1 00:00:00,000 --> 00:00:09,740 Good afternoon and welcome to this meeting of the CIAC, the Capital Improvements Advisory 2 00:00:09,740 --> 00:00:10,740 Committee. 3 00:00:10,740 --> 00:00:14,260 The Planning and Zoning Commission serves as this committee and with the quorum present, 4 00:00:14,260 --> 00:00:17,900 I will call us to order at 4.06 p.m. 5 00:00:17,900 --> 00:00:24,540 And Tina is just going to offer a brief explanation of our committee. 6 00:00:24,540 --> 00:00:29,100 So I got to thinking that Margie probably has had experience and Tim, I don't know if 7 00:00:29,100 --> 00:00:35,280 you've had past experience as well, adjourning as the, excuse me, convening as the CIAC. 8 00:00:35,280 --> 00:00:40,220 But this is not uncommon for the Planning and Zoning Commission to serve in this capacity 9 00:00:40,220 --> 00:00:45,300 in communities, particularly when we're working on reviewing our impact fee ordinances, whether 10 00:00:45,300 --> 00:00:49,140 that's roadway impact fee or utility impact fees. 11 00:00:49,140 --> 00:00:53,700 And so just wanted to, for the benefit of those of you that have not ever had the opportunity 12 00:00:53,700 --> 00:00:57,840 to serve in this capacity, just wanted to share with you some items with respect to 13 00:00:57,840 --> 00:01:01,500 your role and I'll be honest with you, I had to go back and look at the resolution that 14 00:01:01,500 --> 00:01:06,220 formed the committee back in, looks like the committee has existed prior to 2018, but that's 15 00:01:06,220 --> 00:01:07,780 the last time we made some adjustments. 16 00:01:07,780 --> 00:01:14,380 So when in your capacity as the Capital Improvements Advisory Committee, really it's to advise 17 00:01:14,380 --> 00:01:19,900 the team that is, in this case, Becky Davini and the Capital Projects team, you know, you're 18 00:01:19,900 --> 00:01:25,540 going to be advising and assisting our team, ultimately City Council in adopting land use 19 00:01:25,540 --> 00:01:27,180 assumptions as you're well aware of. 20 00:01:27,180 --> 00:01:31,080 We adopted land use assumptions when we worked on the update to the Comprehensive Plan with 21 00:01:31,080 --> 00:01:32,700 our 2040 plan. 22 00:01:32,700 --> 00:01:38,900 So our consultant team is utilizing that information that we've done with respect to the Denton 23 00:01:38,900 --> 00:01:42,220 2040 plan, as well as they're even taking into consideration the recently adopted mobility 24 00:01:42,220 --> 00:01:46,220 plan that we adopted simultaneously with that. 25 00:01:46,220 --> 00:01:49,620 You also have a responsibility to review the Capital Improvements Plans and technically 26 00:01:49,620 --> 00:01:54,700 file in your written comments if you have any to provide to our staff team. 27 00:01:54,700 --> 00:02:00,060 Also monitoring, evaluating, implementation of the Capital Improvements Plan, and I know 28 00:02:00,060 --> 00:02:08,100 Becky's team will get more into this, but as we adopt updates to our impact fee ordinances, 29 00:02:08,100 --> 00:02:11,420 we have presumably divided the city into different areas. 30 00:02:11,420 --> 00:02:16,500 We've identified calculations or costs associated with the public infrastructure that would 31 00:02:16,500 --> 00:02:22,540 have to be provided within those areas, and so, but we're looking to see what we've programmed 32 00:02:22,540 --> 00:02:26,860 in that plan if that's consistent with our adopted, in this case it would be our mobility 33 00:02:26,860 --> 00:02:31,300 plan, or if we had an adopted utility master plan, then we're looking to see, okay, does 34 00:02:31,300 --> 00:02:35,180 our impact fee ordinance align with those adopted master plans. 35 00:02:35,180 --> 00:02:39,300 You also have the ability to file semi-annual reports with respect to the progress of the 36 00:02:39,300 --> 00:02:43,740 Capital Improvements Plan and report to City Council or any political subdivision any perceived 37 00:02:43,740 --> 00:02:48,340 inequities in implementing the plan or the fees that are proposing to be recommended 38 00:02:48,340 --> 00:02:52,580 for inclusion within the impact fee ordinance, and then also advising Council of the need 39 00:02:52,580 --> 00:02:56,460 to update or revise the land use assumptions, Capital Improvements Plans, and impact fee. 40 00:02:56,460 --> 00:03:00,740 So I think we're in a good position given the fact that we've updated our comprehensive 41 00:03:00,740 --> 00:03:03,380 plan and our mobility plan earlier this year. 42 00:03:03,380 --> 00:03:09,220 If our plans were really, really old, and here we are making modifications to our impact 43 00:03:09,220 --> 00:03:13,100 fee ordinances, then we might be having that conversation about how are we making these 44 00:03:13,100 --> 00:03:16,740 decisions, especially if our master plans are 10 years old, right? 