ORD 461 11/14/1995CITY OF CIBOLO
ORDINANCE # 461
IMPACT FEE ORDINANCE
AN ORDINANCE APPROVING THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN FOR THE CITY OF
CIBOLO AND IMPOSING IMPACT FEES ON NEW PLATTING ACTIVITY AND OTHER
NEW DEVELOPMENT
Passed on the 14th day of NOVEMBER, 1995
Mayor Sam Bauder
Councilman Jeff Miller Councilman Bob Glisar
Councilman Mark Buell Councilman Chuck Ridge
Councilwoman Gail Douglas
Charles A. Balcar, City Administrator/City Secretary
City of Cibolo
PO BOX 88
Cibolo, Texas 78108
(210) 658-9900
CITY OF CIBOLO
ORDINANCE # 461
AN ORDINANCE APPROVING THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN
OF THE CITY OF CIBOL09 TEXAS AND IMPOSING IMPACT FEES FOR
THE EXTENSION OF WATER AND WASTEWATER FACILITIES AND
FOR NECESSARY IMPROVEMENTS TO CORRECT IMPACT ON
STREETS AND DRAINAGE IN ACCORDANCE WITII THE
REQUIREMENTS OF CHAPTER 395 OF THE TEXAS LOCAL
GOVERNMENT CODE
WHEREAS, the City of Cibolo is authorized by chapter 395 of the Texas Local
Government Code to enact impact fees as defined therein to finance certain capital
improvements required by new development; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the requirements of chapter 395, an impact fee advisory
committee appointed by the city council has developed land use assumptions for the City
of Cibolo which have been approved by the city council; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the requirements of chapter 395, a capital improvements
plan and maximum authorized impact fees have been developed by the city engineer,
which plan is attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and incorporated herein for all purposes;
and
WHEREAS, the city council has conducted a public hearing on the proposed
capital improvements plan and impact fees following due notice and publication as
required by law; and
WHEREAS, the city council of the city of Cibolo desires to insure that impact
fees as defined by the Texas Local Government Code and assessed within the City of
Cibolo accurately represent the true costs of constructing capital improvements and
Facility expansions and are fair to the public and to the party upon whom the fees are
imposed;
NOW THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF
CITY OF CIBOLO, TEXAS, AS FOLLOWS:
1 . The capital improvements plan for the City of Cibolo prepared by the
city engineer and the Capital Improvements Advisory Committee and attached hereto
as Exhibit "A" and incorporated herein for all purposes is hereby approved.
2. In accordance with the definitions and requirements of chapter 395 of
the Texas Local Government Code, there is hereby assessed a WATERWORKS
impact fee in the amount of {$568.20} per living unit equivalent (LUE) as defined
by the capital improvements plan for new development in the City of Cibolo.
3. In accordance with the definitions and requirements at chapter 395 of
the Texas Local Government Code, there is hereby assessed a WASTEWATER
improvements impact fee in an amount equal to the wastewater impact fee in the
amount of {$398.40} per living unit equivalent (LUE) as defined by the capital
improvements plan for new development in the City of Cibolo.
4. In accordance with the definitions and requirements of chapter 395 of
the Texas Local Government Code, there is hereby assessed a STREET impact fee in
the amount of {$260.00) per living unit equivalent (LUE) as defined by the capital
improvements plan for new development in the City of Cibolo.
3
5. In accordance with the definitions and requirements of chapter 395 of
the Texas Local Government Code, there is hereby assessed a DRAINAGE impact fee
in the amount of {$93.20) per living unit equivalent (LUE) as defined by the capital
improvements plan for new development in the City of Cibolo.
6. This ordinance shall not limit the city's authority to impose additional
impact fees or charges not inconsistent with the provisions of chapter 395 of the
Texas Local Government Code if such impact fees or charges are specifically
authorized by state law and duly adopted by ordinance.
7. The city is under no obligation to accept offered impact fees; this ordinance
creates no obligation for the city to serve any property within the City of Cibolo.
8. Water, street, drainage and wastewater impact fees are imposed to
construct new capital improvements specified in the capital improvements plan and to
recoup capital costs which have already been incurred by the city to construct existing
facilities which have been designated in the capital improvements plan as being
available to serve new development within the city. All funds collected through the
adoption of an impact fee shall be deposited in interest bearing accounts clearly
identifying the category of capital improvements or facility expansions within the
service area for which the fee was adopted. Impact fee revenue may not be spent for
any purpose.
9. An impact fee shall be divided and assessed as follows: (1) at the time of
plat approval and (2) upon application for a building permit. Impact fees will be
based upon the number of living units equivalencies (LUES) to be generated by
development at the impact fee rate established herein. Plat approval shall be
conditioned upon the developers compliance with the terms and conditions for water
4
and wastewater service established by the ordinances of the City of Cibolo. The
assessed impact fee for streets and drainage is due and payable prior to the time a plat
may be recorded by Guadalupe or Bexar County. The assessed impact fee for water
and wastewater is due and payable at the time of application for a building permit.
For property that has been platted but is not otherwise exempt from the imposition of
impact fees, all impact fees will be assessed and collected prior to connection to city
utility services consistent with State Law. Nothing herein shall prohibit the city from
entering into an agreement with the owner of a tract of land for which the plat has
been recorded providing for the time and method of payment of the impact fees.
10. All ordinances of the City of Cibolo inconsistent with this ordinance and
the provisions of chapter 395 of the Texas Local Government Code are hereby
repealed.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 14TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 1995
MAYOR
ATTEST:
HON. SAM BAUDER,
CHARLES A. BALCAR, CITY SECRETARY
5
NOW THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF CIBOLO, TEXAS, AS FOLLOWS:
1 . The capital improvements plan for the City of Cibolo prepared by the city
engineer and the Capital Improvements Advisory Committee and attached hereto as Exhibit
"A" and incorporated herein for all purposes is hereby approved.
2. In accordance with the definitions and requirements of chapter 395 of the
Texas Local Government Code, there is hereby assessed a WATERWORKS impact fee in
the amount of {$568.20} per living unit equivalent (LUE) as defined by the capital
improvements plan for new development in the City of Cibolo.
3. In accordance with the definitions and requirements at chapter 395 of the
Texas Local Government Code, there is hereby assessed a WASTEWATER improvements
impact fee in an amount equal to the wastewater impact fee in the amount of {$398.40}
per living unit equivalent (LUE) as defined by the capital improvements plan for new
development in the City of Cibolo.
4. In accordance with the definitions and requirements of chapter 395 of the
Texas Local Government Code, there is hereby assessed a STREET impact fee in the
amount of {$260.00} per living unit equivalent (LUE) as defined by the capital
improvements plan for new development in the City of Cibolo.
5. In accordance with the definitions and requirements of chapter 395 of the
Texas Local Government Code, there is hereby assessed a DRAINAGE impact fee in the
amount of {$93.20} per living unit equivalent (LUE) as defined by the capital
improvements plan for new development in the City of Cibolo.
2
6. This ordinance shall not limit the city's authority to impose additional impact fees
or charges not inconsistent with the provisions of chapter 395 of the Texas Local
Government Code if such impact fees or charges are specifically authorized by state law and
duly adopted by ordinance.
7. The city is under no obligation to accept offered impact fees; this ordinance creates
no obligation for the city to serve any property within the City of Cibolo.
8. Water, street, drainage and wastewater impact fees are imposed to construct new
capital improvements specified in the capital improvements plan and to recoup capital costs
which have already been incurred by the city to construct existing facilities which have been
designated in the capital improvements plan as being available to serve new development
within the city. All funds collected through the adoption of an impact fee shall be deposited
in interest bearing accounts clearly identifying the category of capital improvements or
facility expansions within the service area for which the fee was adopted. Impact fee
revenue may not be spent for any purpose.
