Ord 1348 09/14/2021 Water/Wasterwater Impact Fees v0
CJ ,r$ r==0..
TEXA`'
"City of Choice"
ORDINANCE NO. /3 q i '
AN ORDINANCE_ UPDATING AND AMENDING THE CITY OF CIBOLO WATER,
WASTEWATER, DRAINAGE AND TRANSPORATION IMPACT FEE PROGRAMS
BY.ADOPTING UPDATED LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS, ADOPTING AN UPDATED
CAPITAL. IMPROVEMENTS PLAN, REVISING THE IMPACT FEE SERVICE
AREA BOUNDARIES AND ADOPTING THE 2021 IMPACT FEE STUDY 2021
UPDATE, AND AMENDING THE WATER, WASTEWATER, DRAINAGE AND
TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEES' TO BE CHARGED BY THE CITY OF
CIBOLO; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR SAVINGS AND
REPEAL; PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Cibolo, Texas (the "City Council") has
previously passed. Ordinance No. 1067 adopting Land.Use Assumptions ("LUA"), a Capital
Improvement Plan ("CIP") and . impact .fees for Water, Wastewater, Drainage and
Transportation("Impact Fees"); and
WHEREAS,the City Council has previously.passed Ordinance No. 1276 on August 19, 2019
adopting the 2019-2024 City of Cibolo 5-Year CIP; and
WHEREAS, the City of Cibolo, Texas (the "City") has-caused its existing LUAs, CIPS, and.
Impact Fee Service Areas to be reviewed by the Capital Improvements Plan Advisory
Committee ("CIAC") on May 18, 2021, and reviewed by City Council on June 15, 2021; and
WHEREAS,the City has caused its.existing LUAs, CIPS, and Impact Fee Service Areas to be
reviewed, evaluated and updated by qualifiedprofessionals using generally accepted
engineering and planning practices in accordance with the provisions of Subchapter B of,
Chapter 395 of the Texas Local Government Code; and
WHEREAS, such updates to the City's LDAs, CIPs, and Impact Fee .Service Areas
necessitate an update in the water, wastewater, drainage and transportation impact fees in .
order to implement and fund the expenses of constructing capital improvements,and facility
expansions in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 395 of the Texas Local Government
Code; and
WHEREAS,:the City's consultants have prepared a document titled "Impact Fee Study
2021 Update, Water, Wastewater, Drainage and Transportation", dated July 2021,
attached hereto as Exhibit A to this ordinance and incorporated herein by' reference,
Pagel
proposing updates to the Impact-Fee Studies adopted by Ordinance 1067 in 2013 for Water
Systems, Wastewater.Systems,:Drainage-Systems and Transportation-Systems; and
WHEREAS, The City has fully complied with Chapter 395,Texas Local Government Code,
with regards to notice, adoption, promulgation and methodology as required for creation and
adoption:of the updated LDAs, CIPs,.and Impact Fee Service Areas; and, .
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 395.056, Texas Local Government "Code, the CIRC has
filed written comments on,the proposed-amendments tothe LDAs; CIPS, and Impact Fee
Service Areas on or before the 5th day before the date of the public hearing on the
amendments; and
WHEREAS, the .City Council has reviewed the updated and amended LUAs, CIPs, and
Impact Fee Service Areas, and each impact fee study referenced above, and held a public
hearing on August 24,'-2021 to receive public input on the proposed updates and amendments
to the LUAs, Impact Fee Service. Area, 5-Year 2019-2024 Cibolo CIP and each impact fee
study; and
WHEREAS, the proposed updates and amendments to the updated and amended LDAs,
CIPs, .and Impact Fee Service Areas, and each impact fee study'-were made available to the
public; and
WHEREAS, the City Council hereby finds and determines that it is in the best interest of the
health and welfare of the citizens of Cibolo to approve the updated LUAs, CIPS, and Impact
Fee Service Areas, for each component of the impact fee study.
NOW.THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF CIBOLO, TEXAS:
Part 1. Water Impact Fee Program. The City Council amends the City's Water Impact Fee
Program by adopting:
(1) the area described in the City's Certificate of Convenience and Necessity
(CCN) for water service, as identified in the "Cibolo Impact Fee. Program
Update, Roadway, Water, Wastewater and Drainage Systems" (Exhibit A)
of this ordinance,as the City's Water Service Area; . :
(2) the:Land Use Assumptions described in of the "Cibolo Impact Fee Program
Update, .Roadway, Water, Wastewater and.Drainage Systems" (Exhibit
A);
(3) the Impact Fee Capital Improvements Plan, described in,the "Cibolo Impact
Fee Program :..Update, Roadway, Water, Wastewater and Drainage
Systems" (Exhibit A);and
(4) a Water Impact Fee of$1,839.00 per service unit on new development within
-
- the Water Service Area described, in the "Cibolo. Impact. Fee Program
Update, Roadway, Water, Wastewater and Drainage Systems" (Exhibit
A).
Page 2
Part 2. Wastewater Impact Fee Program. The City Council amends the City's Wastewater
Impact Fee Program by adopting-
-(I) the area described in the City's Certificate. of Convenience and Necessity
(CCN) for wastewater service, as identified in the "Cibolo Impact Fee
Program Update,Roadway, Water, Wastewater and Drainage Systems"
(Exhibit A) of this ordinance, as the City's Wastewater Service Area
(2) the Land Use Assumptions described in of the "Cibolo Impact Fee Program
Update, Roadway, Water, Wastewater and Drainage Systems" (Exhibit
A);
(3) the Impact Fee Capital Improvements Plan, described in the "Cibolo Impact
Fee Program Update, Roadway,. Water, .Wastewater and Drainage
Systems" (Exhibit A); and
(4) a Wastewater Impact Fee of $873.00 per service unit on new development
within the Wastewater Service Area described in the "Cibolo Impact Fee
Program Update, Roadway, Water, Wastewater and Drainage Systems"
(Exhibit A).
Part 3. Drainage Impact Fee. Program. The City Council amends the City's Drainage
Impact Fee Program by adopting:
{1) -the watersheds drainage basins, as described in the ."Cibolo Impact Fee
Program Update, Roadway, Water, Wastewater and Drainage Systems"
(Exhibit A) as the City's Drainage Service Area;
'(2) the Land Use Assumptions described in the "Cibolo Impact Fee Program
Update, Roadway, Water, Wastewater and Drainage Systems" (Exhibit
A);
(3) the Impact Fee Capital Improvements Plan, described in the "Cibolo Impact
Fee, Program Update, Roadway, Water, Wastewater and Drainage
Systems" (Exhibit A); and
(4) a Drainage Impact Fee Calculation by Service Area and per square foot of
impervious coverage.in the amount of.$0.70 within the Dietz Creek-Cibolo
Creek Area, $0.00within the. Lower Cibolo Creek Area, $0.00 within the
Lower Santa Clara Creek Area, $0.91 within the Town Creek Area and $0.76
within the Upper Santa Clara Creek Area on new development within the
Drainage Service Area described in the "Cibolo Impact Fee. Program
Update, Roadway, Water., Wastewater and Drainage Systems (Exhibit
A).
Part.4..Roadway Impact Fee Program. The City Council amends the City's Transportation
Impact Fee.Program by adopting:
Y
Page 3
(1) the Roadway Service Area, consisting of Area 1, Area 2 and Area 3; as
described in the: "Cibolo Impact Fee Program Update, Roadway, Water,
Wastewater and Drainage Systems." (Exhibit A) as the Roadway Service i
Area;
(2) the Land Use Assumptions described in.the "Cibolo Impact Fee Program
Update, Roadway, Water, Wastewater and Drainage Systems" (Exhibit
A):
(3) the Impact Fee Capital Improvements Plan, described in the "Cibolo Impact
Fee Program Update, Roadway, Water, ' Wastewater and Drainage
Systems" (Exhibit A); and
(4) Roadway Impact Fees in the amount of $2,100.00 per service unit on new
development within -Area 1 of the Roadway Service Area, $2,175.00 per
service unit on new development within Area 2 of the Roadway Service Area,
and $1,392.00 per service unit on new, development within Area, 3 of the
Roadway Service Area as described in,the "Cibolo Impact Fee Program
Update, Roadway, Water, Wastewater and Drainage Systems" (Exhibit
A).
Part 5. Maximum Fee per Service Unit. The maximum impact fee per service unit for
water, wastewater, drainage and transportation facilities, as may be amended from time to
time, is hereby declared to be an approximate and appropriate measure of the impacts
generated by a new unit of development on the City's infrastructure system. To the extent that
the impact fee charged against a new development, as may be amended from time to time, is
less than the maximum impact fee per service unit, such difference is hereby declared to be
founded on policies unrelated to measurement of the impacts of the new development on the
City's infrastructure system. The maximum impact fee may be used in evaluating any claim
by a property owner that the dedication or construction of a capital improvement within a
service area imposed as a condition of development approval ,pursuant to the City's
subdivision or development regulations is disproportionate to the impacts created by the
development on the City's respective infrastructure system(s).
Part 6. Assessment and Collection of Impact Fees.: Impact Fees shall be assessed and-.
collected in accordance with the provisions,of Chapter 395 of the Texas Local Government
Code, as the same may be amended from time to time. The City Manager, or his designee, is
hereby authorized to develop procedures and policies for assessment and collection of impact.
fees consistent with applicable law and the City's ordinances, and to implement said
procedures and policies in the administration of the City's Transportation Impact Fee
Program.
Part 7. Agreement with Owner. This ordinance does not.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 andmethod of payments of the impact fees or an agreement for a
reduction or waiver of fees.
Part 8. Acceptance of Fees. The City-is under no obligation to accept offered impact fees.
This ordinance creates no obligation for the City toserve any property within the City.
Page 4
Part 9. Imposition of Additional Fees. This ordinance shall not limit the City's authority to
impose other or additional impact fees. authorized by Chapter 395 of the Texas Local
Government Code, or to impose taxes, fees, charges, or assessments authorized by state law.
Part 10. Attachments. Exhibit A referenced above is, in its entirety, hereby incorporated by
reference into this ordinance.
Part 11. Repealer.- Any prior ordinance or parts of ordinances that.are in force when this
ordinance becomes effective, and which conflict with the provisions of this ordinance, are
hereby repealed to the extent of the conflict.
Part 12. Severance. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase of this Ordinance
is for any reason, held to be unconstitutional or invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction,
such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance.
Part 13. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall become effective immediately upon its
adoption.
PASSED.AND APPROVED this,the 14th day of September 2021.
Stosh Boyle
Mayor, City Kbolo
ATTEST:
Peggy Cimics, TRMC
City Secretary, City of Cibolo
Page 5
EXHIBIT A
".CIBOLO IMPACT FEE PROGRAM UPDATE, ROADWAY,WATER,
WASTEWATER AND DRAINAGE SYSTEMS"
(Attached)
r
Page 6
approachesInnovative
FREESE Practical results
NMI 012'A I C H 0 L S Outstanding service
CIBOLO IMPACT FEE PROGRAM UPDATE
ROADWAY, WATER, WASTEWATER
AND DRAINAGE SYSTEMS .
FINAL REPORT
Prepared for:
City of Cibolo
�y
OF. C14s,
O
�- U p
r
T£ xP'S
July 2021
Prepared by:
FREESE AND NICHOLS,INC.
9601.McAllister Freeway,Suite 1008
San Antonio,Texas 78216
ROADWAY, WATER, WASTEWATER AND
DRAINAGE IMPACT FEE REPORT
Prepared for:
City of Cibolo
c�..... S'�1f//
:::....................:::i i
�*::................. : '� � :.............:....
...
..//�<EVIN'6Ri SSAR i ... MESD.KEITH
...... '0SSICA BVA10
.. ............ .........
� 0 1 :
I����C ��=� „�t�,,,.' I�,F`�,S.CENS. NG�� �1 ccS,'•.�ENS...G���
1 'ONAL E� S�0NAL
7-23-2021 �`` °J` Ik�••«� Lam! -
. 7/23/2021 7/23/2021
FREESE AND NICHOLS, INC. FREESE AND NICHOLS, INC. FREESE AND NICHOLS, INC.
TEXAS REGISTERED TEXAS REGISTERED TEXAS REGISTERED
ENGINEERING FIRM ENGINEERING FIRM ENGINEERING FIRM
F-2144 F=2144 F-2144
Prepared by:
FREESE AND NICHOLS,INC.
9601:McAllister Freeway,Suite 1008
San Antonio;Texas 78216
FNI Project Number: CIB20836
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.........:...........................................................................................................ES-1
1.0 BACKGROUND.........................................................................................................................7
2.0 LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS..........................................................................:.............................10
2.1 Service Areas...........................................................................................................................:.....10
2.2 Growth Assumptions....................................................................................................................15
2.2.1 Roadway Growth Assumptions.............................................................................................................15
2.2.2 Water and Wastewater Growth Assumptions...............................:.....:..:................................:.....15
2.2.3 Drainage Growth Assumptions................................:...........................................................................17
3.0 ROADWAY IMPACT FEE ANALYSIS..........................................................................................19
3.1 Methodology................................................................................................................................19
3.2 Roadway Service Areas....:............................................................................................................20
3.3 Roadway Impact Fee Service Units.............................................................
3.3.1 Service Units................................................................................................................................................21
3.3.2 Service Units for New Development...........................................:............................................:.........22
3.3.3 Trip Generation..........................................................................................................................................22
3.4 Existing Conditions Analysis .........................................................................................................29
3.4:1 Existing Volumes.................:........................................:.............................................................................29
3.4.2 Vehicle-Miles of Existing Capacity Supply and Demand............................................................30
3.4.3 Vehicle-Miles of Existing Excess Capacity and Deficiencies.....................................................30
3.5 Projected Roadway Demands ......................................................................................................31
3.6 Capital Improvement Plan............................................................................................................32
3.6.1 Eligible Projects..........................................................................................................................................32
3.6.2 Eligible Costs...........:....................................................................................................................................32
3.6.3 Impact Fee CIP............................................................................................................................................34
3.6.4 Projected Vehicle-Miles Capacity Available for New Growth............:.....................................37
3.6.5 Cost of Roadway Improvements..........................................................................................................38
3.7 Calculation of Impact Fees...........................................................................................................39
3.7.1 Cost per Service Unit..................................:.............................................................................................39
3.7.2 Cost Attributable to New Development..................... ...39
....................................................................
3.7.3 Sample Calculation of Roadway Impact Fees............:.........................::.........................................41
4.0 WATER AND WASTEWATER IMPACT FEE ANALYSIS.................................................................42
4.1 Existing Water.and Wastewater Systems.....................................................................................42
4.2 Water and Wastewater Load Projections......::............................................................................45
4.3 Water and Wastewater System Improvements...........................................................................46
4.4 Water and Wastewater Impact Fee Analysis................................................................................51
4.4.1 .. Service Units................................................................................................................................................51
4.4.2 Maximum Impact Fee Calculations.....................................................................::..............................53
Final Report-Roadway,Water,Wastewater and Drainage Impact Fee Update_ Freese and Nichols,Inc.
City of Cibolo,Texas Page i
'
'
�
'
�
'
'
5.0 DRAINAGE IMPACT FEE ANALYSIS...........................................................................................SS
. .
S5
5.1 K�ethudo�8y......------.....---.---...—.------~^^^^^^'------^^
5.2 Drainage Service Areas..................................................................................................................55.
5.3 Drainage Impact Fee Service Units...............................................................................................56
5.4 Drainage Impact Fee Analysis... .................................................... ...............................................57
5.5 Drainage Capital Improvement Projects......................................................................................S8
5.6 Drainage Impact Fee Cakuladons .......................................................
........................................6D
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2'1: Roadway Service Areas..................................................................................................................... 1
Figure 2'2:Water Service Area------------.....-------------.-----.------12
F�une2'3:VVas�xmaterServ�eArea---._—....—...-----.------------.—.—.---.12
Figure 2'4Drainage Service Areas......................................................................................................................14
�
Figure 2'5:Water and Wastewater Growth Areas..............................................................................................z6
Figure 3'1: Roadway Capital Improvement Plan..................................................................... ..........................35
Figure 4'1: Existing Water Distribution System..................................................................................................43
Figure 4'2: Existing Wastewater Collection System ...........................................................................................44
Figure 4-3:Water SystemImpact Fee Capital Improvement Plan......................................................................49
| � SO
F�une4'4�VVas�ymater�ystem|mpactFeeCap�a |mprovementP n--------------------
Figure 5'1: Drainage Service Areas..............................................................................r--......--------56
Figure5'ZDrainage|m ' Fee OP................................................ ..................................................................59
`
'
�
'
'
Final D«nor't-Doodway,Water,Wastewater and Drainage Impact Fee Update Freese and Nichols,Inc
City YyCibvk,Texas ' Page ii
'
'
'
'
�
, LIST OF TABLES
Table 1�1:Abbreviations........................--------------_----------------._---`-9
� Tab�I'1� P �t� d �d � Roadway
Area..................................................1S
�
Table 2'2: Employment Projections byType byRoadway Service Area.............................................................15
Table 2-3:Water andWastewaterDevelopment Areos .............................................................
.........................17 _
Table 2'4:Growth inWater and Wastewater Connections................................................................................17
Table 2-5: Percent, m pervious Values byLand Use Type...................................................................................18 '
Table 2-6: Projected lO'YearGrowth inService Unit..........................................................................................18
Table 3'1:Trip Reduction Estimates(PM Peak Hour)............................................................................ ..............25
Table3-2:Thp Lengths and.Adjustments.................... -----------_-----------_----..2G
`
Table 3-3: Land Use Vehicle-Mile Equivalency......................................... .........................................................28
Table 3'4: Roadway Facility Vehicle-Mile Lane Capacities-..............................................................................29
Table 3-5: Peak Hour Vehicle-Miles ofExisting- Capacity,' Demand, Excess[apadty,and Deficiencies.............31
'
Table 3-6: Projected 10'YearSenjoe Units ofGrowth............. ..................... ---------_r—_--_31
�
Table 3-7: Roadway Impact Fee OP Listing----------------------------------'36 �
�
Table 3'8:Capacity and Net Capacity Provided bythe Proposed C|p................................................................. 8
Table 2'9: Projected Demand and Net Capacity Provided bythe Proposed C|P..................................................38' .
.
Table 3'10:Summary ofRoadway Improvements Plan Cost Analysis---------------------39
Table '
' Ta e3'11� Roadway|mproveme�sP|nnCos /�thbu�ab|etoNewDeve|opment-------..------.40
Table 3' 2: Cost per Service Unit Summary..................... ......................................................................... .......4U
�
Table 44: Historical Water ........................................../......................................................... — ........4S
Table 4-Z:Water DemandP ....................... ---------...............................................................45
Table 4' :VVosteymaterFlowPnojec1iuns---------------------_--------------45
Table 4-4:VVoterSvst�xn Impact Fee Eligible Projects-------,_-----.----------'_--.47
Table 4' :Wastewater System Impact Fee Eligible Projects.......................... ...................................................48
�
Table 4-6:Service Unit Equivalencies-------.—.----.----~,.---------------.—.5Z
Table4'7:Water Service Units................................................................ ............................................................5Z
Table 4'8:Wastewater Service Units............................... ..................................................................................S3
Table &4axhnumVVa�er|m ctFeeCalculation
' � pa ------------------------------
54
�
Table 4-10: Maximum Wastewater Impact Fee Calculation...............................................................................54
Table 5-1: Percent Impervious Values by Land Use Type....................................................................................S7
Table 5-2: Projected 10'YearGrowth in Service Unit...... .................. .............................. ................................58
' .
Table 5-3:Service Area OP Costs........... ...............................................^ ..........................................................GO
Table 5-4: 10'YearC|P Cost Allocation by3eniceAiea-----------------------------.G1
Table S' :
' Drainage Impact' FeeCabu|at�nby ' Area .............................................................................61
'
LIST OF APPENDICES
'
Appendi x Roadway Existing Facilities Inventory
Appendix B Roadway Projected 1MeorGrowth '
'
Appendix Roadway
' '
. _
Appendix D. RoadumyOP Service'Units ofSupply,
. .
Appendix Roadway|mpruvementP|anCosAna�s� ' �
� . ' ' -
' Appepd� E ` Roadway Sen�ceAreaAoalysisSummary .
' . Appendix Water and Wastewater C|PMaps .
`
�
Final t-R ����N�x��o�,undDn,m«0o/mn�c /�oUpdo� �xxxoodP6ho��c
���\zbo�.Tmmx ' Page iii
�
`
'
'
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
BACKGROUND
An impact fee is a fee imposed by the local government on new development to pay for a portion of the-
costs of providing public infrastructure to meet increasing system demands resulting from new growth.
Impact fees are a one-time, up-front charge imposed to help fund and pay for construction or needed
expansion of specific off-site capital improvements and provide a structured and predictable cost for new
development rather than "negotiated" developer exactions. These fees are aimed at reducing the
economic burden of infrastructure on the city while dealing with population growth both within the city
and extra-territorial jurisdiction. Codified under Chapter 395,Texas Local Government Codes, impact fee
programs have been implemented by many communities across Texas since enabling legislation was
approved in 1989.