45 00:03:16,740 --> 00:03:20,300 So but we're in a good position given the fact that we've done a lot of heavy lifting 46 00:03:20,300 --> 00:03:23,500 earlier this year with the adoption of the comprehensive plan and the mobility plan. 47 00:03:23,500 --> 00:03:27,280 So with that, unless you have any questions, I believe we can turn it over to Becky and 48 00:03:27,280 --> 00:03:30,780 her team, but just wanted to provide that context so that you understand what your roles 49 00:03:30,780 --> 00:03:32,500 and responsibilities are. 50 00:03:32,500 --> 00:03:34,420 Okay, great. 51 00:03:34,420 --> 00:03:35,420 Thanks, Tina. 52 00:03:35,420 --> 00:03:40,500 Yeah, so we just have one agenda item, and that is PZ 22245, receive a report, hold a 53 00:03:40,500 --> 00:03:44,380 discussion regarding update to the roadway impact fees. 54 00:03:44,380 --> 00:03:45,380 Hi, Becky. 55 00:03:45,380 --> 00:03:52,780 Thank you so much for serving in this capacity is very important for our team to be able 56 00:03:52,780 --> 00:03:55,020 to get your review. 57 00:03:55,020 --> 00:04:00,340 And you'll you'll be, I'm sure, excited to hear about roadway impact fees. 58 00:04:00,340 --> 00:04:06,200 And I will tell you that as a part of this update, there's been a lot of work and effort 59 00:04:06,200 --> 00:04:12,380 that's gone into making sure that all of the projects that have been constructed over the 60 00:04:12,380 --> 00:04:15,100 last couple of years are also a part of that overall update. 61 00:04:15,100 --> 00:04:18,220 The last update was completed in 2016. 62 00:04:18,220 --> 00:04:22,140 And so I am going to turn it over to Pete Kelly, who's with Kimberly horn who we've 63 00:04:22,140 --> 00:04:25,940 been working with on all of the roadway impact fee updates. 64 00:04:25,940 --> 00:04:30,540 He's going to mention to you some updates on some of the schedule to since we've posted 65 00:04:30,540 --> 00:04:33,620 this there's been a couple of changes to the overall calendar. 66 00:04:33,620 --> 00:04:37,620 I'm sure that doesn't surprise us things move pretty quickly around here. 67 00:04:37,620 --> 00:04:41,060 But I'm going to turn over to Pete and then of course we'll be happy to answer any questions 68 00:04:41,060 --> 00:04:45,080 that you might have but thank you for coming in today a little earlier in serving in this 69 00:04:45,080 --> 00:04:46,080 capacity. 70 00:04:46,080 --> 00:04:47,080 It's greatly appreciated. 71 00:04:47,080 --> 00:04:48,080 Okay. 72 00:04:48,080 --> 00:04:49,080 Thank you. 73 00:04:49,080 --> 00:04:50,080 Becky. 74 00:04:50,080 --> 00:04:51,080 Yes. 75 00:04:51,080 --> 00:04:54,080 I'm Pete Kelly. 76 00:04:54,080 --> 00:04:59,060 I'm representing the consultant team on this project with Kimberly horn for the roadway 77 00:04:59,060 --> 00:05:00,500 impact fee update. 78 00:05:00,500 --> 00:05:05,580 As you can see on the slide presentation, we've titled this impact fees 101. 79 00:05:05,580 --> 00:05:09,700 This is really just to cover what an impact fee is, what are the basic components and 80 00:05:09,700 --> 00:05:13,820 we will get into the line use assumptions and the CIP today. 81 00:05:13,820 --> 00:05:18,940 But we are planning to come back and do a second meeting on November 16th with the final 82 00:05:18,940 --> 00:05:20,760 results of the study. 83 00:05:20,760 --> 00:05:25,560 So really there's no formal action we're looking for in today's meeting. 84 00:05:25,560 --> 00:05:31,300 It's more of a present the information and get any questions you have from us about the 85 00:05:31,300 --> 00:05:35,060 technical aspects of the study. 86 00:05:35,060 --> 00:05:38,900 So I'll go ahead and get into the presentation. 87 00:05:38,900 --> 00:05:46,280 So an impact fee really is it's a one-time fee that's assessed to my presentations going 88 00:05:46,280 --> 00:05:47,280 ahead of me here. 89 00:05:47,280 --> 00:05:48,280 Here we go. 90 00:05:48,280 --> 00:05:49,280 Okay. 91 00:05:49,280 --> 00:05:55,080 It's a one-time fee assessed to the new development and that's intended to cover the cost of infrastructure 92 00:05:55,080 --> 00:05:58,860 that's required to be built to support that new development. 93 00:05:58,860 --> 00:06:02,740 It's governed by the Texas local government code chapter 395. 94 00:06:02,740 --> 00:06:08,380 And so we follow all the requirements in that statute as we prepare the study. 