9. An impact fee shall be divided and assessed as follows: (1) at the time of plat
approval and (2) upon application for a building permit. Impact fees will be based upon the
number of living units equivalencies (LUES) to be generated by development at the impact
fee rate established herein. Plat approval shall be conditioned upon the developers
compliance with the terms and conditions for water and wastewater service established by
the ordinances of the City of Cibolo. The assessed impact fee for streets and drainage is due
and payable prior to the time a plat may be recorded by Guadalupe or Bexar County. The
assessed impact fee for water and wastewater is due and payable at the time of application
for a building permit. For property that has been platted but is not otherwise exempt from
the imposition of impact fees, all impact fees will be assessed and collected prior to
3
connection to city utility services consistent with State Law. Nothing herein shall prohibit
the city from entering into an agreement with the owner of a tract of land for which the plat
has been recorded providing for the time and method of payment of the impact fees.
10. All ordinances of the City of Cibolo inconsistent with this ordinance and the
provisions of chapter 395 of the Texas Local Government Code are hereby repealed.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 14TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 1995
ATTEST:
HON. SAM BAUDER, MAYOR
CHARLES A. BALCAR, CITY SECRETARY
H
ATTACHMENTA: LAND USEASSUMPTIONSAND RECOMMMMATION OF THE CIBOLO
CAPITAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE
DEVELOPMENT OF
WATER, WASTEWATER, ROADS, STORMWATER AND FLOOD CONTROL
IMPACT FEE PROGRAMS
ACCORDING TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF
CHAPTER 395, LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE,
71st LEGISLATURE, 1989 AS AMENDED
CITY OF CIBOLO, TEXAS
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The 71st Texas Legislature passed CHAPTER 395 regulating various types of utility fees, defined in the
legislation as "impact fees". Such fees included not only traditional impact (or capital recovery) foes, but
also lot, acreage, frontage and other typical utility fees. Impact fees also include "contributions in,aid of
construction", such as off-site approach main dedications. The legislation laid out very specific
requirements for the technical development of such fees as well as the procedures necessary for enactment
of such fee programs.
2.0 LEGAL CONTEXT OF CAPITAL RECOVERY FEES
2.1 LEGAL CONTEXT IN A NATIONAL PERSPECTIVE
CHAPTER 395 and its amendments provide many specific guidelines regarding the technique and process
for fee development. Although impact fees - or capital recovery fees - are a relatively new form of
development exaction, they are the result of a long history of local subdivision regulation. Texas is one of
the few states which has specific enabling legislation for impact fees.
Historically, cities have had the authority to establish capital recovery fees arising from their home rule
authority and from the general state -delegated authority to regulate subdivisions .for the protection of the
public health, safety, and general welfare.
In order to develop a capital recovery fee, several "tests" should be applied to any prospective fee:
* A capital recovery fee must relate to the protection of community health, safety, and
general welfare;
* A capital recovery fee should be based on full or partial cost of service in order to be
construed as a fee and not an unconstitutional tax;
* There must be equity to all users;
* Deviations from equity must be based on a carefully -defined public policy basis;
* Those who pay a capital recovery fee must have created a demand for the facilities
which are being funded by the fee;
The fees collected must be used for the benefit of those who paid them;
Fees assessed must be proportional to the cost of serving and benefits provided to the fee
payer,
Past and future rateltax/facility contributions by fee payers must be acknowledged as a
credit in fee calculations; and
* The City cannot impose punitive fees on any customer or class of customers.
2.2 SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS OF CHAPTER 395
Generally, the provisions of CHAPTER 395 and its amendments are:
* The City is regulated in its authority to charge impact fees for water, sewer, drainage and
local roadways.
* A detailed technical study is required to initiate a new fee and any time the fee is updated
(including service area definition, growth projections, CIP development cost allocation, unit
usage determination, etc.).
* Fees per unit "run with the plat' since they are set at time of platting; unless fees are also
collected at platting, this could result in considerable losses for the City since actual cost of
service may be much higher when service is ultimately provided than was when the land was
platted. Careful fee construction may avoid this under collection.
* The maximum allowable fee under CHAPTER 395 is the full. capital cost per unit
[However, if this ceiling is not reduced by the amount of future rate payments by fee payers,
then fee payers will pay more than their fair cost of service, and the City might have to
refund overpayments.]
* The City must create an advisory committee which contains both real estate representatives
and a representative of the ETJ.
* Fees which are not expended on appropriate CIP projects within 10 years, or fees which are
substantially in excess of cost must be refunded, plus interest
+ Fee payers must receive immediate service, if capacity is available, otherwise they
must receive service in five years or less.
+ Developers must be reimbursed or receive fee offsets for contributed facilities.
3.0 POLICY DECISIONS RELATED TO CAPITAL RECOVERY FEE FORMULATION
3.1 SERVICE AREA
For the purposes of developing the capital recovery fees, a conceptual service area must be defined in order
to orient, size and cost the CII'. The service area is described for the purpose of fee determination and does
not necessarily constrain the Utility in actual future service availability for egad locations - which may be
precisely unknown given undefined future market demands.
The service area should be defined broadly enough to encompass growth for at least ten years, or any other
logical period given the capacity of existing facilities and the limitations of topographic characteristics.
Service areas are potentially constrained by the City's restricted application of the fee (which may be
assessed only within the corporate boundaries, ETJ or contractually -served area served by the City);
service areas of other utility providers; and practical limits to service from already existing or planned
facilities.
3.2 GEOGRAPHIC CONSIDERATIONS
Under the provisions of CHAPTER 395, costs may either be segregated by rational subareas or may be
examined in aggregate for each utility. Aggregate costs may be justified due to the fads that (1) costs
related to geographic locations are often due to discretionary setting and design choices on the part of
Utility professionals rather than to location decisions on the part of the customer, (2) systems are often
designed with redundant facilities for system reliability (such as "looped" water systems); and (3)� some
facilities have no geographic -specific service area. 'Where notable cost differentials do occur due to
locational decisions of the utility customer, utilities are more justified in developing geographic -specific
fees. Among those costs which could most easily be segregated are wastewater capital costs for a
particular drainage basin, facility costs (particularly lines) according to broad soil classifications, and
approach main costs for a defined array of developments in a particular location.
3.3 ' UNIT MEASUREMENT
Measurements of unit usage statistics must be chosen in the course of the study both for determining
system -wide utility demand and for applying a fee amount to an individual customer. The same unit
measurement is not necessarily used in both instances. The Utility will be guided in its choice of units by
the availability and quality of information at a particular point in time, the purpose for which the statistic is
used, and the administrative feasibility of using such factors. Unit statistics, of one type are generally
convertible into statistics of another type, thus preserving the overall integrity of the study when one type of
unit is used to estimate future system demand and another for individual fee assessment.
Some common unit measurements are
* Per capita consumption/flow
* Consumption/flow per acre
* Consumption/flow per nonresidential building square footage
* Operational indicators of service demand such as employment enrollment, seating, etc.
* Consumption/flow per dwelling unit (DU)
* Linear feet (If) of road frontage (approximately a measure of cost rather than service
demand)
* Living Unit Equivalent (LUE) (common denominator for service demand)
Water Meter Size
Pipe Size
+ Fixture calculations for water -using and wastewater -discharging appliances
3.4 TYPES OF FACILTTIES FUNDED BY TBE FEES
CHAPTER 395 applies to fee monies or contributions which fund all water and sewer capital facilities with
a few specific exceptions. Exempted from the CHAPTER 395 process are:
(1) Dedication of rights-of-way or easements, or construction or dedication of on-site water
distribution or wastewater collection when these dedications and construction are
required by valid ordinances and are necessitated by and attributable to new development
and
(2) Lot or acreage fees to be placed in trust funds for the purpose of reimbursing developers
for oversizing or constructing water or sewer mains or lines.
Otherwise, CHAPTER 395 governs all "charge(s] or assessments) imposed by a political subdivision
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 ... new development". Thus, many
fees which have been typically enacted by cites, such as acreage, frontage and prorate fees, will no longer
be permissible after June 1990 unless they are precisely configured as oversizing fees placed in trust funds,
as defined above.