The City of Cibolo initially enacted impact fees in December 2008 as a funding mechanism to maintain
infrastructure pace with growth. The program was amended in 2013. Freese and Nichols, Inc. (FNI) was
authorized to perform the program update of water, wastewater, roadway, and drainage impact fees.
The purpose of this report is to summarize analyses used in the calculation of updated impact fees in
Cibolo. The methodology used herein'satisfies the requirements of the Texas Local Government Code
Section.395 for the establishment and update of water,wastewater, roadway,and drainage impact fees.
LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS
Population and land use assumptions are important elements in the determination of needs for
infrastructure systems. To assist in the determination of need and timing of capital improvements to
serve future.development, a reasonable estimation of future growth over a ten-year planning period 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.and employment projections forthe period 2021-2031,served
as the basis for the preparation of impact fee capital improvements plans. The land use assumptions were
developed using data developed from the.Cibolo Comprehensive Master Plan, the 2020 Cibolo;Texas
Demographics Report(Cibolo Economic Development bepartment),the Retail Marketplace Profile(Cibolo
Economic Development Department), the Future Land Use Plan Use and Thoroughfare Map dated
September 2017, demographic date from the Alamo Area Council of Governments, and with input from
Final Report-Roadway,Water,Wastewater and Drainage Impact Fee Update Freese and Nichols,Inc.
City of Cibolo,Texas Page 1
City Staff. Within the city limits, Cibolo is forecasted to grow annually at 3.5% over the ten-year period,
adding 14,609 residents for a total population of 48,609 in 2031. The water connections are estimated to
grow 4.2% annually, and the wastewater, connections are projected to grow 4.2% annually. Cibolo
employment is forecasted to growth by 4,539 employees to a total of 8,633 within the city limits by 2031.
ROADWAY IMPACT FEE ANALYSIS
Capital improvements identified for the roadway program `
..w City of Cibolo,TX
update is rooted on information from the City , .� ®> RosdwayseiWce Areas "
Thoroughfare Plan (September 2017), the City Capital
Improvement Plan, FY 2019-2024, and the ten-year and
use assumptions as described above.The roadway service
area structure was amended to incorporate city
annexations since 2012 and has increased from two to SA 2 ,
three zones. A fourth service area spanning ETJ area east
of Linne Road has been identified for possible long-term
incorporation into the impact fee program, as ,
SA,3 SA 4
appropriate. The zonal structure conforms to legislative «
mandate per Chapter 395 so that no point of each service ®M' r1 REE
NO _
area is greaterthan a six-mile maximum across the service
area.This six-mile limit ensures that roadway improvements are in proximity to the development paying
the fees that it serves.
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 using published trip generation data and average
trip length. The PM peak hour is used as a more finite approach to the determination' of capacity,
utilization, and adequacy as well as,the peak hour is typically used for roadway design.
Projected growth, expressed in terms.of vehicle-miles over a 10-year planning period, was based-on
population and employment data that was prepared as part of land use assumptions,as described above.
Based on this growth, the projected vehicle-miles of demand generated in the 10-year period was
calculated to be 2,024 vehicle-miles and is summarized in Table ES-1.
Final Report-Roadway,Water,Wastewater and Drainage Impact Fee Update Freese and Nichols,Inc.
City of Cibolo, Texas Page.2
Table ES-1: 10-Year Roadway Demand
Service Area Projected 10-Year Growth
1' 14,808
2 3,825
3 7,902
City Total 26,535
The impact fee CIP is aimed at facilitating anticipated long-term growth in Cibolo. The City Capital
Improvement Plan, FY 2019-2024 .identified in part capital projects .programmed for long=term
implementation. Other impact fee CIP projects were defined through analysis of need based on the 10-
year land use assumptions. All projects identified on the impact fee CIP align with facilities defined as
Arterial or Collector class in the current official Thoroughfare Plan. Projects identified in the impact fee
CIP reflect(new)system capacity enhancements and aimed at facilitating continued growth in.Cibolo.Cost
estimates for construction,engineering, right-of-way and debt service were developed.
The roadway impact fee CIP identifies sixty-six (66)
project segments totaling$295 million and provides ® City of Cifjolo,TX'
r
59,106 ,vehicle-miles of net. new capacity. State "
f Ile j
legislation requires that a credit for the portion of _
61
61
ad-valorem tax and utility service revenues ``
generated by new service units during the program
period that is used for payment of improvements,
or a credit equal to 50% of the total projected cost
of implementing a roadway impact fee capital " r
improvements program be given.Applying the 50% ,��
credit to the CIP, the credited CIP projects totaled =
$147 million of which $101 million attributable to
new development in the 10-year period.
The cost,per service unit was.calculated based on
the cost attributable to.new development and the 4 s r
projected 10=year demand.Applying the 50%credit
u
M�NICHOLS I
Final Report-Roadway,Water,Wastewater and Drainage Impact Fee Update Freese and Nichols,Inc.
City of Cibolo,Texas Page 3
to the CIP cost,the maximum allowable cost per service unit was calculated.
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 and/or the
adopted collection rate for each service area.This data is summarized in Table ES-2.
Table ES-2: Maximum Roadway Impact Fee Calculation
Roadway Impact Fee
_. -_CiiZ'�
Total Eligible Capital Improvement Costs $88,683,829 $137,881,756 $22,001,181
Percent Attributable to Growth} 70% 12% 1009/0
Total Eligible Impact Fee Costs $62,203,019 $16,642,927 $22,001,181
Growth in Service Units! 14,808 3;825 ; 71902
Maximum Roadway Impact Fee per Service Unit(1) $4,200 $4,351 $2,784
Impact Fee Credit per Seryice Unit(Zi $2;100 $2,175 i $1;392 .
o�
(1)Total Eligible Costs divided by the Growth in Service Units.
(2) Credit-is 50%of Maximum Roadway Impact Fee.per Service Unit.
(3) Maximum Allowable Roadway Impact Fee is Maximum Roadway.
Impact Fee minus the Impact Fee Credit per Service Unit.
WATER AND WASTEWATER IMPACT FEE ANALYSIS .
A water and-wastewater impact fee capital improvement plan (CIP)was developed for the City.of Cibolo .
based,on the City of Cibolo 2019-2024 list of projects for water and wastewater: The growth in water
connections and wastewater connections is presented in Table ES-3.
Table ES-3:Growth in Water and Wastewater Connections'
Wastewater
Water
Year Connections Conn-ections
2021 5,787 9,927
2031 8,770 14,946
Chapter 395 of the Texas Local Government Code states that the maximum impact fee may not exceed
the amount determined by dividing the cost of capital improvements required by the total number of
service units attributed to new development during the impact fee eligibility period, less the credit to
account for water and wastewater revenues used to finance capital. improvement plans. The total
projected costs include the projected capital improvement costs to serve 10-year development, the
Final Report-Roadway,Water,Wastewater and Drainage Impact Fee Update Freese and Nichols,Inc.
City of Cfbolo,Texas Page 4
projected finance cost for the capital improvements, and the consultant cost for.preparing and updating
the Capital Improvement Plan.A 3.0% interest rate was used to calculate financing costs.Table ES-4 and
Table ES-5 display a summary of the maximum allowable impact fee calculations for water and
wastewater, respectively.
Table ES-4: Maximum Water Impact Fee Calculation
Total Eligible Capital Improvement Costs $12,484,991
Total Eligible Financing Costs $1,485,018
Total Eligible Impact Fee Costs $13,970,009
Growth in Service Units 3,797.
Maximum Water Impact Fee pe,r Service Unit(') $3,679
Impact Fee Credit per Service Unit(4 $1,840
Maximum Allowable Water Impact Fee(3) $1,839
(1) Total Eligible Costs divided by the Growth in Service Units.
(2) .Credit is 50%of Maximum Water Impact Fee per Service Unit.
(3) Maximum Allowable Water Impact Fee is Maximum Water Impact Fee minus the Impact Fee Credit per
Service Unit.
Table ES-5: Maximum.Wastewater Impact Fee Calculation
Total Eligible Capital Improvement Costs $11,089,917
Total,Eligible Financing Costs $1,319,082 .
Total Eligible Impact Fee Costs $12,408,999
Growth in Service Units 7,102
Maximum Water Impact Fee per Service Unit(') $1,147
Impact Fee Credit per Service Unit IZI.. $874
Maximum Allowable Wastewater Impact Fee(') $873
(1) Total Eligible Costs divided by the Growth in Service Units.
(2) Credit is.50%of Maximum Wastewater Impact Fee per Service Unit.
(3) Maximum Allowable Wastewater Impact Fee is Maximum Wastewater Impact Fee minus the Impact Fee
Credit per Service Unit.
DRAINAGE.IMPACT.FEE ANALYSIS
Drainage Capital Improvement Projects.(CIP)were provided directly from the City.,Drainage CIPs are only
identified in the Dietz Creek-Cibolo Creek,Town Creek, and Upper Santa Clara Creek service areas at this
time. The cost for each CIP was adjusted based on the portion attributable to the 10-
year growth; and
then a 50%credit was applied to the cost of the CIP in determining a cost per service unit for each service
area in lieu of a credit analysis.
Final Report-Roadway,Water,Wastewater and Drainage Impact Fee Update Freese and Nichols,Inc.
City of Cibolo,Texas Page 5
The drainage impact fees for the Dietz Creek-Cibolo Creek, Town Creek, and, Upper Santa Clara Creek
service areas were calculated by dividing the attributable 10-year growth cost by the computed growth in
impervious area.
Based on the 50% credit, the drainage impact fees per square foot of impervious area proposed for the
Dietz Creek-Cibolo Creek,Town Creek, and Upper Santa Clara Creek service areas are shown in Table ES-
6:
'Table ES-6: Maximum Drainage Impact Fee Calculation
Service Area - .- ..
Impervious Surface
Dietz Creek-Cibolo Creek $0.70
Lower Cibolo Creek $0.00
Lower Santa Clara Creek $0.00
Town Creek $0.91
Upper Santa Clara Creek $0.76
Final Report-Roadway;Water,Wastewater and Drainage Impact Fee Update Freese and Nichols,Inc.
City of Cibolo,Texas Page 6
J
1.0 BACKGROUND
Chapter 395 of the Texas Local Government Code defines an impact fee as "a charge or assessment
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 the
new.development." Impact fees have been implemented and maintained innumerous numerous communities
across Texas since the early 1990's to serve as mechanism for exacting and funding infrastructure projects
in a fair and equitable manner from new development. Chapter 395 mandates procedural and
administrative requirements for implementing such programs as well as defining eligible costs including:
• Construction contract price,
•. Surveying and engineering fees,
Land acquisition,costs,
• Fees paid to the consultant preparing or updating the,capital improvement plan (CIP),and
• Projected interest charges and other finance costs for projects identified in the CIP.
Chapter 395 also identifies items that impact fees cannot used to pay for,such as:
• Construction,acquisition,orexpansion of publicfacilities,or assets otherthan those identified
on the capital improvement plan,
• Repair, ope'ration,or maintenance of existing or new capital improvements,
• Upgrading, updating, expanding, or replacing existing capital improvements to serve existing
development to meet stricter safety,efficiency, environmental;or regulatory standards,
• Upgrading, updating,expanding,or replacing existing capital improvements to provide better
service to existing development,
• Administrative and operating costs of the political subdivision, and
• Principal payments and interest or other finance charges on bonds-or other indebtedness,
except as allowed above.
As a funding mechanism for capital improvements,impact fees allow cities to recover the costs associated
With new or facility expansion to serve future development. For roads, only arterial and collector status
roads on the Thoroughfare Development Plan may be considered. Statutory requirements mandate that
impact fees be based on a specific list of improvements identified in a capital improvements program and
only the cost attributed (and necessitated) by new growth over a ten-year period may be considered.As
Final Report-Roadway,Water,Wastewater and Drainage Impact Fee Update Freese and Nichols,Inc.
City of Cibolo,Texas Page 7
projects in the program are completed, planned costs are updated with actual costs to reflect the capital
expenditure of the program more accurately. Additionally, new capital improvement projects may be
added to the system.
In December 2020, the City of Cibolo authorized Freese and Nichols, Inc. (FNI) to perform an update to
the impact fee program for the roadway, water,wastewater, and drainage systems.The purpose of this
report is to present the methodology used in the development and calculation of water, wastewater,
roadway, and drainage impact fees for Cibolo.The methodology used herein satisfies the requirements
mandated by Chapter 395 for the establishment of roadway, water; wastewater, and drainage impact
fees.
As part of the impact fee update, FNI conducted meetings and workshops with the city's appointed Capital
Improvements Advisory Committee (CIAC) and City Council. The CIAC's role includes recommending a
growth rate for impact fee calculations, review and comment of land use assumptions and Impact Fee
Capital Improvements Plans (CIP), and recommended considerations for collection rates to.the City
Council.
Initially 'authorized by the Texas Legislature in 1987, roadway impact fees have undergone several
technical and administrative changes,most notably since 2001.These include:.
• Expansion of the service area structure for roadway facilities from three to six miles,
• A credit forthe portion of ad valorem tax revenues generated by improvements overthe 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 of update of impact fee land use assumptions and-capital improvements plan
from a three to:a five-year period,
• Changes in compliance-requirements related to annual reporting,
im For system updates, consolidation of the land use assumptions, capital improvements plan, and
impact fee hearings,and
• The exemption of school districts and federal housing from impact fees.
Final Report-Roadway,Water,Wastewater and Drainage Impact Fee Update Freese and Nichols,Inc.
City of Cibolo,'Texas Page 8
Table 1-1 provides a list of abbreviations used in this report.
Table 1-1:Abbreviations
Abbreviation Full Nomenclature
CIP Capital Improvement Plan_
ETJ Extra-territorial Jurisdiction
FNI Freese and Nichols, Inc.
gpCd gallons per connection per day
gpm gallons per minute
IFCIP Impact Fee Capital Improvement Plan
ITE Institute of Transportation Engineers
LOS Level of Service
LUA Land Use Assumptions
MGD Million Gallons per Day
AAMPO Alamo Area Metropolitan Planning
Organization
NFITS National Household Travel Survey
SA Special Arterial
SC Special Collector
sf square foot
TWLTL Two-Way Left Turn Lane
veh-mi Vehicle-miles
VMT Vehicle-miles of travel
Final Report-Roadway,Water,Wastewater and Drainage Impact Fee Update Freese and Nichols,Inc.
City of Cibolo,Texas Page 9
2.0 LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS. ,
An initial step in the impact fee development process is the establishment of land use assumptions that
address.growth and development for a ten-year planning period (TLGC Section 395.001(5)). To assist in
the determination of 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 and employment
projections for the ten-year planning period 2021-2031, are the basis for the preparation of impact fee
capital improvement plans. The land use assumptions were developed using,data developed from the
Cibolo Comprehensive Master Plan, the. 2020 Cibolo, Texas Demographics Report (Cibolo Economic
Development Department),the Retail Marketplace Profile (Cibolo Economic Development Department),
the Future Plan Use and Thoroughfare Map dated September 2017, demographic date from the Alamo
Area Council of Governments, and with input from City Staff. Growth rates and resultant population and
employment forecasts were approved by the Impact Fee Capital Improvements Advisory Committee.on
April 20,2021.
2.1 SERVICE AREAS
Service areas for roads, water, wastewater, and drainage were amended to address and structural
changes since the last program update in 2013. With roadways confined to city limits, changes due to
annexations were incorporated. A third service area addressing the far southern sector of the city south
of Schmoekel Road was defined. For long-term program development,a fourth service area covering ETJ
area east of Linne Road has been defined. Water service area conformed with water CCN boundary, and
the wastewater service area is the area surrounded by other wastewater CCN holders. Drainage service
areas align with drainage basins traversing the city and ETJ areas. Five drainage basins span the Cibolo
area and include Dietz Creek-Cibolo Creek,Lower Cibolo Creek,Lower Santa Clara Creek,Town Creek,and
Upper Santa Clara Creek. Figures 2-1, 2-2, 2-3 and 2-4 illustrate the roadway, water, wastewater, and
drainage service areas, respectively.
Final Report-Roadway,Water,Wastewater and Drainage Impact Fee Update _ Freese and Nichols,Inc.
City of Cibolo,Texas Page 10
Figure 2-1: Roadway Service Areas
_r,J, City of Cibolo, TX
rya
F
Roadway Service Areas
,..,SA 1 e
faOJANd ,
,� ��f \_' �,,.l�''•� it � F` � ,i '�' �„.� �� ��,
tow
t '
yr # �! _ •�.� .(-,
♦♦F 4'•
SA 2
f SA 3 SA 4
11.7
IV
Final Report-Roadway,Water,Wastewater and Drainage Impact Fee Update Freese and Nichols,Inc.
City of Cibolo,Texas Page 11
Figure 2-2:Water Service Area
Ix
GaMP'PEGO
r ) V Ftp,
-5Ai }�� �3 _ ��, i'• �.�' ..� "fir
\
•^fes � n �y °� r �- - � ,:
; rte
i+ P i r ti f y } rl i
111 j +�>�� �I ;' � ``'•-
p. r1
� 7 FS f� .�. -•. S 1 1 ��.a�. qoi
Cd
FIGURE 2-2
CITY OF CIBOLO
WATER SERVICE AREA
Q WacrSeMceArea —Stream
�-
'� a
Raikoad .L_'Parcel � � �;/'`
- p Coda City LirM �' ..
p SanAntoNu ETJ
e�
®o rr—1 Jam.County Boundarya,.�Y.S_0�'
MICHOLS S acs
Final Report-Roadway,Water,Wastewater and Drainage Impact Fee Update Freese and Nichols,Inc.
City of Cibolo,Texas Page 12
Figure 2-3:Wastewater Service Area
'''r
ppthP ups r , \ 5 \ \
AX
-� ;/ \.. Grp,\' S5 \, / _/ 5/-\r r ,t ,� ✓ \ t \.F .�
2�"
t
�;9'V" \V\
Z.
Co
%'ori / ' ♦'' \J'i'I .
}
FIGURE 2-3
CITY OF CIBOLO r
WASTEWATER SERVICE AREA
LEGEND r \
S—i wer s�evm ��l ,- ,- jsj >✓ r
Itaed tom. Pmol
\_ 1'
Godo CirylaRt
4O0 O sen Am rk ETJ
r
–I Gwn 0ound �j:
r J _
r-i71NICHOLS
Final Report-Roadway,Water,Wastewater and Drainage Impact Fee Update Freese and Nichols,Inc.
City of Cibolo,Texas Page 13
Figure 2-4: Drainage Service Areas
rO
Jr,r`,
Yo
$;rte
w
a,�'
03
i L
9 _
p gjj
.I
r.. tv ;-�
�rlf•t° ��yf,�I '.n7 •ir ��^ 'L1.�ri _ — ( r� 1� _" _ %!', i
' r 4
�'�' � ' II -''i`=�--rll,-'. � �� ;.'w� ,•{ � r I
Jlf
—
r
Jll.�j i _ 4 sg. , q, �
{
Final Report-Roadway,Water,Wastewater and Drainage Impact Fee Update Freese and Nichols,Inc.
City of Cibolo,Texas Page 14
2.2 GROWTH ASSUMPTIONS
2.2.1 Roadway Growth Assumptions
Projected growth has been characterized in two forms: population and employment. A series of
assumptions and conversions were made to arrive at reasonable growth rates for population and
employment. The population and employment projections for the roadway service area are shown in
Table 2-1.A breakdown of employment by type is listed in Table 2-2.
Table 2-1: Population and Employment Projections by Roadway Service Area
Roadway Population Employment
Service Total Total
Area 2021 2031 Increase 2021 2031 Increase
1 32,042 40,493 8,451 3,797 6,856 3;059
2 2,079 7,332 5,253 127 162 35
3 339 784 445 170 1,615 1,445
Total 34,460 48,609 14,149 4,094 8,633 4,539
Table 2-2: Employment Projections by Type by Roadway Service Area
Roadway Employment (Employees)
Service
Area Basic Retail Service Total Basic Retail Service Total
1 1,054 957 1,786 3,797 1,497 1,461 3,898 6,856
2 5 99 23 127 5 121 36 162
3 44 79 47 170 1,244 202 169 1,615
Total 1,103 1,135 1,856 4,094 2,746 1,784 4,103 8,633
2.2.2 Water and Wastewater Growth Assumptions
The City of Cibolo provided information on known developments in the water and wastewater service
areas. A map of the areas is presented on Figure 2-5 and a table summarizing the growth is provided in
Table 2-3. The growth in water connections and wastewater connections for the 10-year planning period
is provided in Table 2-4. The water connections are estimated to grow 4.2%annually,and the wastewater
connections are projected to grow 4.2%annually.
Final Report-Roadway,Water,Wastewater and Drainage Impact Fee Update Freese and Nichols,Inc.
City of Cibolo,Texas Page 15
Figure 2-5:Water and Wastewater Growth Areas
�. . � ..
