seguin roadway impact fee study - cms5.revize.com rif_final… · the cip for the roadway impact...

SEGUIN ROADWAY IMPACT FEE STUDY

March 2017 FINAL DRAFT

City of Seguin, Texas2016 Roadway Impact Fee StudyFINAL DRAFT | March 2017

Prepared for:City of Seguin

Prepared by:

Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.2201 West Royal Lane, Suite 275Irving, TX 75063Phone: 214 420 5600

TBPE Firm Registration Number: F-928

Project Number: 064500200© Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.

2016 Roadway Impact Fee Study City of Seguin, Texas FINAL DRAFT | March 2017

i

Table of ContentsPage No.

1 Introduction ..........................................................................................................................12 Roadway Impact Fee Calculation Inputs .............................................................................2

A. Land Use Assumptions .......................................................................................................................... 2B. Capital Improvement Plan ...................................................................................................................... 4

3 Methodology for Roadway Impact Fees ............................................................................10A. Service Areas ....................................................................................................................................... 10B. Service Units ......................................................................................................................................... 10C. Cost Per Service Unit ........................................................................................................................... 11D. Cost of the CIP ..................................................................................................................................... 11E. Service Unit Calculation ....................................................................................................................... 15

4 Roadway Impact Fee Calculation ......................................................................................19A. Maximum Assessable Impact Fee Per Service Unit ........................................................................... 19B. Plan For Awarding the Roadway Impact Fee Credit........................................................................... 21C. Service Unit Demand Per Unit of Development .................................................................................. 23

5 Sample Calculations ..........................................................................................................266 Conclusion .........................................................................................................................277 Appendices ........................................................................................................................28


ii

List of TablesTable 1 Residential and Non-Residential 10-Year Growth Projections for the City of Seguin ................ 2Table 2A Capital Improvement Plan for Roadway Impact Fees – Service Area A ..................................... 5Table 2B Capital Improvement Plan for Roadway Impact Fees – Service Area B ..................................... 5Table 2C Capital Improvement Plan for Roadway Impact Fees – Service Area C..................................... 5Table 2D Capital Improvement Plan for Roadway Impact Fees – Service Area D..................................... 5Table 3 Level of Use for Proposed Facilities (used in Appendix B – CIP Units of Supply) ................... 10Table 4A 10-Year Capital Improvement Plan for Roadway Impact Fees with Conceptual Level Project Cost Projections – Service Area A ............................................ 14Table 4B 10-Year Capital Improvement Plan for Roadway Impact Fees with Conceptual Level Project Cost Projections – Service Area B ............................................ 14Table 4C 10-Year Capital Improvement Plan for Roadway Impact Fees with Conceptual Level Project Cost Projections – Service Area C ............................................ 15Table 4D 10-Year Capital Improvement Plan for Roadway Impact Fees with Conceptual Level Project Cost Projections – Service Area D ............................................ 15Table 5 Transportation Demand Factor Calculations .............................................................................. 17Table 6 10-Year Growth Projections ........................................................................................................ 18Table 7 Maximum Assessable Roadway Impact Fee Computation ..................................................19-21Table 8 Maximum Assessable Roadway Impact Fee .............................................................................. 22Table 9 Land Use / Vehicle-Mile Equivalency Table (LUVMET) ........................................................24-25

List of ExhibitsExhibit 1 – Roadway Service Areas .................................................................................................................... 3Exhibit 2A – Impact Fee CIP – Service Area A .................................................................................................. 6Exhibit 2B – Impact Fee CIP – Service Area B .................................................................................................. 7Exhibit 2C – Impact Fee CIP – Service Area C .................................................................................................. 8Exhibit 2D – Impact Fee CIP – Service Area D .................................................................................................. 9

List of ExamplesExample 1: Development Type - One (1) Unit of Single-Family Housing in Service Area A ......................... 26Example 2: Development Type – 125,000 square foot Home Improvement Superstore in Service Area B . 26


1

1. IntroductionChapter 395 of the Texas Local Government Code describes the procedure Texas cities must follow in order tocreate and implement Impact Fees. Senate Bill 243 (SB 243) amended Chapter 395 in September 2001 to define anImpact Fee as “a charge or assessment imposed by a political subdivision against new development in order togenerate revenue for funding or recouping the costs of capital improvements or facility expansions necessitated byand attributable to the new development.”

The City has retained Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. to provide professional transportation engineering services forthe 2016 development of their Roadway Impact Fees. This report includes the details of the Roadway Impact Feecalculation methodology in accordance with Chapter 395 and the development of the Land Use Assumptions, CapitalImprovement Plan, and Land Use Equivalency Table.

This report introduces and references two of the basic inputs to the Roadway Impact Fee:

1. Land Use Assumptions (Pg. 2)2. Capital Improvement Plan (Pg. 4)

Information from the Land Use Assumptions and this Capital Improvement Plan is used extensively throughout theremainder of the report.

The final report will consist of a detailed discussion of the methodology for the computation of impact fees and isbroken down into two components:

3. Methodology for Roadway Impact Fees (Pg. 10)4. Roadway Impact Fee Calculation (Pg. 19)

The components of the Methodology for Roadway Impact Fee includes development of:· Service Areas· Service Units· Cost Per Service Unit· Cost of the CIP· Service Unit Calculation

The components of the Roadway Impact Fee Calculation include:· Maximum Assessable Impact Fee Per Service Unit· Service Unit Demand Per Unit of Development

This report also includes a section concerning the Plan for Awarding the Roadway Impact Fee Credit . This plandetails the maximum assessable impact fee per service unit the City of Seguin may apply under Chapter 395 of theTexas Local Government Code.

The final section of the report is the Conclusion, which presents the findings of the analysis and summarizes thereport.


2

2. Roadway Impact Fee Calculation Inputs

A. Land Use AssumptionsIn order to assess an impact fee, land use assumptions must be developed to provide the basis for population andemployment growth projections within a political subdivision. As defined by Chapter 395 of the Texas LocalGovernment Code, these assumptions include a description of changes in land uses, densities, and population in theservice area in a 10-year span. The land use assumptions used in this report were developed using informationfound in the City of Seguin Future Land Use Plan, and with input from City staff.

The geographic boundaries of the impact fee service areas for roadway facilities are shown in Exhibit 1. The City ofSeguin is divided into four (4) service areas, each based on a six (6) mile limit as required in Chapter 395.

Table 1 summarizes the residential and non-residential 10-year growth projections by service area within the City ofSeguin.

Table 1 – Residential and Non-Residential 10-Year Growth Projections for the City of Seguin

King StUS 90ALTE

SH 46

FM 20Gu

adalu

peSt

Beec

hcraf

tLn

Twin Oak Rd

FM 78

IH 10

FM 16

20 US 90SH 123 Bypass

Court St

SH 13

0

Kingsbury St

StockdaleHwy

Austi

n St /

SH 12

3

LegendSeguin ETJSeguin City LimitsService Area AService Area BService Area CService Area D

Exhibit 1 - Service Areas

March 2017

I0 1.50.75 Miles

2016 Roadway Impact Fee Study

Page 3

A B

C D


4

B. Capital Improvement PlanThe City has identified the City-funded roadway projects needed to accommodate the projected growth within theCity in the next 10 years. The Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) for Roadway Impact Fees is made up of the following:

· Recently completed projects with excess capacity available to serve new growth;· Projects currently under construction; and· All remaining projects needed to complete the City’s Master Thoroughfare Plan.

The CIP includes arterial, parkway, major collector and collector class roadway facilities as well as intersectionimprovements. All of the facilities are part of the draft Master Thoroughfare Plan or Regional Transportation Plan.

The CIP for the Roadway Impact Fees 2016 is listed in Tables 2A-D and mapped in Exhibits 2A-D. The tablesshow the length of each project as well as the facility’s Master Thoroughfare Plan classification by service area. TheCIP was developed in conjunction with input from City of Seguin staff and represents those projects that will beneeded to accommodate the growth projected by the 2016 Land Use Assumptions for Roadway Impact Fee.


5

Table 2A – Capital Improvement Plan for Roadway Impact Fees – Service Area A

Table 2B – Capital Improvement Plan for Roadway Impact Fees – Service Area B

Table 2C – Capital Improvement Plan for Roadway Impact Fees – Service Area C

Table 2D – Capital Improvement Plan for Roadway Impact Fees – Service Area D

ServiceArea

Proj. # Impact FeeClass

Project Limits Length(mi)

% InService

AreaA-1 ARTE Cordova Rd (1) 1470' W of SH 123 / City Limits to 447' W of SH 123 0.20 50%A-2 ARTE Cordova Rd (2) 447' W of SH 123 to SH 123 0.08 100%A-3 PKWY Outer Loop (1) FM 1620 to 2345' E of FM 1620 0.44 100%A-4 PKWY Outer Loop (2) 2345' E of FM 1620 to SH 46 0.62 100%A-5 PKWY Outer Loop (3) SH 46 to Rudeloff Rd 0.71 100%A-6 PKWY Outer Loop (4) Rudeloff Rd to City Limits 0.63 50%A-7 ARTE Rudeloff Rd (1) SH 46 to 4432' E of FM 46 0.84 100%A-8 ARTE Rudeloff Rd (2) 4432' E of FM 46 to Beechcraft Ln 0.44 50%A-9 ARTE Rudeloff Rd (3) Beechcraft Ln to Huber Rd 0.24 100%A-10 ARTE Rudeloff Rd / FM 20 (1) Huber Rd to 3765' E of Huber Rd 0.84 100%A-11 ARTE Rudeloff Rd / FM 20 (2) 3883' E of Huber Rd to 4156' E of Huber Rd 0.09 100%A-12 ARTE Rudeloff Rd / FM 20 (3) 6126' E of Huber Rd to SH 123 0.27 100%A-13 ARTE Rudeloff Rd / Strempel Rd Rudeloff Rd / FM 20 to SH 123 1.07 100%A-14 ARTE Huber Rd IH 10 to Rudeloff Rd 1.30 100%A-S1 - Future Grade Separated Outer Loop & SH 46 - 100%A-S2 - Signal Installation SH 123 & FM 20 - 50%A-S3 - Turn Lane Installation SH 123 & Cordova Rd - 50%

A

ServiceArea

Proj. # Impact FeeClass

Project Limits Length(mi)

% InService

AreaB-1 MAJC FM 20 (1) SH 123 to 1067' E of SH 123 0.20 100%B-2 MAJC FM 20 (2) 1067' E of SH 123 to City Limits 1.39 50%B-3 PKWY SH 123 Bypass SH 123 to IH 10 1.65 100%B-4 ARTE Strempel Rd SH 123 to SH 123 Bypass 0.47 100%B-5 MAJC Heideke St / Martindale Rd SH 123 Bypass to 156' NE of Twin Oak Rd 0.46 100%B-6 MAJC Martindale Rd 156' NE of Twin Oak Rd to 1300' NE of Twin Oak Rd 0.23 50%B-7 MAJC Future Major Collector C 1300' NE of Twin Oak Rd to FM 20 0.60 100%B-8 MAJC Heideke St IH 10 to SH 123 Bypass 0.33 100%