The Advisory Committee and Staff need to determine what types of facilities the City should fund with
capital recovery fees, either including or excluding such facility categories as treatment, storage, pumpage
and transmission/collection. It may be desirable to give special consideration to the treatment of line costs
in developing a fee program by disaggregatng line costs into major line and approach main components for
separate fee determination. Some of the various funding approaches are (1) development of a system -wide
average fee for approach mains; (2) development of an approach main impact fee which is specific for a
geographic area served by a specific line; or (3) establishment of a fee program which is exempt from
CHAPTER 395 regulation.
3.5 TEVIING OF FEE COLLECTION
Fee assessment is required to be calculated, for the most part, at the time of plat filing; fee collection on
the other hand, can occur at platting, connection (tap purchase), building permit issuance or certificate of
occupancy issuance. The committee should carefully consider the potential fiscal impacts on the city if fee
collection were to be set later than platting, versus the fiscal impacts on home buyers and businesses
resulting from early payment of fees (which may considerably increase the actual cost impact on a home).
Moreover, timing of collection needs to be considered carefully in conjunction with the City's selection of a
unit of measurement.
3.6 ELIGIBILITY AND APPLICATION CONSIDERATIONS
The Committee and Utility need to address whether fees for water, sewer, drainage and local roadways are
to be assessed to all parties who purchase a water or wastewater tap or whether exceptions will be made on
some public policy basis. For example, a common consideration is whether a wastewater fee should be
assessed to septic tank cutovers. The Committee may, also wish to consider whether a full fee should be
paid by all customers in the same manner or in the same proportion, or whether lower fees should be
assessed to low-cost housing residents, major employers or other customers for some community policy
reason.
3.7 LEVEL OF COST RECOVERY
The Committee and Staff should consider whether the city should collect the maximum possible fee or
something less, due to potential economic effects or other community concent. Also, the Committee may
want to recommend that the fee be set somewhat less than the maximum allowable as a conservative
measure to avoid potential refunds which are required if the fee is ultimately found to be more than 10
percent higher than actual costs would justify.
3.8 FEE OFFSET POLICY
The fee ordinance should be carefully worded by the Citys Attorney to ensure that proper credits or
reimbursements are provided if a fee payer has contributed facilities or fees for the same types of facilities
for which the fee is collected. In part, this credit will be automatically provided died with a fee offset for
future rate payments, which is calculated by the Consultants. However, non -rate contributions must also
be recognized and credited. The City may enter into contrails with developers for private finding and
construction of utility facilities, but the City must also allow credits against the fees due from such
properties and/or reimburse the developer from subsequent fee collections.
4.0 EQUITY RESIDUAL APPROACH TO CAPITAL RECOVERY FEE CALCULATION
The Equity Residual methodology provides that each new customer contributes "equity" in the utility
systems comparable to that owned by other existing customers. Once that equity payment is made through
the capital recovery fee, each new customer would pay the remainder of his or her capital -related cost of
service through rate payments equal to the rate payments of existing customers. This minimizes cross -
subsidization (one customer group paying for the costs of another) and provides for full cost recovery for
the utilities.
4.1 CONCEPTUAL METHODOLOGY
TABLE 4-1 presents a conceptual illustration of the Equity Residual methodology, and will be referenced
throughout this section.For purposes of this conceptual discussion, costs are defined for a common
measurement of capacity and demand; that service unit of measurement is "Living Unit Equivalent's LUE.
Each service unit has a capital cost associated with the comprehensive group of facilities required to
provide service (treatment transmission, pumpage, storage, etc.). This value is the Construction Cost of
Service.
If a facility is funded through bonding, however, there are additional costs. Bonding and interest costs are
shown in Table 4-1; these can effectively double or triple costs. Times coverage costs are not shown since
these excess rate revenues can be carried over from one year to another and used to finance the utility.
TABLE 4-1
COMPARISON OF COSTS OF ALTERNATIVE MUNICIPAL FINANCING APPROACHES
14 PrI li laell_VAU
ONE DOLLAR OF CONSTRUCTION COST $1.00
PLUS 5% BONDING COSTS +
BOND ISSUE REQUIREMENTS =
ANNUAL DEBT SERVICE PAYMENT (S% INT. $0.10
@25 YEARS)
TIMES 25 YRS OF PAYBACK PERIOD x
TOTALPAYBACK
TIMES 1.3 REVENUE BOND COVERAGE
REQUIREMENT
TOTAL RATE REVENUE REQUIREMENT
OVER BOND LIFE
NET SAVINGS OVER ALTERNATIVE
FINANCING APPROACH
5.0 TECHNICAL BASIS OF FEE CALCULATION
5.1 LAND USE AND PLANNING ASSUMPTIONS
5.1.1 Service Area Definition
MUNICIPAL CAPITAL
REVENUE
RECOVERY
BONDING
FEE
APPROACH
APPROACH
$1.00
$0.05
avoided
$1.05 avoided
avoided
25 avoided
_ $2.46 avoided
1.3 avoided
$3.20 avoided
$0.00 S2.20
-or-
220%
The conceptual service areas of the water, sewer, drainage and local roadway utilities are illustrated on the following p
These areas represent the general geographic basis for planning the utility capital improvement programs, used to form
the fees. The service areas are conceptual in nature and do not necessarily represent a definitive commitment for servic
the Utilizes: conceptual service area boundaries also do not necessarily represent limits to service potential or
assessment.
5.1.2 Land Use Assumptions
CHAPTER 395 requires that the Utilities project the land uses, population, densities and intensity of new
development within the next 10 years and at full build -Gut BB1786 allows the use of city-wide planning
assumptions applied to the service areas of the Utilities. Table 5-1 and TABLE 5-1 show the historical growth
rate of the City of CIBOLO, an historical "trend" rate of 6.08% annual compound growth rate, and three
alternate growth rates for future years. Figure 5-2 and Table 5-2 compare these to other projections
performed by the Texas Water Development Board (TWDB). A 2.5% growth rate was adopted as the
assumption for the next 10 years' growth, as consistent with recent historical precedent and as a slightly
conservative assumption in the fee derivation.
Table 5-4 presents population and land use projections for the City of CIBOLO based on the 2.5% growth
projection for the next ten years, and upon land use distributions and population densities contained in the
City's Zoning Plan. Tables 5-5 and 5-6 present similar information adapted for the water, sewer, drainage and
local roadways conceptual service areas, respectively. Population estimates for 1990 for the water service
area was derived by dividing total water consumption by per -capita usage statistics developed by TWDB.
Current population estimates for the wastewater service area was determined as the same population density
per acre as computed for the water service area (0.83 persons/acre).
TABLE 5-1
MSTORICAL POPULATION FOR TBE CITY OF CIBOLO
HISTORICAL CITY OF CIBOLO HISTORICAL AVERAGE
POPULATION POPULATION GROWTH RATE
1960 Ian 4.20
1970 (a)
440
0.47%
1980 (a)
580
2.80%
1984 (b)
1,103
17.43%
1986 Ib)
1.234
5.77%
1987 (b)
1,365
10.62%
1988 M
1,495
9.52%
1989 Ib)
1,626
8.7696
19601989
(a) U.S. Bumau of the Census.
(b) City of Mole estimates.