95 00:06:08,380 --> 00:06:11,980 One of those requirements is it needs to be updated every five years which is what brings 96 00:06:11,980 --> 00:06:17,000 us to the point we are now in updating the study. 97 00:06:17,000 --> 00:06:21,380 And that's just to reflect the fact that they are going to be changing dynamics in terms 98 00:06:21,380 --> 00:06:24,220 of growth, in terms of infrastructure needs. 99 00:06:24,220 --> 00:06:30,500 I know you all have seen a lot of changes in Denton and really all over Texas in the 100 00:06:30,500 --> 00:06:31,500 last five years. 101 00:06:31,500 --> 00:06:33,740 So there's a lot to capture there. 102 00:06:33,740 --> 00:06:35,360 So why impact fees? 103 00:06:35,360 --> 00:06:39,140 It provides an additional funding tool for infrastructure systems. 104 00:06:39,140 --> 00:06:44,220 Currently what you have at your disposal are you have cash funds, you have debt funds, 105 00:06:44,220 --> 00:06:51,660 and then you have the funding of development as they come in to share the burden of their 106 00:06:51,660 --> 00:06:52,660 impact. 107 00:06:52,660 --> 00:06:59,220 So and really impact fees is a mechanism to provide an orderly means of assessing that 108 00:06:59,220 --> 00:07:03,400 impact and providing for that growth. 109 00:07:03,400 --> 00:07:06,060 So the main components of an impact fee study. 110 00:07:06,060 --> 00:07:10,700 We have to have service areas and we're going to talk about the land use assumptions. 111 00:07:10,700 --> 00:07:13,580 That's really the growth or the demand that we're looking at. 112 00:07:13,580 --> 00:07:18,780 And then capital improvements plans is what represents the infrastructure needed to support 113 00:07:18,780 --> 00:07:19,980 that growth. 114 00:07:19,980 --> 00:07:26,180 The service units are how we break down how impact fees are charged and then the maximum 115 00:07:26,180 --> 00:07:27,180 fee calculation. 116 00:07:27,180 --> 00:07:30,740 So we'll get to all those in the next slides. 117 00:07:30,740 --> 00:07:37,940 So impact fee service areas, it's different for water, wastewater and roadway impact fees. 118 00:07:37,940 --> 00:07:43,620 For water and wastewater, it can be the entire city and can even extend into the ETJ. 119 00:07:43,620 --> 00:07:49,360 For roadway impact fees, the service areas are limited to six miles and that caused the 120 00:07:49,360 --> 00:07:52,940 creation of five different service areas in the city of Denton. 121 00:07:52,940 --> 00:07:58,260 Another part of the local government code is that any fees collected within a service 122 00:07:58,260 --> 00:08:07,420 area must be spent within that service area, within 10 years on a CIP project. 123 00:08:07,420 --> 00:08:14,580 Just covering again that the six mile restriction created the five separate service areas. 124 00:08:14,580 --> 00:08:16,860 I'm going to flip to the map here. 125 00:08:16,860 --> 00:08:19,740 This may be, hopefully that's okay. 126 00:08:19,740 --> 00:08:22,900 It might be a little bit difficult to see. 127 00:08:22,900 --> 00:08:29,100 But when we did this originally in 2016, we did a service area analysis to look at what's 128 00:08:29,100 --> 00:08:32,620 the best way to divide up the city of Denton. 129 00:08:32,620 --> 00:08:37,380 And the discussion back then was to try to separate out the service areas such that there's 130 00:08:37,380 --> 00:08:42,580 an equal amount or near equal amount of projects in each service area so that you don't have 131 00:08:42,580 --> 00:08:46,940 all the CIP projects and all the growth in one service area and very little in the others. 132 00:08:46,940 --> 00:08:49,180 So that's the way they're divided up. 133 00:08:49,180 --> 00:08:55,300 We also look at natural barriers such as interstate highways, we look at railroads, we look at 134 00:08:55,300 --> 00:08:56,940 bodies of water. 135 00:08:56,940 --> 00:09:02,540 For the most part, the service areas in Denton are divided up with the major roadways. 136 00:09:02,540 --> 00:09:07,340 And we do have the inner loop touches three separate service areas rather than all just 137 00:09:07,340 --> 00:09:10,980 being in its own service area. 138 00:09:10,980 --> 00:09:16,340 And just to reiterate again, the roadway service areas cannot include any area in the ETJ. 139 00:09:16,340 --> 00:09:20,500 It's limited to the corporate boundaries of the city. 140 00:09:20,500 --> 00:09:28,180 So once we have the service areas established, the next step is to establish and forecast 141 00:09:28,180 --> 00:09:31,920 the growth in each service area over the next 10 years. 