Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Impact Fees topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Schertz adopts maximum water/wastewater impact fees after council cites pending state bills
Summary
Council approved new water and wastewater impact fees at their maximum allowable levels, citing pending state legislation that could bar future fee increases for several years; effective dates and revised service maps were included.
The Schertz City Council voted 6–0 to adopt updated land‑use assumptions, capital improvement plans and the maximum assessable water and wastewater impact fees for development, directing staff to include revised service‑area maps in the adopted ordinance.
“This is the process that we have to go through for the impact fees is governed by Texas Local Government Code chapter 395,” said Kathy Woodley (staff title in packet: consultant/planner), explaining the statutory process for calculating maximum assessable fees and the council’s option to set lower actual fees. Woodley told the council that the Capital Improvements Advisory Committee recommended a phased approach but that recent proposed state bills could freeze any future fee increases for three to five years.
Why it matters: staff presented three options — a three‑year phase‑in (50% → 75% → 100%), a two‑year phase‑in (66% → 100%), and a single step to the maximum allowed amount with a short grace‑period delay to allow administrative updates. Because Senate Bill 1883 and House Bill 2225 (pending at the time of the meeting) would prevent a jurisdiction from raising an impact fee for three to five years after an increase, staff recommended implementing the full maximum after a short grace period rather than phasing in the increase.
Council action: the council approved the ordinance (25F017) adopting the maximum assessable impact fee rates and instructed staff to include revised service‑area maps (which reflect recent CCN changes) in the final adoption. The motion (made by the mayor and seconded by Council member Davis) passed 6–0.
What the staff recommended and why: staff said delaying to a later date would risk leaving the city unable to increase fees for several years if the Legislature restricts future raises — a limitation staff argued would make it difficult to keep pace with required infrastructure for new development. Woodley told council that if the Legislature later does not enact the restrictions, the council could revisit rates and implement a phase‑in after the fact, with refunds or credits as needed for any overpayments.
Next steps: staff will incorporate corrected service‑area maps into the ordinance and publish the new fee schedule; staff proposed an effective date for building permits of July 1, 2025 for property platted after June 1, 2025. Council members said they will monitor the bills in Austin and may revisit the schedule if the legislative picture changes.