W
4.78%
'a
O
v
O
O
a
G1
0
m
C
O
�
A
_
N U O
C
m
3
3
Qom
afM
m
A O W N O
V
I
p
1Opp
A
MD
m
,dn
W O O N
A
N
00
Om
OM 3.
z
0
OI
0
A
0
OAi
0
N
0 0 0 0
U
A
M
M
3
m
r
°
m fJ !J +
,
o
o
c
A
GI
W A U A W
C
J
N N N VI tT
=
m
n
o
m
Ln
C
0
P. o o W
=
o
N N N N N
3
p0T�
;U
O
O
O 9 a p
o
tmn
Oo
OI
U
W U V
M
o
e
o
0
0
r�
z
a
N
M
e
C)zcD
m
oMM
n C
OOO
z O
t
n
m
0
z
0
C
N
N
U
A
o b
O
{O.t N r0
0 0 0 0 0
O
�
A
_
N U O
J
A O W N O
V
I
O
O
1Opp
A
r
r
O
W O O N
O
N
00
a ANl+rn
NN
P b 0
50�
0
0
OI
0
A
0
OAi
0
N
0 0 0 0
U
A
pp
m fJ !J +
2
VAV
OOi N � V m
GI
W A U A W
=
J
N N N VI tT
O
0 0 0 0 0
o
m
e o 0 0 0
0
P. o o W
a<
N N N N N
3
p0T�
;U
0 0 0 0 0
O 9 a p
o
tmn
Oo
OI
U
W U V
o
e
o
0
0
o e o 0
I
U
N
0 0 0 o T
N
m
I
O
N
J
W
A N
O V A W
yN
0
0
0
0
o
a o 0 0
r�
z
a
N
M
e
C)zcD
m
oMM
n C
OOO
z O
t
n
m
0
z
0
C
N
N
min
omm
m
O :0
O z
G)
0
m
O
m
h
9
0
z
N
S N
o b
{O.t N r0
0 0 0 0 0
A O W N O
rn
00
a ANl+rn
3
50�
Zom
m fJ !J +
2
VAV
OOi N � V m
GI
W A U A W
=
J
N N N VI tT
O
0 0 0 0 0
e o 0 0 0
a<
N N N N N
3
p0T�
;U
0 0 0 0 0
O 9 a p
0 0 0 0
C=G)
JJ C)7
��D
2 C
m
r
W W W W fJ
=
N UI N fly U
0 0 0 o T
min
omm
m
O :0
O z
G)
0
m
O
m
h
9
0
z
N
S N
(a) Acreages based on land use mixtures per 100 population in Clbolo
Zoning Plan.
Single Family.
4.253 aeres/100 population
Garden and Mobile Homes:
0.716 axaee/100 population
Multifamily:
1.059 acnW100 population
Commercial:
0.572 acres/100 population
Industrial:
1.145 aae3/10D population
Public(Quasi-Public:
0.343 araes/10D population
Agricultural ResidentiaVVacant
6.737 aeres/100 population
(b) Ultimate population within 1990 corporate
3.71%
boundaries.
28.69%
(c) 1990-2000 average annual growth rate
25°% .
assumption of
0.37%
TABLE 5.5
PLANNING ASSUMPTIONS APPLIED TO CONCEPTUAL WATER
SERVICE AREA
CRY OF CIBOLO
LAND USE
RESIDENTIAL.
Single -Family
Garden and Mobile Homes
Multifamily
Subtotal Residential
COMMERCIAL
INDUSTRIAL
PUBLICIQUASI-PUBLIC
AGRICULTURAL RESIDENTIALNACANT
TOTALACREAGE(c)
POPULATION
POPULATION PER ACRE
CIBOLO, 7EXA8
(PRELIMINARY?
1990
2000
ULTIMATE
ACRES (a)
%
ACRES (b)
%
ACRES (b)
%
150
290%
192
3.71%
1,485
28.69%
15
0.29%
19
0.37%
250
4.83%
2
0.04%
3
0.05%
370
7.14%
167
322%
214
4.13%
2,106
40.65%
24
0.46%
31
0.59%
200
3.86%
59
1.140/a
76
1.46%
400
7.72%
60
1.16%
fit
1.18%
120
2.320/6
4,870
94.02%
4,799
92.65%
2.354
45.44016
5,180
100.00%
5,180
100.00%
5,180
100.00%
1,757
2.249
34,940
(d)
(e)
(f)
0.34
0,43
6.75
10
CLOOLO, rMS
(PRELLYINAR17
(a) Same distribution of developed land uses per capita as assumed for City planning areas.
(b) Land use mbdures per 100 population of growth as indicated in city
zoning plan:
2000
Single Fatuity:
4.253 acres/100 population
Garden and Mobile Homes:
0.716 acres/100 population
Multifamily:
1.059 acres/100 population
Commercial:
0.572 acres/100 population
Industrial:
1.145 acres/100 population
PubliclQuasioPublic
0.343 acres/100 population
Agricultural ResidendaWacarrt
6.737 acres/100 population
(c) Conceptual service area acreage.
ACRES (b)
(d) 198889 water billing divided by
124 gallons per capita (TWDS).
(e) Assumes annual growth rate Of
25% .
(1) Land uses and population proportionate to
2.99%
City.
28.69%
TABLE 5.6
PLANNING ASSUMPTIONS APPLIED TO CONCEPTUAL
WASTEWATER SERVICE AREA
CRY OF CIBOLO
11
1990
2000
ULTIMATE
LAND USE
ACRES (a)
Y.
ACRES (b)
Y.
ACRES (b)
'/.
RESIDENTIAL
121
2.34°/.
155
2.99%
1,486
28.69%
Single -Family
Garden and Mobile Homes
15
029%
19
0.37%
250
4.83%
Multifamily
2
0.040/6
3
0.05%
370
7.14%
Subtotal Residential
138
2ES%
177
3.41%
2,106
40.65%
COMMERCIAL
24
0.46%
31
0.59%
200
3.86%
INDUSTRIAL
59
1.14016
76
1.46%
400
7.72%
PUBLICIQUASI-PUBLIC
60
1.16%
61
1.18%
120
2320/o
AGRICULTURAL RESIOENTIALNACANT
4,899
94.58%
4,836
93.35%
2,354
45.44%
TOTAL ACREAGE (c)
5,180
100.00%
5,180
100.00%
5.180
100.00%
11
POPULATION 1,757 2,249
(d) (e)
POPULATION PER ACRE 0.34 0.43
(a) Same distribution of developed land uses per capita as assumed for City planning areas.
(b) Land use mixtures per 100 population of growth as indicated in city
zoninq olan:
Single Family:
Duplex:
Multifamily:
Commercial:
Industrial:
Public/Quasi-Public:
Agricultural ResidentiaWacant:
(c) Conceptual service area acreage
(d) Papulation based on same density as
water service area.
(e) Assumes annual growth rate of:
(f) Land uses and population proportionate to
City.
5.2 UNIT USAGE STATISTICS
4.253 acres/100 population
0.716 acres/100 population
1.059 acres/100 population
0.572 acres/100 population
1.145 acres/100 population
0.343 acres/100 population
6.737 acres/100 population
2.5%.
C/90LO, TEXAS
(PRELIMINARY)
17,508
(0
3.38
The basic unit usage statistic on which all facility demand is based is average daily water demand and
wastewater flow per capita. For the water utility, Ford Engineering used a per capita figure of 55 gallons
daily; for the wastewater utility, an average flow of 100 gallons per capita was assumed.
Unit usage assumptions and other assumptions used in fee calculation are shown in Table 5-7.
12
TABLE 5-7
ASSUMPTIONS USED IN
FEE CALCULATION
FACTOR
POPULATION GROWTH
LAND USE DISTRIBUTION
Single Family
Garden and Mobile Homes
Multifamily
Commercial
Industrial
PublidOuasi-Public
Agricultural ResidendaWacant
RESIDENTIAL DENSITIES
Single Family (R -A, R-1, R-2.
R -58,R-6, R-7, PUD) -
Garden and Mobile Homes
(R-5. MH)
Multi -Family (R-4)
PERCENT OF NEW GROWTH
RECEIVING:
Water Service
Wastewater Service
1989 SERVICE POPULATION:
Water
Wastewater
2000 WATER DEMAND
ASSUMPTIONS:
Average demand
Water LUE
Water Supply Facilities
Ground Storage Facilities
Elevated Storage Facilities
FUTURE BONDING
ASSUMPTIONS:
SOFT COSTS
INTEREST RATE
TERM
VALUEIRATIONALE
Increase aTen annual average
rate of .
Acreages based on land use mbdures in Zoning Plan
4.253 ames/100 population
0.716 acres/100 population
1.059 ames/100 population
0.572 acres/100 population
1.145 acres/100 papulation
0.343 acres/100 population
6.737 acres/100 population
3.50 units/ac;
5.50 units/cc;
20.00 units/ac;
100%
100%
G80LO, TEXAS
(PRELIM/NAR))
2.50% over the next ten
years. -
2.50 persons/untL
2.50 persons/unit.