B-S1 - Signal Installation SH 123 & FM 20 - 50%B-S2 - Turn Lane Installation SH 123 & Cordova Rd - 50%

B

ServiceArea

Proj. # Class Project Limits Length(mi)

% InService

AreaC-1 ARTE SH 123 / Austin St Kingsbury St to IH 10 1.26 50%C-2 ARTE Fleming Dr Kingsbury St to IH 10 0.80 100%C-3 FR IH 10 Frontage Road C H Matthies to SH 123 2.30 100%C-4 COL Hidalgo St / Vaughan Ave US 90 ALTE to FM 78 1.08 100%C-5 COL Jefferson Ave SH 46 to Guadalupe St 1.16 100%C-6 COL C H Matthies Jr / Lawson St IH 10 Frontage Road to Kingsbury St 0.94 100%

C

ServiceArea

Proj. # Class Project Limits Length(mi)

% InService

AreaD-1 ARTE SH 123 / Austin St US 90 to IH 10 1.26 50%D-2 COL Walnut St King St to SH 123 Bypass 0.62 100%D-3 COL Meadow Lake Dr Stockdale Hwy to SH 123 Bypass 0.65 100%D-4 COL Heideke St Kingsbury St to IH 10 1.23 100%D-5 COL Tor Dr Stockdale Hwy to SH 123 Bypass 1.03 100%

D-S1 - Realignment Eastwood Dr & Preston Dr - 100%D-S2 - Signal and Turn Lanes King St & Gloria Dr - 100%

D

Lake Placid

LakeMcQueeney

MeadowLake

FM 20

Walnut St

OuterLoop

Flemi

ng D

r

C HMatthies Jr,Lawson St

Tor Dr

Vaug

hn Av

e,Hid

algo S

t

Jefferson Ave

Heide

ke

Austi

n StHu

ber R

d

IH 10 Frontage Road

Cordova Rd

King St

US 90 ALTE

SH 46

FM 20

Guad

alupe

St

Beec

hcraf

t Ln Twin Oak Rd

FM 78

IH 10

FM 16

20

US 90

Stock

dale

Hwy

SH 123 Bypass

Court St

Kingsbury St

Austi

n St /

SH 12

3

A-7

A-1

A-2

A-3

A-4

A-5

A-6

A-8 A-9

A-14

A-13

A-12A-11

A-10

A-S1

B-1B-2

B-3

B-7

B-6

B-5B-4

B-8

A-S3B-S2

A-S2B-S1

C-2

C-3

C-4

C-5

C-6

C-1D-1

D-2

D-5

D-4

D-S2 D-S1

Exhibit 2A -CIP - Service Area A

LegendIntersection Improvement

Existing Roadway ProjectNew Roadway ProjectSeguin ETJ

Seguin City LimitsService Area AService Area BService Area CService Area D

I

0 1.50.75 Miles

March 2017


Page 6

FM 20

Flemi

ngDr

OuterLoop

Rudeloff Rd

Heide

ke

Austi

n St

Hube

r Rd

IH 10 Frontage Road

Cordova Rd A-S3B-S2

A-S2 B-S1B-1

B-2

B-3

B-7

B-6

B-5B-4

B-8

SH 46

FM 20

Twin Oak Rd

FM 78

IH 10

US 90

SH 123 Bypass

SH 13

0

Austi

n St /

SH 12

3

A-S1

A-7

A-1

A-2

A-4

A-5

A-6

A-8 A-9

A-14

A-13

A-12A-11

A-10

C-3

C-1D-1

D-4

Exhibit 2B - CIP - Service Area B

March 2017




I

0 1.50.75 Miles


Page 7

Lake Placid

LakeMcQueeney

Meadow Lake

OuterLoop

Walnut St

MeadowLake Dr

Flemi

ng D

r

Rudeloff Rd


Tor Dr

Vaug

hn Av

e,Hid

algo S

t

Jefferson Ave

Heide

ke

Austi

n St

Hube

r Rd

IH 10 Frontage Road

King St

US 90 ALTE

SH 46Gu

adalu

pe S

t

Beec

hcraf

t Ln Twin Oak Rd

FM 78

IH 10

FM 16

20

US 90

SH 123 Bypass

Court St

Kingsbury St

StockdaleHwy

C-2

C-3

C-4

C-5

C-6

A-7

A-3

A-4

A-5

A-8 A-9

A-14

A-13

A-10

A-S1

B-3B-6

B-5B-4

B-8

C-1D-1

D-2

D-3

D-5

D-4

D-S2 D-S1

Exhibit 2C - CIP - Service Area C





0 1.50.75 Miles

IMarch 2017

Page 8

Lake Placid

LakeMcQueeney

Meadow Lake

Walnut St

OuterLoop

MeadowLake Dr

Flemi

ng D

r

Rudeloff Rd


Tor Dr

Vaug

hn Av

e,Hid

algo S

t

Jefferson Ave

Heide

ke

FM 20

Austi

n St

Hube

r Rd

IH 10 Frontage Road

King St

US 90 ALTE

SH 46

FM 20

Guad

alupe

St

Beec

hcraf

t Ln Twin Oak Rd

FM 78

IH 10

FM 16

20US 90

SH 123 Bypass

Court St

Kingsbury St

StockdaleHwy

D-2

D-3

D-5

D-4

D-S2 D-S1

A-7

A-3

A-4

A-5

A-6

A-8 A-9

A-14

A-13

A-12A-11

A-10

A-S1

A-S2 B-S1B-1

B-2

B-3

B-7

B-6

B-5B-4

B-8

C-1D-1

C-2

C-3

C-4

C-5

C-6

Exhibit 2D - CIP - Service Area D


I0 1.50.75 Miles

September 2016Page 9

Exhibit 2D - CIP - Service Area D

March 2017


ExistingNewSeguin ETJ


I

0 1.50.75 Miles


Page 9


10

3. Methodology for Roadway Impact Fees

A. Service AreasThe four (4) service areas used in the 2016 Roadway Impact Fee are shown in the previously referenced Exhibit 1.These service areas cover the entire corporate boundary of the City of Seguin. Chapter 395 of the Texas LocalGovernment Code specifies that “the service area is limited to an area within the corporate boundaries of the politicalsubdivision and shall not exceed six (6) miles.”

B. Service UnitsThe “service unit” is a measure of consumption or use of the roadway facilities by new development. In other words,it is the measure of supply and demand for roads in the City. For transportation purposes, the service unit is definedas a vehicle-mile.

Another aspect of the service unit is the service volume that is provided (supplied) by a lane-mile of roadway facility.This number, also referred to as capacity, is a function of the facility type, facility configuration, number of lanes, andlevel of service. Below is the definition for vehicle-mile.

Vehicle-Mile: The capacity consumed in a single lane in the PM peak hour by a vehicle making a trip one mile inlength. The PM Peak is commonly used as the basis for transportation planning and the estimation of trips causedby new development.

Total Vehicle-Miles of Supply: Based on the total length (miles), number of lanes, and capacity (vehicles per hour)provided by Seguin’s draft Master Thoroughfare Plan (see Appendix B).

Total Vehicle-Miles of Demand: Based on the 10-year growth projections. The demand is equal to PM Trip Rate(trips) * Trip Length (miles).

The hourly service volumes used in the Roadway Impact Fee are based upon Thoroughfare Capacity Criteria basedby information in the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) and general transportation planning principles applied to theCity of Seguin. Table 3 shows the service volumes as a function of the facility type.

Table 3 – Level of Use for Proposed Facilities(used in Appendix B – CIP Units of Supply)

Roadway Type(MTP Classifications) Median Configuration

Hourly Vehicle-Mile Capacityper Lane-Mile of Roadway

Facility6D_(180) – Parkway Divided 925

6D_(120) – Major Arterial Divided 9004D_(90) - Arterial Divided 750

5U_(120) - Arterial Undivided 7005U_(80) – Town Core Approach Undivided 450

4U_(90) – Major Collector Undivided 5753U_(60) - Collector Undivided 525

FR_(60) – Frontage Road Undivided 525


11

C. Cost Per Service UnitA fundamental step in the impact fee process is to establish the cost for each service unit. In the case of theRoadway Impact Fee, this is the cost for each vehicle-mile of travel. This cost per service unit is the cost to constructa roadway (lane-mile) needed to accommodate a vehicle-mile of travel at a level of service corresponding to theCity’s standards. The cost per service unit is calculated for each service area based on a specific list of projectswithin that service area.

The second component of the cost per service unit is the number of service units in each service area. This numberis the measure of the growth in transportation demand that is projected to occur in the ten-year period. Chapter 395requires that impact fees be assessed only to pay for growth projected to occur in the City limits within the next ten-years, a concept that will be covered in a later section of this report (see Section 3.E). As noted earlier, the units ofdemand are vehicle-miles of travel.

D. Cost of the CIPThe costs that may be included in the cost per service unit are all of the implementation costs for the RoadwayImpact Fee Study, as well as project costs for thoroughfare system elements within the Capital Improvement Plan.Chapter 395 of the Texas Local Government Code specifies that the allowable costs are “…including and limited tothe:

1. Construction contract price;

2. Surveying and engineering fees;

3. Land acquisition costs, including land purchases, court awards and costs, attorney’s fees, and expert witnessfees; and

4. Fees actually paid or contracted to be paid to an independent qualified engineer or financial consultant preparingor updating the Capital Improvement Plan who is not an employee of the political subdivision.”

The engineer’s opinion of the probable costs of the projects in the CIP is based, in part, on the calculation of a unitcost of construction. This means that a cost per linear foot of roadway is calculated based on an average price forthe various components of roadway construction. This allows the probable cost to be determined by the type offacility being constructed, the number of lanes, and the length of the project. The costs for location-specific itemssuch as bridges, highway ramps, drainage structures, and any other special components are added to each projectas appropriate. The following is a detailed description of the costing worksheet/methodology for the Roadway ImpactFee CIP.

1. Overview of Roadway Impact Fee CIP Costing WorksheetsFor each project a specific costing worksheet was developed (see Appendix A). Each worksheet contained thefollowing four (4) main components:

· Project Information,· Construction Pay Items,· Construction Component Allowances and· Summary of Costs and Allowances

An example costing sheet showing these four components is provided on the following page.


12

Project Information

Construction Pay Items

ConstructionComponent Allowances

Summary of Costsand Allowances

City of Seguin Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.