1
! S- /
r." 4, \
f. r
•F y ' �
Yvi
- .. FIGURE:2-5
CITY OF CIBOLO
PROPOsib ULVLLOPML•N'Cs•
L� FREESE
MKHOLS
Final Report-Roadway,Water,Wastewater and Drainage Impact Fee Update Freese and Nichols,Inc.
City of Cibolo,Texas Page 16
Table 2-3:Water and Wastewater Development Areas
Water Wastewater
Growth Area Connections Connections
Steele Creek 1,180 1,180
Buffalo Crossing 285 285
Knights Crossing/New Develop 288 288
Sydney Cove - 40
Saddle Creek Ranch - 133
Mesa Western 160 160
Mesa Turning Stone 0 0
Saratoga - 0
Foxbrook - 131
Bella Rosa 53 53 ,
Homestead - 582
Cibolo Crossing 736 736
Red River 281 281
Venado Crossing - 748
Schulmeler - 402
Total 2,983 5,019
Table 2-4:-Growth in Water and Wastewater Connections
Water Wastewater
Year Connections Connections
2021 5,787 9,927
2031 8,770 14,946
2.2.3 Drainage Growth Assumptions
The impacts to drainage and stormwater runoff from development are primarily driven by the increase in
impervious surface in each service area. Impervious surface includes any paved areas such as roads,
parking lots, and driveways, as well as building rooftops. Increases in impervious surface produce more
stormwater runoff, thereby driving the need for additional drainage system capacity. Therefore, the
drainage impactfee service units are defined as the amount of impervious area in square feet.The amount
of impervious surface area was determined based on the land use type,as shown in Table 2-5.
Final Report-Roadway,Water,Wastewater and Drainage Impact Fee Update Freese and Nichols,Inc.
City of Cibolo,Texas Page 17
Table 2-5: Percent Impervious Values by Land Use Type
Land Use Percent Impervious
High Density Residential 70% .
Medium Density Residential (1/4 a.c.) 47%
Medium Density Residential (1/3 ac.) 41%
Medium Density Residential (1/2 ac.) 25%
Low Density Residential (1 acre) 20%
Low Density Residential (2 acres) 12%
Commercial 90%
Industrial 90%
Growth and future development projections were formulated based on assumptions pertaining to the
type, location, quantity, and timing of various future land uses within each service area. The 2031 land
use was then equated to the amount of project impervious surface area using Table 2-5. Table,2-6 below
shows the projected growth in impervious area for the five service areas.
Table 2-6: Projected 10-Year Growth in Service Unit
Existing sq.ft. 10-Year sq.ft. 10-Year 10-Year
Service Area(Watershed) Impervious Impervious Increase Increase
Dietz Creek-Cibolo Creek 33,978,767 37,436,820 _ 3,458,054 10%
Lower Cibolo Creek 8,333,200, 14,187,595 5,854,396 70%
Lower Santa Clara Creek 17,434,935 17,434,935 - 0%
Town Creek 63,115,044 76,975,294 13,860,250 22%
Upper Santa Clara Creek 19,251,180 22,245,026 2,993,847 16%
Final Report-Roadway, Water,Wastewater and Drainage Impact Fee Update Freese and Nichols,Inc.
City of Cibolo,Texas Page 18
- l
3.0 ROADWAY IMPACT FEE ANALYSIS
The impact fee CIP is aimed at facilitating anticipated long-term growth in Cibolo.The City Thoroughfare
Plan,the FY 2019-2024 Capital Improvement Plan,and-needs based on the 10-year land use assumptions
served as a basis for defining the impact fee CIP. All projects identified on the impact fee CIP align with
facilities defined as Arterial or Collector class in the current official Thoroughfare Plan. Projects contained
.within the.CIP reflect new system capacity enhancements and aimed at facilitating continued growth and
development within Cibolo. The recommended CIP will provide sufficient capacity to meet projected
needs over the ten-year planning period 2021-2031.
3.1 METHODOLOGY
To update of the roadway,impact fee program, a series of work tasks were undertaken. These tasks are
described below.
1. Meetings were held with the,City Staff and the Capital Improvement Advisory Committee to
discuss technical approach,growth rates and land use assumptions,defined capital improvements
plans, project costing and associated cost per service unit calculations,and program amendments
for policy consideration.
2. .Impact fee service.areas were reviewed and amended for any city annexations. Roadway service
areas are contained to the current city limits.
3. The vehicle-mile of travel (VMT) during the PM peak hour was defined as the unit of measure for
the roadway impact fee system.
4. A roadway conditions inventory was conducted on city thoroughfares for lane geometries,
roadway classifications and segment lengths. New arterial and/or collector streets not previously
assessed were added to the program database.
5. The existing roadway network was evaluated based on traffic volume count data collected March
2021, to determine roadway capacity, current utilization, and if any capacity deficiencies exist
within each impact fee service area.Data was cross-checked to data from Streetlight,a third-party
vendor that uses cell phone data to define travel lines,-to minimize any effects of the pandemic
on data.
6. Projected 10-year growth, in terms of vehicle-miles of demand, was.calculated for the service .
areas based on updated land use assumptions (projections of population and employment
growth) prepared by Freese and Nichols and supplemented with service unit generation for
residential,office,commercial and industrial land uses per an updated land use equivalency table.
Land Use Assumptions data was reviewed and approved by the Capital Improvements Advisory.
Committee (CIAC) prior to development of VMT growth projections and capital improvements
plan (CIP) update.
Final-Report-Roadway,Water,.Wastewater and Drainage Impact Fee Update Freese and Nichols,Inc.
City of Cibolo,Texas Page 19
7. The existing impact fee CIP was evaluated with updated traffic count data to ensure that excess
capacity remained within each impact fee project for retention in the program. The analysis of
the existing impact fee CIP revealed excess capacity and therefore could remain in the impact fee
program.
8. A roadway impact fee CIP was amended to incorporate several new projects, consistent with the
official City Thoroughfare Plan, into the impact fee program. Projects added to the impact fee
program included only capacity'enhancement type projects.
9. Roadway costs associated with construction, engineering, right-of-way were obtained from the'
Cibolo CIP FY2019-2024 or estimates prepared by Freese and Nichols.. For projects recently
completed, from which excess capacity is considered in the program; actual costs from City bid
tabs were obtained. Debt service was conservatively included and estimated at 3% interest over
a 10-year period. Costs for study updates are eligible for recovery and were included in the total
project cost. Roadway cost data was compiled and summed by service area.
10. The cost of capacity supplied, cost attributable to new development and the maximum cost per
service unit was calculated for each service area. A credit of 50%was applied to the overall cost
of the capital improvements program for use in-the calculation of the cost per service unit.
11. The Land Use Equivalency Table (service unit generation for specific land use categories) was
updated to incorporate trip rate and trip length data consistent with impact fee methodology.Trip
rate data was obtained from Trip Generation, Tenth Edition by the Institute of Transportation
Engineers(ITE).Trip length statistics of the city were obtained from two sources;the Capital Area
Metropolitan Planning Organization (CAMPO), travel demand model, supplemented with data
from the National Travel Survey and Census data statistics of workplace travel time.
12. This report was prepared to document the procedures,findings;and conclusions of the study.
3.2 ROADWAY SERVICE AREAS
Legislative requirements stipulate that roadway service areas be limited to a six-mile maximum and must
be located within the current city limits. Roadway service areas are different from water and wastewater
systems,which can include the city limits and its extra-territorial jurisdiction(ETJ)or other defined service
area. This is primarily because roadway systems are 'open" to both local.and regional (non-city) use as
opposed to a "closed"system of improvements within a water and wastewater system.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.. Cibolo's growth required for the addition.of a third and fourth
service area to address both the far southern sector of the city and southeastern edge that is currently
within city.ETJ. Considerations were made for possible long-term city expansion and hence .the fourth
service area. No growth or development anticipated there at this time. As growth and need arises, a
Final Report-Roadway,Water,Wastewater and Drainage Impact Fee Update Freese and Nichols,Inc.
City of Cibolo,Texas Page 20
revised service area map can be prepared incorporating any specific changes. The roadway service area
is depicted in Figure 2-1.
3.3 ROADWAY IMPACT FEE SERVICE UNITS
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 new development, the service unit must accurately identify-
the-impact
dentify-theimpact 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 peaking characteristics of the land-use(s)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 Cibolo:This service
unit establishes a more precise measure of capacity, utilization, and.intensity of land development
through published trip generation data. It also recognizes.legislative requirements with regards to trip
length. This service unit has been tested.and validated since the inceptionof impact fee legislation in
1989. .
3.3.1 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.
Final Report-Roadway,Water,.Wastewater and Drainage Impact Fee Update Freese and Nichols,Inc.
Cityof Cibolo,Texas Page 21
Service Unit Supply
For roadway capital project improvements,the number of service units provided during the peak hour is
simplythe 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
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 miles/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 2020) on a street and a given segment length.
3.3.2 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.
3.3.3 Trip Generation
Trip generation information for the PM peak hour was based on data published in the Tenth 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.
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,
Final Report-Roadway,Water,Wastewater and Drainage Impact Fee Update Freese and Nichols,Inc.
City of Cibolo,Texas Page 22
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 specific 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 3-1 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.
A local study may also be conducted 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 no 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 several sources including the AAMPO travel
demand modeling, National Household Travel Survey, US Census workplace travel time information, and
Final Report-Roadway,Water,.Wastewater and Drainage Impact Fee Update Freese and Nichols,Inc.
City of Ciholo,Texas Page 23
engineering judgment. Travel characteristics were used to determine average trip lengths for common
land use types.
Table 3-2 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. This compiled data represents
the best available information on trip lengths for this area.
Localized Trip Adjustment
.Impact fee legislation mandates that,fees be limited to locally funded roadways. As such, an analysis of
potential trip lengths was conducted for roadways within Cibolo. An average of trip lengths to travel
across city limits along:several roadways was calculated. The localized average home-based work trip was
determined to be between 3.7 and 4.1 miles and dependent on land use type.
Origin and Destination Adjustments
The assessment of an individual deve.lopment'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 in
half to reflect half of the vehicle trip associated with development.Table 3-2 illustrates the adjusted trip
length.
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 limitations do exist.
Final Report-Roadway,Water,.Wastewater and Drainage Impact Fee Update Freese and Nichols,Inc.
City of Cibolo,Texas Page 24
Table 3-1:Trip Reduction Estimates(PM Peak Hour)
Trip Gen Pass-bv Diverted Trip Rate w/
ITE Development Rate Rate Rate Reductions
Land Use Category Code Unit (PIVI Peak) M M (PIVI Peak)
RESIDENTIAL
. ,Single-Family Detached.Housing 210- Dwelling Units_ 0.99 0% 0% 0.99: .
Multifamily Housing(Low-Rise) 220 Dwelling Units 0.56 0% 0% 0.56
Mid-Rise Residential with 1st-Floor Commercial 231 Dwelling Units 0.36 0% 0% 0.36 -
SeniorAdultHousing-Detached- 251 Dwelling Units 0.3 0% 6% 0.30
Assisted Living 254 Beds 0.26 0% 0% 0.26
Continuing Care Retirement Community 255 Dwelling Units 'b.16 0% - 0% 0.16
•
General Office Building 710 1,000 Sq Ft GFA 1.15 0% 0% 1.15
Medical-Dental Office Building 720 1,000 Sq Ft GFA 3.46 0% 0% 3.46
United States Post Office 732 1,000 Sq Ft GFA 11.21 70% 0% 3.36
COMMERCIAL/RETAIL
Hotel 310 Rooms 0.6 0% 0% 0.60.
_ All Suites Hotel 311 Rooms 0.36 0% 0% 0.36
Miniature Golf Course 431 Holes- 0.33 0% 0% 0.33
Golf Driving Range - 432 Driving Positions 1.25 0% 0% 1.25
Movie Theater 444 Screens 14.6 0% 0% 14.60
Health/Fitness Club 492 1,000 Sq Ft GFA 3.45 0% 0% 3.45
Hospital 610 1;000 Sq Ft GFA 0.97 - 0% 0% 0.97
Nursing Home - 620 1,000 Sq Ft GFA 0.59 0% 0% 0.59
Free-Standing Emergency Room 650 1,000 Sq Ft GFA 1.52 0% 0% 1.52
.Shopping Center 8201,000 Sq Ft GLA _ 3.81 34% . 26% _1.52
Building Materials and Lumber Store 812 1,000 Sq Ft GFA 2.06 25% 0% 1.55
Free-Standing Discount Store 815 1,000 Sq Ft GFA 4.83 17% 35% 2.32
Hardware/Paint Store 816 1,000 Sq Ft GFA 2.68 26% 28% 1.23
Nursery(Garden Center) 817 1,000 Sq Ft GFA 6.94 25% 0% 5.21
Supermarket - 850 1,000 Sq Ft GFA 9.24 36% 38%_ 2.40
Discount Club _ 857 1,000 Sq Ft GFA ,4.18 30% 0% 2.93
Sporting Goods Superstore 861 1,000 Sq Ft GFA 2.02 40% 0% 1.21 -
Home Improvement Superstore 862 1,000 Sq Ft GFA 2.33 48% - 241/ - 0.65
Electronic Superstore 863 1,000 Sq Ft GFA 4.26 40% 33% 1.15 .
Baby Superstore 865 1,000 Sq Ft GFA 1.82 30% 0% 1.27
Department Store 875 1,000 Sq Ft GFA 1.95 30% 0% 1.37
Arts and Crafts Store - 879 1,000 Sq Ft GFA 6.21 - 30% 0% 4.35
Pharmacy/Drugstore w/o Drive-Through Window 880 1,000 Sq Ft GFA 8.S1 49% - 13% 3.23 .
Pharmacy/Drugstore w/Drive-Through Window 881 1,000 Sq Ft GFA 10.29 49% 13% 3.91
Furniture Store 890 1,000 Sq Ft GFA 0.52 53% 31% 0.08
Walk-in Bank 911 1,000 Sq Ft GFA 12.13 47% 26% 3.28
Drive-in Bank 912 Drive-in Lanes, 27.15 47% - 26% 7.33
Quality Restaurant 931 1,000 Sq Ft GFA 7.8 44% 27% 2.26 '
High-Turnover(Sit-Down)Restaurant 932 1,000 Sq Ft GFA 9.77 43% 26% 3.03
Fast-Food Restaurant w/Drive-Through Window 934 1,000 Sq Ft GFA 32.67 50% 23% 8.82
Quick Lubrication Vehicle Shop 941 Service Positions 2.43 0% 0% 2.43
Automobile Parts Service.Center 943 1,000 Sq Ft GFA. 0.77 0% 0% 0.77
Gasoline/Service Station w/Convenience Market 945 Fueling Positions .9.24 36% 38% 2.40
Car Wash and Detail Center 949 Wash Stalls 23.04 63% 263/ 2.53
INDUSTRIAL
'General Light Industrial- 110 1,000 Sq F.t GFA 0.63 0% 0% 0.63.
Manufacturing 140 1,000 Sq Ft GFA 0.67 0% 0% 0.67
Warehousing 150 1,000 Sq Ft GFA 0.19 0% 0% 0.19 -
Mini-Warehouse 151 11000 Sq Ft GFA 0.17 .0% 0% 0.17
INSTITUTIONAL
Private Schoo I(K-8) 534 Students 0.26 0% 0% '0.26
Private School(K-12) - - 536 Students 0.17 0% 0% 0.17
Charter Elementary School 537 Students - 0.14 0% 0% 0.14
Church 560 1,000 Sq Ft GFA 0.49 0% 0% 0.49
Day Care Center 565 Students 0.79 75% 0% 0.26
Final Report-Roadway,Water,Wastewater and Drainage Impact Fee Update Freese and Nichols,Inc.
City of Cibolo,Texas Page 25
Table 3-2:Trip Lengths and Adjustments
ITE Localized Trip O-D Adjusted
Land Use Category Code Length(mi) Trip Length(mi)
RESIDENTIAL
Single-Family Detached Housing 210 3.72 1.86
Multifamily Housing(Low-Rise) 220 3.11 1.55
Mid-Rise Residential with 1st-Floor Commercial 231 3.11 1.55
Senior Adult Housing-Detached 251 2.81 1.4
Assisted Living 254 2.81 1.4
Continuing Care Retirement Community 255 2.81 1.4
General Office Building 710 3.92 1.96
Corporate Headquarters Building 714 3.92 1.96
Single Tenant Office Building 715 3.92 1.96
Medical-Dental Office Building 720 3.72 1.86
Hotel 310 2.35 1.18
All Suites Hotel 311 2.35 1.18
Miniature Golf Course 431 3.67 1.83
Golf Driving Range 432 3.67 1.83
Movie Theater 444 3.67 1.83
Health/Fitness Club 492 3.67 1.83
Hospital 610 3.72 .1.86
Nursing Home 620 3.72 1.86
Free-Standing Emergency Room 650 3.72 1.86
Shopping Center 820 1.36 0.68
Hardware/Paint Store 816 2.35 1.18
Nursery(Garden Center) 817 2.35 1.18
Supermarket 850 2.35 1.18
Discount Supermarket 854 2.35 1.18
Discount Club 857 2.35 1.18
Sporting Goods Superstore 861 2.35 1.18
Home Improvement Superstore 862 2.35 1.18
Electronic Superstore 863 2.35 1.18
Department Store 875 2.35 1.18
Arts and Crafts Store 879 2.35 1.18
Pharmacy/Drugstore w/o Drive-Through Window 880 0.40 0.2
Pharmacy/Drugstore w/Drive-Through Window 881 0.40 0.2
Furniture Store 890 2.35 1.18
Walk-in Bank 911 2.35 1.18
Drive-in Bank 912 2.35 1.18
Fast Casual Restaurant 930 1.86 0.93
Quality Restaurant 931 1.86 0.93
High-Turnover(Sit-Down)Restaurant 932 1.86 0.93
Fast-Food Restaurant w/Drive-Through Window 934 1.86 0.93
Quick Lubrication Vehicle Shop 941 2.35 1.18
Automobile Parts Service Center 943 2.35 1.18
Gasoline/Service Station w/Convenience Market 945 0.40 0.2
Car Wash and Detail Center 949 2.35 1.18
General Light Industrial 110 4.14 2.07
Industrial Park 130 4.14 2.07
Manufacturing 140 4.14 2.07
Warehousing 150 4.14 2.07
Mini-Warehouse 151 3.72 1.86
High-Cube Fulfillment Center Warehouse 155 4.37 2.19
INSTITUTIONAL
Private School(K-8) 534 2.05 1.03
Private School(K-12) 536 2.05 1.03
Charter Elementary School 537 2.05 1.03
Church 560 2.30 1.15
Day Care Center 565 2.05 1.63
Final Report-Roadway,Water,Wastewater and Drainage Impact Fee Update Freese and Nichols,Inc.
City of Cibolo,Texas Page 26
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 limitations do exist.The equivalency table is illustrated in Table 3-3.
Final Report-Roadway,Water,Wastewater and Drainage Impact Fee Update Freese and Nichols,Inc.
City of Cibolo,Texas Page 27
Table 3-3: Land Use Vehicle-Mile Equivalency
Trip Rate w/
ITE Development Reductions . .Adjusted Service
Land Use Category Code Unit (PM Peak) Trip Length(mi) Unit Equivalen cy
RESIDENTIAL
Single-Family Detached Housing 210 Dwelling Units 0.99 1.86 1.84
Multifamily Housing(Low-Rise) 220 Dwelling Units 0.56 1.55 0.87
Mid-Rise Residential with 1st-Floor Commercial 231 Dwelling Units 0.36 1.55 0.56
Senior Adult Housing-Detached 251 Dwelling Units 0.30 1.4 0.42
Assisted Living 254 Beds 0.26 1.4 0.36
Continuing Care Retirement Community 255 Dwelling Units 0.16 1.4 0.22
•
General Office Building 710 1,000 Sq Ft GFA 1.15 1.96 2.25
Corporate Headquarters Building 714 1,000 Sq Ft GFA 0.60 1.96 1.18
Single Tenant Office Building 715 1,000 Sq Ft GFA 1.71 1.96 3.35
Medical-Dental Office Building 720 1,000 Sq Ft GFA 3.46 1.86 6.44
COMMERCIAL/RETAIL
Hotel 310 Rooms 0.60 1.18 0.71
All Suites Hotel 311 Rooms 0.36 1.18 0.42
Miniature Golf Course 431 Holes 0.33 1.83 0.60
Golf Driving Range 432 Driving Positions 1.25 1.83 2.29
Movie Theater 444 Screens 14.60 1.83 26.72
Health/Fitness Club 492 1,000 Sq Ft GFA 3.45 1.83 6.31
Hospital 610 1,000 Sq Ft GFA 0.97 1.86 1.80
Nursing Home 620 1,000 Sq Ft GFA 0.59 1.86 1.10
Free-Standing Emergency Room 650 1,000 Sq Ft GFA 1.52 1.86 2.83
Shopping Center 820 1,000 Sq Ft GLA 1.52 0.68 - 1.03
Hardware/Paint Store 816 1,OOOSgFtGFA 1.23 1.18 1.45
Nursery(Garden Center) 817 1,000 Sq Ft GFA 5.21 1.18 6.15
Supermarket 850 1,000 Sq Ft GFA 2.40 1.18 2.83
Discount Supermarket 854 1,000 Sq Ft GFA 2.18 1.18 2.57,
Discount Club 857 1,000 Sq Ft GFA 1.67 1.18 1.97
Sporting Goods Superstore 861 1,000 Sq Ft GFA 1.21 1.18 1.43
Home Improvement Superstore 862 1,000 Sq Ft GFA 0.65 1.18 0.77
Electronic Superstore 863 1,000 Sq Ft GFA 1.15 1.18 1.36
Department Store 875 1,OOOSgFtGFA 1.37 1.18 1.62
Arts and Crafts Store 879 1,000 Sq Ft GFA 4.35 1.18 5.13
Pharmacy/Drugstore w/o Drive-Through Window 880 1,000 Sq Ft GFA 3.23 0.2 0.65
Pharmacy/Drugstore w/Drive-Through Window 881 1,000 Sq Ft GFA 3.91 0.2 0.78
Furniture Store 890 1,000 Sq Ft GFA _ 0.08 1.18 0.09
Walk-in Bank 911 1,000 Sq Ft GFA 3.28 1.18 3.87
Drive-in Bank 912 Drive-In Lanes 7.33 1.18 8.65
Fast Casual Restaurant 930 1,000 Sq Ft GFA 4.38 0.93 4.07
Quality Restaurant 931 1,000 Sq Ft GFA 2.26 0.93 2.10
High-Tumover(Sit-Down)Restaurant 932 1,000 Sq Ft GFA 3.03 0.93 2.82
Fast-Food Restaurant w/Drive-Through Window 934 1,000 Sq Ft GFA 8.82 0.93 8.20
Quick Lubrication Vehicle Shop 941 Service Positions 3.64 1.18 4.30
Automobile Parts Service Center 943 1,000 Sq Ft GFA 2.26 1.18 2.67
Gasoline/Service Station w/Convenience Market 945 1,000 Sq Ft GFA 11.49 0.2 2.30 -
• General Light Industrial 110 1,000 Sq Ft GFA 0.63 2.07 1.30
Industrial Park 130 1,000 Sq Ft GFA 0.40 2.07 0.83 .
