport Hazard Overlay District A request for a special exception to allow a four-year renewal for a one-operator beauty shop in a single family home. CORRECTED NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ON POSSIBLE ADOPTION OF ROADWAY IMPACT FEES Schertz City Hall 6-00 pm, March 13, 2018 The City Council of the City of Schertz will convene a public hearing on March 13, 2018, at 6:00 pm in City Council Chambers, 1400 Schertz Parkway, Schertz, Texas 78154 to consider adoption of a roadway impact fee that may be imposed for roadway facilities in the City. The maximum assessable impact fee per service unit is $1,647.53 in Service Area 1, $1,327.89 in Service Area 2, $1,044.48 in Service Area 3, and $2,392.72 in Service Area 4. City Council may impose impact fees per service unit less than or equal to those maximum amounts. Any member of the public has the right to appear at the public hearing and present evidence for or against the roadway impact fee. More information, including the detailed report to be reviewed by the City Council, can be found at Schertz.com. Questions may be directed to Kathryn Woodlee, City Engineer (210) 619-1801 . PUBLIC NOTICE WINDSOR MISSION OAKS does not discriminate against any person on the basis of race, color, national origin, disability, genetics or age in admission, treatment, or participation in its programs, services and activities, or in e%oyment. For further information about this policy, contact Cain Smith at 210-924-8151. SKANSKA USA BUILDING INC., Construc- tion Manager -at -Risk, for the Alamo Colleges will be accepting proposals from qualified subcontractors for the Alamo Colleges District Support Operations Building Technology Package (Structured Cabling, Security and AV Multimedia) locate at 2222 N. Alamo St. , San Antonio, TX 78215. Bids will be due Monday March 19th, 2018 @ 2:00 PM CST via email or fax. Email sonny.knox @skanska.com / Fax 210-301-7101. Plans and specifica- tions are available electronically via www.isqft.com (Project No. 3416014). All questions should be submitted to Sonny Knox % COB Wednesday March 14th, 2018. BE/SBE/WBE/AABE/HUB firms are encouraged to submit proposals on this oject. Skanska USA Building is an equal opportunity (EEO) employer. There will NOT be a Pre-Bid conference for this bid package. For specific questions or a request to meet, please contact Sonny Know Ca) 210-559-8370, REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS The Guadalupe-Blanco River Authority (GBRA) is currently soliciting Statements of Qualifications from firms with a strong record in tidal/delta experience. The selected firm will assist GBRA with establishing a seasonal ecological assess- ment program in the upper Guadalupe Delta. All qualified firms including Small, Minority, and Women Owned Businesses are encouraged to submit proposals in response to this request. Responses may be submitted until 2:00 p.m., on Monday, March 19, 2018. Forms and specifications may be obtained by contacting Yolanda Pierce at ypierce@gbra.org. Responses shall be sealed and clearly marked: "RFQ - ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES ". The Guadalupe-Blanco River Authority reserves the right to accept or reject any and all proposals at its option and to waive any formalities. SKANSKA USA BUILDING INC., Construc- tion Manager-at-Risk, for the Alamo Colleges will be accepting proposals from qualified subcontractors for the Alamo Colleges District Support Operations Building Technology Package (Structured Cabling, Security and A Multimedia) located at 2222 N. Alamo St., San Antonio TX 78215. Bids will be due Monday March 19th, 2018 @ 2:00 PM CST via email or fax. Email sonny.knox@skanska.com / Fax 210-301-7101, Plans and specifica- tions are available electronically via are encouraged to submit proposals on this project. Skanska USA Building is an equal opportunity (EEO) employer, There will NOT be a Pre-Bid conference for this bid package. For specific questions or a request to meet, please contact Sonny Knox @ 210-559-8370. ASBESTOS ABATEMENT/DEMOLITION East Central Independent School District is seeking proposals for Asbestos Abate- ment/Demolition, A mandatory Pre-bid Conference will be held at 10 a.m., the 13th day of March, 2018, at the main entrance to Pecan Valley Elementary School, located at 3966 East Southcross, San Antonio, Texas. Diagrams and Specifi- cations can be obtained from the office of the Consultant, Burcham Environmental Services, L.L.C, P.O. Box 249, Wimber[7, Texas 78676, (512) 396-5725. Sealed bids will be received at the East Central Independent School District, District Administration Office, 6634 New Sulphur Springs Rd, San Antonio, Texas, Nirl)) 648-7861, until 2:00 p.m., on the 20th day of March, 2018.