2.50 persons unit.
1988-1989 water billing divided
by:
Based on same service population per acre as water.
300 gals/capita/daily
787 gallons/day
300 gallons/cepita/daily,
35 gallons/capita
350 gallons/capita
3.00% of principal, according to City Staff
7.50% annually, according to City Staff
20 years
13
124 gallons per capita (7WOB).
0.34 personsfac
C1BOLO, TEXAS
(PRELIMINARY)
5.3 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM PLAN
MINEW710M• F11.
CHAPTER 395 requires a conversion table of service units. That table is shown in Table 5-8. This table
shows haw demand may be expressed in Irving units equivalent (LUE's) based on water meter size. The
Utilities' smallest typical water meter (518") is used as the base, and demand by other meter sizes is scaled
upward proportionate to the ratio of the larger meter's continuous duty maximum flow to that of the smallest
meter. Current water LUES were tabulated based on a count of active water meters by size, with the
conversion factors in Table 5-8 applied to the count of various meter sizes. That result is shown in Table 5-9.
Although the water meter size may be used as the determinant of wastewater LUE's, there are sometimes
circumstances in which water meter size overestimates wastewater flow — such as in consumptive
commercial uses or industrial processes. For these reasons, it is advisable to include a provision in the
capital recovery fee ordinance permitting the Utility manager to establish an appropriate number of
wastewater LUE's for an individual customer when presented with documentation from a professional
engineer regarding the likely wastewater flow of a particular project
TABLE 5-8
LUE EQUIVALENCIES FOR VARIOUS TYPES AND
SIZES OF WATER METERS
14
CONTINUOUS
DUTY
RATIO
METER
METER
MAXIMUM
TO SIT,
TYPE
SIZE
RATE
METER
(9pm)
SIMPLE
518"x 314"
10
1.0
SIMPLE
314"
15
1.5
SIMPLE
i"
25
2.5
SIMPLE
1-12"
50
5.0
SIMPLE
2"
80
8.0
COMPOUND
2"
80
8.0
TURBINE
2"
100
10.0
COMPOUND
3"
160
16.0
TURBINE
3'
240
24.0
COMPOUND
4'
250
25.0
TURBINE
4"
420
42.0
COMPOUND
6"
500
50.0
14
0
CIBOLO, TEXAS
(PREIMIMARY)
TABLE 5.8
LUE EQUIVALENCIES FOR VARIOUS TYPES AND SIZES OF
WATER METERS
SOURCE: AW WA Standards C700,
0701, C702, C703.
5.3.2 Projected e'^""' Units for New Develaoment
Tables 5-10 and 5-11 present information on projected service units and facility needs within the next ten
years and at full buildout, as required by the legislation.
TABLE 5.9
CURRENT WATER METER COUNT AND ESTIMATION OF LIVING UNITS
EQUIVALENT (LUES)
Meter Size
518'
314-
1.
1.S
r
3"
4'
6'
10'
Total
[a] Source: Water Services Report 9112194.
[b] Derived from AW WA 0700.0703 standards.
Numbest
LUEs per
CONTINUOUS
Meters [a]
Meter [b]
LUES
DUTY
RATIO
METER
METER
MAXIMUM
TO 516"
TYPE
SIZE
RATE
METER
5.000
10
(9Pm)
8.000
TURBINE
6'
920
920
COMPOUND
r
BOD
80.0
TURBINE
6'
1600
160.0
COMPOUND
10'
1150
115.0
TURBINE
10"
2500
250.0
TURBINE
12"
3300
330.0
SOURCE: AW WA Standards C700,
0701, C702, C703.
5.3.2 Projected e'^""' Units for New Develaoment
Tables 5-10 and 5-11 present information on projected service units and facility needs within the next ten
years and at full buildout, as required by the legislation.
TABLE 5.9
CURRENT WATER METER COUNT AND ESTIMATION OF LIVING UNITS
EQUIVALENT (LUES)
Meter Size
518'
314-
1.
1.S
r
3"
4'
6'
10'
Total
[a] Source: Water Services Report 9112194.
[b] Derived from AW WA 0700.0703 standards.
Numbest
LUEs per
Number of
Meters [a]
Meter [b]
LUES
603
1.000
603
0
1.500
0
0
2.500
0
2
5.000
10
4
8.000
32
0
16.000
a
1
25.000
25
0
50.000
0
0
115.000
0
610
670
15
TABLE 5-10
ESTIMATED SERVICE UNITS AND SERVICE DEMAND -
WATER UTILITY
FACILITY TYPEILAND USE 1990 2000 ULTIMATE
WATER SERVICE AREA POPULATION (a)
TOTAL WATER LUES (b)
TOTAL CONNECTIONS (b)
WATER SUPPLY (MGD)
Estimated Demand (c)
Existing Capacity (c)
Excessi(Deficiency)
GROUND STORAGE (MG)
Estimated Demand (c) 0.061
Existing Capacity (c) 1.000
----------------------------------- ---------
Excess/(Defid=y) 0.939
ELEVATED STORAGE (MG)
Estimated Demand (c)
Existing Capacity (c)
Exdessl(Defidency)
(a) Taken from land use assumptions:
(b) 1994 figure taken from meter count
(c) Source: City Planning
0.078
1.213
1.000
1,757
2,249
34,940
670
858
13,324
610
781
12,131
0.527
0.675
10.481
2.100
2.100
2.100
1.573
IA25
(8.381)
Estimated Demand (c) 0.061
Existing Capacity (c) 1.000
----------------------------------- ---------
Excess/(Defid=y) 0.939
ELEVATED STORAGE (MG)
Estimated Demand (c)
Existing Capacity (c)
Exdessl(Defidency)
(a) Taken from land use assumptions:
(b) 1994 figure taken from meter count
(c) Source: City Planning
0.078
1.213
1.000
1.000
----------
-------------
0.922
(0.213)
0.707
0.809 2.013
0.000
0.000 0.000
(0.707)
(0.809) (2.013)
TABLE 5
473 s
(a) Service population based on ratio of 1994 wastewater customers to water
TABLE 9
TABLE 5-11
ESTIMATED SERVICE UNITS - WASTEWATER
UTILITY
FACILITY TYPEILAND USE
1880
WASTEWATER SERVICE AREA POPULATION
1,757
EST. SEWER CUSTOMER POPULATION (a)
1.241
TOTAL LUE'S (b)
473 s
(a) Service population based on ratio of 1994 wastewater customers to water
customers times water service population
(b) Wastewater LUE'slcapita same as 1994 water
LUE's/capita.
16
GBOLO,TEXAS
(PREIJMIRARY)
2000
ULTIMATE
2,249
34,940
1,589
24,685
606
9,413
CJ80LO, TE=
(PRaMINARY)
(b) Wastewater LUES/Capita same as 1994 water
LUE'sicapita.
5.3.3 Clip Develoomgnt for Existing and Future Needs
Given the demand projections in Tables 5-10 and 5-11, a capital improvements plan (CIP) was developed for
each utility, including existing facilities, retrofit and upgrade facilities and future facilities, as required by the
legislation. Then, as further required by CHAPTER 395, the needs of existing customers were separated
from those of customers in the next ten years, and costs were weighted according. (In some facilities, there
was capacity for customers beyond the ten year horizon as well.) These results are shown in Tables 5-12
and 5-13. Because wastewater treatment services are not provided by the City of CIBOLO, no costs are
shown for sewage treatment However, the providers of that service (Cibolo Creek Municipal Authority)
intend to assess impact fees for their service and these fees will be passed along to CIBOLO feepayers.