2016 Roadway Impact Fee StudyConceptual Level Project Cost Projection updated: 10/5/2016

Project Information: Description: Project No. A-1Name: Cordova Rd (1)Limits: 1470' W of SH 123 / City Limits to 447' W of SH 123Impact Fee Class: 5U_(120)Ultimate Class: ARTELength (lf): 1030Service Area(s): A, ETJ

Roadway Construction Cost ProjectionNo. Item Description Quantity Unit Unit Price Item Cost104 Unclassified Street Excavation 8,469 cy 13.50$ 114,330$204 4" Type D Asphalt 7,782 sy 25.50$ 198,447$304 15" Crushed Limestone Flexible Base Material 8,354 sy 19.50$ 162,912$404 6" Lime Stabilization (with Lime @ 27#/sy) 8,354 sy 3.00$ 25,063$504 4" Topsoil 4,578 sy 4.00$ 18,311$604 5' Concrete Sidewalk 10,300 sf 4.50$ 46,350$704 Turn Lanes and Median Openings 0 sy 48.00$ -$

Paving Construction Cost Subtotal: 565,413$

Major Construction Component Allowances**:Item Description Notes Allowance Item Cost

√ Traffic Control Construction Phase Traff ic Control 5% 28,271$√ Pavement Markings/Signs/Posts Includes Striping/Signs for Bicycle Facilties 3% 16,962$√ Roadway Drainage Standard Internal System 15% 84,812$√ Illumination 6% 33,925$

Special Drainage Structures None Anticipated 0% -$√ Water Minor Adjustments 5% 28,271$√ Sewer Minor Adjustments 2% 11,308$√ Basic Landscaping and Irrigation 4% 22,617$

Miscellaneous: 0% -$**Allow ances based on % of Paving Construction Cost Subtotal Allowance Subtotal: 226,165$

Paving and Allowance Subtotal: 791,578$Construction Contingency: 15% 118,737$

Mobilization 6% 47,495$Prep ROW 5% 39,579$

Construction Cost TOTAL: 998,000$

Impact Fee Project Cost SummaryItem Description Notes: Allowance Item Cost

Construction: - 998,000$Engineering/Survey/Testing: 20% 199,600$ROW/Easement Acquisition: Existing Alignment (1/2 ROW) 10% 99,800$

Project Subtotal: 1,298,000$Impact Fee Project Cost TOTAL 1,298,000$

NOTE: The planning level cost projections listed in this appendix have been developed for Impact Fee calculations only and should notbe used for any future Capital Improvement Planning w ithin the City of SeguinThe planning level cost projections shall not supersede the City’s design standards contained or the determination of the City Engineerfor a specific project.

This project consists of thereconstruction of the existingpavement to an arterial.


13

2. Project InformationIn order to correctly estimate the cost of a roadway project, several attributes are first identified:

· Project Number – Identifies which Service Area the project is in with a corresponding number. Thecorresponding number does not represent any prioritizations and is used only to identify projects. Forexample, Project A-10 is in Service Area A and is the 10th project on the list.

· Name – A unique identifier for each project.

· Limits – Represents the beginning and ending location for each project.

· Impact Fee Class – The costing class to be used in the analysis. The impact fee class provides thewidth for the various elements in the roadway. The construction costs are variable, based on theproposed draft Master Thoroughfare Plan classification of the roadway. For example, 4D_(90)represents a four lane divided arterial within 90’ of ROW.

· Ultimate Class – The functional classification on Seguin’s draft Master Thoroughfare Plan .

· Length (ft) – The distance measured in feet that is used to cost out the project.

· Service Area(s) – Represents the service area(s) where the project is located.

· Description – Used to describe the project type assumed in the costing such as a widening orreconstruction.

3. Construction Pay ItemsA typical roadway project consists of a number of costs, including the following: planning, survey, designengineering, permitting, right-of way acquisition, construction and inspection. While the construction costcomponent of a project may actually consist of approximately 100 various pay items, a simplified approachwas used for developing the conceptual level project costs. Each new project’s construction cost wasdivided into three cost components: roadway construction cost, major construction component allowances,and summary of cost and allowances.

4. Construction Component AllowancesA percentage of the paving construction cost is allotted for various major construction componentallowances, as appropriate. These allowances include traffic control, pavement markings and signage,roadway drainage, illumination, minor water and sewer adjustments, landscaping and irrigation. Theseallowance percentages are also based on historical data.

In addition, lump sum dollar allowances are provided for special drainage structures, railroad crossings, andintersection improvements where needs are anticipated. The paving and allowance subtotal is given afifteen percent (15%) contingency. An additional six percent (6%) of the construction cost total is added formobilization and an additional five percent (5%) of the construction cost total is added for preparation ofROW.


14

5. Summary of Cost and AllowancesTo determine the total Impact Fee Project Cost, twenty percent (20%) of the construction cost total is addedfor engineering, surveying, and testing.

ROW/easement acquisition was based on a percentage of the total construction cost, and is adjusteddepending on whether the project was an existing alignment or future alignment. For an existing alignment,the ROW/easement acquisition cost was based on 10% of the total construction cost. For a new alignment,the ROW/easement acquisition cost was based on 20% of the total construction cost. The value forROW/easement acquisition is an estimated contribution allocation and does not represent actualROW/easement acquisition needs. For TxDOT facilities, no ROW/easement acquisition was allotted.

The Impact Fee Project Cost Total is the Construction Cost Total plus engineering, surveying, testing, andinspection; plus ROW/easement acquisition; and minus roadway escrow agreements.

Table 4A – 10-Year Capital Improvement Plan for Roadway Impact Feeswith Conceptual Level Project Cost Projections – Service Area A

Table 4B – 10-Year Capital Improvement Plan for Transportation Impact Feeswith Conceptual Level Project Cost Projections – Service Area B

ServiceArea

Proj. # Class Roadway Limits Length(mi)

% inService

Area

Project Cost inService Area

A-1 ARTE Cordova Rd (1) 1470' W of SH 123 / City Limits to 447' W of SH 123 0.20 50% 649,000$A-2 ARTE Cordova Rd (2) 447' W of SH 123 to SH 123 0.08 100% 561,000$A-3 PKWY Outer Loop (1) FM 1620 to 2345' E of FM 1620 0.44 100% 4,038,000$A-4 PKWY Outer Loop (2) 2345' E of FM 1620 to SH 46 0.62 100% 5,605,000$A-5 PKWY Outer Loop (3) SH 46 to Rudeloff Rd 0.71 100% 7,339,000$A-6 PKWY Outer Loop (4) Rudeloff Rd to City Limits 0.63 50% 2,858,500$A-7 ARTE Rudeloff Rd (1) SH 46 to 4432' E of FM 46 0.84 100% 7,260,000$A-8 ARTE Rudeloff Rd (2) 4432' E of FM 46 to Beechcraft Ln 0.44 50% 1,464,000$A-9 ARTE Rudeloff Rd (3) Beechcraft Ln to Huber Rd 0.24 100% 1,945,000$A-10 ARTE Rudeloff Rd / FM 20 (1) Huber Rd to 3765' E of Huber Rd 0.84 100% 5,719,000$A-11 ARTE Rudeloff Rd / FM 20 (2) 3883' E of Huber Rd to 4156' E of Huber Rd 0.09 100% 612,000$A-12 ARTE Rudeloff Rd / FM 20 (3) 6126' E of Huber Rd to SH 123 0.27 100% 1,867,000$A-13 ARTE Rudeloff Rd / Strempel Rd Rudeloff Rd / FM 20 to SH 123 1.07 100% 6,687,000$A-14 ARTE Huber Rd IH 10 to Rudeloff Rd 1.30 100% 8,569,000$A-S1 - Future Grade Separated Outer Loop & SH 46 - 100% 3,000,000$A-S2 - Signal Installation SH 123 & FM 20 - 50% 25,000$A-S3 - Turn Lane Installation SH 123 & Cordova Rd - 50% 300,000$

58,498,500$37,500$

58,536,000$

A

Total Cost in SERVICE AREA A

Service Area Project Cost Subtotal2016 Impact Fee Study and MTP Update Cost Per Service Area

ServiceArea


% inService

Area


B-1 MAJC FM 20 (1) SH 123 to 1067' E of SH 123 0.20 100% 205,000$B-2 MAJC FM 20 (2) 1067' E of SH 123 to City Limits 1.39 50% 703,600$B-3 PKWY SH 123 Bypass SH 123 to IH 10 1.65 100% 2,706,000$B-4 ARTE Strempel Rd SH 123 to SH 123 Bypass 0.47 100% 2,868,000$B-5 MAJC Heideke St / Martindale Rd SH 123 Bypass to 156' NE of Twin Oak Rd 0.46 100% 2,537,000$B-6 MAJC Martindale Rd 156' NE of Twin Oak Rd to 1300' NE of Twin Oak Rd 0.23 50% 936,000$B-7 MAJC Future Major Collector C 1300' NE of Twin Oak Rd to FM 20 0.60 100% 3,348,000$B-8 MAJC Heideke St IH 10 to SH 123 Bypass 0.33 100% 1,839,000$B-S1 - Signal Installation SH 123 & FM 20 - 50% 25,000$B-S2 - Turn Lane Installation SH 123 & Cordova Rd - 50% 300,000$

15,467,600$37,500$

15,505,100$

B


Total Cost in SERVICE AREA B


15

Table 4C – 10-Year Capital Improvement Plan for Transportation Impact Feeswith Conceptual Level Project Cost Projections – Service Area C

Table 4D – 10-Year Capital Improvement Plan for Transportation Impact Feeswith Conceptual Level Project Cost Projections – Service Area D

Notes:

a. The planning level cost projections have been developed for Impact Fee calculations only and should not be used for any future CapitalImprovement Planning within the City of Seguin.

b. The planning level cost projections shall not supersede the City’s design standards contained within the Subdivision Ordinance or the determinationof the City Engineer for a specific project.

c. The project cost total within each Service Area may differ from the total shown in the Summary sheets contained within Appendix A due to someprojects that are split between multiple service areas.

E. Service Unit CalculationThe basic service unit for the computation of Seguin’s Roadway Impact Fees is the vehicle-mile of travel during theafternoon peak-hour. To determine the cost per service unit, it is necessary to project the growth in vehicle-miles oftravel for the service area for the ten-year period.

The growth in vehicle-miles from 2016 to 2026 is based upon projected changes in residential and non-residentialgrowth for the period. In order to determine this growth, baseline estimates of population, basic square feet, servicesquare feet, and retail square feet for 2016 were made by the City, along with projections for each of thesedemographic statistics through 2026. The Land Use Assumptions section of this report details the growth estimatesused for the impact fee determination.

The residential and non-residential statistics in the Land Use Assumptions provide the “independent variables” thatare used to calculate the existing (2016) and projected (2026) roadway service units used to establish the RoadwayImpact Fee maximum rates within each service area. The roadway demand service units (vehicle-miles) for eachservice area are the sum of the vehicle-miles “generated” by each category of land use in the service area.