Manufacturing 140 1,000 Sq Ft GFA 0.67 2.07: 1.39
Warehousing 150 1,000 Sq Ft GFA 0.19 2.07 0.39
Mini-Warehouse 151 1,000 Sq Ft GFA 0.17 1.86 0.32
High-Cube Fulfillment Center Warehouse 155 1,000 Sq Ft GFA 1.37 2.19 3.00
.INSTITUTIONAL
Private School(K-8) 534 Students 0.26 1.03 0.27
Private School(K-12) 536 Students 0.17 1.03 0.18
Ch a rter Ele menta ry Schoo 1 537 Students 0.14 1.03 0.14
Church 560 1,000 Sq Ft GFA 0.49 1.15 0.56
Day Care Center 565 Students 0.20 1.03 0.21
Final Report-Roadway,Water,Wastewater and Drainage Impact Fee Update Freese and Nichols,Inc.
City of Cibolo,Texas Page 28
3.4 EXISTING CONDITIONS ANALYSIS
An inventory of major roadways that are designated as Arterial and/or Collector facilities on-the City
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) yielding a conservative estimate of system capacity. Data for the inventory
were obtained from the city Thoroughfare Plan, peak hour traffic volume count data, and City Staff input.
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 Thoroughfare Plan and type of existing cross-section,as listed in Table 3-4.Roadway hourly
volume capacities are based on general carrying capacity values based upon generally accepted capacities
defined by the AAMPO travel demand modeling description for suburban residential setting.The AAMPO
modeling capacities describe a level-of-service(LOS)"D"operation which has been tailored to the context
of Cibolo and reduced by a factor of 20%to reflect minimum acceptable traffic operational condition by
the city of LOS"D"operation.
Table 3-4: Roadway Facility Vehicle-Mile Lane Capacities
RoadwayRoadway Facility Hourly Vehicle-mile Capacity
Functional Classification Designation per Lane Mile of
Facility
Divided Arterial* DA/SA* 675
Divided Collector* DC/SC* 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.
3.4.1 Existing Volumes
Existing directional PM peak hour volumes were obtained from automated traffic counts conducted in
March 2020. Automated traffic counts at 15 separate locations were collected on major roadways
throughout the city. 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
Final Report-Roadway,Water,Wastewater and Drainage Impact Fee Update Freese and Nichols,Inc.
City of Cibolo,Texas Page 29
segments not counted, existing volumes were used or estimates were developed based on data from
adjoining roadway counts. Data was cross-checked to data from Streetlight, a third-party vendor that
uses cell phone data to define travel lines,to minimize any effects of the pandemic on data.
This data was compiled for roadway segments throughout the city and entered a database for use in
calculations.A summary of volumes by roadway segment is included in Appendix A as part of the existing
capital improvements database.
3.4.2 Vehicle-Miles of Existing Capacity Supply and Demand
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 is detailed in Table 3-5.
Similarly, 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 summarized is listed in Table 3-5.Vehicle-miles of existing capacity and
demand by roadway segment is detailed in Appendix A.
3.4.3 Vehicle-Miles of Existing Excess Capacity and Deficiencies
For each roadway segment,the existing vehicle-miles of capacity were calculated and are listed in Table
3-5. 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 Appendix A.
Final Report-Roadway,Water,Wastewater and Drainage Impact Fee Update Freese and Nichols,Inc.
City of Cibolo,Texas Page 30
Table 3-5: Peak Hour Vehicle-Miles of Existing Capacity;Demand, Excess Capacity,and Deficiencies
Service Capacity Demand Excess Existing
Area Capacity Deficiencies
1 22,365 12,464 11,173 1,272
2 2,036 219 1,818 0 . -
3 2,761 110 2,651 0
Total 27,162 12,793 15,642 1,272
3.5 PROJECTED ROADWAY DEMANDS
The projected growth for the roadway service areas is represented by the increase in the number of new
vehicle-miles of demand generated over the -10-year planning period (2021-2031). The basis for the
calculation of new demand is the population and employment projections identified in the land use
assumptions (Section 2.0).
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'erimployment were based
on square footage of building space.
These growth assumptions were then multiplied by the service unit equivalency for vehicle-mi le.
generation based on trip rates in the Institute for Transportation Engineer's (ITE) Trip;Generation, Tenth
Edition, and trip lengths from the AAMPO travel demand model,tailored to the City of Cibolo.
The 10-year projected vehicle-miles of demand by service area are summarized in Table 3-6.Appendix B
details the derivation of the projected demand calculations.
Table 3-6: Projected 10-Year Service Units of Growth
Projected 10-Year Growth
Service Area
1 14,808
2 3,825
3 7,902"
Total 260535
Final Report-Roadway,Water,Wastewater and Drainage Impact Fee Update Freese and Nichols,'Inc.
City of Cibolo,Texas Page 31
3.6 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN
The impact fee CIP is aimed at facilitating anticipated long-term growth in Cibolo. The City Capital
Improvement Plan, FY 2019-2024 identified in part -capital projects programmed for long-term
implementation. Other impact fee CIP projects were defined through analysis of need based on the 10-
year land use assumptions. Projects-identified in the impact fee CIP reflect (new) system capacity
enhancements 'and aimed at facilitating continued growth and development in Cibolo. Other
considerations for the CIP for roadways include:
• Recently completed projects with excess capacity available to serve new growth;
• Projects currently under construction; and
• Projects needed to achieve Thoroughfare Plan standard.
3.6.1 Eligible Projects
Projects contained within the CIP reflect new system capacity enhancements and aimed at.facilitating
continued growth and development within Cibolo. Legislative mandate stipulates that the impact fee CIP
contain only those roadways classified as arterial or collector status facilities that are included in the City's
adopted Thoroughfare Plan. The recommended CIP will provide sufficient capacity to meet projected
needs over the ten-year planning period 2021-2031. Impact fee legislation also allows for the recoupment
of costs for previously constructed facilities and projects currently under construction.
3.6.2 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 improvement plan are
eligible.These estimates are based on roadway sections identified in Cibolo Comprehensive Master Plan
and September 2017 Thoroughfare Plan map. 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.
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
Final Report-Roadway,Water,Wastewater and Drainage Impact Fee Update Freese and Nichols,Inc.
City of Cibolo,Texas Page 32
financial consultant preparing or updating the capital improvement 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_ improvement plan and are not used to
reimburse bond funds expended for facilities that are not identified in the capital improvement 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.riecessary 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
includedand 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 acquisitioncost 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.
Final Report-Roadway,Water,Wastewater and Drainage Impact Fee Update Freese and Nichols,Inc.
City of.Cibolo,Texas Page.33
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 CIP. They cannot be used to reimburse bond funds for other facilities. Debt service was
conservatively estimated and included at 3%annual interest over a 10-year period.
Study Updates: The fees paid or contracted to be paid to an independent qualified engineer or
financial consultant preparing or updating the capital improvement plan who is not an employee of
the political subdivision can be included in the impact fees. The cost of two 5-year updates was
included in the program.
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.
3.6.3 Impact Fee CIP
The proposed CIP consists of 66 project segments over the roadway service area and advance the
implementation of the Thoroughfare Plan network, as illustrated on Figure 3-1.
Roadway costs associated with construction,engineering,right-of-way were obtained from the Cibolo CIP
FY2019-2024 or estimates prepared by Freese and Nichols. Individual project costs were developed for
engineering, right-of-way, and construction as found in the Appendix C. These construction estimates
include all appurtenances called for in the city construction standards. Other costs were based on the
following:
• Engineering/surveying—7-10%of construction costs
• Right-of-way acquisition -.$0.50-$1.00/square foot
a Debt service—3%compounded annually over 10 years
• Study updates—2 5-year studies at$50,000 each
The cost for the impact fee CIP program totals$295.8 million. Figure 3-1 and Table 3-7 illustrate and list
the capital improvement projects and their associated total cost for the impact fee program.
Final Report-Roadway,Water,.Wastewater and Drainage Impact Fee Update Freese and Nichols,Inc.
City of Cibolo,Texas Page 34
Figure 3-1: Roadway Capital Improvement Plan
i eJ:us Fi>i{CO, try Trail
A. 0 0.25 0.5 1 1.5 2
V Wes
K eu S ��•%i 1 service Area CIP_2021 Thoroughfare Plan
a —' "._. .
Old\Yleder5tein Rd __-SA 1 e 2013 Recoup —C011caor
>_------ - - ,_.SA2 —2013 OM —Major Arterial
sA 3 yea.,flew —Minor Arterial
_
Q imp
=SA 4 intersection rovements
o
I nh:'
Greer Vane
-
rn S
E Weil Rd
6 !l
—
FM 1103
In
Yow!9'�ord Rd
SHB Country
� 1
Sohaetler
3
on Mery Road
S
Aape Rd
l lo>;els
Schmoekel Rd
l
z �l M, _ 1
o;l Bo@on Road
r-•. F�; � 20
a, ! ll�l I ,l a ll Ifo
P
CFOU/ IH= . i. ._ __
f j' IH-20_-_._. _IH-20
Final Report-Roadway, Water,Wastewater and Drainage Impact Fee Update Freese and Nichols,Inc.
City of Ciholo,Texas Page 35
Table 3-7: Roadway Impact Fee CIP Listing
CIP Sem Project Length Added Thoroughfare Pct.in Total Project
Orlgf n Area Typ e Roadway From To (mii Lanes Section Typ e Sem Area Gost
2019 1 R Ripps-Kreusler Road West City Limit Cibolo Valley Drive 0.92 5 MinorArterial SA 100%, $ 1,169,700
2013/2019 1 N Green Valley Road end of Southern Way 2000ft west of FM 1103 0.80 3 Minor Arterlal 5A 100% $ 11,880,221
2013 1 R Green Valley Road 2000 ft west of FM 1103 FM 1103 0.38 5 MinorArterial SA 10WA $ 3,098,130
2013/1019 1 N Green Valley Road FM 1103 Landma rk Way 0.49 2 MinorArterial DA 100% $ 5,253,494
2019 1 N Green Valley Road Landmark Way Homestead Parkway 0.22 3 MinorArterial SA 100% $ 3,359,791
2019 1 - N Green Valley Road landmark Way Homestead Parkway 0.22 2 MinorArterial DA 10036 $ 2,379,951
2013 1 N Wiedner Road Town Creek Road Hinge Falls 1.14 2 Major Collector UC 100% $ 5,715,077
2013 1 N Wiedner Road Hinge Falls FM 1103 0.26 2 Major Col lector UC 100% $ 1,310,318
2019 1 N FM 1303/Main Street Improvements 100% $ 3,628,574
2019 1 N FM 1103 MainStreet Rodeo Way 1.08 5 MajorArterial SA 100% $ 6,719582
2019 1 N Buffalo Tr/Lance Xing Main Street Knights Crossing 0.73 2 Major Collector UC 100% $ 2,117,676
2019 1 N Buffa Io Tr/Lance Xing Knights Crossing Tolle Road 0.85 2 Major Collector UC 100% $ 3,494,183
2013/2019 1 N Gbolo Valley Road north Gtylimit Old Wiederstein Road 0.56- 4 MinorArterial DA 5 W $ 3,151,820
2019 1 N Dean Road north Gty Llmit Green Valley Road 1.09 3 Major Collector SC 100% $ 8,157572
2019 1 N Country Club Drive north Gty Umit Green Valley Rd 0.46 3 Major Collector SC 100% $ 3,394,032
2019 1 N Knights Crossing Wiedner Road FM 1103 1.07 2 MinorArterial UA 100% $ 9,273,023
2013/2019 1 N Knights Crossing FM 1103 Buffalo Tr/Lance Xing 056 2 Minor Arterlal UA 100% $ 4,703,707
2019 1 N MainStreet FM 1103 FM 78 0.96 3 Major Collector SC 100% $ 6,665,825
2019 1 N Tolle Road FM 1103 Country Lane 1.22 2 Major Collector UC 100% $ 7,630,757
2013 1 N FM 1103 North City Limit Saddle 5poke/Greenwood 8; 1.82 5 Major Arterial SA 100% $ 4,429,954
2013 1 N FM 1103 Saddle Spoke/Greenwood Ba\Brite Road 0.76 5 Major Arterial 5A 100% $ 1,847,062
2019 1 N FM 1103 EM Brite Road Buffalo Tr/Lance Xing 0.73 3 Major Arterial SA 100% $ 5,100,936
2013/1019 1 N FM 1103 Ext Buffalo Tr/Lance Xing FM 78 0.75 3 Major Arterial SA 100% $ 5,241,122
2019 1 N FM 1103 EM Brite Road Buffalo Tr/Lance Xing 0.73 2 Major Arterial DA 100% $ 6,763,573
2013/1019 1 N FM 1103 Ext Buffalo Tr/Lance Xing FM 78 0.75 2 Major Arterial DA 100% $ 6,949,453
2013 1 N FM 78 at Main 5t Traffic Signa l 100% $ 453,572
Al
,Su6,TotaLServirerArea 1�,::Art r; + •�y:.: .,1E.97. ., +.5 ,129 889107A
2013 2 N FM 78 at Haeckerville Traffic5ignal 0.00 100% $ 453,572
9
2013 2 N Shaeffer Road West Gtyll mit Main St 0.43 2 Major Collector UC 100% $ 3,400,666
2019 2 N New Road-1 Main St EM FM 1103 Ext 1.17 3 MinorArterial SA 100% $ 13,721,386
2019 2 N New Road-1 FM 1103 EM FM 78 0.78 3 MinorArterial SA 100% $ 11,651,755
2013 2 N Lower Seguin Road westGtyLimlt Haeckerville Rd 0.97 4 MinorArterial DA 5056 $ 3,868,725
2013 2 N Lower Seguin Road Haeckerville Rd FM 1103 EM 1.12 4 MinorArterial DA 100% $ 8,932,018
2013 2 N Lower Seguin Road FM 1103 Ext Stolte Rd 0.24 4 MinorArterial DA 50% $ 981,455
2013 2 N Lower Seguin Road Stalte Rd Pfannstell Lane 038 4 MinorArterial DA 100% $ 3,078,455
2013/1019 2 N MainStreet FM 78 Shaefer Road 0.37 4 MinorArterial DA 100% $ S,121,128
2019 2 N Main Street EM Shaefer Road Lower Seguin Road 2.01 4 MinorArterial DA 100% $ 18,069,191
2013 2 N Haeckerville Road FM 78 Town Creek 054 4 MinorArterial DA 100% $ 7,809,336
2019 2 N Haeckerville Road Town Creek Lower Seguin Road 1.63 4 MinorArterial DA 100% $ 23,614,729
2019 2 N Haeckerville Road Lower Seguin Road 540'Sof Haeckerville Road 0.10 4 MinorArterial DA 50% $ 459,993
2019 2 N Haeckerville Road 540'Sof Haeckerville road 286'Sof Green Meadow Rd 0.11 4 MinorArterial DA 1003A $ 1,022,206
2019 2 N Haeckerville Road 286'Sof Green Meadow Road288'Sof Fread Lane 0.11 4 MinorArterial DA 50°.6 $ 511,103
2019 2 N Haeckerville Road 288'Sof Fread Lane DW Lane 0.13 4 MinorArterial -DA 100% $ 1,202,795
2013/2019 2 N FM 1103 Ext FM 78 Arizpe Road 1.10 3 Major Arterial SA 100% $ 7,681,160
2013/2019 2 N FM 1103 EM Arizpe Road - Lower Seguin Road 1.13x. 3 Major Arterial SA 50% $ 3,945,058
1013/2019 2 N FM 1103 Ext Lower Seguin Road 1736'S of Lower Seguin Road 0.33 3 Major Arterial 5A 50% $ 1,147,942
2013/2019 2 N FM 1103 EM 1736'S of Lower Seguin Road 2400'5 of Lower Seguin.Road 0.13 3 Major Arterial SA 100% $ 872,859
2013/2019 2 N FM 1103 EM Valley View Road 1275'N of Schmoekel Road 0.32 3 Major Arterial SA 100% $ 2,248,273
2013/2019 2 N FM 1103 EM Lower Seguin Road Schmoekel Road 1.21 3 Major Arterial SA 100% $ 8,425,214
2013/2019 2 N FM 1103 Ext Arizpe Road Lower Seguin Road 1.13 2 MajorArterial DA 50% $ 5,230,941
1013/2019 2 N FM 1103 EM Lower Seguin Road 1736'S of Lower Seguin Road 0.33 2 Major Arterial DA 50°,6 $ 1522,111
2013/2019 2 N FM 1103 Et 1736'S of Lower Seguin Road 2400'5 of Lower Seguin Road 0.13 2 Major Arterial DA 100% $ 1,157,365
2013/2019 2, N FM 1103 EM Vall ey View Road 1275'north of Schmoekel Rot 0.32 2 Major Arterlal DA 100% $ 2,981,093
Final Report-Roadway,Water,Wastewater and Drainage Impact Fee Update Freese and Nichols,Inc.
City of Ciholo,Texas Page 36
Table 3-7: Roadway Impact Fee CIP Listing(Cont.)
CIP Sew Project Le ngth Added Thom ugh fare Pct!i n Total Project
Origin Area Type Roadway Prorn To (nni) La nes Section Type Serv.Area Ct
2013 2 N Pfannstell Lane FM 78 N.of Arizpe Road 0.74 3 Major Collector SC 100% $ 5,342,640
2013 2 N Pfannstell Lane- Arizpe Road 3900'N of Lower Seguin Roac 0.41 3 Major Collector SC 50% $ 1,496,624
2013 2 N Pfannsteil Lane 2100'N of Lower Seguln Road Lower Seguin Road 0.40 3 Major Collector SC 50% $ 1,438,403
''Sub°TutalSeivice Area 2-.=> _"' -
17.7.
77 �, .. . .'t .,. ..� �..,:_$. 147;388,217^
2013/2019 3 N Bolton Road Haeckerville Road 2200'E of Haeckerville Road 0.42 3 Major Collector SC 50% $ 562,260 -
2013/2019 3 N Bolton Road 2200'E of Haeckerville Road 500'Eof Zuehl Road 0.41 3 Major Collector SC 100% $ 1,098,963
2013/2019 3 N Bolton Road 500'E of Zuehl Road 1450'E of Zuehl Road 0.18 3 Major Collector SC 50% $ 242,794
2013/2019 3 N Bolton Road 650'Eof Stolte Road 2250'E of Stolte Road 0.30 3 Major Coll ector. SC 50% $ 408,916
2013/2019 3 N Bolton Road 4708'W of Santa Clara Road Santa Clam Road 0.89 3 Major Collector SC 50% $ 1,203,237
2013/2019 3 N FM 1103 Ext 3200'N of Bolton Road IH-1U 0.69 3 Major Arterial SA 100% $ 4,863,085
2013/1019 3 N FM 1103 Ext 3200'N of Bolton Road IH-10 0.69 2 Major Arterial DA 100% $ 6,364,671
2019 3 N Pfannstell Lane Bolton Road IH-10 0.42 3 Major Collector SC 160% $ 3,050,690
2019 3 N Santa Clam Road Bolton Road 1200'S of Bolton Road 0.23 4 Minor Arterial DA 100% $ 2,556,195
2019 3 N Santa Clam Road 1200'S of Bolton Road IH-10 0.28 4 Minor Arterial DA 100% $ 1,037,698
2021 3 N Haeckerville Road Bolton Road IH-10 0.11 4 Minor Arterial DA 100% $ 11022,206
=Sub-Total Sevi�e Area 3r." _ 4.62 "'s. -�e•$ - 22,410j16'
Summary: Engineering Cost $ 16,350,809
Right-of-Way Cost $6,934,660
Construction Cost $195,545,348
Finance Cost - $74,857,223.