142 00:09:31,920 --> 00:09:34,860 So that's part of the state law is that we look at a 10-year window. 143 00:09:34,860 --> 00:09:37,720 We don't look out 20 or 30 years or beyond. 144 00:09:37,720 --> 00:09:38,980 We just look at the 10 years. 145 00:09:38,980 --> 00:09:44,340 And then again, it's updated every five years to ensure that we're looking at the most up-to-date 146 00:09:44,340 --> 00:09:47,300 growth projections and growth patterns. 147 00:09:47,300 --> 00:09:53,980 So the way that we calculate these is we take all the growth and we simplify it down into 148 00:09:53,980 --> 00:09:55,880 four categories. 149 00:09:55,880 --> 00:09:59,980 And those categories are residential, which includes single-family and multi-family dwelling 150 00:09:59,980 --> 00:10:01,100 units. 151 00:10:01,100 --> 00:10:05,100 And then the non-residential or employment categories are basic service and retail. 152 00:10:05,100 --> 00:10:09,740 So in the basic category that includes uses like industrial and agricultural. 153 00:10:09,740 --> 00:10:14,380 In a service category that includes uses like office and institutional. 154 00:10:14,380 --> 00:10:19,580 And in the retail category that includes essentially everything else in employment. 155 00:10:19,580 --> 00:10:23,420 So shopping, dining, entertainment. 156 00:10:23,420 --> 00:10:30,500 And as it was mentioned before, our employment and residential projections in the IMPACT 157 00:10:30,500 --> 00:10:36,020 V study came directly from the efforts from the comp plan, from that data. 158 00:10:36,020 --> 00:10:39,820 And so they're closely aligned, but we had to take that and separate it out into the 159 00:10:39,820 --> 00:10:42,860 five separate service areas. 160 00:10:42,860 --> 00:10:49,540 Again, this is the service areas map with the growth, the 10-year growth that we've 161 00:10:49,540 --> 00:10:50,540 projected. 162 00:10:50,540 --> 00:10:55,220 So if you were to add all these individual tables up, you'd see that we're projecting 163 00:10:55,220 --> 00:11:00,300 just over 12,000 residential dwelling units in the next 10 years. 164 00:11:00,300 --> 00:11:04,460 And if you were to include more than just the city limits, that figure would be a bit 165 00:11:04,460 --> 00:11:10,260 higher, but we saw that we win that comparison, we saw that it was in alignment with the comprehensive 166 00:11:10,260 --> 00:11:14,060 plan and the projections that it's showing. 167 00:11:14,060 --> 00:11:20,260 And you can also see when you look at the employment numbers that the areas where we 168 00:11:20,260 --> 00:11:22,300 have a lot of industrial growth going on right now. 169 00:11:22,300 --> 00:11:26,820 So on the west side of the city in service area C and service area A, there's a lot more 170 00:11:26,820 --> 00:11:31,740 industrial going on over there and there's a lot of residential projection going on in 171 00:11:31,740 --> 00:11:39,900 service area A where we have some big developments there. 172 00:11:39,900 --> 00:11:43,740 So after the land use assumptions, our next step is to develop the capital improvements 173 00:11:43,740 --> 00:11:48,860 plan so that the land use assumptions establishes our demand over the next 10 years and the 174 00:11:48,860 --> 00:11:55,780 capital improvements plan is how we establish the supply needed to serve that demand as 175 00:11:55,780 --> 00:11:57,740 one way to look at it. 176 00:11:57,740 --> 00:12:02,580 And one distinction I like to make when we're talking about the impact VCIP is that it's 177 00:12:02,580 --> 00:12:07,740 different from the city five year CIP, which is the program of projects that includes new 178 00:12:07,740 --> 00:12:11,800 roadways, widenings and maintenance as well. 179 00:12:11,800 --> 00:12:17,580 The impact VCIP is only conceptual, it's a planning document and it cannot include any 180 00:12:17,580 --> 00:12:23,340 maintenance projects, it's just for new roadways and widening, anything that can add capacity. 181 00:12:23,340 --> 00:12:28,780 And so that really is the governing document that guides what impact fee funds can be spent 182 00:12:28,780 --> 00:12:35,580 on, that's what the CIP is. 183 00:12:35,580 --> 00:12:40,060 Another part of the state statute is that the impact VCIP needs to be based on an adopted 184 00:12:40,060 --> 00:12:45,720 plan and so the adopted plan that this is based off of is the mobility plan that was 185 00:12:45,720 --> 00:12:48,940 done as part of the comprehensive plan as you can see on the screen here. 186 00:12:48,940 --> 00:12:59,020 So all the projects on the roadway impact VCIP are directly from the mobility plan. 187 00:12:59,020 --> 00:13:04,620 And one thing you'll see when you look at the CIP is all the roadways on the mobility 188 00:13:04,620 --> 00:13:09,700 plan that aren't built to their full configuration today, they're included in each of the service 189 00:13:09,700 --> 00:13:10,900 areas. 