ServiceArea Proj. # Class Roadway Limits Length

(mi)

% inService

Area


C-1 ARTE SH 123 / Austin St Kingsbury St to IH 10 1.26 50% 753,400$C-2 ARTE Fleming Dr Kingsbury St to IH 10 0.80 100% 5,330,000$C-3 FR IH 10 Frontage Road C H Matthies to SH 123 2.30 100% 1,265,200$C-4 COL Hidalgo St / Vaughan Ave US 90 ALTE to FM 78 1.08 100% 4,302,000$C-5 COL Jefferson Ave SH 46 to Guadalupe St 1.16 100% 4,004,000$C-6 COL C H Matthies Jr / Lawson St IH 10 Frontage Road to Kingsbury St 0.94 100% 3,221,000$

18,875,600$37,500$

18,913,100$

C


Total Cost in SERVICE AREA C

ServiceArea


% inService

Area


D-1 ARTE SH 123 / Austin St US 90 to IH 10 1.26 50% 753,400$D-2 COL Walnut St King St to SH 123 Bypass 0.62 100% 2,143,000$D-3 COL Meadow Lake Dr Stockdale Hwy to SH 123 Bypass 0.65 100% 2,227,000$D-4 COL Heideke St Kingsbury St to IH 10 1.23 100% 4,645,000$D-5 COL Tor Dr Stockdale Hwy to SH 123 Bypass 1.03 100% 3,546,000$D-S1 - Realignment Eastwood Dr & Preston Dr - 100% 1,000,000$D-S2 - Signal and Turn Lanes King St & Gloria Dr - 100% 750,000$

15,064,400$37,500$

15,101,900$

D


Total Cost in SERVICE AREA D


16

For the purpose of impact fees, all developed and developable land is categorized as either residential or non-residential. For residential land uses, the existing and projected population is converted to dwelling units. Thenumber of dwelling units in each service area is multiplied by a transportation demand factor to compute the vehicle-miles of travel that occur during the afternoon peak hour. This factor computes the average amount of demandcaused by the residential land uses in the service area. The transportation demand factor is discussed in more detailbelow.

For non-residential land uses, the process is similar. The Land Use Assumptions provide existing and projectednumber of building square footages for three (3) categories of non-residential land uses – basic, service, and retail.These categories correspond to an aggregation of other specific land use categories based on the North AmericanIndustrial Classification System (NAICS).

Building square footage is the most common independent variable for the estimation of non-residential trips in theInstitute of Transportation Engineers’ (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 9 th Edition. This characteristic is moreappropriate than the number of employees because building square footage is tied more closely to trip generationand is known at the time of application for any development or development modification that would require theassessment of an impact fee.

The existing and projected Land Use Assumptions for the dwelling units and the square footage of basic, service,and retail land uses provide the basis for the projected increase in vehicle-miles of travel. As noted earlier, atransportation demand factor is applied to these values and then summed to calculate the total peak hour vehicle-miles of demand for each service area.

The transportation demand factors are aggregate rates derived from two sources – the ITE Trip Generation Manual,9th Edition and National Household Travel Survey (NHTS). ITE’s Trip Generation Manual, 9 th Edition provides thenumber of trips that are produced or attracted to the land use for each dwelling unit, square foot of building, or othercorresponding unit. For the retail category of land uses, the rate is adjusted to account for the fact that a percentageof retail trips are made by people who would otherwise be traveling past that particular establishment anyway, suchas a trip between work and home. These trips are called pass-by trips, and since the travel demand is accounted forin the land use calculations relative to the primary trip, it is necessary to discount the retail rate to avoid doublecounting trips.

The next component of the transportation demand factor accounts for the length of each trip. The average trip lengthfor each category is based on the region-wide travel characteristics found in the most recent National HouseholdTravel Survey (NHTS).

The computation of the transportation demand factor is detailed in the following equation:

Variables:TDF = Transportation Demand Factor,T = Trip Rate (peak hour trips / unit),Pb = Pass-By Discount (% of trips),Lmax = Maximum Trip Length (miles),L = Average Trip Length (miles),OD = Origin-Destination Reduction (50%)SAL = Max Service Area Trip Length (see Table 5)

)SAor*(min*)1(*

Lmax

max

where... ODLLLPTTDF b

=-=


17

The maximum trip length was limited to 6.0 miles for all Service Areas A - D. Chapter 395 of the Texas LocalGovernment Code allows for a service area of six (6) miles, and the service areas within Seguin are approximately6.0 miles in distance each.

The adjustment made to the average trip length statistic in the computation of the maximum trip length is the origin-destination reduction. This adjustment is made because the Roadway Impact Fee is charged to both the origin anddestination end of the trip. For example, impact fee methodology will account for a trip from home to work withinSeguin to both residential and non-residential land uses. To avoid counting these trips as both residential and non-residential trips, a 50% origin-destination (OD) reduction factor is applied. Therefore, only half of the trip length isassessed to each land use. This methodology is consistent with that used in the National Household Travel Survey.

Table 5 shows the derivation of the Transportation Demand Factor for the residential land uses and the three (3)non-residential land use categories for each service area. The values utilized for all variables shown in thetransportation demand factor equation are also shown in the table.

Table 5 – Transportation Demand Factor Calculations

Variable Residential(ITE 210)

Basic(ITE 110)

Service(ITE 710)

Retail(ITE 820)

T 1.00 0.97 1.49 3.71

Pb 0% 0% 0% 34%

L 9.32 12.93 12.93 5.28

Lmax 4.66 6.00 6.00 2.64

TDF 4.66 5.82 8.94 6.47

The application of the demographic projections and the transportation demand factors are presented in the 10-YearGrowth Projections in Table 6. This table shows the total vehicle-miles by service area for the years 2016 and 2026.These estimates and projections lead to the Vehicle-Miles of Travel for both 2016 and 2026


18

TOTALSingle

Family UnitsTrip Rate

TDF2VEHICLEMILES3 BASIC SERVICE RETAIL BASIC6 SERVICE7 RETAIL8 BASIC SERVICE RETAIL TOTAL

VEHICLEMILES10

1.00 0.97 1.49 3.71A 1,000 4.66 4,660 544,500 174,240 1,110,780 5.82 8.94 6.47 3,169 1,558 7,187 11,914 16,574

B 203 4.66 946 359,370 174,240 326,700 5.82 8.94 6.47 2,092 1,558 2,114 5,764 6,710C 540 4.66 2,516 544,500 174,240 653,400 5.82 8.94 6.47 3,169 1,558 4,227 8,954 11,470

D 500 4.66 2,330 544,500 174,240 849,420 5.82 8.94 6.47 3,169 1,558 5,496 10,223 12,553

Totals 2,243 10,452 1,992,870 696,960 2,940,300 11,599 6,232 19,024 36,855 47,307

VEHICLE-MILES OF INCREASE (2016 - 2026)

Notes:A 16,574 1 From Land Use AssumptionsB 6,710 2 Transportation Demand Factor for each Service Area (from LUVMET) using Single Family Detached Housing land use and trip generation rateC 11,470 3 Calculated by multiplying TDF by the number of dwelling unitsD 12,553 4 From Land Use Assumptions

5 Trip generation rate and Transportation Demand Factors from LUVMET for each land use6 'Basic' corresponds to General Light Industrial land use and trip generation rate7 'Service' corresponds to General Office land use and trip generation rate8 'Retail' corresponds to Shopping Center land use and trip generation rate9 Calculated by multiplying Transportation Demand Factor by the number of thousand square feet for each land use10 Residential plus non-residential vehicle-mile totals for each Service Area

SERVICEAREA

RESIDENTIAL VEHICLE-MILES NON-RESIDENTIAL SQUARE FEET4 TRANS. DEMAND FACTOR5 NON-RESIDENTIAL VEHICLE-MILES9

SERVICEAREA VEH-MILES

Table 6 – 10-Year Growth Projections


19

4. Roadway Impact Fee Calculation

A. Maximum Assessable Impact Fee Per Service UnitThis section presents the maximum assessable impact fee rate calculated for each service area. The maximumassessable impact fee is the sum of the eligible Roadway Impact Fee CIP costs for the service area divided by thegrowth in travel attributable to new development projected to occur within the 10-year period. A majority of thecomponents of this calculation have been described and presented in previous sections of this report. The purposeof this section is to document the computation for each service area and to demonstrate that the guidelines providedby Chapter 395 of the Texas Local Government Code have been addressed. Table 7 illustrates the computation ofthe maximum assessable impact fee computed for each service area. Each row in the table is numbered to simplifyexplanation of the calculation.

Table 7 – Maximum Assessable Roadway Impact Fee Computation

Line Title Description

1Total Vehicle-Miles ofCapacity Added by the

CIP

The total number of vehicle-miles added to the service area based on thecapacity, length, and number of lanes in each project (from Appendix B –CIP Service Units of Supply)

Each project identified in the Impact Fee CIP will add a certain amount of capacity to the City’s roadway networkbased on its length and classification. This line displays the total amount added within each service area.

2 Total Vehicle-Miles ofExisting Demand

A measure of the amount of traffic currently using the roadway facilitiesupon which capacity is being added. (from Appendix B – CIP Service Unitsof Supply)

A number of facilities identified in the Impact Fee CIP have traffic currently utilizing a portion of their existingcapacity. This line displays the total amount of capacity along these facilities currently being used by existingtraffic.

3 Net Amount of Vehicle-Miles of Capacity Added

A measurement of the amount of vehicle-miles added by the CIP that willnot be utilized by existing demand (Line 1 – Line 2)

This calculation identifies the portion of the Impact Fee CIP (in vehicle-miles) that may be recoverable through thecollection of impact fees.

4 Total Cost of the CIPwithin the Service Area

The total cost of the projects within each service area (from Table 4:10-Year Capital Improvement Plan with Conceptual Level Cost Opinions)

This line simply identifies the total cost of all of the projects identified in each service area.

5 Cost of Net CapacitySupplied

The total CIP cost (Line 4) prorated by the ratio of Net Capacity Added(Line 3) to Total Capacity Added (Line 1). [(Line 3 / Line 1) * (Line 4)]


20

Using the ratio of vehicle-miles added by the Roadway Impact Fee CIP available to serve future growth to the totalvehicle-miles added, the total cost of the CIP is reduced to the amount available for future growth(i.e. excluding existing usage and deficiencies).

6 Cost to Meet ExistingNeeds and Usage

The difference between the Total Cost of the CIP (Line 4) and the Cost ofthe Net Capacity supplied (Line 5). (Line 4 – Line 5)

This line is provided for informational purposes only – it is to present the portion of the total cost of the RoadwayImpact Fee CIP that is required to meet existing demand.

7Total Vehicle-Miles of

New Demand over TenYears

Based upon the growth projection provided in the Land Use Assumptions,an estimate of the number of new vehicle-miles within the service area overthe next ten years. (from Table 6)

This line presents the amount of growth (in vehicle-miles) projected to occur within each service area over the nextten years.