TOTAL NET COST $293,688,040 -
Future IF Study Update Cost $100,000
TOTAL I MPLEM ENTATION COST $293,788,040
50%Percent Credit $146,894,020
DA-Divided Arterial
UA-Undivided Arterial
DC-Divided collector '
UC-Undivided Collector
SA-Special Arterial with two-waylefttum lane(TWLTL)
SC-Special Collectorwithtwo-waylefttum lane(TWLTL)
3.6.4 Projected Vehicle-Miles Capacity Available for New Growth
The vehicle-miles of new capacity supply were calculated like 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 3-8 and Appendix D.
1'
Final Report-Roadway,Water,Wastewater and Drainage Impact Fee Update Freese and Nichols,Inc.
City of Cibolo,Texas Page 37
Table 3-8: Capacity and Net Capacity Provided by the Proposed CIP
Capacity
Service Supplied Existing CapacityCapacity
Suppliedby CIP Utilization (veh-mi) Deficiencies
1 29,503 8,391 21,112 0 21,112
2 33,885 924 32,961 1,272 31,689
3 6,425 120 6,305 0 6,305
Total 69,813 9,435 60,378 1,272 59,106
A comparison of net capacity provided by the proposed CIP relative to 10-year needs is listed below in
Table 3-9.The percent attributable to new growth is a direct result of the land use assumptions described
earlier in the report. Based on the defined capital improvements plan,there is sufficient capacity to serve
projected growth over the ten-year planning period. 1
Table 3-9: Projected Demand and Net Capacity Provided by the Proposed CIP
00
Net Capacity Pct. Of
SuppliedProjected 10-Year
Service Area
i
1 21,112 14,808 70.1%
2 31,689 3,825 12.1%
3 6,305 7,902 100.0%
Total 59,106 26,535 44.9%
3.6.5 Cost of Roadway Improvements
The total impact fee CIP cost, including study update costs, credited (50%) CIP cost, and cost of net
capacity supplied to implement the roadway improvements plan projects by service area is shown in Table
3-10. If traffic exists on proposed CIP project roadways or there are any deficiencies present 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
Final Report-Roadway,Water,Wastewater and Drainage Impact Fee Update Freese and Nichols,Inc.
City of Cibolo,Texas Page 38
its associated costs are considered eligible and derived by applying the percentage of net capacity(from
Table 3.8)to the credited cost of the CIP:A detailed listing by project segment in each service area can be
found in Appendix E.Appendix F details system costs by service area.
Table 3-10:Summary of Roadway Improvements Plan Cost Analysis
ProposedTotal Cost of Credited Cost of Credited Cost of Net Credited Cost to
Service Proposed IFCIP . .
Area Projects Projects(with 0. 0, CIP Utilization(with
CIP Credit) Credit) 0%CIP Credit)
1 $123,931,367 $61,965,683 $44,341,915 $17,623,769
2 $147,436,754 $73,718,377 $68,940,878 $4,777,499
3 $22,419,919 $11,209,959 $11,000,590 $209,369
Total $293,788,040 $146,894,020 $124,283,383 $22,610,637
3.7 CALCULATION OF IMPACT FEES
This section discusses the calculation of the cost per service unit and the calculation of roadway impact
.fees.The roadway impact fee will vary by the specific 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.
3.7.1 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.
3.7.2 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,only the 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 riew 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
Final Report-Roadway,Water,:Wastewaterand Drainage Impact Fee Update Freese and Nichols,Inc.
City of Ciholo,Texas Page.39
number of service units of growth. This is shown in Table 3-11 in Columns A-C calculating the cost
attributable to new development through the percent of CIP capacity attributable calculated in Table 3-
11.
Table 3-11:Roadway Improvements Plan Cost Attributable to New Development
Of
SuppliedService Credited Cost of Net Attributable to CIP Cost
Area Capacity
(Table 3-10) Development New Development
•
1 $44,341,915 70.1% $31,101,510
2 $68,940,878 12.1% $8,321,464
3 $11,000,590 100.0% $11,000,590
Total $124,283,383 44.9%. $50,423,564
Maximum Cost per Service Unit Calculation
Table 3-12 lists the resultant cost per service unit calculation.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, or a credit equal to 50% of the total projected cost of implementing the capital
improvement plan must be given. Opting for the'50% credit, the maximum collection rate after credit
reflects the maximum amount per service unit that can be charged to follow the state statute.Appendix
F details the maximum fee per service unit calculation for each service area.
Table 3-12.:Cost per Service Unit Summary
Projected 10- Credited Cost Credited Maximum
Service Year Growth Attributable to AllowArea (Vehicle- New able
Miles) (with 0' 0'
1 14,808 $31,101,510 $2,100
2 3,825 $8,321,464 $2,175
3 7,902 $11,000,590 $1,392
Total 26,535 $50,537,252 $2,071.00
Weighted Average
Final Report-Roadway,Water,Wastewater and Drainage Impact Fee Update Freese and Nichols,Inc.
City of Cibolo,Texas Page 40
3.7.3 Sample 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
Examples: The following fees would be collected from new development located in Road Service
Area 1, if the collection rate were$2,100 per vehicle-mile:
Single-Family Dwelling
1 dwelling unit x 1.84 vehicle-miles/dwelling unit= 1.84 vehicle-miles
1.84 vehicle-miles x$2,100.00/vehicle-mile=.$3,864:00
1 10,000 square foot(s.f.) Office Building
10(1,000 s.f. units)x 2.25 vehicle-miles/1,000 s.f. units=22.50 vehicle-miles
22.50 vehicle-miles x$2,100.00/vehicle-mile=$47,250.00
50,000 s.f.Shopping/Retail Center
50 (1,000 s.f. units)x 1.03 vehi6le-miles/1,000 s.f. units=51.50 vehicle-miles
51.50 vehicle-miles x$2,100.00/vehicle-mile=$108,150.00
Final Report-Roadway,Water,Wastewater and Drainage Impact Fee.Update Freese and Nichols,Inc.
City of Cibolo,Texas Page 41
4.0 WATER AND WASTEWATER IMPACT FEE ANALYSIS
The water and wastewater impact fee CIP developed for the City of Cibolo is based on the land use
assumptions presented in Section 2.0, projected water demands and wastewater flows, input from City
staff, and existing CIP projects proposed by the city. The recommended improvements will provide the
required capacity to meet projected water demands and wastewater flows through 2031.
4.1 EXISTING WATER AND WASTEWATER SYSTEMS .
The City of Cibolo's water distribution system has two pressure planes,a network of lines ranging from 2
inches to 20 inches,two pump stations,three elevated storage tanks, and two ground storage tanks.The
City purchases wholesale water from Canyon Regional Water Authority. The existing water distribution
system is shown on Figure 4-1.
The City of Cibolo's wastewater collection system consists of wastewater lines ranging from 2 inches to
24 inches,and 3 lift stations.The City send their wastewater flow to Cibolo Creek Municipal Authority for
treatment.The existing wastewater collection system is shown on Figure 4-2.
Final Report-Roadway,Water,Wastewater and Drainage Impact Fee Update Freese and Nichols,Inc.
City of Cibolo, Texas Page 42
Figure 4-1: Existing Water Distribution System
V.
'vA
1
� l S
.:FIGURE4-I
CITY OF CIBOLO "- s
EXISUNIG\PATER SYSTEM
In
F3 r. .wr -- s� It\ •�
��FREESEWICHOLS
�
Final Report-Roadway Water,.Wastewater and Drainage Impact Fee Update Freese and Nichols,Inc.
City of Cibolo,Texas Page.43
Figure 4-2: Existing Wastewater Collection System
7 17
57
F s
r \ VVV
h
a .s
r
o
l `
FIGURE'4-2
MY OF CIBOLO
F,XISTING WASTEWATER SYSTEM
-
• Fwe O eot+wbe.m �• � �` t—`�� ���.
..- OO� O S.nA'vrieEP ... S
-- FREESE
- MMUCXOLS !-
Final Report-Roadway,Water Wastewater and Drainage Impact Fee Update Freese and Nichols,Inc.
City of Cibolo,Texas Page 44
4.2 WATER AND WASTEWATER LOAD PROJECTIONS
The land use data, historical water demands, and wastewater flow characteristics were used to develop
future water demands and wastewater flows.Table 4-1 summarizes the historical water demands. Based
on the historical water demands, an average day demand of 275 gallons per connection per day (gpCd)
was selected and a maximum day to average day peaking factor of 2.2 was selected. Historical wastewater
flow data was not available,so design criteria was selected based on experience with cities of similar size.
Wastewater flows were projected using 245 gpCd for average annual daily flow and a 4.0 wet weather
peaking factor. Table 4-2 presents the projected water demands, and Table 4-3 presents the projected
wastewater flows for the City of Cibolo.
Table 4-1: Historical Water Demands
Maximum
Average Maximum Average Day to
Year Connections(l) Day Day Day Average
Demand Demand Demand D.
(gpCd) Peaking
Factor
2019 5,580 :1.53 3.22, 275. 2.10
2020 5,698 1.55 3.43 272 2.22
(1) Connections taken from June of each year of water production data received from City.
Table 4-2:Water Demand Projections
Average Maximum
Year Water Day Day
Connections Demand Demand
2021 5,787 1.59 3.50
2031 8,770 2.41 5.31
Table 4-3:Wastewater Flow Projections
Average Peak
Annual Wet
Year Wastewater Daily Weather
Connections Flow Flow
2021 9;927 2.43 9.73
2031 14,946 3.66 14.65
Final Report-Roadway,Water,Wastewater and Drainage Impact Fee Update Freese and Nichols,Inc.
City of Cibolo,Texas Page 45
4.3 WATER AND WASTEWATER SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS
Proposed water and wastewater system improvement projects and costs were developed based on input
from City staff and City Capital Improvement Plan,FY 2019-2024.The proposed 10-year impact fee eligible
water system projects and costs are summarized in Table 4-4 and shown on Figure 4-3. Proposed impact
fee eligible wastewater projects and costs are summarized in Table 4-5 and shown on Figure 4-4.Tables
4-4 and 4-5 show a 2021 percent utilization,which is the portion of a project's capacity that is required to
serve existing development.This portion of the project cost is not impact-fee-eligible.The 2031 percent
utilization is the portion of the project's capacity that will be required to serve projected growth in the
City in 2031. The 2021-2031 percent utilization is the portion of the project's capacity required to serve
development from 2021 to 2031. The impact fee eligible cost for each project is calculated as the total
capital cost multiplied by the 2021-2031 percent utilization. Only this portion of the cost can be used to
calculate maximum allowable impact fees. Full sized maps are provided in Appendix G.
Final Report-Roadway,Water,Wastewater and Drainage Impact Fee Update Freese and Nichols,Inc.
City of Ciholo, Texas Page 46
I
Table 4-4:Water System Impact Fee Eligible Projects
Project Percent Utilization Costs Based on 2021 Dollars
DescriptionNumber
2031 Eligible Cost
EXISTING ELIGIBLE
18WA001-A 16"Water Line-Haeckerville Rd-Loop 539 to Schaefer Rd 5% 70% 65% $553,000 $359,450
18WA004 6"Water Line-Turning Stone to Town Creek Road 10% 60% 50% $800,000 $400,000
18WA006 6"Water Line-Knights Crossing South-FM 1103 to Lance Crossing 5% 80% 75% $800,000 $600,000
South Main Pump Station 10% 30% 20% $4,134,031 $826,806
Impact Fee Study 0% 100% 100% $39,917 $39,917
PROPOSED ELIGIBLE
18WA001 16"Water Line-Haeckerville Rd-Arizpe to Schaefer Rd 0% 60% 60% $227,000 $136,200
18WA002 Dobie Boulevard Water Line Improvements 60% 90% 3b% $608,727 $182,618
18WA003 12"Water Main-Lance Crossing-Steel Creek to Tolle Road 10% 90% 80% $1,500,000 $1,200,000
18WA004 16"Water Line-Turning Stone to Town Creek Road 10% 90% 80% $800,000 $640,000
18WA005 2"Water Line Cibolo Valley Drive(Kove Lane)to Town Creek Road 30% 80% 50% $400,000 $200,000
18WA007 2"Waterline FM 3009 to Deer Creek Blvd. 80% 90% 10% $350,000 $35,000
18WA009 2"Water Line Along FM 78-Buffalo PI.to Dietz Creek 20% 40% 20% $300,000 $60,000
18WA010 2"Water Line -Knights Crossing North-FM 1103 to Weidner Road 10% 80% 70% $1,250,000 $875,000
Water Rights 0% 33% 33% $21,000,000 $6,930,000
Total,Capital'Improvements Co -il,
(1)Utilization in 2021 on proposed projects indicates a portion of the project that will be used to address deficiencies within the existing system,and therefore
are not eligible for impact fee cost recovery for future growth.
Final Report-Roadway,Water,Wastewater and Drainage Impact Fee Update Freese and Nichols,Inc.
City of Ciholo,Texas page 47
Table 4-5:Wastewater System Impact Fee Eligible Projects
Project Percent Utilization Costs Based on 2021 Dollars
Number Description of Project 2021(l) 2031 2021- Capital Cost Impact Fee
2031 Eligible Cost
EXISTING ELIGIBLE
Impact Fee Study 0% 1 100% 100% $39,917 $39,917
PROPOSED ELIGIBLE
18WW002 15"WW Trunk Line from CCMA TC Lift Station to FM 1103 @ Gatewood 10% 90% 80% $6,000,000 $4,800,000
18WW005 12"WW Outfall-Town Creek East Fork-Gatewood @ FM 1103 to GVR 0% 90% 90% $1,900,000 $1,710,000
18WW008 15"Wastewater Line from UPRR to Weil Rd LS. 0% 60% 60% $2,900,000 $1,740,000
18WW009 Regional Wastewater System-Haeckerville Rd to Venado 0% 80% 80% $3,500,000 $2,800,000
Total Ca p em S14,339,917][--a'— -w
:
(1)Utilization in 2021 on proposed projects indicates a portion of the project that will be used to address deficiencies within the existing system,and therefore
are not eligible for impact fee cost recovery for future growth.
Final Report-Roadway,Water,Wastewater and Drainage Impact Fee Update Freese and Nichols,Inc.
City of Ciholo,Texas Page 48
Figure 4-3:Water System Impact Fee Capital Improvement Plan
f -- 1 Q fi
'V
` J
FIGURE 4-3
CITY OF CIBOLO
NATER IMPACT FEE ELIGIBLE
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN - -
v�*7�T 1
INICHOLS
Final Report-Roadway,Water,Wastewater and Drainage Impact Fee Update Freese and Nichols,Inc.
City of Cibolo,Texas Page 49
Figure 4-4:Wastewater System Impact Fee Capital Improvement Plan
S u
6 J
Y V,
��} 3 � � 0.'t ✓t `
C\\\
S „� ' �' i ,� '� y,• was tu_� } � .
FIGURE44 _ - �'u - '1 "'• .
CITY OF CIBOLO _ m
WMTEWATER IMPACT FEE ELIGME A
CAPITAL iMPROVEMENTS.PLAN
j
(J1 <<
W lnsxbs� s�ea+rgy �4 ��=
. - Tsndvam,tase.mrttn vt v� •� t J .; .
-u'sdtamRssa<rliv .
.. - .�
FRiIEESE.
Final Report-Roadway,Water,Wastewater and Drainage Impact Fee Update Freese and Nichols,Inc.
City-of Cibolo,Texas Page 50
4.4 WATER AND WASTEWATER IMPACT FEE ANALYSIS
The impact fee analysis involves determining the utilization of existing and proposed projects required as
defined by the capital improvement plan to serve new development over the next 10-year period. For
existing or proposed projects,the impact fee eligible cost is calculated as a percentage of the total project
cost, based upon the percentage of the project's capacity required to serve development projected to
occur between 2021 and 2031. Capacity serving existing development and development projected to
occur more than 10 years in the future cannot be included in the maximum allowable impact fee
calculations.
4.4.1 Service Units
According to Chapter 395 of the Texas Local Government Code,the maximum allowable impact fee may
not exceed the amount determined by dividing the cost of required capital improvements by the total
number of service units attributed to new development during the impact fee eligibility period.A service
unit for water and wastewater is defined as the service equivalent to a water connection for a single-
family residence.
Public, commercial, and industrial connections are converted into service units based upon the capacity
of each meter used to provide service.The number of service units required to represent each meter size
is based on the operating capacity of the appropriate meter type. The City provided manufacturer data
used to determine the operating capacity, as these meter types represent those in place and stocked by
the City.The service unit equivalent for each meter size used by the city is listed in Table 4-6.
r.
Final Report-Roadway, Water,Wastewater and Drainage Impact Fee Update Freese and Nichols,Inc.
City of Cibolo,Texas Page 51
Table 4-6:Service Unit Equivalencies
Maximum Service Unit
Meter Size Flow Equivalents
5/8" 20 1.0
3/4" 30 1.5
1" 50 2.5
11/2" 140 7.0
2" 200 10.0
3" 400 20.0
4" 800 40.0
6" 1,280 64.0
8" 2,240 112.0
10" 4,400 220.0
12" 4,400 220.0
Typically, in. Cibolo, single-family residences are, served with 5/8-inch water meters. Larger meters
represent multi-family, public, commercial, and industrial water use. Table 4-7 and Table 4=8 show the
service units for 2021 and the projected service units for 2031 for water and wastewater, respectively.
Table 4-7:Water Service Units
2021 2031 Growth in
Meter Size Service Service
Meters Meters Service Units
Units Units
5/8" 5,589 5,589 8,471 8,471 2,882
3/4" 18 27 28 42 15
1" 65 163 99 248 85
11/2" 29 203 44 308 105
2" 68 680 103 1,030 350
3" 10 200 15 300 100 ✓
4" 3 120 4 160 40
6" - 1 64 1 64 0
8" 1 112 1 112 0
10" 1 220 1 220 0
12" 2 440 3 660 220
Final Report-Roadway,Water,Wastewater and Drainage Impact Fee Update Freese and Nichols,Inc.
City of Cibolo,Texas Page 52
Table 4-8:Wastewater Service Units
2021 2031 Growth in
Meter Size Service Service
Meters Units Meters Units Service U
5/8" 9,588 9,588 14,429 .14,429 4,841
3/4" 31 47 47 71 24
1" 111 278 168 420 143
11/2" 50 350 76 532 182
2" 117 1,170 177 1,770 600
3" 17 340 26 520 180
4" 5 = 200 - 8 320 120
6" 2 128 4 256 128
8" 2 224 4 448 224
10" 1 220 2 440 220
12" 3 660 5 1,100 440
4.4.2 Maximum Impact Fee Calculations
Texas Local Government Code Chapter 395 outlines the procedures and requirements for calculating
maximum allowable impact fees to recover costs associated with capital improvement projects needed
due to growth over a 10-year period.Chapter 395 also requires a plan that addresses possible duplication
of payments for capital improvements. This plan can either provide a credit for the portion of revenues
generated by new development that is used for the payment of eligible improvements,including payment
of debt, or reduce the total eligible project costs by 50 percent.The City of Cibolo has selected.to utilize
the reduction of the total eligible project costs by 50 percent to determine the maximum allowable impact
fees.
Chapter 395 of the Texas Local Government Code states that the maximum impact fee may not exceed
the amount determined by dividing the cost of capital improvements required by the total number of
service units attributed to new development during the impact fee eligibility period less the credit to
account for water and wastewater revenues used to finance capital improvement plans.
The total projected costs include the projected capital improvement costs to serve.10-year development,
the projected finance cost for the capital improvements, and the consultant cost for preparing and
Updating the Capital Improvement Plan.A 3.0% interest rate was used to calculate financing costs.Table
Final Report-Roadway,Water,Wastewater and Drainage Impact Fee Update Freese and Nichols,Inc.
City of Cibolo,Texas Page 53
4-9 and Table 4-10 show a summary of the maximum allowable impact fee calculations for the City of
Cibolo's water system and wastewater system, respectively.
Table 4-9: Maximum Water Impact Fee Calculation
Total Eligible Capital Improvement Costs $12,484,991
Total Eligible Financing Costs $1,4851'018
Total.Eligible Impact Fee Costs $13,970,009
Growth in Service Units 3,797
Maximum Water Impact Fee per Service Unit Ill $3,679
Impact Fee Credit per Service Unit lZi $1;840
(1)Total Eligible Costs divided by the Growth in Service Units.
(2)Credit is 50%of Maximum Water Impact Fee per Service Unit.
