When a property within the City Limits of the City of Schertz is proposed for development and is within the City's area of Certificate of Convenience and Necessity (CCN), the connection to the City's water and/or wastewater utilities is reviewed and processed through established procedures of the platting process.  When the platting requirement for a property falls under a different jurisdiction than the City at the time of development, approval of a request for utility service is required in accordance with Section 21.4.11 of the Unified Development Code (UDC).  According to the UDC, authority to approve the request lies with City Council.  Once approved, the developer may submit for permits to construct the necessary improvements in order to be served by the City's utility infrastructure.

The proposed development is approximately 14 acres within the City Limits of Cibolo, situated on the south side of Old Wiederstein Road just west of FM 1103.  The developer proposes to construct a six-lot commercial subdivision with lot sizes ranging from 1.51 to 3.92 acres generating a nominal amount of wastewater flow and desires to connect to public water and wastewater systems.  Staff has evaluated the request based on existing wastewater facilities, flows expected to be generated by the proposed development, the projection of other future flows from the vicinity, and other potential service configurations for the proposed development.  Adequate capacity in the wastewater collection system currently exists to serve the development.  The following criteria should be considered for final action determination.

1.  Whether the proposed development to be served by the extension is consistent with the Comprehensive Land Plan. 2.  Whether the extension is proposed to be constructed in accordance with all applicable City ordinances, resolutions, regulations, and standards. 3.  Whether it is feasible to annex the property, and any intervening property which is needed for utility rights-of-way, into the City. 4.  Whether the utility extension would compromise the City's ability to timely provide adequate water or wastewater facilities to property inside the City. 5.  Whether the utility extension will lead to premature development that cannot be served efficiently and timely by roadway, drainage, or park facilities. 6.  Whether the utility extension is financially feasible given the proposed means of financing the extension. 7.  Whether the utility extension will lead to significant degradation of water quality or other environmental resources, either from construction of the water or wastewater improvements, development of the property owner's land, or development of other land that may be served through the extended facilities. 8.  Whether the property owner proposes to extend wastewater facilities without utilizing City water facilities. 9.  The extent to which the proposed agreement promotes the health, safety, or general welfare of the City and the safe, orderly, efficient and healthful development of the City.