190 00:13:10,900 --> 00:13:15,700 Even though not all those projects will necessarily get built in the next 10 years, they're included 191 00:13:15,700 --> 00:13:20,540 on there for flexibility so that the ones that need to get built can get built but it's 192 00:13:20,540 --> 00:13:26,260 only the percentage of that capacity that's going to be used within the next 10 years 193 00:13:26,260 --> 00:13:31,500 that actually gets included in the calculation. 194 00:13:31,500 --> 00:13:37,420 So it's still limited to that 10 year window. 195 00:13:37,420 --> 00:13:43,020 We are currently in the, still in the draft review phase with the CIP, the staff has done 196 00:13:43,020 --> 00:13:49,940 a preliminary review of CIP, they're currently in the final review of the CIP and a draft 197 00:13:49,940 --> 00:13:53,420 of the impact fee report. 198 00:13:53,420 --> 00:13:58,620 So this represents a near finished version of the CIP for service area B. You can see 199 00:13:58,620 --> 00:14:04,700 we have two different project types, we have the blue lines represent roadways that need 200 00:14:04,700 --> 00:14:10,460 to be widened beyond what they are today based on the mobility plan and then the red dash 201 00:14:10,460 --> 00:14:15,320 lines represent new roads that need to be built that don't exist today. 202 00:14:15,320 --> 00:14:20,860 And the black solid and dash lines are roads that are either ineligible to be included 203 00:14:20,860 --> 00:14:31,260 in the impact fee CIP or they are currently built to their full configuration. 204 00:14:31,260 --> 00:14:36,240 So all this brings us to how the impact fee itself is actually calculated. 205 00:14:36,240 --> 00:14:40,860 So we started out with the service areas, we calculated the growth in each service area 206 00:14:40,860 --> 00:14:45,020 and then we mapped out the projects in each service area and then we costed out each of 207 00:14:45,020 --> 00:14:46,460 those projects in each service area. 208 00:14:46,460 --> 00:14:52,420 So we have a project cost total for each service area and that project cost total, we take 209 00:14:52,420 --> 00:14:58,940 out the cost needed to extend that project beyond 10 years and we take out the cost needed 210 00:14:58,940 --> 00:15:02,060 to fix existing problems. 211 00:15:02,060 --> 00:15:06,340 And so we have just the cost that's eligible for the 10 year window and that gets divided 212 00:15:06,340 --> 00:15:10,540 by the service units of growth that are projected out over the next 10 years. 213 00:15:10,540 --> 00:15:13,660 So that's the equation you see on the screen there. 214 00:15:13,660 --> 00:15:15,900 That's how we calculate the maximum fee. 215 00:15:15,900 --> 00:15:20,660 After the maximum fee is, I should say as part of the maximum fee calculation, state 216 00:15:20,660 --> 00:15:26,620 law requires that there is an accounting for, there's a credit calculation to account for 217 00:15:26,620 --> 00:15:30,700 ad valorem taxes and there's two ways that that can be done. 218 00:15:30,700 --> 00:15:36,100 It can be just a straight 50% reduction or you can go down the route of calculating what 219 00:15:36,100 --> 00:15:39,700 that actual impact is and that's what the city of Denton has elected to do. 220 00:15:39,700 --> 00:15:44,460 We have a financial firm, Nugen, that helps us do that. 221 00:15:44,460 --> 00:15:48,980 They're in the process of completing that credit calculation to determine that impact. 222 00:15:48,980 --> 00:15:53,800 So that's another part of it as well. 223 00:15:53,800 --> 00:16:01,040 Just to review where we've been and where we're going, the 2016 impact fee, when you 224 00:16:01,040 --> 00:16:07,100 look at just a single family home, so it'll be different depending on the land use that 225 00:16:07,100 --> 00:16:10,620 you're looking at because a big box store is going to generate a lot more traffic than 226 00:16:10,620 --> 00:16:11,620 a single family home. 227 00:16:11,620 --> 00:16:17,220 So this is just what the maximum assessable fee of a single family home was calculated 228 00:16:17,220 --> 00:16:18,960 to be in the 2016 study. 