(3) Maximum Allowable Water Impact Fee is Maximum Water Impact Fee minus the
Impact Fee Credit per Service Unit.
Table 4-10: Maximum Wastewater Impact Fee Calculation
Total Eligible:Capital Improvement Costs $11,089,917
Total Eligible Financing Costs $1,319,082
Total Eligible Impact Fee Costs $12,408,999
Growth in Service Units 7,102
Maximum Wastewater Impact Fee per Service Unit(') $1,747
Impact Fee Credit per Service Unit Izl $874
maximum Allowable Wastewater Impact.Fee,o) ,
(1)Total Eligible Costs divided by the Growth in Service Units.
(2)Credit is 50%of Maximum Wastewater Impact Fee per Service Unit.
(3) Maximum Allowable Wastewater Impact Fee is Maximum Wastewater Impact
Fee minus the Impact Fee Credit per Service Unit.
Final Report-Roadway,Water,Wastewater and Drainage Impact Fee Update Freese and Nichols,Inc.
City of Ciholo,Texas Page 54
5.0 DRAINAGE IMPACT FEE ANALYSIS
5.1 METHODOLOGY
The development of the drainage impact fee capital improvements plan (CIP) is based on the land use
assumptions and forecasted growth presented in Section 2-.0 and the City's current drainage CIP. The
recommended improvements will provide adequate capacity to address projected drainage needs
through 2031.
5.2 DRAINAGE SERVICE AREAS
The drainage service areas_are based on watersheds, which are areas from which runoff resulting from
rainfall is collected and drained through a common point. The watersheds were defined by U.S.Geological
Survey (USGS) Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) level 12 watersheds. Five drainage basins span the City of
Cibolo ETJ:Dietz Creek-Cibolo Creek,Lower Cibolo Creek,Lower Santa Clara Creek,Town Creek,and Upper
Santa Clara Creek, as shown in Figure 5-1 below.
Final Report-Roadway,Water Wastewater and Drainage ImpactFee-UpdateFreese and Nichols,Inc.
City of Cibolo, Texas Page 55
Figure 5-1: Drainage Service Areas
t, :' �F .7etirr t3t� in is
,t��. 'j --/_�-J� P2- �! )�,,�j^ die' }C �\=�C��� •0
Ga{ ' Rid e
o
rr
elf
:=
nd I r For -$ase
,1 t v tf V {t �^ t ez�wig '� ✓
5.3 DRAINAGE IMPACT FEE SERVICE UNITS
The impacts to drainage and stormwater runoff from development are primarily driven by the increase in
impervious surface in each service area. Impervious surface includes any paved areas such as roads,
parking lots, and driveways, as well as building rooftops. Increases in impervious surface produce more
stormwater runoff, thereby driving the need for additional drainage system capacity. Therefore, the
drainage impact fee service units are defined as the amount of impervious area in square feet.The amount
of impervious surface area was determined based on the land use type,as shown in Table 5-1.
Final Report-Roadway,Water,,Wastewater and Drainage Impact Fee Update Freese and Nichols,Inc.
City of Ciholo,Texas Page 56
Table 5-1: Percent Impervious Values by Land Use Type
Land Use Percent Impervious
High Density Residential 70%
Medium Density Residential (1/4 ac.) 47%
Medium Density Residential (1/3 ac.) 41%
Medium Density Residential (1/2 ac.) . 25%
Low Density Residential (1 acre) 20%
Low Density Residential(2 acres) 12%
Commercial 90%
Industrial 90%
5.4 DRAINAGE IMPACT FEE ANALYSIS
The impact fee analysis involves determining the utilization of existing and proposed projects.required as.
defined by the capital improvement plan to serve new development over the next 10-year period. For
existing or proposed projects,the impact.fee eligible cost is calculated as a percentage of the total project
cost, based upon the percentage of the project's capacity required to.serve development projected to
occur between 2021 and 2031. Capacity serving existing development and development projected to
occur more than 10 years in the future cannot be included in the maximum.allowable impact fee
calculations.-
Drainage impact fees are calculated by dividing the eligible CIP costs by the eligible growth in service units
.- (square footage of impervious area): Growth and future development projections were formulated based
on assumptions pertaining to the type,.location, quantity, and timing of various future land uses within
each-service area. The 2031 land use.was then equated to the amount of project impervious surface area
using Table 5-1. Table 5-2 below-shows the projected growth in impervious area for the five service areas
Final Report-Roadway,Water,Wastewater and Drainage Impact Fee.Update Freese and Nichols,Inc.
City of Cibolo,Texas Page 57
-Table 5-2: Projected 10-Year Growth in Service Unit
Existing sq.ft. 10-Year sq.ft. 10-Year 10-Year
Service Area (Watershed) Increase
Impervious Impervious
.
Dietz Creek-Cibolo Creek 33,978,767 37,436,820 3;458,054 10%
Lower Cibolo Creek 8,333,200 14,187,595_ 5,854,396 70%
Lower Santa Clara Creek 17,434,935 17;434,935 0%
Town Creek .63,115,044 76,975,294 13,860,250 22%
Upper Santa Clara Creek 19,251,180 22,245,026 2,993,847 16%
5.5 DRAINAGE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS
Drainage Capital Improvement Projects (CIP) were provided directly from the City Capital Improvement
Plan, FY 2019-2024. Drai,nage CIPs are only identified in the Dietz Creek-Cibolo,Creek, Town Creek, and
Upper Santa Clara Creek service areas at this.time. The cost for each CIP was adjusted by a 50% credit .
applied to the cost of the CIP in determining a cost per,service unit for each service area in lieu-of a credit
analysis.The proposed drainage CIPs are shown in Figure 5-2 and Table 5-3 below.
Final Report-Roadway,Water,Wastewater and Drainage Impact Fee Update ; Freese and Nichols,Inc.
City of Cibolo,Texas. Page,58
Figure 5-2: Drainage Impact Fee CIP
lippS.M. ee'srlar
Drainage Improvements ,.
114
�1WOWWO07-Town
_ Cre! ekEas4Drain ;d
Improvements Phl f
16S...... lle d
18S1N008-ToRoay Y + 6{
. /'T c�ej - Drainage Improvements
'� 185W081-t oop 53J eSWD10 rTolle �18SW089•Tollo Road `'
Dre na a Im rovements `
0 P RaadRXegXonatIDrain'g'glmpro+roments
10541'OOA-Taa'n r k ---z
"NI Cae r
4 �FISW008-Tovm
_ FlnnN Mitla�n�bn,PTMh� y Q •-k;Futl .
Mitigaiion.. nss 2�
� �U�7�ad, ' r •�
Final Report-Roadway,Water,Wastewater and Drainage Impact Fee Update Freese and Nichols,Inc.
City of Ciholo,Texas Page 59
i
Table 5-3:Service Area CIP Costs
Project Full Capital Credited Cost
Project Name
18SW001 Loop 539- Drainage Improvements $2,500,000 - $1,250,000
18SW004 Town Creek Flood Mitigation- Phase 1 10,000,000 $5,000,000-
18SW005 Old Town Drainage Improvements $3,600,000 $1,800,000
18SWO06Tolle Road Drain-Improvements (Culvert-Crossing on. $460,000 $230,00-0
Country Lane.)
18SW007 Town Creek East Drain Improvements Ph 2 Buffalo $8,000,000 $4,000,000
Crossing II to FM 1103
18SWO08 Town.Creek Flood Mitigation-Phase 2 . $15,000,000 $7;500,000
18SW009 Tolle Rd Drainage Improvements $6,890,000 $3,445,000
18SWO10 Tolle Rd Regional Detention $3,600,000 $1,800,000
Ripps- -ruesler Drainage-Improvements (recoup) $1,769;000 $884,500
Total Costs 51,819,000 . $25,909,500
5.6 DRAINAGE IMPACT FEE CALCULATIONS
The credited CIP costs for the Dietz Creek-Cibolo Creek,Town Creek,and Upper Santa Clara Creek service
areas were adjusted based on the portion attributable to the 10-year growth, and the drainageimpact
fee was then calculated by dividing the attributable 10-year growth cost by the computed growth in
impervious area.The total projected costs include the projected capital improvement costs to serve 10-
year development along with the projected finance cost for the capital improvements. A 3.0% interest
rate was used to calculate financing costs.The 10-year CIP cost allocation for each service area is shown
in Table 5-4 below.
Final Report-Roadway,Water,Wastewater and Drainage Impact Fee Update Freese and Nichols,Inc.
City of Cibolo,-Texas Page 60
Table 5-4: 10-Year CIP Cost Allocation by Service Area
10-Year% 10-Year Growth
Service Area CIP Projects Credited Cost Finance Cost of Fully
Cost
Developed
18SWO05 (Old Town)
Dietz Creek-Cibolo 50% of 18SWO01 (Loop o
$3,309,500 $257,600 65.44/ $2,423,322
Creek 539)
Ripps-Kruesler(Recoup)
Lower Cibolo Creek None $0 $0 35.95% $0
Lower Santa Clara None $0 $0 24.17% $0
Creek
18SWO04(Town Creek Ph 1)
18SW008 (Town Creek Ph 2)
Town Creek $17,125,000 $1,341,722 65.87% $12,621,977
18SWO07 (Town Creek East)
50%of 18SWO01 (Loop 539)
18SWO06 (Tolle Rd.)
18SW009 (Tolle Rd.)
Upper Santa Clara $5,475,000 $240,297 36.9.0% $2,260,549
Creek 18SWO10 (Tolle Rd. Reg.
Detention)
Total Costs $25,909,500 $1,839,620 $17,305,847
Based on the 50% credit, the drainage impact fees per square foot of impervious area proposed for the
Dietz Creek-Cibolo Creek,Town Creek, and Upper Santa Clara Creek service areas are shown in Table 5-5.
Table 5-5: Drainage Impact Fee Calculation by Service Area
Fee per Square ..
Service Area Impervious Surface
Dietz Creek-Cibolo Creek $0.70
Lower Cibolo Creek $0.00
Lower Santa Clara Creek $0.00
Town Creek $0.91
Upper Santa Clara Creek $0.76
Final Report-Roadway,Water,Wastewater and Drainage Impact Fee Update Freese and Nichols,Inc.
City of Cibolo, Texas Page 61
Appendix A:
Roadway Existing Facilities Inventory
Final Report-Roadway,Water,Wastewater and Drainage Impact Fee Update Freese and Nichols,Inc.
City ofCfholo, Texas
Cibolo Roadway Impact Fee Study Update Update
Existing Capital Improvements Analysis
Sery Shared Length No.of PM Pk Hr Pm in PALHourvolme VMTDetpd E.,ass OlstmAT
Area S�cArcm Roadway F-n To (,Wl Lannes Type C.p./Lo. S...Aom A 0 Pic HrTotal FiftrIntal VM-l-CaNcEty qpfloopty
1 x Dh,U Road Roy Richard Drive Deer Meadow Blvd 0.28 2 UC 500 50% 0 129 129 139 36 103 0
1 x Dietz Read Deer Meadow Blvd Borgfeld Road 0.70 2 UC 500 50% r 129 0 129 349 90 259 0
1 Bentwood Pass Drive Bentwood Ranch Drive Town Creek Road 0.21 2 UC 500 100% 50 50 100 212 21 191 0
1 Bentwood Ranch Drive Cibolo Valley Drive Borgfeld Road 0.95 2 LIC 500 SO096 100 100 200 953 191 762 0
1 Buffalo Crossing Flint Road FM 1103 0.50 2 DC 550 1001A 50 50 100 548 50 499 0
1 x Sassman Road Weyel Road Country lane 1.28 2 1K 500 WA 0 50 50 639 64 575 0
1 Dean Road north City Umit Green Valley Road 1.09 2 UC Soo 100% 291 297 588 1,087 639 448 0
1 MainStreet FM 1103 FM78 0.96 2 UC 500 10036 310 226 536 961 515 445 0
1 Tolle Read New Road-12 Country Lane 1.01 2 UC 500 100% 75 49 124 1,009 125 884 0
1 Country Lane Tolle Road Sassman Road 0.61 2 UC 500 100% 49 75 124' GOS 75 530 0
1 Green Valley8oad SouthernWay 2000 ft west of FM 3103 0.80 2 UC 500 100% 230 196 426 803 342 461 0
1 Green Valley Road Cibolo Valley Drive Southern Way 0.34 3 SC 550 100% 291 297 588: 378 202 176 0
1 Clbolo Valley Drive Kove Lane Borgfeld Rd 1.39 5 SA 675 100% 339 344 GB3• 3,748 948 2,800 0 ,
1 FM 1103 north City Limit 220 it S.of Green Valley 1.11 3 SA 675 100% 836 952 1,788 1,504 1,992 0 488
1 FM 1103 220 it south of Green Va Wiedner Road 0.44 3 SA 675 100% r 756V 850 1,616 593 709 0 117
1 FM 1103 Wiedner Road Vista Del Rey 0.95 3 SA 675 100% r 675r 769 1,444 1,288 1,378 0 90
1 FM 1103 Vista Del Rey Well Road 0.25 2 UC 500 100% r S95r 677 .1,272 246 313 0 67
1 Short Weyel Road MainStreet Rodeo Way 1.08 3 SA 675 100% 996 826 1,822 1,461 1,972 0 511
1 FM 78 FM 1103 New Road-12 216 5 SA 675 100% 731 564 1,295 5,845 2,803 3,041 0
5`bFTotalService Areal stir
-' w' 0.00
._ .365_._._124+ , 11,173___1,272.J
2 Haeckerville Road FM 78 Shaefer Road 0.36 2 UC 500 100% 133 104 237 360 85 275
2 Lower Seguin Road Haeckerville Road New Road-12 0.94 2 UC 500 100% 26 36 62' 941 58 883
2 Haeckerville Road lower Seguin Road Ople lane 0.73 2 UC 500 100% 00 52 102:. 735 75 660 • `
2,03fi 219 1,818 0
3 Balton Road Haeckerville Road Santa Clara Road 2.76 2 UC 500 10196 22 18 40 2,761 110 2,651
5UhSe[515eNICC''Afea3 kz-T,,, i 3.79, � '*^:�• ....! _2'761 _- 110_.__..-2.651
Total 27,162 .12,793 15,1542 1,272
DA-Divided Arterial
UA-Undivided Arterial
SA-Special Arterial with two-way left tum lane(Twin)
DC-Divided mllecter
LK-Lind'vided Collector
SC-Special Collector with two-way left tum lane(TWLTLI
Final Report-Roadway,Water,Wastewater and Drainage Impact Fee Update Freese and Nichols,Inc.
City of Cibolo,Texas
Appendix B:
Roadway Projected 10-Year Growth
(Vehicle-Miles of New Demand)
Final Report-Roadway,Water,Wastewater and Drainage Impact Fee Update Freese and Nichols,Inc.
City of Cibolo,Texas
Vehicle-Mile Trip Generation by Service Area, Cibolo Impact Fee Update
Based on 2021-2031 Land Use Assumptions dated April 2021
Service Unit Equivalency
Residential 3.37 Service Emp 3.82
Basic Emp 9 3.82 Retail Emp 2.85
Estimated Residential Growth Vehicle-Mile Trip Generation
ConversionFactor: 3.38;2019 persons/household
AddedServiceArea Added
Population
1 8,451 2,500 3.37 6,800
2 5,252 1,554 3.37 3,737
3 445 .132 3.37 442
Total. 14,149 4,186 10,979
Estimated Basic Employment Growth Vehicle-Mile Trip Generation
Conversion Factor: 1,500squarefeet/employeeService Area .
Added Total Vehicle-Miles Total
Employees000 Sq Ft Vehicle-Miles
1 443 664,500 3.82 2,538
2 0 0 3.82 0
3 1,200 1,800,000 3.82 6,876
Total. 1,643 2,464,500 ® 9,414
Estimated Service Employment Growth Vehicle-Mile Trip Generation
Conversion Factor: ; 500!squarefeet/employee
Added Total Vehicle-Miles Total
EmployeesService Area
. 1,000 Sq Ft Vehicle-Miles
1 2,112 1,056,000 3.82 4,034
2 13 6,500 3.82 25
3 122 61,000 3.82 233
Total 2,247 1,123,500 ® 4,292
Estimated Retail Employment Growth Vehicle-Mile Trip Generation
Conversion Factor: 1,000lsquarefeet/employee
AddedService Area Total Vehicle-Miles Total
Employees Square Feet per 1,000 Sq Ft Vehicle-Miles
1 504 504,000 2.85 1,436 .
-2 22 -22,000 2.85 63
3 123 123,000 2.85 351
Total 649 649,000 1,850
.Total Vehicle-Mile Generation Summary
Residential Basic Emp Service Emp Retail Emp
Growth Growth Growth Growth
Service Area Vehicle-Miles Vehicle-Miles Vehicle-Miles Vehicle-Miles
1 6,800 2,538 4,034 1,436 14,808
2 3,737 0 25 63 3,825
3 442 6,876 233 351 7,902
Total 10,979 9,414 4,292 1,850 26,535
Final Report-Roadway,Water,Wastewater and Drainage Impact Fee Update Freese and Nichols,Inc.
City of Cibolo,Texas
Appendix C:
Roadway Project Cost Estimates
r
Final Report-Roadway,Water,Wastewater and Drainage Impact Fee Update Freese and Nichols,Inc.
City of Cibolo,Texas
1 City of Cibolo
Impact Fee Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Estimate
Shaeffer Road
west City limit to Main Street
lRoadway Information:
Roadway Type: ;3-Lane Undivided Collector
Length.(If): 12,284
Right-of-Way Width(ft.): :80
Median Type: 'None
Pavement Width(BOC-BOC): :49
Description: ;Widen roadway and construct to thoroughfare standard
i
VoWway Construction Cost Estimate:
I.Paving Construction Cost Estimate
Item No. Item Description p Quantity Unit Unit Cost Item Cost
1 Right of Way Preparation 23 STA $ 8,825.00 $ 202,975
2 Unclassified Street Excavation 6,300 CY $ 9.00 $ 56,700
3 D-GR HMA TY B SAC-B PG(64-22) 5,300 TON $ 72.00 $ 381,600
4 Flexible Base 5,300 CY $ 60.00 $ 318,000
5 D-GR HMA TY D PG(76-22) 1,400 TON $ 125.00 $ 175,000
6 6"Concrete Sidewalk and Ramps 3,050 SY $ 60.00 $ 183,000
7 Curb&Gutter 4,600 LF $ 21.03 $ 96,738
8 14"Grass median 0 SY $ 5.00 $ -
Paving Estimate Subtotal: $ 1,414,013
fl-.-
.- - — -..:__—_ __. . .._ -.------.-_ _. _. ...
II._ ---Non-- Pavin. .ggConstruction Components
Item No. Item Description Pct.Of Paving Item Cost
9 Pavement Markings&Signage 2% $ 28,300
10 Traffic Control 5% $ 70,800
it Erosion Control 3% $ 42,500
12 Landscaping 1% $ 14,200
13 Illumination 6% $ 84,900
14 Drainage Improvements(RCP,Inlets,MH,Outfalls) 20% $ 282,900
Other Components Estimate Subtotal: $ 523,600
III.Special Construction Components
Item No. Item Description Notes Allowance Item Cost
15 Drainage Structures ;None
16 Bridge Structures 'None $ $ -
17 Traffic Signals None $ $ -
18 Other ;None $ $ _
Special Components Estimate Subtotal: $ -
I,II,&III Construction Subtotal: $ 1,937,613
Mobilization' 5% $ 96,900
Contingencyl 10% $ 203,500
Construction Cost Estimate Total: $ 2,238,100
limpact Fee Cost Estimate Summary ___11
Item Description Notes Allowance Item Cost.
