Schertz panels back updated water/wastewater master plans and maximum impact fees; recommend phase‑in

SCHERTZ, Texas — Two city advisory bodies on Jan. 22 recommended that the City Council adopt updated water and wastewater master plans and a companion impact‑fee study that sets maximum development impact fees of $8,814 per living unit equivalent (LUE) for water and $5,556 per LUE for wastewater, with a staff‑proposed three‑year phase‑in.

The Planning and Zoning Commission voted 5-0 to recommend that the City Council incorporate the updated water and wastewater master plans into the comprehensive plan. Later the Capital Improvement Advisory Committee (CIAC) voted 6-1 to recommend the council adopt the land‑use assumptions, capital improvement plan (CIP) and the consultant’s calculated maximum impact fees and the three‑year phase‑in schedule to implement those fees.

Why it matters: The master plans and CIP identify projects the city says are needed both to address current system deficiencies and to provide capacity for anticipated growth through 2050. The impact‑fee calculation apportions the portion of project costs that can legally be charged to new development; adopting higher fees would shift some project costs from existing ratepayers to incoming development, while a phase‑in spreads the change over several years.

City staff presentation and modeling Kathy, a city water/wastewater planner, told both bodies the update relies on a consultant model and 2018 land‑use maps adjusted with 2022 development information as the baseline for growth assumptions. Staff and the consultant modeled the existing water and sewer systems, compared conditions to Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) rules and identified projects to address current deficiencies and to serve projected growth through 2050.

Kathy said the water model incorporated actual residential usage patterns, wholesale customer demands, pressure‑reducing valve settings and removal of retired lines from the GIS. For wastewater the model was calibrated with monitored flow data, including rain events, to estimate inflow and infiltration and identify potential surcharged gravity mains and projected overflows.

Staff reported the wastewater model flagged roughly 26,000 feet of surcharge gravity mains and about 21 projected overflows in the current system model; those modeled stress points informed proposed upsizes and capacity projects. Staff also described near‑term (to 2030) and long‑term (to 2050) project lists and explained that only portions of some projects are eligible to be included in the legal impact‑fee calculation (projects or portions required by growth in the 10‑year horizon).

Key numbers from the study - LUE definition used: 1 single‑family residential LUE = 245 gallons per day (water) and 172 gallons per day (wastewater). - Consultant’s calculated maximum assessable fees (the legal maximum the City Council may adopt under state law): $8,814 per LUE for water and $5,556 per LUE for wastewater. - Consultants applied a median annual inflation assumption of about 3.91% for long‑range cost escalation and used class‑4 (early‑stage) estimates with a 30% contingency for many projects that have not been designed. - Example project: a local water line replacement with an engineer’s opinion of probable cost of $763,000; staff reported 27% of that project was attributable to anticipated future growth and therefore eligible to be included in the impact‑fee calculation at that percentage.

On whether the study accounted for outside sources, Kathy confirmed the model includes service and supply assumptions such as the second pipeline from Seguin (referred to in the presentation as the incoming wholesale supply source) and that current CCNs (certificates of convenience and necessity) were assumed unchanged for modeling purposes.

Revenue credit and eligibility Staff explained state law requires a revenue‑credit adjustment in the fee calculation so the city does not “double‑count” existing revenue that will be used to pay for system capacity. Staff described certain older projects that have already been partially funded with previously collected impact fees; because those costs have already been recovered, the consultant reduced the eligible impact‑fee amount for those projects.

Public comment and discussion No members of the public spoke at either the Planning & Zoning or CIAC hearings. Commissioners and CIAC members questioned staff about near‑term pressure issues in the city’s south side distribution system, the status of specific tanks and pump stations under construction or recently completed, and whether proposed project lists and growth utilization percentages matched the consultant spreadsheets. Staff said operations work and projects under construction (including elevated storage and ground storage tanks and related pump stations) have improved some local pressure conditions, and that some project utilization percentages reflected consultant judgments about where growth is most likely to occur within different planning horizons.

CIAC debate and the phase‑in CIAC members discussed alternate options for adoption: the study’s calculated maximum fees, a percentage of those maximums, or a schedule to phase increases in over multiple years. Several CIAC members favored adopting the maximum allowable fees and using a multi‑year phase‑in to reduce the immediate impact to developers; one member said they preferred a faster phase to begin collecting needed funds sooner. Staff and consultants noted that if council adopts less than the calculated maximum, the city’s existing ratepayers would absorb part of the cost through higher utility rates or by issuing debt for which rate revenue would be used.

Votes at a glance - Planning & Zoning: motion to recommend City Council adopt the updated water and wastewater master plans and incorporate them into the comprehensive plan (PLCPA2025‑0006). Mover: Commissioner Wallace; Second: Commissioner Carbone. Vote: 5 ayes, 0 nays; motion passed.

- Capital Improvement Advisory Committee (CIAC): motion to recommend City Council adopt the land‑use assumptions, the capital improvement plan, the consultant’s maximum assessable impact fees for water and wastewater, and the staff‑proposed three‑year phase‑in (effective date to be set by City Council). Mover: Mr. Wallace; Second: Ms. Brown. Vote: 6 ayes, 1 nay; motion passed.

What the body recommended, and what happens next Both advisory bodies forwarded their recommendations to the Schertz City Council. Under the Texas Local Government Code procedural rules staff reviewed, council must publish and set a public hearing and may then consider adopting impact‑fee ordinances. Staff told the advisory groups that council can adopt the consultant’s maximum assessable rates, adopt lower fees, change the phase‑in schedule, or take other steps before final adoption.

Staff and consultant next steps include presenting the study to the Economic Development Corporation for input from the development community, finalizing the report for council, and supporting council’s public hearing and adoption process.

Ending The city’s proposed fee changes are intended to fund a long list of near‑term and long‑range projects that staff and the consultant say are necessary to maintain regulatory compliance and provide capacity for future population growth. City Council will receive the advisory recommendations and must decide whether to adopt the master plans, set the maximum assessable rates and determine any final phase‑in or other modifications.