8Percent of Capacity

Added Attributable to NewGrowth

The result of dividing Total Vehicle-Miles of New Demand (Line 7) by theNet Amount of Capacity Added (Line 3), limited to 100% (Line 9). Thiscalculation is required by Chapter 395 to ensure capacity added isattributable to new growth.9 Chapter 395 Check

In order to ensure that the vehicle-miles added by the Roadway Impact Fee CIP do not exceed the amountneeded to accommodate growth beyond the ten-year window, a comparison of the two values is performed. If theamount of vehicle-miles added by the Roadway Impact Fee CIP exceeds the growth projected to occur in the nextten years, the Roadway Impact Fee CIP cost is reduced accordingly.

10Cost of Capacity Added

Attributable to NewGrowth

The result of multiplying the Cost of Net Capacity Added (Line 5) by thePercent of Capacity Added Attributable to New Growth, limited to 100%(Line 9).

This value is the total Impact Fee CIP project costs (excluding financial costs) that may be recovered throughimpact fees. This line is determined considering the limitations to impact fees required by the Texas legislature.


21

B. Plan for Awarding the Roadway Impact Fee CreditChapter 395 of the Texas Local Government Code requires the Capital Improvement Plan for Roadway Impact Feescontain specific enumeration of a plan for awarding the impact fee credit. Section 395.014 of the Code states:

“(7) A plan for awarding:

(A) a credit for the portion of ad valorem tax and utility service revenues generated by new serviceunits during the program period that is used for the payment of improvements, including thepayment of debt, that are included in the capital improvements plan; or

(B) In the alternative, a credit equal to 50 percent of the total projected cost of implementing the capitalimprovements plan…”

The following table summarizes the portions of Table 7 that utilize this credit calculation, based on awarding a 50percent credit.

Line Title Description

11Cost of Capacity AddedAttributable to Growthwith 50% Credit for Ad

Valorem Taxes

A credit equal to 50% of the total projected cost, as per section 395.014 ofthe Texas Local Government Code.

12 Maximum AssessableFee Per Service Unit

Found by dividing the Recoverable Cost of the CIP attributable to growth(Line 11) by the Total Vehicle-Miles of New Demand Over Ten Years(Line 7). (Line 11 / Line 7)


22

Table 8. Maximum Assessable Transportation Impact Fee

A B C D

1TOTAL VEH-MI OF CAPACITY ADDED BY THE CIP

(FROM ROADWAY IMPACT FEE CIPSERVICE UNITS OF SUPPLY, APPENDIX B)

29,443 17,928 14,826 9,352

2TOTAL VEH-MI OF EXISTING DEMAND

(FROM ROADWAY IMPACT FEE CIPSERVICE UNITS OF SUPPLY, APPENDIX B)

711 2,074 5,010 2,496

3 NET AMOUNT OF VEH-MI OF CAPACITY ADDED(LINE 1 - LINE 2) 28,732 15,854 9,816 6,856

4 TOTAL COST OF THE CIP WITHIN SERVICE AREA(FROM TABLE 4) $ 58,536,000 $ 15,505,100 $ 18,913,100 $ 15,101,900

5 COST OF NET CAPACITY SUPPLIED(LINE 3 / LINE 1) * (LINE 4) $ 57,122,452 $ 13,711,393 $ 12,521,988 $ 11,071,282

6 COST TO MEET EXISTING NEEDS AND USAGE(LINE 4 - LINE 5)

$ 1,413,548 $ 1,793,707 $ 6,391,112 $ 4,030,618

7 TOTAL VEH-MI OF NEW DEMAND OVER TEN YEARS(FROM TABLE 6 and Land Use Assumptions) 16,574 6,710 11,470 12,553

8PERCENT OF CAPACITY ADDED

ATTRIBUTABLE TO GROWTH(LINE 7 / LINE 3)

57.6% 42.3% 116.8% 183.0%

9 IF LINE 7 > LINE 3, REDUCE LINE 8 TO 100%,OTHERWISE NO CHANGE 57.6% 42.3% 100.0% 100.0%

10 COST OF CAPACITY ADDED ATTRIBUTABLE TO GROWTH(LINE 5 * LINE 9) $ 32,902,532 $ 5,799,919 $ 12,521,988 $ 11,071,282

11 CREDIT FOR AD VALOREM TAXES (50% OF LINE 10) $ 16,451,266 $ 2,899,960 $ 6,260,994 $ 5,535,641

12 MAX ASSESSABLE FEE PER SERVICE UNIT ($ PER VEH-MI)(LINE 11 / LINE 7) $ 993 $ 432 $ 546 $ 441

SERVICE AREA:


23

C. Service Unit Demand Per Unit of DevelopmentThe Roadway Impact Fee is determined by multiplying the impact fee rate by the number of service units projectedfor the proposed development. For this purpose, the City utilizes the Land Use/Vehicle-Mile Equivalency Table(LUVMET), presented in Table 9. This table lists the predominant land uses that may occur within the City of Seguin.For each land use, the development unit that defines the development’s magnitude with respect to transportationdemand is shown. Although every possible use cannot be anticipated, the majority of uses are found in this table. Ifthe exact use is not listed, one similar in trip-making characteristics can serve as a reasonable proxy. The individualland uses are grouped into categories, such as residential, office, commercial, industrial, and institutional.

The trip rates presented for each land use are a fundamental component of the LUVMET. The trip rate is theaverage number of trips generated during the afternoon peak hour by each land use per development unit. The nextcolumn, if applicable to the land use, presents the number of trips to and from certain land uses reduced by pass-bytrips, as previously discussed.

The source of the trip generation and pass-by statistics is ITE’s Trip Generation Manual, 9 th Edition, the latest editionof the definitive source for trip generation data. This manual utilizes trip generation studies for a variety of land usesthroughout the United States, and is the standard used by traffic engineers and transportation planners for trafficimpact analysis, site design, and transportation planning.

To convert vehicle trips to vehicle-miles, it is necessary to multiply trips by trip length. The adjusted trip length valuesare based on the region-wide travel characteristics found in the most recent National Household Travel Survey(NHTS).The other adjustment to trip length is the 50% origin-destination reduction to avoid double counting of trips.At this stage, another important aspect of the state law is applied – the limit on transportation service unit demand. Ifthe adjusted trip length is above the maximum service area trip length, the maximum trip length used for calculationis reduced. This reduction, as discussed previously, limits the maximum trip length to the approximate size of theservice areas (SA A - D – 6.0 mi).

The remaining column in the LUVMET shows the vehicle-miles per development unit. This number is the product ofthe trip rate and the maximum trip length. This number, previously referred to as the Transportation Demand Factor,is used in the impact fee estimate to compute the number of service units attributed to each land use category. Thenumber of service units is multiplied by the impact fee rate (established by City ordinance) in order to determine theimpact fee for a development.


24

Table 9 – Land Use / Vehicle-Mile Equivalency Table (LUVMET)

ITE LandUse Code Development Unit

Trip GenRate(PM)

Pass-byRate

Pass-bySource

TripRate

AverageTrip Length

(mi)

Adj.ForO-D

Adj. TripLength

(mi)

Max TripLength

(mi)

Veh-MiPer Dev-

Unit

PORT AND TERMINALTruck Terminal 030 Acre 6.55 6.55 12.93 50% 6.46 6.00 39.30

INDUSTRIALGeneral Light Industrial 110 1,000 SF GFA 0.97 0.97 12.93 50% 6.47 6.00 5.82General Heavy Industrial 120 1,000 SF GFA 0.68 0.68 12.93 50% 6.47 6.00 4.08Industrial Park 130 1,000 SF GFA 0.85 0.85 12.93 50% 6.47 6.00 5.10Warehousing 150 1,000 SF GFA 0.32 0.32 12.93 50% 6.47 6.00 1.92Mini-Warehouse 151 1,000 SF GFA 0.26 0.26 12.93 50% 6.47 6.00 1.56

RESIDENTIALSingle-Family Detached Housing 210 Dwelling Unit 1.00 1.00 9.32 50% 4.66 4.66 4.66Apartment/Multi-family 220 Dwelling Unit 0.62 0.62 9.32 50% 4.66 4.66 2.89Residential Condominium/Townhome 230 Dwelling Unit 0.52 0.52 9.32 50% 4.66 4.66 2.42Senior Adult Housing-Detached 251 Dwelling Unit 0.27 0.27 9.32 50% 4.66 4.66 1.26Senior Adult Housing-Attached 252 Dwelling Unit 0.25 0.25 9.32 50% 4.66 4.66 1.17Assisted Living 254 Beds 0.22 0.22 9.32 50% 4.66 4.66 1.03

LODGINGHotel 310 Room 0.60 0.60 7.19 50% 3.60 3.60 2.16Motel / Other Lodging Facilities 320 Room 0.47 0.47 7.19 50% 3.60 3.60 1.69

RECREATIONALGolf Driving Range 432 Tee 1.25 1.25 7.19 50% 3.60 3.60 4.50Golf Course 430 Acre 0.30 0.30 7.19 50% 3.60 3.60 1.08Recreational Community Center 495 1,000 SF GFA 2.74 2.74 7.19 50% 3.60 3.60 9.86Ice Skating Rink 465 1,000 SF GFA 2.36 2.36 7.19 50% 3.60 3.60 8.50Miniature Golf Course 431 Hole 0.33 0.33 7.19 50% 3.60 3.60 1.19Multiplex Movie Theater 445 Screens 13.64 13.64 7.19 50% 3.60 3.60 49.10Racquet / Tennis Club 491 Court 3.35 3.35 7.19 50% 3.60 3.60 12.06

INSTITUTIONALChurch 560 1,000 SF GFA 0.55 0.55 7.66 50% 3.83 3.83 2.11Day Care Center 565 1,000 SF GFA 12.34 44% B 6.91 3.17 50% 1.59 1.59 10.99Primary/Middle School (1-8) 522 Students 0.16 0.16 3.17 50% 1.59 1.59 0.25High School (9-12) 530 Students 0.13 0.13 3.17 50% 1.59 1.59 0.21Junior / Community College 540 Students 0.12 0.12 11.56 50% 5.78 5.78 0.69University / College 550 Students 0.17 0.17 11.56 50% 5.78 5.78 0.98

MEDICALClinic 630 1,000 SF GFA 5.18 5.18 10.00 50% 5.00 5.00 25.90Hospital 610 1,000 SF GFA 0.93 0.93 10.00 50% 5.00 5.00 4.65Nursing Home 620 Beds 0.22 0.22 10.00 50% 5.00 5.00 1.10Animal Hospital/Veterinary Clinic 640 1,000 SF GFA 4.72 30% B 3.30 10.00 50% 5.00 5.00 16.50

OFFICECorporate Headquarters Building 714 1,000 SF GFA 1.41 1.41 12.93 50% 6.47 6.00 8.46General Office Building 710 1,000 SF GFA 1.49 1.49 12.93 50% 6.47 6.00 8.94Medical-Dental Office Building 720 1,000 SF GFA 3.57 3.57 10.00 50% 5.00 5.00 17.85Single Tenant Office Building 715 1,000 SF GFA 1.74 1.74 12.93 50% 6.47 6.00 10.44Office Park 750 1,000 SF GFA 1.48 1.48 12.93 50% 6.47 6.00 8.88