As
Construction ' sume 30' ROW need — - $ 2,238,100
Engineering/Survey/Testing i 10% $ 223,810
Right-of-Way Acquisition Cost per sq.ft.: $ 1_00 $ _68,520 ; $ 68,520
Impact Fee Project Cost Estimate Total: $ 2,530,430
2020 Impact Fee Update Freese and Nichols,Inc.
City of Cibolo Updated:5/22/2021
2 City of Cibolo
Impact Fee Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Estimate
Lower Seguin Road-1
west City limit to Haeckerville.Rd
IRoadway Information:
Roadway Type: '4-1_ane Divided Arterial
Length(If): 5,123
Right-of-Way Width(ft.): j100
Median Type: ;None
Pavement Width(BOC-BOC): :49
Description: 1Widen roadway and construct to thoroughfare standard
I
Roadway
I.Paving Construction Cost Estimate
Item No. Item Description p Quantity Unit Unit Cost Item Cost
1 Right of Way Preparation 52 STA $ 8,825.00 $ 458,900
2 Unclassified Street Excavation 14,000 CY $ 9.00 $ 126,000
3 D-GR HMA TY B SAC-13 PG(64-22) 11,700 TON $ 72.00 $ 842,400
4 Flexible Base 11,800 CY $ 60.00 $ 708,000
5 D-GR HMA TY D PG(76-22) •3,100 TON $ 125.00 $ 387,500
6 6"Concrete Sidewalk and Ramps 6,840 SY $ 60.00 $ 410,400
7 Curb&Gutter 10,300 LF $ 21.03 $ 216,609
8 14"Grass median 8,000 SY $ 5.00 $ 40,000
Paving Estimate Subtotal: $ 3,189,809
II.Non-Paving Construction Components
Item No. Item Description Pct.Of Paving Item Cost
9 Pavement Markings&Signage 2 0 ! $ 63,800
10 Traffic Control 5% $ 159,500
11 Erosion Control 3% $ 95,700
12 Landscaping 1% $ 31,900
13 Illumination 6% $ 191,400
14 Drainage Improvements(RCP,Inlets,MH,Outfalls) 20% $ 638,000
— Other Components Estimate Subtotal: $ 1,180,300
III:Special Construction Components
Item No. Item Description NNotes_ -------- $Allowance Item Cost
— - — - -$
15 Drainage Structures one - _
16 Bridge Structures None $ - $ _
17 Traffic Signals !None $ _ $ _
18 Other 'None $ _ $ _
Special Components Estimate Subtotal: $ -
I,II,&III Construction Subtotal: $ 4,370,109
Mobilization 5% I $ 218,600
Contingency; 10% $ 458,900
Construction Cost Estimate Total: $ 5,0471700
jImpact Fee Cost Estimate Summary
Item Description Notes _ Allowance Item Cost
Construction !Assume 40'ROW need - $ 5,047,700
Engineering/Survey/Testing 10% $ 504,770
Right-of-Way Acquisition Cost per sq.ft.:' $ 1:00 $ 204,920- $ 204,920
Impact Fee Project Cost Estimate Total: $ 5,757,390
2020 Impact Fee Update ( Freese and Nichols,Inc.
City of Cibolo Updated.512212021
3 City of Cibolo
Impact Fee Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Estimate
Lower Seguin Road-2
Haeckerville Rd to FM 1103 Ext
,lRoadway Information:
Roadway Type: 14-Lane Divided Arterial
Length(If): 15,914
Right-of-Way Width(ft.): ;100
Median Type: jNone
Pavement Width(BOC-BOC): X49
Description: lWiden roadway and construct to thoroughfare standard
19.a__dway Construction Cost Estimate:
I.Paving Construction Cost Estimate
Item No. Item Description p Quantity Unit. Unit Cost Item Cost
1 Right of Way Preparation . 60 STA $ 8,825.00 $ 529,500
2 Unclassified Street Excavation 16,100 CY $ 9.00 $ 144,900
3 D-GR HMA TY B SAC-B PG(64-22) 13,500 TON $ 72.00 $ 972,000
4 Flexible Base 13,600 CY $ 60.00 $ 816,000
5 D-GR HMA TY D PG(76-22) 3,600 TON $ 125.00 $ 450,000
6 6"Concrete Sidewalk and Ramps 7,890 SY $ 60.00 $ 473,400
7 Curb&Gutter 11;900 LF $ 21.03 $ 250,257
8 14"Grass median 9,200 SY $ 5.00 $ 46,000
Paving Estimate Subtotal: $ 3,682,057
IL Non-Paving Construction Components
Item No. Item Description Pct.Of Paving Item Cost
8 Pavement Markings&Signage 296 I $ 73,700
9 Traffic Control 5% $ 184,200
10 Erosion Control 3% $ 110,500
11 Landscaping 1% a $ 36,900
12 Illumination 6% $ 221,000
13 Drainage Improvements(RCP,Inlets,MH,Outfalls) 20% $ 736,500
Other Components Estimate Subtotal: $ .1,362,800
- --
—__------ -- - -- ------ ---- -- —---
III.Special Construction Components
Item No. Item Description Notes Allowance Item Cost
14 Drainage Structures "None --,-Allowance-__ $ _
15 Bridge Structures None $ $ -
16 Traffic Signals ;None $ - $ _
17 Other jNone $ $ _
Special Components Estimate Subtotal: $ -
I,II,&III Construction Subtotal: $ 5,044,857
Mobilization 5% $ 252,300
Contingency; 10% $ 529,800
Construction Cost Estimate Total: $ 5,827,000
Fmpact F�e Cost Estimate Summary
Item Description Notes Allowance Item Cost
IAs
Construction sume 40' ROW need - $ 5,827,000
Engineering/Survey/Testing 10% $ 582,700
Right-of-Way Acquisition Cost per sq.ft.: $ 1_00 $ 236,560) $ 236,560
Impact Fee Project Cost Estimate Total: $ 6,646,260
2020 Impact Fee Update Freese and Nichols, Inc.
City of Cibolo Updated:5/22/2021
I
4 City of Cibolo
Impact Fee Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Estimate
Lower Seguin Road-3
FM 1103 Ext to Stolte Rd
Ro.adw-ay Information:
Roadway Type: A-Lane Divided Arterial
Length(If): 1,279
Right-of-Way Width(ft.): 100
Median Type: - None
Pavement Width (BOC-BOC): 149
Description: +Widen roadway and construct to thoroughfare standard
[Roadway
I.Paving Construction Cost Estimate
Item No. Item Description p Quantity Unit Unit Cost , Item Cost
1 Right of Way Preparation 13 STA $ 8,825.00 $ 114,725
2 Unclassified Street Excavation 3,500 CY $ 9.00 $ 31,500
3 D-GR HMA TY B SAC-B PG(64-22) 3,000 TON $ 72.00 $ 216,000
4 Flexible Base 3,000 CY $ 60.00 $ 180,000
5 D-GR HMA TY D PG(76-22) 800 TON $ 125.00 $ 100,000
6 6"Concrete Sidewalk and Ramps 1,710 SY $ 60.00 $ 102,600
7 Curb&Gutter 2,600 LF $ 21.03 $ 54,678
8 14"Grass median 2,000 SY $ 5.00 $ 10,000
Paving Estimate Subtotal: $ 809,503
II.Non-Paving Construction Components
Item No. Item Description Pct.Of Paving Item Cost
8 Pavement Markings&Signage 2 0 $ 16,200
9 Traffic Control 5% $ 40,500
10 Erosion Control 3% $ 24,300
11 Landscaping 1% $ 8,100
12 Illumination 6% $ 48,600
13 Drainage Improvements(RCP,Inlets,MH,Outfalls) 20% $ 162,000
Other Components Estimate Subtotal: $-- __7_'___- 299,700
- ---- - - - - - -- - - - - - - --- -
III.Special Construction Components
Item No. Item Description- - - - - - Notes Allowance Item Costen
14 Drainage Structures None $ - $
15 Bridge Structures ;None $ - $
16 Traffic SignalsNone $ - ! $
17 Other None $ - $
Special Components Estimate Subtotal: $ -
I,II,&III Construction Subtotal: $ 1,109,203
Mobilization I S% $ 55,500
Contingency 11 10% $ 116,500
Construction Cost Estimate Total: $ 1,281,300
lImpact Fee Cost Estimate Summary
Item Description Notes Allowance Item Cost
Construction :Assume 40'ROW need - $ 1,281,300
Engineering/Survey/Testing 109/0 $ 128,130
Right-of-Way Acquisition Cost per sq.ft.:1 $ 1.00 $ 51,160 $ 51,160
Impact Fee Project Cost Estimate Total: $ 1,460590
2020 Impact Fee Update Freese and Nichols,Inc.
City of Cibolo Updated:5/22/2021
5 City of Cibolo
Impact Fee Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Estimate
Lower Seguin Road-4
Stolte Rd to Pfannsteil Lane
Roadway Type: i4-Lane Divided Arterial
Length(If): ;2,019
Right-of-Way Width(ft.): 1100
Median Type: ;None
Pavement Width(BOC-BOC): 149
Description: (Widen roadway and construct to thoroughfare standard
.Roadway
I.Paving Construction Cost Estimate
Item No. Item Description p Quantity Unit Unit Cost Item Cost
1 Right of Way Preparation 21 STA $ 8,825.00 $ 185,325
2 Unclassified Street Excavation 5,500 CY $ 9.00 $ 49,500
3 D-GR HMA TY B SAC-B PG(64-22) 4,700 TON $ 72.00 $ 338,400
4 Flexible Base 4,700 CY $ 60.00 $ 282,000
5 D-GR HMA TY D PG(76-22) 1,200 TON $ 125.00 $ 150,000
6 6"Concrete Sidewalk and Ramps 2,700 SY $ 60.00 $ 162,000
7 Curb&Gutter 4,100 LF $ 21.03 $ 86,223
8 14"Grass median 3,200 SY $ 5.00 $ 16,000
-_----:Paving Estimate Subtotal: $ ��1,269,448
H.Non-Paving Construction Components
Item No. Item Description Pct.Of Paving Item Cost
8 Pavement Markings&Signage 2% f $ 25,400
9 Traffic Control 5% $ 63,500
10 Erosion Control 3% $ 38,100
11 Landscaping 1% j $ 12,700
12 Illumination I 6% $ 76,200
13 Drainage Improvements(RCP,Inlets,MH,Outfalls) T� 20% L$ 253,900
Other Components Estimate Subtotal: $ 469,800
III.Special Construction-Components
Item No. Item Description Notes Allowance Item Cost
14 Drainage Structures ;None ___$_____— $ -
15 Bridge Structures [None $ - $ -
16 Traffic Signals [None $ - I $ -
17 Other None $ - $ -
Special Components Estimate Subtotal: $
I,II,&III Construction Subtotal: $ 1,739,248
Mobilization j T��S% i $ 87,000
Contiingency10% { $ 182,700
Construction Cost Estimate Total: $ 2,009,,000
:_1 m—pact Fee Cost Estimate Summary
Item Description Notes Allowance Item Cost
Construction ;Assume 40'ROW need 1 - $ 2,009,000
Engineering/Survey/Testing I 10% i $ 200,900
Right-of-Way Acquisition Cost per sq.ft.:L$ 1.00_$_ 80,760 $ 80,760
Impact Fee Project Cost Estimate Total: $ 2-290,660
2021 Impact Fee Update Freese and Nichols, Inc.
City of Cibolo Updated:5/22/2021
5 City of Cibolo
Impact Fee Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Estimate
Green Valley Road
2000 ft west of FM 1103 toFM 1103
JlRoadway Information:
Roadway Type: 15-Lane Arterial with TWLTL
Length (If): ;2,000
Right-of-Way Width(ft.): ;100
Median Type: !None
Pavement Width (BOC-130C): ;63
Description: ;Widen roadway and construct to thoroughfare standard
lRoadway Construction Cost Estimate:
I.Paving Construction Cost Estimate
Item No. Item Description p Quantity Unit Unit Cost Item Cost
1 Right of Way Preparation 20 STA $ 8,825.00 $ 176,500
2 Unclassified Street Excavation 7,000 CY $ 9.00 $ 63,000
3 D-GR HMA TY B SAC-13 PG(64-22) 5,900 TON $ 72.00 $ 424,800
4 Flexible Base 5,800 CY $ 60.00 $ 348,000
5 D-GR HMA TY D PG(76-22) 1,600 TON $ 125.00 $ 200,000
6 6"Concrete Sidewalk and Ramps 2,670 SY $ 60.00 $ 160,200
7 Curb&Gutter 4,000 LF $ 21.03 $ 84,120
8 14"Grass median 0 SY $ 5.00 $ -
Paving Estimate Subtotal: $ 1,456,620
77 - - - —
II.Non-Paving Construction Components
Item No. Item Description Pct.Of Paving Item Cost
9 Pavement Markings&Signage i 2 0 $ 29,200
10 Traffic Control 5% $ 72,900
11 Erosion Control 3% $ 43,700
12 Landscaping 1% $ 14,600
13 Illumination 6% ! $ 87,400
14 Drainage Improvements(RCP,Inlets,MH,Outfalls) 20% $ 291,400
Other Components Estimate Subtotal: $ 539,200
Ill.Special Construction Components
Item No. Item Description Notes Allowance Item Cost
15 Drainage Structures ;None -
16 Bridge StructuresNone $ - $
17 Traffic Signals (None $ - $ -
18 Other JNone $ - $
Special Components Estimate Subtotal: $ -
I,11,&111 Construction Subtotal: $ 1,995,820
Mobilization; 5% $ 99,800
Contingency 10% $ 209,600
Construction Cost Estimate Total: $ 2,305,300
limpact Fee Cost Estimate Summary
Item Description Notes Allowance Item Cost
Construction $ 2,305,300
Engineering/Survey/Testing ! 10% $ 230,530
Right-of-Way Acquisition Cost per sq.ft.: $ — 1.00 $ _ $ -
Impact Fee Project Cost Estimate Total: $ 2,535,830
2020 Impact Fee Update Freese and Nichols,Inc.
City of Cibolo Updated:5/22/2021
Appendix D:
Roadway CIP Service Units of Supply
Final Report-Roadway, Water,Wastewater and Drainage Impact Fee Update Freese and Nichols,Inc.
City of Ciholo,Texas
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)
UC= undivided collector
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 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
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.
J
Final Report-Roadway,Water,Wastewater and Drainage Impact Fee Update Freese and.Nichols,Inc.
City of Cibolo, Texas
n`
�o
as
o �
o^
A Cibolo Roadway Impact Fee Update
10 Year Roadway CIP
0CIP Sen, P'.1a,r Length Added Pet.In Peak Hour Volume VMTSUPPly VMTDemn EXcass CIPVW I
-Origin Area Type Roadway Fr.. To (ml) unas Type Serv.Are. A a Total 1. tal CRPArlly
O2019 1R Ripps-Kreusler Road West City 11.1t Cibolo Valley Drive 0.92 5 SA 100°,6 0 0 0' 2,484 0 2,484 0
N 2
01312019 l N Green Valley Road end of Southern Way 2000 ft west of FM 1103 0.80 3 SA 10056 230 1% 426 1,084 342 742 0
t0
0 2013 1 R Green Val ley Road 2000 it west of FM 1103 FM 1103 0.38 5 SA 100-A 230 196 426 1,023 161 862 _ 0
m - 2013/20/9 1 N Green Valley Road FM 1103 landmark Way 0.49 2 DA 100116 0 0 0 665 0 66S 0
j 2019 1 N Green Valley Road landmark Way Homestead Parkway 0.22 3 SA 100% 230 196 426 301 95 106 0
2019 1 N Green Valley Road Landmark Way Homestead Parkway 0.22 2 DA 100% 0 0 0 301 0 301 0
O
C 2013 1 N Wiedner Road Town Creek Road Hinge Falls 1.14 2 UC 100% 14 56 70 1,140 80 1,060 0
C2013 1 N Wiedner Road Hinge Falls FM 1103 '0.26 2 UC 100°h 50 204 2541 261 66 195 0
2019 1 N FM 11173/Main Street Improvements 1003 0 0 01 0 0 0 0
2019 1 N FM 1103 MainStreet Rade.Way 1.08 5 SA 100% 9% 826 18221 2,922 1,972 950 .0
2019 1 N Buffalo Tr/lance Xing MainStreet Knlghts Crossing 0.73 2 UC 10h 0 0 0 732 0 732 0
R 2019 1 N Buffalo Tr/lance Xing Knights Crossing Tolle Road 0.85 2 UC 10036 0 0 0� 853 0 853 0
.312019 1 N Cibolo Valley Road north Citylimit Did Wiedentein Road O.S6 4 DA 5036 344 344 753 192 561 0
C 2019 1N Dean Road north City Umit Green Valley Road 1.09 3 SC 100°,6 97 90 187 1,195 2D3 992 0
a
2- 2079 1 N Country Club Drive north City Umit Green Valley Rd 0.46 3 SC 100°,60 0 0 502 0 502 0
2019 1 N Knights Crossing Wiedner Road FM 1103 1.07 2 UA 1096 0 0 0' 1,343 0 1,343 0
2013/2019 1 N Knights Crossing FM 1103 Buffalo Tr/Lance Xing 0.56 2 UA 10,6 0 0 0. 702 0 702 0
2019 1 N MainStreet FM 110.3 FM78 0.96 3 SC 100°.6 310 226 535 1,057 515 542 0
2019 1 N Tolle Road FM 1103 Country Lane 1.22 2 UC 10G% 75 49 124 1,221 152 1,069 0
2013 1 N FM 1103 North City Limit Saddle Spoke/Greenwood Bay 1.82 5 SA 10% 836 952 1788' 4,916 3,255 1,661 0
2013 1 N FM 1303 Saddle Spoke/Gra enwood Say Brite Road 0.76 5 SA 10036 836 952 1788 2,050 1,358 692 0
2019 1 N FM 11M Eat Brite Road Buffalo Tr/lance Xing 0.73 3 SA IOU% 0 0 0! 986 0 986 0
2013/2019 1 N FM 11M Eat Buffalo Tr/Lance Xing FM78 0.75 3 SA 10026 0 0 0I 1,013 0 1,013 0
2019 1 N FM 11G3 Ext Brite Road Buffalo Tr/lance Xing 0.73 2 DA 1096 0 0 01 986 0 986 0
,1 2013/2019 1 N FM 1103 Ext Buffalo Tr/lance Xing FM78 0.75 2 DA 100% 0 0 0i 1,013 0 1,013 0
m 2013 1 N FM 78 at Main StTmffic Signal 100% 0� 0 0 0 0
m
Ar _ _
G y'F'hSuh',T.tal'Se Niae eal+"
'I'-1
�rT"`'y+14;e�-1'=4-'t'"' __j,391 21,114
n.
2
S
O
;n
j
n
4 Cibolo Roadway Impact Fee Update
10 Year Roadway CIP
C S v Project Length Added Pct.in Peak Hour Vol""' VMTD—nd aces, CIPVW I
O"'g,in AZ Type R.ad.,y Front To (Pul La,cs Type Sm.Area A B Total Pk JACTotal _dty, P-iiii My
s'
>4 n. 2013 2 N FM 78 at Haeckerville Traffic Signal 0.00 100% 01 0 0 0 0
rn 1013 2 N Shaeffer Road West City limit Main St 0.43 2 UC, 100% 94 96 190 433 83 350 0
2019 2 N New Road-1 Main St Ext FM 1103 Ext 1.17 3 SA 100% 0 0 0 1,585 0 1,585 0
G2019 2 N New Road-1 FM 1103 Ext FM78 0.78 3 SA 100% 0' 0 0 1,048 0 1,048 0
,^moi 2013 2 N LowerSeguin Road west City limit Haeckerville Rd 0.97 4 DA 509A 26 36 62 2,620 60 2,560 0
Q1013 2 N lower5eguin Road Haeckerville Rd FM 1103 Ext 1.12 4 DA 10096 26 36 621 3,024 69 2,955 0
1013 2 N Lower Seguin Road FM 3103 Ext Stolte Rd 0.24 4 DA 50% 26 36 62• 654 IS 639 0
m
E 2013 2 N LowerSeguin Road Stolle Rd Pfannsteil lane 0.38 4 DA SW% 26 36 62 1,032 24 1,008 0
O
2013/2019 2 N Main Street FM78 Shaefer Road 0.37 4 DA 10096 ]SS ]]3 268 996 99 897 0
p 1019 2 N Main Street Ext Shaefer Road Lower Seguin Road 2.01 4 DA 10016 0 0 0' 5,424 0 5,424 0
a
Q. 2073 2 N Haeckerville Road FM78 Town Cree4 0.54 4 DA 100% 133 104 137 1,454 126 1,326 ;0
t=; 1019 2 N. Haeckerville Road Town Creek LowerSeguin Road 1.63 4 DA 10036 133 104 237, 4,398 386 4,012 0
4
1019 2 N Haeckerville Road LowerSeguin Road 540'5 of Haeckerville Road 0.10 4 DA 5036 50 52 102:. 276 10 266 0
t°o 2019 2 N Haeckerville Road 540'5 of Haeckerville road 286'S of Green Meadow Rd 0.11 4 DA 10016 50 52 102 307 12 295 0
m
2019 2 N Haeckerville Road 786'5 of Green Meadow Road 288'S of Fread Lane 0.11 4 DA 506 50 52 102 307 12 295 0
C 2019 2 N Haeckerville Road 288'S of Fread Lane DWLane 0.13 4 DA 1006 50 52 102 361 14 347 0
n 1013/2019 2 N FM 1103 Ext FM78 Arlape Road 1.10 3 SA 10036 0 0 0 1,485 0 11485 0
to, 2013/2019 2 N FM 3103 Ext Adape Road LowerSegutn Road 1.13 3 SA 5094 0 0 0 1,525 0 1,525 0
to
C 2013/2019 2 N FM3103 Ext lower5eguin Road 173V S of Lower Seguin Road 0.33 3 SA 50% 0 0 01 444 0 444 0
C20]3/20]9 2 N FM 1103Ext 1736'5 of Lower Seguin Road 2400 S of Lower Seguin Road 0.13 3 SA 100% 0 0 0; 169 0 169 0
20]3/2019 2 N FM 3103 Ext Valley View Road 1275'N of Schmoekel Road 0,32 3 SA 100°,6 0 0 0' 435 0 435 0
2013/20]9 2 N FM 1103 Ext Lowe r Seguin Road Schmoekel Road 1.21 3 SA �10D% 0 0 01 1,629 0 1,629 0
1013/2019 2 N FM 3103 Ext - Arlape Road Lower Seguin Road 1.13' 2 DA 50% 0 0 0 1,525 0 1,525 0
1013/2019. 2 N FM 1103 Eat Lowe rSeguin Road 1736'5 of Lower Seguin Road 0.33 2 DA 50% 0 0 0� 444 0 444 0
20]3/20]9 2 N FM 3103 Ext 1736'5 of Lower Seguin Road 2400'S of Lower Seguin Road 0.13 2 DA 100% 0 0 0; 169 0 169 0
2013/2019 2 N FM 1103 Ext Val ley View Road 127V north of Schmoekel Road 0.32 2 DA 100% 00 0 435 0 435 0
2013 2 N Pfannsteil Lane FM78 N.of Arlape Road 0.74 3 SC 1001A 0 0 0' 813 0 813 0
2013 2 N Pfannstell Lane Ariape Road 3900 N of LowerSeguin Road 0.41 3 SC 5036 6 6 13 455 6 449 0
2033 2 N Pfannsteil Lane 2100'N of Lower Seguin Road LowerSeguin Road 0.40, 3 SC SD% 6 6 13 438 6 432 0
3r.. ..