229 00:16:18,960 --> 00:16:23,140 It's about an average of just under $10,000 a home. 230 00:16:23,140 --> 00:16:28,820 As the study went through the adoption process, council elected to collect roughly 20% of 231 00:16:28,820 --> 00:16:30,300 that cost from development. 232 00:16:30,300 --> 00:16:38,860 So then the remainder of the cost is still the burden of the city to provide for. 233 00:16:38,860 --> 00:16:44,340 Like I said, we're still in the draft stage of calculating the maximum fee for the 2022 234 00:16:44,340 --> 00:16:45,340 study. 235 00:16:45,340 --> 00:16:49,500 Based on what we're seeing is construction costs have nearly doubled since then. 236 00:16:49,500 --> 00:16:55,620 So our max fees are looking to be close in the range of double to what they were in 2016. 237 00:16:55,620 --> 00:17:00,840 And of course, we'll go through the same process where we'll get a chance to hear your recommendation 238 00:17:00,840 --> 00:17:05,620 to staff and to council on what you think should be done, and they will ultimately determine 239 00:17:05,620 --> 00:17:15,540 what percentage or what portion of that maximum fee gets calculated in each service area. 240 00:17:15,540 --> 00:17:19,580 So like Becky said, we have some updates to this schedule. 241 00:17:19,580 --> 00:17:24,860 We are meeting with the developers tomorrow to introduce the study to the development 242 00:17:24,860 --> 00:17:25,860 community. 243 00:17:25,860 --> 00:17:30,180 We're actually, instead of November 1st, it's going to be November 15th that we'll be holding 244 00:17:30,180 --> 00:17:32,380 a workshop with council. 245 00:17:32,380 --> 00:17:36,140 And the other date that's not included on here as well is that we're coming back to 246 00:17:36,140 --> 00:17:41,800 this committee on November 16th to present the final results and the maximum fees to 247 00:17:41,800 --> 00:17:43,700 you then as well. 248 00:17:43,700 --> 00:17:52,700 And the final adoption that we're targeting is going to be January 10th of next year. 249 00:17:52,700 --> 00:18:01,260 In addition, the water wastewater impact fees are, they're a little further behind, but 250 00:18:01,260 --> 00:18:04,860 they're getting underway as well, and they're looking at an adoption of the water waster 251 00:18:04,860 --> 00:18:07,860 impact fees next fall. 252 00:18:07,860 --> 00:18:16,860 Are there any questions? 253 00:18:16,860 --> 00:18:17,860 Commissioner Smith? 254 00:18:17,860 --> 00:18:20,980 Thank you, Chair. 255 00:18:20,980 --> 00:18:27,900 Just to reiterate, Tina, the November 16th, our direction at that point in time that's 256 00:18:27,900 --> 00:18:31,900 given to council at that point will be, this is what Kimley-Horn decides, this is what 257 00:18:31,900 --> 00:18:35,940 the maximum fee should be, and then we as a commission will make a recommendation, not 258 00:18:35,940 --> 00:18:40,680 commission, a committee would probably have a non-official vote, but just kind of a direction 259 00:18:40,680 --> 00:18:44,860 to be given that would go then to council to be discussed about how much of that maximum 260 00:18:44,860 --> 00:18:45,860 fee they would then leverage. 261 00:18:45,860 --> 00:18:47,820 Is that correct, my understanding? 262 00:18:47,820 --> 00:18:53,300 So I'm going to defer that question to Becky because this is, I want to make sure I don't 263 00:18:53,300 --> 00:18:54,460 speak out of turn. 264 00:18:54,460 --> 00:18:58,980 So we will be having actually the council meeting on November 15th where the same information 265 00:18:58,980 --> 00:19:05,260 that will be presented about the max fee on the 15th, the council, on the 16th, the CIAC. 266 00:19:05,260 --> 00:19:10,020 Then we will request from you is any feedback that we receive at that CIAC. 267 00:19:10,020 --> 00:19:15,080 We will then come back to council if needed at a December 6th meeting and call a public 268 00:19:15,080 --> 00:19:18,740 hearing that has to last for 30 days. 269 00:19:18,740 --> 00:19:22,420 During that timeframe, we can still receive comments from the CIAC. 270 00:19:22,420 --> 00:19:27,100 It just has to go up until the date of, January 10th is the anticipated council date at this 271 00:19:27,100 --> 00:19:31,340 point, and you have five days before that timeframe to give us comments. 272 00:19:31,340 --> 00:19:32,340 Gotcha. 273 00:19:32,340 --> 00:19:34,300 And correct me if I stated anything incorrectly. 274 00:19:34,300 --> 00:19:35,300 Okay. 275 00:19:35,300 --> 00:19:37,320 I'm trying to remember dates. 276 00:19:37,320 --> 00:19:38,320 So it's a little bit interesting. 