TABLE 5.12
ASSOCIATED CIP INVENTORY
AND COSTING -WATER UTILITY
FACILITY CAPACrrY
1990
1990
(mgdorgais)
2000
2000
FACILITY
CONSTRUCTION
IN
EXCESS
EXCESS
CAPITAL
COST
(
COST
TOTAL
CURRENT
< 10 YEARS
> 10 YEARS
COST
PER LUE
NAME
USE
TOTAL
SUPPLY. PUMPING
MGD
EXISTING FACILITIES
Cibolo - Well #1, Pump @ 125 hp
$36,000
0.600
=_
G.V.W.S.D. Agreement (1984)
51601000
1.500
Subtotal Existing Facilities
$196,000
2.100
0.527
0.148
1.425
S13,777
$23 _
(a)
(a)
(b)
(b)
(b)
FUTURE FACILITIES
G.V.W.S.C. Future Water Supply
$800,000
8.381
Subtotal Future Facilities
$800,000
8.381
0.000
0.527
7.854
550,309
$82
(a)
(a)
(b)
(b)
@l
TOTAL WATER SUPPLY
5995.000
10.481
0.527
0.675
9.279
$64.087
5('S
itl
CIBOLO, TEXAS
(PRELIM/NAFM
TABLE 5-12
ASSOCIATED CIP INVENTORY
AND COSTING - WATER UTILITY
GROUND STORAGE
MG
EXISTING FACILITIES
Wiedner Road Tank
$350,000
1.000
Subtotal Existing Facilities
$350,000
1.000
0.061
0.017
0.922
$5,980
510
(a)
(a)
(b)
(b)
(b)
TOTAL GROUND STORAGE
5350.000
1.000
0.061
0.017
0.922
$5,980
S10
(c)
ELEVATED STORAGE
MG
EXISTING FACILITIES
None -
SO
0.000
Subtotal Existing Facilities
So
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
SO
SO
(a)
(a)
(a)
(a)
(a)
FUTURE FACILITIES
Main & F.M. 78 Elevated Tank
$3.500,000
2.000
Subtotal Future Facilities
53,500,000
2.000
0.707
0.102
1.191
S177,864
S292
(a)
(a)
(b)
(b)
(b)
TOTAL ELEVATED STORAGE
$3,500,000
A 2.000
0.707
0.102
1.191
5177.864
5292
(c)
WATER TRANSMISSION
AVERAGE
MGD
EXISTING FACILITIES
16" Water Main
$280,000
12" Water Main
$460,000
Subtotal Existing Facilities
$740.000
1.720
0.707
0.102
0.911
$43.727
S72
(a)
(a)
(b)
(b)
(b)
FUTURE FACILITIES
12" Main. Plant 9 to Exist. 1 MG
$200,000
Storage
12" Main, Loop Main SL, F.M. 78 &
5361,600
F.M. 1103
18
V
Subtotal Future Facilities
TOTAL WATER TRANSMISSION
WATER CONSTRUCTION COST
TOTAL
CIBOLO, TEXAS
(PRELIM/NARY)
$561,600
2.000 1.000
1.000
0.000
5280,800 $460
(a)
(a) (b)
(b)
(b)
LUE in 1999:
51,301,600
3.720 1.707
1.102
0.911
$324,527 5532
56,147,600
=1 LUE
Ground Storage:
100
5572,458 5938
(a) Source: City of Cibolo
2000
(b) Allocations per7NRCC
EXCESS
EXCESS
CAPITAL
(c) Assumes the fallowing conversion factors, derived from engineering demand per
LUE in 1999:
> 10 YEARS
COST
USE
Suppty/l'reatment:
1
gpm
=1 LUE
Ground Storage:
100
gals
=1 LUE
Elevated Storage:
100
gals
=1 LUE
Transmission:
2
gpm
=1 LUE
TABLES -13
ASSOCIATED CIP INVENTORY AND COSTING -
WASTEWATER UTILITY
FACILITY CONST.
NAME COST
COLLECTION AND PUMPING
EXISTING FACILITIES
Existing Collection Line Network
Subtotal Existing Facilities
FUTURE FACILITIES
F.M. 78 Lift Station & 8' Force Main
Town Creek UR Station & Force Main
Town Creek Collection Main
$1,000.000
$1,000.000
(a)
5200,000
5602,800
$1.032,342
FACILITY CAPACITY (mgd or gals)
TOTAL
AVERAGE
MGD
0.250
0.250
(b)
10.000
1990-
201)0
COST
PER LUE
$70
Subtotal Future Facilities $1,835.142 10250 0.180 1.550 8.520 $277,509 $586
(a) (e) (d,g) (0
TOTAL COLLECTION 52.835.142 10.500 0.343 1.558 8.489 5310,636 ^$656
WASTEWATER CONSTRUCTION $2,835.142 $310,635 $656
COST TOTAL(h)
(a) Source: City Planning
(b) Source: rapacity adequate to serve 2.000 (shown at average
demand).
19
2000
IN
EXCESS
EXCESS
CAPITAL
CURRENT
<10 YEARS
> 10 YEARS
COST
USE
TOTAL
$33.127
(0.031)
0.008
0.163
(c)
(d.9)
(0
1990-
201)0
COST
PER LUE
$70
Subtotal Future Facilities $1,835.142 10250 0.180 1.550 8.520 $277,509 $586
(a) (e) (d,g) (0
TOTAL COLLECTION 52.835.142 10.500 0.343 1.558 8.489 5310,636 ^$656
WASTEWATER CONSTRUCTION $2,835.142 $310,635 $656
COST TOTAL(h)
(a) Source: City Planning
(b) Source: rapacity adequate to serve 2.000 (shown at average
demand).
19
C/BOLO, TEXAS
(PRELIMINARY)
(c) proportionate share of 1990 sewer TABLE 6
service population; see
(d) 2000 demand allocated proportionate between available excess in existing facilities
and future facilities.
(e) Source: rapacity adequate to serve 3,000 (shown at average
demand).
(f) Remainder of available rapacity.
(g) Assumes the following gals to LUE
conversion factors:
Collection: 361 gals daily =1 LIJE
(h) Wastewater treatment construction costs are determined by New Braunfels Utilities and Cibolo Creek
Municipal Authority
in addition to costs shown and are reflected in the impact fees charged by these two entities to Cibolo
customers.
5.4. STORMWATER RUNOFF AND FLOOD CONTROL
kil; • ra • 1(i1k'
It has long been recognized that urban development has a pronounced effect on the rate of runoff from a
given rainfall. The hydraulic efficiency of a drainage system withurbanization generally increases the
speed of runoff and reduces the storage capacity of the watershed. The reduction of storage capacity is a
direct result of the elimination of porous soils and surfaces, small ponds, and natural holding areas. This
comes about by grading and paving of building sites, streets, drives, parking lots, and the construction of
rooftops.
Stone water management programs aimed at controlling increased runoff generated by development are
a top priority in watershed planning. More frequent flooding, increased rates and volumes of stone water
runoff, increased soil and channel erosion, and increased water pollution are all problems intensified by
increased stone water runoff resulting from development
Section 11.086 of the Texas Water Code states that it shall be unlawful for any person to divert the natural
flow of surface waters in this state or to impound waters in a manner that damages the property of
another. Statute also grants remedies, both at law and in equity, to any party injured by such a diversion.
This Water Code establishes strict liability for these unlawful diversions and the remedies include
damages caused by diversion. Summarized, this law requires that any development not change the
manner or quantity of storm runoff.
In recent years there has been considerable discussion of the use of nonstructural' measures to minimize
the impact of urban development on flood flows. These measures are generally considered to include, but
are not limited to:
1. Retention Ponds
2. Detention Ponds
3. Rooftop Storage
4. Parking Lot Storage
5. Porous Paving
6. Grassed Swales
GBOLO, TEXAS
(pREL M1NAR»
In most cases these measures require some structural construction and are referred as "nonstructural" in
contrast to "structural" work on the major drainage systems of a watershed.
The most successful "nonstructural" measure implemented, enforced and maintained in the State is the
detention pond system. Many municipalities in an effort to comply with the Texas Water Code and gain
control of flood management have implemented a detention requirement for sites as small as an acre.
Watershed drainage systems based on numerous small detention facilities or
difficult to manage or to
define the actual combined effect on the peak flood. This method is usually a short tens crutch for
development to continue in a watershed with existing flooding problems. Such watershed management
usually move towards large regional detention facilities designed for thousands of acres. Detention ponds,
while technically feasible and can reduce the amount of channel enlargement required, are usually not
economical and will not solve existing flooding. Detention ponds requirements can be detrimental to
development due to costs, loss of land, maintenance, and health hazards.