Key to Sources of Pass-by Rates:A: ITE Trip Generation Handbook 3rd Edit ion (Aug 2014)B: Est imated by Kimley-Horn based on ITE rates for similar categoriesC: ITE rate adjusted upward by KHA based on logical relat ionship to other categories

Land Use Category


25

Table 9 Cont’d. – Land Use / Vehicle-Mile Equivalency Table (LUVMET)

ITE LandUse Code Development Unit

Trip GenRate(PM)

Pass-byRate

Pass-bySource

TripRate

AverageTrip Length

(mi)

Adj.ForO-D

Adj. TripLength

(mi)

Max TripLength

(mi)

Veh-MiPer Dev-

Unit

COMMERCIALAutomobile Related

Automobile Care Center 942 1,000 SF Occ. GLA 3.11 40% B 1.87 5.46 50% 2.73 2.73 5.11Automobile Parts Sales 843 1,000 SF GFA 5.98 43% A 3.41 5.46 50% 2.73 2.73 9.31Gasoline/Service Station 944 Vehicle Fueling Position 13.87 42% A 8.04 1.20 50% 0.60 0.60 4.82Gasoline/Service Station w/ Conv Market 945 Vehicle Fueling Position 13.51 56% B 5.94 1.20 50% 0.60 0.60 3.56Gasoline/Service Station w/ Conv Market and Car Wash 946 Vehicle Fueling Position 13.86 56% A 6.10 1.20 50% 0.60 0.60 3.66New and Used Car Sales 841 1,000 SF GFA 2.62 20% B 2.10 5.46 50% 2.73 2.73 5.73Quick Lubrication Vehicle Shop 941 Servicing Positions 5.19 40% B 3.11 5.46 50% 2.73 2.73 8.49Self-Service Car Wash 947 Stall 5.54 40% B 3.32 1.20 50% 0.60 0.60 1.99Tire Store 848 1,000 SF GFA 4.15 28% A 2.99 5.46 50% 2.73 2.73 8.16

DiningFast Food Restaurant with Drive-Thru Window 934 1,000 SF GFA 32.65 50% A 16.33 8.05 50% 4.03 4.03 65.81Fast Food Restaurant without Drive-Thru Window 933 1,000 SF GFA 26.15 50% B 13.08 8.05 50% 4.03 4.03 52.71High Turnover (Sit-Down) Restaurant 932 1,000 SF GFA 9.85 43% A 5.61 6.83 50% 3.42 3.42 19.19Sit Down Restaurant 931 1,000 SF GFA 7.49 44% A 4.19 6.83 50% 3.42 3.42 14.33Coffee/Donut Shop with Drive-Thru Window 937 1,000 SF GFA 42.80 70% A 12.84 4.66 50% 2.33 2.33 29.92

Other RetailFree-Standing Discount Superstore 813 1,000 SF GFA 4.35 30% C 3.05 5.28 50% 2.64 2.64 8.05Free-Standing Retail Store 815 1,000 SF GFA 4.98 30% C 3.49 5.28 50% 2.64 2.64 9.21Nursery (Garden Center) 817 1,000 SF GFA 6.94 30% B 4.86 5.28 50% 2.64 2.64 12.83Home Improvement Superstore 862 1,000 SF GFA 2.33 48% A 1.21 5.28 50% 2.64 2.64 3.19Pharmacy/Drugstore 881 1,000 SF GFA 9.91 49% A 5.05 5.28 50% 2.64 2.64 13.33Shopping Center 820 1,000 SF GLA 3.71 34% A 2.45 5.28 50% 2.64 2.64 6.47Supermarket 850 1,000 SF GFA 9.48 36% A 6.07 5.28 50% 2.64 2.64 16.02Toy/Children's Superstore 864 1,000 SF GFA 4.99 30% B 3.49 5.28 50% 2.64 2.64 9.21Department Store 875 1,000 SF GFA 1.87 30% B 1.31 5.28 50% 2.64 2.64 3.46

SERVICESWalk-In Bank 911 1,000 SF GFA 12.13 40% B 7.28 5.46 50% 2.73 2.73 19.87Drive-In Bank 912 Drive-in Lanes 33.24 47% A 17.62 5.46 50% 2.73 2.73 48.10Hair Salon 918 1,000 SF GLA 1.45 30% B 1.02 5.46 50% 2.73 2.73 2.78

Key to Sources of Pass-by Rates:A: ITE Trip Generat ion Handbook 3rd Edition (Aug 2014)B: Estimated by Kimley-Horn based on ITE rates for similar categoriesC: ITE rate adjusted upward by KHA based on logical relationship to other categories

Land Use Category


26

5. Sample CalculationsThe following section details two (2) examples of maximum assessable Roadway Impact Fee calculations.

Example 1:Development Type - One (1) Unit of Single-Family Housing in Service Area A

Roadway Impact Fee Calculation Steps – Example 1

Step1

Determine Development Unit and Vehicle-Miles Per Development UnitFrom Table 9 [Land Use – Vehicle-mile Equivalency Table]Development Type: 1 Dwelling Unit of Single-Family Detached HousingNumber of Development Units: 1 Dwelling UnitVeh-Mi Per Development Unit: 4.66

Step2

Determine Maximum Assessable Impact Fee Per Service UnitFrom Table 8, Line 12 [Maximum Assessable Fee Per Service Unit]Service Area A: $993

Step3

Determine Maximum Assessable Impact FeeImpact Fee = # of Development Units * Veh-Mi Per Dev Unit * Max. Fee Per Service UnitImpact Fee = 1 * 4.66* $993Maximum Assessable Impact Fee = $4,627.38

Example 2:Development Type – 125,000 square foot Home Improvement Superstore in Service Area B

Roadway Impact Fee Calculation Steps – Example 2

Step1

Determine Development Unit and Vehicle-Miles Per Development UnitFrom Table 9 [Land Use – Vehicle-mile Equivalency Table]Development Type: 125,000 square feet of Home Improvement SuperstoreDevelopment Unit: 1,000 square feet of Gross Floor AreaVeh-Mi Per Development Unit: 3.19

Step2

Determine Maximum Assessable Impact Fee Per Service UnitFrom Table 8, Line 12 [Maximum Assessable Fee Per Service Unit]Service Area 2: $432

Step3

Determine Maximum Assessable Impact FeeImpact Fee = # of Development Units * Veh-Mi Per Dev Unit * Max. Fee Per Service UnitImpact Fee = 125 * 3.19 * $432Maximum Assessable Impact Fee = $172,260


27

6. ConclusionThe City of Seguin has established a process to implement the assessment and collection of Roadway Impact Feesthrough the adoption of an impact fee ordinance that is consistent with Chapter 395 of the Texas Local GovernmentCode.

This report establishes the maximum allowable Roadway Impact Fee that could be assessed by the City of Seguinwithin each of the four (4) service areas. The maximum assessable Roadway Impact Fees calculated in this reportare presented in the table below:

This document serves as a guide to the assessment of Roadway Impact Fees pertaining to future development andthe City’s need for roadway improvements to accommodate that growth. Following the public hearing process, theCity Council may establish an amount to be assessed (if any) up to the maximum established within this report andupdate the Roadway Impact Fee Ordinance accordingly.

In conclusion, it is our opinion that the data and methodology used in this update are appropriate and consistent withChapter 395 of the Texas Local Government Code. Furthermore, the Land Use Assumptions and the proposedCapital Improvement Plan are appropriately incorporated into the process.

Service Area 1 2 3 4

2016 Roadway Impact Fee StudyMaximum Assessible Fee Per Vehicle-Mile

993$ 432$ 546$ 441$


28

7. Appendices

A. Conceptual Level Project Cost Projections SERVICE AREA A SERVICE AREA B SERVICE AREA C SERVICE AREA D

B. CIP Service Units of Supply


A. Conceptual Level Project Cost Projections

City of Seguin Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.2016 Roadway Impact Fee StudyConceptual Level Project Cost Projection updated: 3/6/2017

Project Information: Description: Project No. A-1Name: Cordova Rd (1)Limits: 1470' W of SH 123 / City Limits to 447' W of SH 123Impact Fee Class: 5U_(120)Ultimate Class: ARTELength (lf): 1030Service Area(s): A, ETJ




√ Traffic Control Construction Phase Traffic Control 5% 28,271$√ Pavement Markings/Signs/Posts Includes Striping/Signs for Bicycle Facilties 3% 16,962$√ Roadway Drainage Standard Internal System 15% 84,812$√ Illumination 6% 33,925$


Miscellaneous: 0% -$**Allowances based on % of Paving Construction Cost Subtota l Allowance Subtotal: 226,165$








NOTE: The planning level cost projections listed in this appendix have been developed for Impact Fee calculations only and should not beused for any future Capital Improvement Planning within the City of SeguinThe planning level cost projections shall not supersede the City’s design standards contained or the determination of the City Engineer for aspecific project.

2016 Roadway Impact Fee StudyCity of Seguin, Texas Appendix A - Conceptual Level Project Cost Projections


Project Information: Description: Project No. A-2Name: Cordova Rd (2)Limits: 447' W of SH 123 to SH 123Impact Fee Class: 5U_(120)Ultimate Class: ARTELength (lf): 445Service Area(s): A












Project Subtotal: 561,000$Impact Fee Project Cost TOTAL 561,000$





Project Information: Description: Project No. A-3Name: Outer Loop (1)Limits: FM 1620 to 2345' E of FM 1620Impact Fee Class: 6D_(180)Ultimate Class: PKWYLength (lf): 2345Service Area(s): A

Roadway Construction Cost ProjectionNo. Item Description Quantity Unit Unit Price Item Cost107 Unclassified Street Excavation 21,887 cy 13.50$ 295,470$207 4" Type D Asphalt 19,281 sy 25.50$ 491,668$307 15" Crushed Limestone Flexible Base Material 21,366 sy 19.50$ 416,628$407 6" Lime Stabilization (with Lime @ 27#/sy) 21,366 sy 3.00$ 64,097$507 4" Topsoil 20,844 sy 4.00$ 83,378$607 5' Concrete Sidewalk 56,280 sf 4.50$ 253,260$707 Turn Lanes and Median Openings 2,463 sy 48.00$ 118,245$

Paving Construction Cost Subtotal: 1,722,746$

Major Construction Component Allowances**:Item Description Notes Allowance Item CostTraffic Control None Anticipated 0% -$

√ Pavement Markings/Signs/Posts Includes Striping/Signs for Bicycle Facilties 3% 51,682$√ Roadway Drainage Standard Internal System 15% 258,412$√ Illumination 6% 103,365$



Paving and Allowance Subtotal: 2,325,707$Construction Contingency: 15% 348,856$


Construction Cost TOTAL: 2,884,000$


Construction: - 2,884,000$Engineering/Survey/Testing: 20% 576,800$ROW/Easement Acquisition: 20% 576,800$


This project consists of theconstruction of a new parkway.