'SUb;,TOtalSefviro "4a _.._33,B5_ 924ce ,
0
N ,
m
O
a
Q
Z
a
0
rn
r]
I
n Cibolo Roadway Impact Fee Update
a 10 Year,Roadway CIP
Wgin Area Type fload.av rnan, TO (Mi) TVPe Sem.Ar A 9 Pk HrTotal Pk HrTotal VINATCapatity, Dgfidencyo
s
a
a� 7013/5019 3 N Bolton Road Haeckamille Road 2200'EofHaeckewlileRoad 0.42 3 SC SWA 22 18 40 458 - 17 "1 0
N C 7017/1029 3 N Balton Road 2200'E of Haeckemille Road 500'E of 2uehl Road 0.41 3 SC 1001A 22 18 40, 448 16 432 0
:< 2013/10/9 3 N BoI:On Road 500'E of NON Road 1450'E of 2uehl Road 0.18 3' SC 50°,6 22. 18 40,1: 198 7 191 0
X113/2019 3 N Balton Road 650Eof S1.11e Road 22SUEOf Stolte Road' 0.30 3' SC WA 22 18 40' 333 12 321 0,
O
� 3073/1019 3 -N Ballon Road 4708'Wo/Santa Clam Road Santa Uzm Road 0.89 3 SC 50°,6 22 38 40; 981 36 945 0
1 _ X113/2019 3 'N FM 1303 Eat 32WNOI Bo Iton Road IM-10 0.69 3 SA 10MA 0 0 0; 933 0 933 0
q2023/1019 3 N AFM 1103 Eat 32W Nol Rol ton Road IH-10 0.69 2 DA 100Wh 0 0 01 933 0 933 0 -
RX119 3 N Pfanmtell lane Bolton Road IH-10 0.42 3 SC 10076 0 0 0� 464 0 464 0
C' 2019 3' N Santa Clara Road Bolton Read 12W S of Bolton Road 0.23 4 OA 100% _ IB 22 401: 614 9 605 0
2119 3. N Santa Clam Road 1200'S of Bolton Read IH-10 0.28 4 DA 100'b 18 22 401 756 11 7451
Q
'2021 3 N Haeckemille Road Bolton Road IH-10 0.11 4 DA 100'.6 60 -40 1001 307 12 295 0
a 0` d.62t _6,d25_ _1X_ _6305 0
Suh-TutahSernce Area3+^ _
O
to
a
n
m
_CZ
m
N
N
a
a
C)
0
do
j
n
Appendix E:
Roadway Improvement Plan Cost Analysis
Final Report-Roadway,Water,Wastewater and Drainage Impact Fee Update Freese and Nichols,Inc.
City of Cibolo,Texas
Cibolo Roadway Impact Fee Update
-Fal 10 Year Roadway CIP
I Q I CIP Sen, Projet, Length Added R-dwaVCoses Total Project
Origin Area Type Roadway From To (mi) Lanim Engineering ROW C-11-1bo Firi.n. Cost
y7019 1 R Ripps-Kreusler Road West City Limit Cibolc Valley Drive 0.92 5 $ - $ - $ 1,169,700 $ - 5 1,169,703
7013/1019 1 N Green Valley Road end of Southern Way 2000 ft west of FM 1103 ago 3 $ 720,000 $ 50.000.$ 7,620.000 $ 3,040,221 $ 11,88.221
2013 1 R Gree n Valley Road 2000 ft west of FM 1103 FM 1303 0.38 5 $ - $ $ 2,305,300 $ 792,830 $ 3,098,130
C7013/1019 1 N Green Valley Road FM 1103 Landmark Way 0.49 2 $ 330,346 $ 137,644 $ 3,441,103 $ 1,344,401 $ 5,253,494
2019 1 N Green Valley Road landmark Way Homestead Parkway 0.22 3 $ 230,000 $ 110,000 $ 2,160,DD0 $ 859,791 S 3,359,791
S` 2019 1 NGreen Valley Road landmakWay Homestead Parkway 0.22 2 $ 149,654 $ 62,356 $ 1,558,897 $ 609,044 $ 2,379,951
N 7013 1 N Wiedner Road Town Creek Read Hinge Falls 1.14 2 $ 327,120 $ 872,319 $ 3,053,116 $ 1,462,523 $ 5,715,077
F
2013 1 N Wiedner Road Hinge Falls FM 1103 0.26 2 $ 75,000 $ 200,000 $ 700,000 $ 335,318 $ 1,310,318
m
2019 1 N FM 1303/Main Street Improvements $ - $ - $ 2,700,000 $ 928,574 $ 3,628,574
O
2019 1 N FM 1103 MainStreet Rodeo Way L08 5 $ - $ - $ 5,000,000 $ 1,719,582 $ 6,719,582
Zi 2019 1 N Buffalo Tr/Lance%Ing MainStreet Knights Crossing 0.73 2 $ 148,500 $ 132,000 $ 1,295,250 $ 541,926 $ 2,117,676
Q.
O 2019 :1 N Buffalo Tr/Lance Xing Knights Crossing Tolle Road 0.85 2 $ 200,003 $ 200,000 $ 2,200,000 $ 894,183 5 3,494,183
2013/1019 1 N Cibelo Valley Road north City limit Old Wledersteln Road 0.56 4 $ 185,255 $ 185,000 $ 1,974,995 $ 806,570 $ 3,151,820
7
2019 1 N Dean Road north City Limit Green Valley Road 109 3 $ 510,000 $ 360,000 $ 5,200,000 $ 2,087,572 $ 8,157,572
10 1019 111 Country Club Orive north Cl1,limn Green Val it,Rd 0.46 3 $ 216,869 $ 97,941 $ 2,210,668 $ 868,553 $ 3,394,032
.a 2019 1 N Knights Crossing Wiedner Road FM 1303 L07 2 $ 6,900,000 $ 2,373,023 $ 9,273,023
R20/3/2019 1 N KnightsCrossing FM 1303 Buffalo Tr/Lance Xing 0.55 2 $ - $ - $ 3,500,000 $ 1,203,707 $ 4,703,707
2019 1 N MainStreet FM 1103 FM78 0.95 3 $ 440,000 5 - $ 4,520,000 $ 1,705,825 $ 6,665,825
f0 1019 1 N Tolle Road FM1103 Country Lane 1.22 2 $ 306,000 $ 544,003 $ 4,828,000 $ 1,952,757 $ 7,630,757
a4 2013 1 N FM 1103 North City llmll Saddle Spoke/Greenwood Bay L82 5 $ 256,967 $ 448,476 $ 2,690,859 $ 1,133,652 $ 4,429,954
2013 1 N FM 1103 Saddle Spoke/Greenwood Bay Brite Road 0.76 5 $ 65,447 $ 186,992 $ 1,121,949 $ 472,674 $ 1,847,062
m
1019 1 N FM 1303 EM Brite Road Buffalo Tr/Lance%Ing 0.73 3 $' 338,832 $ - $ 3,456,743 $ 1,305,360 $ 5,100,936
1013/1019 1 N FM1103Ext Buffalo Tr/Lance Xing FM78 0.75 3 $ 348,144 $ - $ 3,551,743 $ 1,341,235 $ 5,241,122
2019 1 N FM 1103 Ext Odle Road Buffalo Tr/Lance Xing 0.73 2 $ 446,240 $ 28,236 $ 4,558,258 $ 1,730,840 $ 6,763,573
-2013/1019 1 N FM 1103 Ext Buffalo Tr/Lance%Ing FM78 0.75 2 $ 458,504 $ 29,012 $ 4,683,530 $ 1,778,407 $ 6,949,453
1013 1 N FM 78 at Mai n St Traffic Signal $ 62,500 $ - $ 275,000 $ 116,072 $ .453,572
�:"�"+ =:Sub-TotzfService Arearl .q ++u' e."-a.. 1&575'1.. 5.':�T5;J15;378 $ 'y 4,093,976+
825;I1U
67 $".'31+404'643 $ 123,889,107'.
i
m
to
to
4
C
Z
n"
0
4n
na
p Clbolo Roadway Impact Fee Update
0 10 Year'Roadway CIP
o� a P So,.Ploped Length Added Road,"Cots Total Project
N2013 2 N FM78at Haecke Mlle Traffic Slgnal 0.00 $ 62,500 $ - $ 275,000 $ 116,072 $ 453,572
SC 2013 2 N Shaeffer Road West Otyllmlt Main St 0.43 1 $ 223,810 $ 68,520 $ 2,238,100 $ 870,256 $ 3,400,686
2019 2 N New Road-1 Main St Ext FM 1103 Ext 1.17 3 $ 870,000 $ 420,000 $ 8,920,OOD $ 3,511,386 $ 13,721,386
2019 2 N New Road-1 FM 1103 Est FM 78 0.78 3 $ 760,000 $ 310,000 $ 7.600.000 $ 2,981,755 S 11,651,755
:t 2013 2 N Lower Seguin Road west City omit HaeckeMlle Rd 0.97. d $ 252,385 $ 102,460 $ 2$23,650 $ 990,030 $ 3,868,725
2013 2 N lower Seguin Road HaedeMlle Rd FM 1103 Ext L12 4 $ 582,700 $ 236,560 S 5,827,000 $ 2,285,758 $ 8,932,018
y
2013 2 N lower Seguin Road FM 1103 Est Stolte Rd 0.24 4 $ 64,065 $ 25,580 $ 640,650 $ 251,160 $ 991,455
2033 2 N Lewer Seguin Road Stolte Pd Mannsreil lane 0.38 4 $ 200,900 $ 80,760 $ 2,009,000 $ 787,795 $ 3,078,455
N
2033/2019 2 N Mal,Street FM 78 Shaefer Road 0.37 4 $ 331,720 $ 106,000 $ 3,372,880 $ 1,310,528 $ 5,121,128
1 1019 2 N Main Street Ed Sha efer Road lower Segul n Rea d 2.01 4 $ 1,136,315 $ 755,100 $ 11,553,760 $ 4,624,016 $ 18,069,191
5
Q 2033 2 N HaeckeMlle Road FM 78 Town Creek 054 4 $ 513,445 $ 38,030 $ 5,259,405 $ 1,998,457 $ 7,809,336
2019 2 N HaeckeMlle Road Town Creek Lower Seguin Road L63 4 $ 1,552,610 $ 115,000 $ 15,903,966 $ 6,043,153 $ 23,614,723
2019 2 N HaeckeMlle Road Lower Seguin Road 540'So/.HaeckeMlle Road 0.10 4 $ 28,928 $ 19,223 $ 294,127 $ 117,715 $ 459,993
2019 2 N HaeckeMlle Road 540'5 of HaeckeMlle road 286'So/Green Meadow Rd 0.11 4 $ 64,283 $ 42,717 $ 653,616 $ 261,569 $ 1,022,206
M 2019 2 N HaeckeMlle Road 286'S of Green Meadow Road 288'5 of Freed Lane 0.11 4 $ 32,142 $ 21,359 $ 326,808 $ 130,794 $ 511,103
,a 2019 2 N HaeckeMlle Road 288'S of Fread Lane DW Lane 0.13 4 $ 75,640 $ 50,264 $ 769,089 $ 307,803 $ 1,202,795
Q 7013/7019 2 N FM 1103 Ext FM 78 ANxpe Road 1.10 3 $ 510,225 $ - $ 5,205,279 $ 1,965.656 $ 7,681,160
R 2013/2019 2 N FM 1103 Ext Adrpe Road Lower Seguin Road L13 3 $ 262,053 $ - $ 2,673,441 $ 1,009,564 $ 3,945,058
�1
na 2013/2019 2 N FM 1103 Est LowerSeguln Road 173G'S of Lower Seguln Road 0.33 3 $ 76,253 $ - $ 777,924 $ 293,765 $ 1,147,942
a201312019 2 N FM 1103 Ext 1736'S of Lower Seguln Read 2400'S of Lower Seguln Road 0.13 3 $ 57,980 $ - $ 591,509 $ 223,370 $ 872,859
Q. 2013/2019 2 N FM 1103 Ext Valley VIew Road 1275'N of5chmoekel Road 0.32 3 $ 149,343 $ - $ 1,523,584 $ 575,347 $ 2,248,273
2013/2019 2 N FM 1103 Ext lower Seguln Road Schmoekel Road L21 3 $ 559,650 $ - $ 5,709,501 $ 2,1S6,064 $ 8,425,214
2013/2019 2 N FM 1103 Ed Ad,pe Road lower Seguin Road 1.13 2 $ 345,121 $ 21,838 $ 3,525,352 $ 1,338,630 $ 5,230,941
2013/2019 2 N FM 1103 Ed Lower Seguin Road 1736'5 of Lower Seguin Road 0.33 2 $ 100,424 $ 6,354 $ 1,025,815 $ 389,517 $ 1,522,111
2013/2019 2 N FM 1103 Ed 1736S of Lower Seguin Rua d 2400'S of Lower Seguin Rea d 0.13 2 $ 76,3S9 $ 4,832 S 779,997 S 296,177 $ 1,157,365
2013/2019 2 N FM 1103 Ext Valley View Road 1275'north of Schmoekel Rot 0.32 2 $. 196,683 $ 12,445 $ 2,009,084 $ 762,880 $ 2,981,093
2013 2 N %annstell Lane FM 78 N.of Arlrpe Road 0.74 3 $ 350,258 S 157,616 $ 3,467,552 $ 1,367,214 $ S,342,640
7013 2 N %annstell lane A112pe Road 3900'N of Lower Seguln Roac 0.41 3 $ 98,117 $ 44,153 $ 971,359 $ 382,995 $ 1.495.624
2013 2 N Pfannstell Lane 2100'Nof LowerSeguln Road LowerSeguln Road 0.40 3. $ 94,300 $ 42,435 $ 933,572 $ 368,096 $ 1,438,403
$ub-Total Service Wea2 1].]] $ 9,628;209 $ 2,681,146 $ 97361,221 $ `37717;542, $..^ 147;388,2171
l
ry
y
m
a
Q.
Z
a
0
h
n
n',1
4 Gbolo Roadway Impact Fee Update
0 0 10 Year Roadway CIP
Oct P S— Not— Length Added Roadway costs Total P.1-
;t:; rigin A— Type Roadway Fm. To (mill Lanes Epaiwerint, Roy, C-1—han r1n.— ccel
oh
N20/3/2079 3 N Bolton Road Haecke Mlle Road 2200'E of Haecke Mlle Road O.42 3 $ - $ - $ 418,374 $ 143,886 $ 562,260
2013/2019 3 N Bolton Road 2200'Eef Haecke Mlle Road 500'E of2uehl Road 0.41 3 $ - $ - $ 817,732 $ 281,231 $ 1,098,963
2013/2019 3 N Bolton Road 500'E of2uehl Road 1450'E of 2u,hl Read 0.18 3 $ - $ - $ 180,662 $ 62,132 $ 242,794
O 2013/2019 3 N Bolton Road 650'E of Slolte Road 2250'E of Stolt,Road 0.30 3 $ $ - $ 304,272 $ 104,644 $ 408,916
2013/2019 3 N Bollon Road 4708'W of Santa Clara Road Santa Clara Road 0.89 3 $ - $ - $ 895,321 S 307,916 $ 1,203,237
S` 2013/2019 3 N FM 1103 EK 3200'N of Bolton Road IH-10 0.69 3 $ 320.648 S 26,721 $ 3,271,224 $ 1,244,493 $ 4,863,085
N2013/2019 3 N FM 1103 EK 3200'N of Bolton Road IH-10 0.69 2 $ 422,291 $ - $ 4,313,622 S 1,628,758 $ 6,364,671
2019 3 N Pfannstell Lane Bolton Road IH-10 0.42 3 $ 200,000 $ 90,000 $ 1,980,000 $ 7sa.690 $ 3,050,690
2019 3 N Santa Clara Read Bolton Road 1200'S of Bolton Road 0.23 4 $ - $ - $ 1,902,049 $ 654,146 $ 2,556,195
m
� 2019 3 N Santa Clara Road 1200'So/8olton Road IH-30 0.28 4 $ - $ - $ 772,145 $ 265,553 $ 1,037,698
O
D. 2021 3 N Haecke Mlle Road Batten Road IH-10 0.11 4 $ 64,283 $ 42,717 $ 653,616 S tt 261,589 $ 1,022,206
Sub-TdtilServlce Ar,a3 "'' ,.�. f�' -�'4.. x..14:62" ' $ S00],ZZ2 $ 159,438 $ ;15,509,017'2$,x-�1s5,735,e38 $� 22430736'.
5
Co
to
,n Summary: Engineering Cost $ 16,350,809
Right-of-Way Cost $6,934,660
Construction Cast $195,545,348
mat
Finance Cost $74,857,223
C' TOTAL NET COST $293,688,040
Q Future IF Study Update Cost $100,000
TOTAL IMPLEMENTATION COST $293,788,040
50%Percent Credit $146,894,020
UA-UndhAded Arterial
DC-DWded collector
UC-UndiWded Collector
SA-Special Arterial with Two-way left tum lane[TWLTLI
SC-Spedal Collectorwilh two-wayleft num lane fTWLTII
i
m
m
rn
to
a
a
Z
n'
a
0
A
Appendix F:
Roadway Service Area Analysis Summary
Final Report-Roadway,Water,Wastewater and Drainage Impact Fee Update Freese and Nichols,Inc.
City of Cibolo,Texas
n`7
�a
n�
0 0
y c 2021 Ciholo,Roadway Impact Fee Update
o ; Service Area Analysis Summary-10 Year CIP
Nctc,pultv P—'—go
' -.
C
ry 7233,MS
veh-.1 -- (.—I)I Fvil[oft U Cast 5036Credit 503;C.it 5036 Credit ,veh,,11. 5036 Credit 50°b Credit
1
8,391 0 21,112 1 1 113,931,36] 88,693,829 fi1,9fi5,683 $04301915 $17623769 14808 70.1 $31,101,510 924 1,272 31,689 915176 147,436,750 137,881,756 73,]18,3]] $66,940,878 $4,7!],499 3,825 11.1 $8,321,46461 120 0 6,305 9113% 22,419,919 22,001,181 11,209,959 '$11000590 $209369 ]901 100.0 $11,000,590 9,435 1,272 59,116 84.66% $293,788,000 24$730,693 $146,894,010 $12d,283,383 $22,610,637 26,535 44.9 M,423,564 $2,07100
1 We'6ledAlem e
C
a
0
O
m ..
3
a
0
ac
a
0
m •
i
m
sn -
R
A
a
Z
a
0
N
5
n
n
Appendix G:
Water and Wastewater CIP Maps
Final Report-Roadway,Water,Wastewater and Drainage Impact Fee Update Freese and Nichols,Inc.
City ofCibolo, Texas
4,7
41 1 ' St Ly t
� 5
1 }
Y!
f
5
j.
f ,A
pQ
FIGURE 4-3 \'
CITY OF CIBOLO _
WATER IMPACT FEE ELIGIBLE
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN
LEGEND �` •'-� ��W ,. ,>?!'.:
Erlsfina/moecf Fee ElidD/e lmnmvemenh —�p•and Smalbr Water lino
■ Pimpsmtbn —12•and larser M.,
® Ground Storage Tenk goad
If, Elevated Stomal Tank'
Pmwsed lmoed Fee Elraible lmnmvemenh LnkalPond
-aetnruna _ I
'E+Isflna Wekr Svsfem I_J Pmwl _ n.. -� •/i:l
Gd SLow Pmssuro Zono
8 rountompo Tank'�
q ®V81or Sorvlce(vee J \ i /�i•i.
II FJavated 5torapo Tank ` ' `Ji ,
OC'bolo Cky LMil
Sen Mlsnlo ETJ '
t–__—•-Co sound
�FREESE / A. ,
-',-INICHOLS (
w O-V
xx
-2a
Lx
5 IN.
V
XI
b
SA
VO
Jb-
WI.A
zw
�XN 0 0
mv
n
%
"X
W-V N Kz
�sp