277 00:19:38,320 --> 00:19:39,320 You're good. 278 00:19:39,320 --> 00:19:42,700 And capital improvements makes recommendations on a city staff goes to city council with, 279 00:19:42,700 --> 00:19:44,560 hey, this is what Kim Lee Warren says the maximum is. 280 00:19:44,560 --> 00:19:49,220 Our recommendation would be like the 20% that was decided upon in 2016. 281 00:19:49,220 --> 00:19:51,540 Did that come from staff that come from council? 282 00:19:51,540 --> 00:19:53,700 Where do those directions come from traditionally? 283 00:19:53,700 --> 00:19:59,380 Well, I wasn't here during that timeframe, but I would tell you that we will work with 284 00:19:59,380 --> 00:20:03,520 the consultant and they will give us the recommendations. 285 00:20:03,520 --> 00:20:05,700 They also give us multiple recommendations. 286 00:20:05,700 --> 00:20:10,980 We work with what we feel like is the best recommendation to bring forward to council 287 00:20:10,980 --> 00:20:12,900 and to you. 288 00:20:12,900 --> 00:20:18,540 And then obviously there may be several different options and you may say, well, we really think 289 00:20:18,540 --> 00:20:20,660 that it should be X instead of Y. 290 00:20:20,660 --> 00:20:22,380 So we will work through that process. 291 00:20:22,380 --> 00:20:28,040 I mean, there is a maximum allowable fee that is allowed, but we do understand that there's 292 00:20:28,040 --> 00:20:32,460 other fees and part of the presentation to council on the 15th and then to you on the 293 00:20:32,460 --> 00:20:36,060 16th, we'll be able to also describe all the fees. 294 00:20:36,060 --> 00:20:42,380 So you can look at it more in my word holistically for the entire city versus just looking at 295 00:20:42,380 --> 00:20:45,940 roadway versus water, wastewater versus parks. 296 00:20:45,940 --> 00:20:49,100 We'd like to bring it forward to you where you see the entire big picture and you can 297 00:20:49,100 --> 00:20:51,980 understand all the impacts. 298 00:20:51,980 --> 00:20:58,340 Keep in mind the impact fees that are collected for these roadways are currently being used 299 00:20:58,340 --> 00:21:00,820 on projects that are within those service areas. 300 00:21:00,820 --> 00:21:05,320 So the fee does have a direct correlation with the amount of work that can be done and 301 00:21:05,320 --> 00:21:07,100 funded through the roadway impact fee. 302 00:21:07,100 --> 00:21:11,080 So hopefully that answers your question essentially there because of the mobility plan and capital 303 00:21:11,080 --> 00:21:15,140 impact that the CIP that comes out, there could be impact fees that are collected that 304 00:21:15,140 --> 00:21:19,020 don't have a project that is in the work within that five year CIP. 305 00:21:19,020 --> 00:21:20,020 Is that correct? 306 00:21:20,020 --> 00:21:25,300 My understanding of that, that we're collecting impact fee, but right now as our capital improvements 307 00:21:25,300 --> 00:21:27,820 doesn't have a project anywhere slated for this. 308 00:21:27,820 --> 00:21:32,420 So collecting 20% of the maximum allowable fee kind of comes down to the fact that we 309 00:21:32,420 --> 00:21:34,780 just won't be using this money for a period of time, right? 310 00:21:34,780 --> 00:21:37,660 There's not a time we're going to be using that. 311 00:21:37,660 --> 00:21:42,380 Correct to a certain extent where we do try to use the fee on specific projects that are 312 00:21:42,380 --> 00:21:47,100 located in the mobility plan and a part of the impact fee CIP. 313 00:21:47,100 --> 00:21:48,900 So we do have specific projects. 314 00:21:48,900 --> 00:21:53,260 We just had recent conversations with finance on we'd like to take the roadway impact fee 315 00:21:53,260 --> 00:21:59,940 funding that is currently available and put it on these particular projects because they 316 00:21:59,940 --> 00:22:02,140 are a part of the roadway impact fee. 317 00:22:02,140 --> 00:22:06,420 And it makes sense from a financial perspective to use those fundings because the way that 318 00:22:06,420 --> 00:22:11,980 roadways are funded are either through a bond election, a county bond proposal, if it show 319 00:22:11,980 --> 00:22:19,660 so should pass or of course, you know, so, you know, this is just another funding mechanism 320 00:22:19,660 --> 00:22:20,660 that we work through. 321 00:22:20,660 --> 00:22:30,900 Another important piece of that as well is even if the funds aren't going directly to 322 00:22:30,900 --> 00:22:37,660 build roads, developers are eligible to build the road and get impact fee credit for that. 323 00:22:37,660 --> 00:22:42,620 So even if the funds aren't going from the city's account to build the roads, the impact 324 00:22:42,620 --> 00:22:48,460 fee assessed is still accomplishing the means of getting the roads built, whether it's the 325 00:22:48,460 --> 00:22:51,420 developer that builds it or whether it's the city that builds it. 326 00:22:51,420 --> 00:22:54,340 With your experience at Kimley-Horne, how often does a developer go in and actually 327 00:22:54,340 --> 00:22:56,900 build the roads themselves? 