Project Information: Description: Project No. A-4Name: Outer Loop (2)Limits: 2345' E of FM 1620 to SH 46Impact Fee Class: 6D_(180)Ultimate Class: PKWYLength (lf): 3255Service Area(s): A

















Project Information: Description: Project No. A-5Name: Outer Loop (3)Limits: SH 46 to Rudeloff RdImpact Fee Class: 6D_(180)Ultimate Class: PKWYLength (lf): 3765Service Area(s): A




√ Pavement Markings/Signs/Posts Includes Striping/Signs for Bicycle Facilties 3% 82,978$√ Roadway Drainage Standard Internal System 15% 414,892$√ Illumination 6% 165,957$√ Special Drainage Structures Major Stream Crossing 0% 493,000$√ Water Minor Adjustments 5% 138,297$√ Sewer Minor Adjustments 2% 55,319$√ Basic Landscaping and Irrigation 4% 110,638$

Miscellaneous: 0% -$**Allowances based on % of Paving Construction Cost Subtota l Allowance Subtotal: 1,461,080$





Construction: - 5,242,000$Engineering/Survey/Testing: 20% 1,048,400$ROW/Easement Acquisition: 20% 1,048,400$






Project Information: Description: Project No. A-6Name: Outer Loop (4)Limits: Rudeloff Rd to City LimitsImpact Fee Class: 6D_(180)Ultimate Class: PKWYLength (lf): 3320Service Area(s): A, ETJ

















Project Information: Description: Project No. A-7Name: Rudeloff Rd (1)Limits: SH 46 to 4432' E of FM 46Impact Fee Class: 5U_(120)Ultimate Class: ARTELength (lf): 4430Service Area(s): A




√ Traffic Control Construction Phase Traffic Control 5% 121,591$√ Pavement Markings/Signs/Posts Includes Striping/Signs for Bicycle Facilties 3% 72,955$√ Roadway Drainage Standard Internal System 15% 364,774$√ Illumination 6% 145,909$√ Special Drainage Structures 2 Stream Crossings 0% 1,027,000$√ Water Minor Adjustments 5% 121,591$√ Sewer Minor Adjustments 2% 48,636$√ Basic Landscaping and Irrigation 4% 97,273$






Construction: - 5,584,000$Engineering/Survey/Testing: 20% 1,116,800$ROW/Easement Acquisition: Existing Alignment (1/2 ROW) 10% 558,400$






Project Information: Description: Project No. A-8Name: Rudeloff Rd (2)Limits: 4432' E of FM 46 to Beechcraft LnImpact Fee Class: 5U_(120)Ultimate Class: ARTELength (lf): 2325Service Area(s): A, ETJ











Construction: - 2,252,000$Engineering/Survey/Testing: 20% 450,400$ROW/Easement Acquisition: Existing Alignment (1/2 ROW) 10% 225,200$






Project Information: Description: Project No. A-9Name: Rudeloff Rd (3)Limits: Beechcraft Ln to Huber RdImpact Fee Class: 5U_(120)Ultimate Class: ARTELength (lf): 1270Service Area(s): A




√ Traffic Control Construction Phase Traffic Control 5% 34,858$√ Pavement Markings/Signs/Posts Includes Striping/Signs for Bicycle Facilties 3% 20,915$√ Roadway Drainage Standard Internal System 15% 104,574$√ Illumination 6% 41,830$√ Special Drainage Structures Minor Stream Crossing 0% 211,000$√ Water Minor Adjustments 5% 34,858$√ Sewer Minor Adjustments 2% 13,943$√ Basic Landscaping and Irrigation 4% 27,886$












Project Information: Description: Project No. A-10Name: Rudeloff Rd / FM 20 (1)Limits: Huber Rd to 3765' E of Huber RdImpact Fee Class: 5U_(120)Ultimate Class: ARTELength (lf): 4445Service Area(s): A













This project consists of theconstruction of a new arterial.




Project Information: Description: Project No. A-11Name: Rudeloff Rd / FM 20 (2)Limits: 3883' E of Huber Rd to 4156' E of Huber RdImpact Fee Class: 5U_(120)Ultimate Class: ARTELength (lf): 475Service Area(s): A











Construction: - 437,000$Engineering/Survey/Testing: 20% 87,400$ROW/Easement Acquisition: 20% 87,400$

Project Subtotal: 612,000$Impact Fee Project Cost TOTAL 612,000$





Project Information: Description: Project No. A-12Name: Rudeloff Rd / FM 20 (3)Limits: 6126' E of Huber Rd to SH 123Impact Fee Class: 5U_(120)Ultimate Class: ARTELength (lf): 1450Service Area(s): A

















Project Information: Description: Project No. A-13Name: Rudeloff Rd / Strempel RdLimits: Rudeloff Rd / FM 20 to SH 123Impact Fee Class: 4D_(90)Ultimate Class: ARTELength (lf): 5625Service Area(s): A

















Project Information: Description: Project No. A-14Name: Huber RdLimits: IH 10 to Rudeloff RdImpact Fee Class: 4D_(90)Ultimate Class: ARTELength (lf): 6855Service Area(s): A

Roadway Construction Cost ProjectionNo. Item Description Quantity Unit Unit Price Item Cost105 Unclassified Street Excavation 50,270 cy 13.50$ 678,645$205 4" Type D Asphalt 42,653 sy 25.50$ 1,087,660$305 15" Crushed Limestone Flexible Base Material 48,747 sy 19.50$ 950,560$405 6" Lime Stabilization (with Lime @ 27#/sy) 48,747 sy 3.00$ 146,240$505 4" Topsoil 15,233 sy 4.00$ 60,933$605 5' Concrete Sidewalk 68,550 sf 4.50$ 308,475$705 Turn Lanes and Median Openings 5,081 sy 48.00$ 243,872$









Construction: - 6,591,000$Engineering/Survey/Testing: 20% 1,318,200$ROW/Easement Acquisition: Existing Alignment (1/2 ROW) 10% 659,100$


NOTE: The planning level cost projections listed in this appendix have been developed for Impact Fee calculations only and should not be usedfor any future Capital Improvement Planning within the City of SeguinThe planning level cost projections shall not supersede the City’s design standards contained or the determination of the City Engineer for aspecific project.

This project consists of thereconstruction of the existing pavementto an arterial.



Project Information: Description: Project No. B-1Name: FM 20 (1)Limits: SH 123 to 1067' E of SH 123Impact Fee Class: 4U_(80)Ultimate Class: MAJCLength (lf): 1065Service Area(s): B











Construction: - 854,000$Engineering/Survey/Testing: 20% 170,800$ROW/Easement Acquisition: NO ROW ACQUISITION -$

Project Subtotal: 1,025,000$Impact Fee Project Cost TOTAL (TxDOT 20%) 205,000$


This project consists of thereconstruction of the existingpavement to a major collector.



Project Information: Description: Project No. B-2Name: FM 20 (2)Limits: 1067' E of SH 123 to City LimitsImpact Fee Class: 4U_(80)Ultimate Class: MAJCLength (lf): 7320Service Area(s): B, ETJ

Roadway Construction Cost ProjectionNo. Item Description Quantity Unit Unit Price Item Cost102 Unclassified Street Excavation 50,427 cy 13.50$ 680,760$202 4" Type D Asphalt 45,547 sy 25.50$ 1,161,440$302 15" Crushed Limestone Flexible Base Material 49,613 sy 19.50$ 967,460$402 6" Lime Stabilization (with Lime @ 27#/sy) 49,613 sy 3.00$ 148,840$502 4" Topsoil 8,947 sy 4.00$ 35,787$602 5' Concrete Sidewalk 73,200 sf 4.50$ 329,400$702 Turn Lanes and Median Openings 0 sy 48.00$ -$










Construction: - 5,863,000$Engineering/Survey/Testing: 20% 1,172,600$ROW/Easement Acquisition: NO ROW ACQUISITION -$

Project Subtotal: 7,036,000$Impact Fee Project Cost TOTAL (TxDOT 20%) 1,407,200$





Project Information: Description: Project No. B-3Name: SH 123 BypassLimits: SH 123 to IH 10Impact Fee Class: 6D_(180)Ultimate Class: PKWYLength (lf): 8700Service Area(s): B

Roadway Construction Cost ProjectionNo. Item Description Quantity Unit Unit Price Item Cost107 Unclassified Street Excavation 81,200 cy 13.50$ 1,096,200$207 4" Type D Asphalt 71,533 sy 25.50$ 1,824,100$307 15" Crushed Limestone Flexible Base Material 79,267 sy 19.50$ 1,545,700$407 6" Lime Stabilization (with Lime @ 27#/sy) 79,267 sy 3.00$ 237,800$507 4" Topsoil 77,333 sy 4.00$ 309,333$607 5' Concrete Sidewalk 208,800 sf 4.50$ 939,600$707 Turn Lanes and Median Openings 9,139 sy 48.00$ 438,691$






Paving and Allowance Subtotal: 8,947,994$Construction Contingency: 15% 1,342,199$







This project consists of thereconstruction of the existingpavement to a parkway.



Project Information: Description: Project No. B-4Name: Strempel RdLimits: SH 123 to SH 123 BypassImpact Fee Class: 4D_(90)Ultimate Class: ARTELength (lf): 2465Service Area(s): B

















Project Information: Description: Project No. B-5Name: Heideke St / Martindale RdLimits: SH 123 Bypass to 156' NE of Twin Oak RdImpact Fee Class: 4U_(80)Ultimate Class: MAJCLength (lf): 2435Service Area(s): B

















Project Information: Description: Project No. B-6Name: Martindale RdLimits: 156' NE of Twin Oak Rd to 1300' NE of Twin Oak RdImpact Fee Class: 4U_(80)Ultimate Class: MAJCLength (lf): 1215Service Area(s): B, ETJ
















Project Information: Description: Project No. B-7Name: Future Major Collector CLimits: 1300' NE of Twin Oak Rd to FM 20Impact Fee Class: 4U_(80)Ultimate Class: MAJCLength (lf): 3145Service Area(s): B














This project consists of theconstruction of a new four laneundivided major collector.



Project Information: Description: Project No. B-8Name: Heideke StLimits: IH 10 to SH 123 BypassImpact Fee Class: 4U_(80)Ultimate Class: MAJCLength (lf): 1765Service Area(s): B

















Project Information: Description: Project No. C-1Name: SH 123 / Austin StLimits: Kingsbury St to IH 10Impact Fee Class: 4D_(90)Ultimate Class: ARTELength (lf): 6665Service Area(s): C, D





Special Drainage Structures None Anticipated 0% -$√ Water Minor Adjustments 5% 169,002$√ Sewer Minor Adjustments 2% 67,601$√ Basic Landscaping and Irrigation 4% 135,201$√ Miscellaneous: Railroad Crossing 0% 250,000$

**Allowances based on % of Paving Construction Cost Subtota l Allowance Subtotal: 1,602,012$








This project consists of thereconstruction of the existingpavement to a major arterial.