The goal of watershed management should be to provide adequate flood control measures to eliminate
the 100 year flood plain from areas outside the banks of drainage channels in developed areas.
Additionally the goal should include insuring adequate facilities are provided to accommodate new
developments such that existing developments downstream would not be subject to flooding by_ the 100
year event _
"Structural" channel improvements by deepening, widening, and straightening to contain the 100 year 100
percent developed flood flow is the most realistic and economic solution to flood control.
Soils for the catchment include dark colored calcareous clays, silty clays, gravely loams, and outcroppings
of limestone rock. For drainage and runoff purposes the soils fall into the slow infiltration and high runoff
potential classifications.
The study area drainage system is largely natural unimproved channels with some undersized
channelization. Flood plains defined by the 1977 Flood Study considered development thru 1982. Due to
the existing condition of the water conveying systems the flood plain is relatively wide and shallow.
5.4.3 ABE6 STUDIED:
The Town Creek catchment area is 7.79 square miles (4987 acres) Ref. map. The estimated percent
development is approximately 8% at the time of this report This catchment will be one developing area
for both residential and commercial use.
A comprehensive cost estimate for a major drainage project begins with right-of-way acquisition. This area
of estimation proves to be the most flexible and therefore often results in considerable error. The study
site is bounded by land owned or controlled by private individuals, developers, and the City of Cibolo and
therefore negotiation for right-of-way will vary tremendously. A cost of $14,000.00 per acre for flood plain
was used as a basis of land cost Note that a pardon of the channel is presently within drainage easement
or right-of-way.
Construction costs are based on 1995 prices experienced in this area. Clearing and grubbing of site
includes removal offsite of spoil due to burning ordinances. Earthwork costs include excavation, 1500 foot
haul, and stockpiling. Earthwork quantities are calculated from hydraulic sections and accuracy's are
limited to such.
21
C/BOLO, TEXAS
(PRELrMOIARYJ
Assessment imposed by the City of Cibolo against new development in order to generate revenue for
funding or recovering the cost of capital improvements necessitated by new development
The Town Creek water shed is presently 8% developed. Approximately 4,587 undeveloped acres are
within the City E.T.J. and City Limits.
The Town Creek watershed has a high development potential and this urbanization changes the response
to precipitation. The increased peak discharge will aggravate existing inundation by flood waters.
Urbanization of the watershed will effectively double the existing 100 -year flood discharge. As the
population increases and land valves increase, the effects of uncontrolled runoff will become an economic
burden and a serious threat to the health and well-being of the community.
Manaoement of the runoff will require far sighted planning and strategies before increased flooding occurs.
Improvements to the major drainage conveying channels can remedy existing flooding, allow for
upstream development, and bring lower watershed land out of the flood plain.
Financing of drainage project may be drawn from a number of resources. A combination of impact fees,
matching grant funds, and city participation will all be required to ensure the common goal of protecting
the well-being of the community.
Now is the time to begin both short and long term planning for watershed drainage management to
encourage continued safe growth of the community.
TABLE 5-14
STORMWATER RUNOFF AND FLOOD CONTROL
-QUANTITY
1. RIGHT-OF-WAY 46 ACRE
2. CHANNEL EXCAVATION 556,000 CY
3. STRUCTURAL IMPROVEMENTS
a) Wiedner Road 1 LUMP SUM
b) Borgfeld Road 1 LUMP SUM
c) Schlather Road 1 LUMP SUM
SUBTOTAL
ENGINEERING FEE 10%
TOTAL
M
MITI L
14,000.00 $ 644,000.00
2,95 $1,650,000.00
361,200.00 $ 361,200.00
150,500.00 $ 150,500.00
301,000.00 $ 301,000.00
$3,105,700.00
310.670.00
$3,417,370.00
daoLo, Tams
(PRELIMINARY)
Impact fee derivation used for stormwater and Flood Control is based on the cost of total improvements of
the watershed divided by total number of acres of land within said watershed.
Flood Control Area = 4,587 Acres
Flood Control Improvements = $3,417,370.00
Impact Fee Cost per Acre = Cost of Imorovements = 745.00/acre
Total Service Acreage
Impact Fee Cost per LUE _ $253.001LUE
The Impact Fee for the Town Creek watershed would be approximately $253.00/LUE if the total burden
were placed upon new development
The results of the cost analyses can be summarized as follows:
CAPITAL COST ELEMENT
WATER
Supply/Pumping
Ground Storage
Elevated Storage
Major Transmission
Study Costs
Total Water Capital Cost
WASTEWATER
Wastewater Treatment
Pumping
Major Collection
Study Costs
Total Wastewater Capital Costs
DRAINAGE
Flood Control
ROADWAYS
Thoroughfare
Total Water, Sewer, Drainage
and Local Roadways
COST/LUE*
$ 105.00
$ 10.00
$ 292.00
$ 532.00
$ 8.00
$ 947.00
$ 656.00
$ 8.00
$ 664.00
$ 253.00
$ 650.00
$2,514.00
• An LUE is equal to use by atypical household with a 518" water meter.
'• Service provided by CCMA
ga0L0, TEXAS
(PREUMINARI7
5.5 MAJOR THOROUGHFARE PLAN
The purpose of the Major Thoroughfare Plan is to identify the location of major roadways that will be
needed to accommodate through traffic to support ultimate buildout and beyond. The primary intent of the
Major Thoroughfare Plan is to:
1. Support the Land Use Plan
2. Serve as a guide for determining right of way requirements
3. Establish policies concerning the construction of major roadways in support
of orderly urban development through the land subdivision process.
The roadway system, which is the foundation for the entire transportation system, must be arranged to
accommodate the needs of the entire area. There are two primary purposes for roadways:
1. To provide vehicular access to abutting land
2. To allow for the through movement of vehicular traffic
The design standards -for roadway construction are contained in the Subdivision Regulations. The general
roadway standards of the Major Thoroughfare system are described as follows:
RIGHT OF WAY 86'
ROADWAY WIDTH 62'
CURB 6' CURB
SIDEWALK 4' SIDEWALK
DESCRIPTION 4 LANE DIVIDED ROADWAY 12 FOOT LANE
WIDTH WITH MEDIAN. LEFT AND RIGHT TURN LANES.
MINOR ARTERIAL
RIGHT OF WAY
86'
ROADWAY WIDTH
42'
CURB
6' CURB
SIDEWALK
4' SIDEWALK
MINIMUM 4 LANE UNDIVIDED ROADWAY 11 FOOT LANE WIDTH
DESCRIPTION
24
y
UBOLO, TEXAS
(PRU MiNAR17
TABLE 5-15
MAJOR THOROUGHFARE
COST ANALYSIS
MAJOR ARTERIAL
CONSTRUCTION
COST
BORGFELD ROAD
$2,365,000.00
HAECKERVILLE ROAD
2,769,000.00 .
WOODLAND OAKS ROAD
1,945,000.00
FM 1103 EXTENSION
1.452.000.00
SUBTOTAL
$8,531,000.00
MINOR ARTERIAL
WIEDNER ROAD
$2,208,000.00
SCHLATHER ROAD
1,626,000.00
MAIN STREET
2,051,000.00
2,350,000.00
AIRPORT ROAD
984.000.00
DEER CREEK ROAD
SUBTOTAL
$17,750,000.00
MAJOR THOROUGHFARE SYSTEM CAPACITY =
71,610 (POPULATION)
EQUIVALENT LUE's
=
27,308
COST PER LUE _
$17,750,000/27,308 LUE
_
$650.00/LUE
6.0 FEE CALCULATION
The maximum fee was established as $947 for water and as $664 for wastewater, roads $650,
and drainage 5253.
7.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
7.1 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE CONSULTANTS
This report represents the technical compliance activities of the City of CIBOLO responsive to CHAPTER 395
of the 70th Texas Legislature, and to its amendments. In addition to the adoption of the fees calculated
herein, the Consultants recommended:
25
aaoco,rsxas
(1) Consideration of a fee escalator, based on the Engineering News Record Construction Cost
Index, on an annual basis, to ensure that the fee assessed in any given year represents the
true value of the fee and recovers full calculated cost value.
(2) Consideration of collection of the fee in nominal dollars, for the same reasons.
(3) Use of fee revenues to avoid future bonding, whenever possible. If the funds are available in a
timely manner, approximately 16 percent of the water ten-year CIP could be cash -funded.
(The remainder of the costs are attributable to either existing or post -2000 customers.)
Roughly 70 percent of the wastewater 10 -year CIP could be cash funded (again, with the
remaining costs attributable to post -2000 customers).
(4) Only if recommendation number (3) is impracticable, the Consultants recommend
consideration of using some of the fee proceeds for early retirement of the growth -related
portion of existing bonds for growth -related capacity included in the CIP. This will tend to
reduce rates for all customers and would have the added effect of reducing the "remaining
indebtedness" credit for calculation of future fees.
(5) Only when (3) or (4) are infeasible should fee proceeds be used for debt service for future
customers.
(6) The Consultants recommend that the City maintain separate dedicated accounts for water and
sewer fee revenues, respectively, and retain accrued interest in each account, as stipulated in
CHAPTER 395. Expenditures from those accounts must be carefully documented to
demonstrate that the fee proceeds are used for the purposes for which they were collected, as
required by law.
The Consultants also recommend that the Utilities' records include the following information for each capital
recovery fee payment made:
(a) Date of final plat (date of fee assessment)
(b) Ordinance number by which property is assessed a capital recovery fee
(c) Date of tap purchase
(d) Size of water meter
(e) Number of LUE's for which a capital recovery fee is assessed
(f) Amount of capital recovery fees paid
(g) Date of payment of capital recovery fees
(h) Special conditions or exceptions, if any
(i) Sufficient locational information, consistent with city or county deed records, to enable the
Utilities to establish ownership of property
lil
7.2
AND CONCLUSIONS OF TBE ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Throughout the study, the Advisory Committee recommended or approved several policy -
related decisions, in addition to support for the overall technical study. In summary, those
policy decisions included:
1 . recommend including in the fee calculations all major off-site facilities needed to provide
water, ewer, drainage and local roadways service throughout the service areas. This
included wastewater treatment which is funded by CIBOLO partially through impact fees
to be collected by the Cibolo Creek Municipal Authority.
2. The service areas presented herein were recommended, as explained in the text above.
3. recommend that fees be charged on a pooled -cost basis rather than desegregated.
4. recommend that the City use the "living unit equivalency, or LUE, as the basis for
charging water and sewer impact fees, and that the number of LUFs for a new
development be based on the size of the water meter. They also recommended that the
Utility Director be allowed to establish the appropriate number of LUES based on
engineering studies when unusual service or use justified such adjustments.
5. discussed the advisability of including an inflation -based fee escalator to maintain the
value of the capital recovery fees collected, relative to the value of the fees at assessment
or relative to the value of the fees at the date of ordinance adoption. The Committee
recommended against such an escalator.
6. recommend collecting fees at time of building permit for properties within the City limits,
and at time of tap purchase for properties outside the City.
7. Regarding the amount of fees assessed, recommend that the maximum amount of
allowable fees be stated in the ordinance and that the City Council be provided the
flexibility to set the fees at the maximum or at any lesser amount.
8. recommended that waivers or exemptions be allowed only to promote economic
development in the community and no waiver be given to residential property.
9. recommended that a capital recovery fee for fire flow capacity be collected.
10. recommended that special payment program be established in cases of individual
economic hardship or for septic tank "cutovers", allowing the feepayer to pay over a
period up to five years instead of in a lump sum.
11. recommended that the ordinance allow the City to enter into contracts with fee payers to
construct or finance portions of the utility in return for fee offsets.
12. recommended that appeals be allowed on generally all aspects of fee application and
administration.
27
MINUTES OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING
THE CITY COUNCIL OF CIBOLO CONDUCTED A REGULARLY SCHEDULED MEETING
ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 14, AT 7:00 P.M. AT THE MUNICIPAL BUILDING, 109 SOUTH
MAIN STREET, CIBOLO, TEXAS. THE FOLLOWING WAS BE THE ORDER OF BUSINESS:
L CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Sam Bauder called the meeting to order.
II. ROLL CALL.
Present were Mayor Bauder, Mayor pro -tem Jeff Miller, Councilman Bob Glisar, Councilman Chuck
Ridge and Councilwoman Gail Douglas. Councilman Mark Buell was absent.
III. INVOCATION.
Mr. Glisar gave the opening prayer.
IV. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.
Mayor Bauder led the pledge.
V. CITIZENS TO BE HEARD. (LIMIT 3 MINUTES EACH)
Lew Borgfeld expressed his interest in the impact fee ordinance. He said that he understood the necessity
for the fee but hoped that the percentage set would not be so high that it discouraged development
VI. CONSENSUS ITEMS:
A. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF OCTOBER 24,1995
Mr. Miller moved (Mr. Glisar) for approval. Approved.
B. APPROVAL OF CHECK REGISTER FOR October 1995
Mr. Glisar asked about charges to the City of Schein and was told that was for dispatch service.
Mr Glisar moved (Mr. Ridge) for approval. Approved
VII. ACTION ON VOTING FOR GCAD BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Mr. Miller moved (Ms. Douglas) that Sylvia Schalther receive all 28 votes from Cibolo. Approved
VIII. DISCUSSION/APPROVAL OF AN ORDINANCE ASSESSING IMPACT
FEES FOR NEW DEVELOPMENT IN THE CITY OF CIBOLO AND ITS
EXTRA -TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION
Mr. Glisar moved that the City asses impact fees of 60% of the maximum allowable for water ($568.20)
and wastewater ($398.20) at the time of building permit application and 40% of the maximum allowable for
streets ($260.00) and drainage ($93.20). Second by Mr. Miller. Approved by all.
Vor"W1] Wel I will KU
ORDINANCE # 461
IMPACT FEE ORDINANCE
AN ORDINANCE APPROVING THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN FOR THE CITY OF
CIBOLO AND IMPOSING IMPACT FEES ON NEW PLATTING ACTIVITY AND OTHER
NEW DEVELOPMENT
Passed on the 14th day of NOVEMBER, 1995
Mayor Sam Bauder
Councilman Jeff Miller Councilman Bob Glisar
Councilman Mark Buell Councilman Chuck Ridge
Councilwoman Gail Douglas
Charles A. Balcar, City Administrator/City Secretary
City of Cibolo
PO BOX 88
Cibolo, Texas 78108
(210) 658-9900
CITY OF CIBOLO
ORDINANCE # 461
AN ORDINANCE APPROVING THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN OF
THE CITY OF CIBOLO, TEXAS AND IMPOSING IMPACT FEES FOR THE
EXTENSION OF WATER AND WASTEWATER FACILITIES AND FOR
NECESSARY IMPROVEMENTS TO CORRECT IMPACT ON STREETS AND
DRAINAGE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF CHAPTER
395 OF THE TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE
WHEREAS, the City of Cibolo is authorized by chapter 395 of the Texas Local
Government Code to enact impact fees as defined therein to finance certain capital
improvements required by new development; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the requirements of chapter 395, an impact fee advisory
committee appointed by the city council has developed land use assumptions for the City of
Cibolo which have been approved by the city council; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the requirements of chapter 395, a capital improvements plan
and maximum authorized impact fees have been developed by the city engineer, which plan is
attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and incorporated herein for all purposes; and
WHEREAS, the city council has conducted a public hearing on the proposed capital
improvements plan and impact fees following due notice and publication as required by law;
WHEREAS, the city council of the city of Cibolo desires to insure that impact fees as
defined by the Texas Local Government Code and assessed within the City of Cibolo
accurately represent the true costs of constructing capital improvements and facility
expansions and are fair to the public and to the party upon whom the fees are imposed;