Project Information: Description: Project No. C-2Name: Fleming DrLimits: Kingsbury St to IH 10Impact Fee Class: 4D_(90)Ultimate Class: ARTELength (lf): 4230Service Area(s): C

















Project Information: Description: Project No. C-3Name: IH 10 Frontage RoadLimits: C H Matthies to SH 123Impact Fee Class: FR_(60)Ultimate Class: FRLength (lf): 12150Service Area(s): C

Roadway Construction Cost ProjectionNo. Item Description Quantity Unit Unit Price Item Cost108 Unclassified Street Excavation 54,000 cy 13.50$ 729,000$208 3" Type D Asphalt 45,900 sy 10.13$ 464,738$308 12" Crushed Limestone Flexible Base Material 52,650 sy 20.40$ 1,074,060$408 6" Lime Stabilization (with Lime @ 27#/sy) 52,650 sy 3.00$ 157,950$508 4" Topsoil 24,300 sy 4.00$ 97,200$608 5' Concrete Sidewalk 60,750 sf 4.50$ 273,375$708 Turn Lanes and Median Openings 0 sy 33.53$ -$



√ Pavement Markings/Signs/Posts Includes Striping/Signs for Bicycle Facilties 3% 83,890$√ Roadway Drainage Standard Internal System 15% 419,448$√ Illumination 6% 167,779$√ Special Drainage Structures Minor Stream Crossing 0% 225,000$√ Water Minor Adjustments 5% 139,816$√ Sewer Minor Adjustments 2% 55,926$√ Basic Landscaping and Irrigation 4% 111,853$√ Miscellaneous: Railroad Crossing 0% 250,000$









This project consists of theconstruction of a new frontage road.



Project Information: Description: Project No. C-4Name: Hidalgo St / Vaughan AveLimits: US 90 ALTE to FM 78Impact Fee Class: 3U_(60)Ultimate Class: COLLength (lf): 5705Service Area(s): C













This project consists of thereconstruction of the existingpavement to a collector.



Project Information: Description: Project No. C-5Name: Jefferson AveLimits: SH 46 to Guadalupe StImpact Fee Class: 3U_(60)Ultimate Class: COLLength (lf): 6150Service Area(s): C

















Project Information: Description: Project No. C-6Name: C H Matthies Jr / Lawson StLimits: IH 10 Frontage Road to Kingsbury StImpact Fee Class: 3U_(60)Ultimate Class: COLLength (lf): 4945Service Area(s): C

















Project Information: Description: Project No. D-1Name: SH 123 / Austin StLimits: US 90 to IH 10Impact Fee Class: 4D_(90)Ultimate Class: ARTELength (lf): 6665Service Area(s): C. D














This project consists of thereconstruction of the existingpavement to a major arterial.



Project Information: Description: Project No. D-2Name: Walnut StLimits: King St to SH 123 BypassImpact Fee Class: 3U_(60)Ultimate Class: COLLength (lf): 3290Service Area(s): D

















Project Information: Description: Project No. D-3Name: Meadow Lake DrLimits: Stockdale Hwy to SH 123 BypassImpact Fee Class: 3U_(60)Ultimate Class: COLLength (lf): 3420Service Area(s): D

















Project Information: Description: Project No. D-4Name: Heideke StLimits: Kingsbury St to IH 10Impact Fee Class: 3U_(60)Ultimate Class: COLLength (lf): 6505Service Area(s): D






**Allowances based on % of Paving Construction Cost Subtota l Allowance Subtotal: 988,722$











Project Information: Description: Project No. D-5Name: Tor DrLimits: Stockdale Hwy to SH 123 BypassImpact Fee Class: 3U_(60)Ultimate Class: COLLength (lf): 5445Service Area(s): D

















B. CIP Service Units of Supply

Service Area A 3/6/2017

VEH-MI VEH-MI VEH-MI EXCESSLENGTH CAPACITY SUPPLY TOTAL CAPACITY

(MI) PK-HR PK-HR DEMAND PK-HRPER LN TOTAL PK-HR VEH-MI

A-1 Cordova Rd (1) 1470' W of SH 123 / City Limits to 447' W of SH 123 0.20 4 ARTE 489 750 585 95 490 649,000$A-2 Cordova Rd (2) 447' W of SH 123 to SH 123 0.08 4 ARTE 489 750 253 41 212 561,000$A-3 Outer Loop (1) FM 1620 to 2345' E of FM 1620 0.44 6 PKWY New 925 2465 0 2465 4,038,000$A-4 Outer Loop (2) 2345' E of FM 1620 to SH 46 0.62 6 PKWY New 925 3421 0 3,421 5,605,000$A-5 Outer Loop (3) SH 46 to Rudeloff Rd 0.71 6 PKWY New 925 3958 0 3,958 7,339,000$A-6 Outer Loop (4) Rudeloff Rd to City Limits 0.63 6 PKWY New 925 3490 0 3,490 2,858,500$A-7 Rudeloff Rd (1) SH 46 to 4432' E of FM 46 0.84 4 ARTE 283 750 2517 237 2,280 7,260,000$A-8 Rudeloff Rd (2) 4432' E of FM 46 to Beechcraft Ln 0.44 4 ARTE 283 750 1321 125 1,196 1,464,000$A-9 Rudeloff Rd (3) Beechcraft Ln to Huber Rd 0.24 4 ARTE 283 750 722 68 654 1,945,000$A-10 Rudeloff Rd / FM 20 (1) Huber Rd to 3765' E of Huber Rd 0.84 4 ARTE New 750 2526 0 2,526 5,719,000$A-11 Rudeloff Rd / FM 20 (2) 3883' E of Huber Rd to 4156' E of Huber Rd 0.09 4 ARTE New 750 270 0 270 612,000$A-12 Rudeloff Rd / FM 20 (3) 6126' E of Huber Rd to SH 123 0.27 4 ARTE New 750 824 0 824 1,867,000$A-13 Rudeloff Rd / Strempel Rd Rudeloff Rd / FM 20 to SH 123 1.07 4 ARTE New 750 3196 0 3,196 6,687,000$A-14 Huber Rd IH 10 to Rudeloff Rd 1.30 4 ARTE 112 750 3895 145 3,750 8,569,000$A-S1 Future Grade Separated Outer Loop & SH 46 - - 3,000,000$A-S2 Signal Installation SH 123 & FM 20 - - 25,000$A-S3 Turn Lane Installation SH 123 & Cordova Rd - - 300,000$

29,443 711 28,732 58,498,500$2016 Impact Fee Study and MTP Update Cost Per Service Area 37,500$

TOTAL COST IN SERVICE AREA A $58,536,000

SUBTOTAL

City of Seguin - 2016 Roadway Impact Fee Study

CIP Service Units of Supply

Project ID# ROADWAY LIMITS LANES IMPACT FEE

CLASSIFICATION

PEAKHOUR

VOLUME

TOTAL PROJECTCOST

2016 Roadway Impact Fee StudyCity of Seguin, Texas Appendix B - Roadway Impact Fee CIP Service Units of Suppy

Service Area B 3/6/2017



B-1 FM 20 (1) SH 123 to 1067' E of SH 123 0.20 4 MAJC 110 575 464 22 442 205,000$B-2 FM 20 (2) 1067' E of SH 123 to City Limits 1.39 4 MAJC 110 575 3189 153 3036 703,600$B-3 SH 123 Bypass SH 123 to IH 10 1.65 6 PKWY 1,130 925 9145 1862 7283 2,706,000$B-4 Strempel Rd SH 123 to SH 123 Bypass 0.47 4 ARTE 32 750 1401 15 1,386 2,868,000$B-5 Heideke St / Martindale Rd SH 123 Bypass to 156' NE of Twin Oak Rd 0.46 4 MAJC 21 575 1061 10 1,051 2,537,000$B-6 Martindale Rd 156' NE of Twin Oak Rd to 1300' NE of Twin Oak Rd 0.23 4 MAJC 21 575 529 5 524 936,000$B-7 Future Major Collector C 1300' NE of Twin Oak Rd to FM 20 0.60 4 MAJC New 575 1370 0 1,370 3,348,000$B-8 Heideke St IH 10 to SH 123 Bypass 0.33 4 MAJC 21 575 769 7 762 1,839,000$

B-S1 Signal Installation SH 123 & FM 20 - - 25,000$B-S2 Turn Lane Installation SH 123 & Cordova Rd - - 300,000$

17,928 2,074 15,854 15,467,600$2016 Impact Fee Study and MTP Update Cost Per Service Area 37,500$

TOTAL COST IN SERVICE AREA B $15,505,100

SUBTOTAL




CLASSIFICATION

PEAKHOUR

VOLUME

TOTAL PROJECTCOST


Service Area C 3/6/2017



C-1 SH 123 / Austin St Kingsbury St to IH 10 1.26 4 ARTE 1,340 750 3787 1,691 2,096 753,400$C-2 Fleming Dr Kingsbury St to IH 10 0.80 4 ARTE 100 750 2403 80 2,323 5,330,000$C-3 IH 10 Frontage Road C H Matthies to SH 123 2.30 3 FR 1,180 525 3624 2,715 909 1,265,200$C-4 Hidalgo St / Vaughan Ave US 90 ALTE to FM 78 1.08 3 COL 163 525 1702 176 1,526 4,302,000$C-5 Jefferson Ave SH 46 to Guadalupe St 1.16 3 COL 218 525 1835 254 1581 4,004,000$C-6 C H Matthies Jr / Lawson St IH 10 Frontage Road to Kingsbury St 0.94 3 COL 100 525 1475 94 1381 3,221,000$


TOTAL COST IN SERVICE AREA C 18,913,100$

ROADWAY IMPACT FEECLASSIFICATION

SUBTOTAL

PEAKHOUR

VOLUME



TOTAL PROJECTCOST

Project ID# LIMITS LANES


Service Area D 3/6/2017



D-1 SH 123 / Austin St US 90 to IH 10 1.26 4 ARTE 1,170 750 3787 1,477 2,310 753,400$D-2 Walnut St King St to SH 123 Bypass 0.62 3 COL 447 525 981 279 702 2,143,000$D-3 Meadow Lake Dr Stockdale Hwy to SH 123 Bypass 0.65 3 COL 273 525 1020 177 843 2,227,000$D-4 Heideke St Kingsbury St to IH 10 1.23 3 COL 99 525 1940 122 1818 4,645,000$D-5 Tor Dr Stockdale Hwy to SH 123 Bypass 1.03 3 COL 428 525 1624 441 1183 3,546,000$

D-S1 Realignment Eastwood Dr & Preston Dr - - 1,000,000$D-S2 Signal and Turn Lanes King St & Gloria Dr - - 750,000$


TOTAL COST IN SERVICE AREA D $15,101,900

SUBTOTAL




CLASSIFICATION

PEAKHOUR

VOLUME

TOTAL PROJECTCOST


seguin roadway impact fee study - cms5.revize.com rif_final… · the cip for the roadway impact...

Documents