328 00:22:56,900 --> 00:23:01,500 We don't see that on the planning, I know this is the capacity of CIAC, but in the capacity 329 00:23:01,500 --> 00:23:07,500 of planning and zoning, we never really see those types of conversations pass that, so. 330 00:23:07,500 --> 00:23:08,500 Sure. 331 00:23:08,500 --> 00:23:11,860 Yeah, they're going to do what makes the most sense for them. 332 00:23:11,860 --> 00:23:16,060 They're going to look at what kind of credits they're eligible for. 333 00:23:16,060 --> 00:23:18,960 If it makes more sense for them to build it, they'll build it. 334 00:23:18,960 --> 00:23:20,780 It just depends on how the math works out. 335 00:23:20,780 --> 00:23:25,260 If the fee's low and it's going to be half for them to build it, they're going to want 336 00:23:25,260 --> 00:23:26,260 to not do that. 337 00:23:26,260 --> 00:23:29,380 So I think that's what I was getting to, that essentially, as you know, this is updated 338 00:23:29,380 --> 00:23:33,820 every five years, that if it's not, if we're in the later part of that, then it's more 339 00:23:33,820 --> 00:23:38,000 likely that someone will pay the fee rather than build the road, whereas if it's earlier 340 00:23:38,000 --> 00:23:41,620 in that fee, that fee reassessment, that it'd be more likely they'd build it themselves 341 00:23:41,620 --> 00:23:46,180 and take the credit, then they pay the fee, would that be a fair assessment, and either 342 00:23:46,180 --> 00:23:47,380 of you guys can answer that. 343 00:23:47,380 --> 00:23:51,940 So if I understand your question, you're talking about a five-year project life cycle. 344 00:23:51,940 --> 00:23:55,100 I'm talking more about, like, whenever we update these fees, right? 345 00:23:55,100 --> 00:23:59,980 So we're updating a roadway impact fee, and if the developer has a choice between either 346 00:23:59,980 --> 00:24:04,140 building the road themselves and then taking a credit or paying the impact fee and put 347 00:24:04,140 --> 00:24:09,040 it up on the city to build it, obviously disregarding any roadway that needs to be built for mobility 348 00:24:09,040 --> 00:24:13,180 and access purposes, that, you know, if they say we want to take it upon ourselves and 349 00:24:13,180 --> 00:24:18,020 do it, that is probably more apt to happen when the impact fee is more updated, therefore 350 00:24:18,020 --> 00:24:22,140 it is at a higher cost than it is whenever the impact fee is maybe more outdated and 351 00:24:22,140 --> 00:24:27,220 therefore at a lower cost in comparison to inflation of construction materials and costs 352 00:24:27,220 --> 00:24:28,340 to build. 353 00:24:28,340 --> 00:24:32,820 I think that's probably fair to say, and it all depends on what council chooses to adopt. 354 00:24:32,820 --> 00:24:37,540 Council could raise the fee today if they wanted to, based on what the max fees we showed 355 00:24:37,540 --> 00:24:43,940 in the presentation were, just about 10,000 house, they're collecting 2,000 right now, 356 00:24:43,940 --> 00:24:48,340 so they could still do that today without an updated study, but the updated study, we 357 00:24:48,340 --> 00:24:53,100 are looking at higher costs, and it is also part of the state law requirement that we 358 00:24:53,100 --> 00:24:54,100 update the study. 359 00:24:54,100 --> 00:24:55,100 Gotcha. 360 00:24:55,100 --> 00:24:56,100 Yeah. 361 00:24:56,100 --> 00:25:00,300 How is it calculated when it comes to phasing in a development that gets approved that, 362 00:25:00,300 --> 00:25:04,500 I'm guessing, because these impact fees come in at the platting or the site plan process, 363 00:25:04,500 --> 00:25:09,860 so it's really if there's a development that's approved, there's a phasing process that those 364 00:25:09,860 --> 00:25:12,940 impact fees are recalculated every time there's a new phase that's started and gone through 365 00:25:12,940 --> 00:25:15,980 the platting and site plan process. 366 00:25:15,980 --> 00:25:20,620 So I'm going to let Tina answer that, but one thing I want to mention is, keep in mind, 367 00:25:20,620 --> 00:25:26,420 it's not just a roadway impact fee calculation, there also is a proportionality calculation 368 00:25:26,420 --> 00:25:30,700 that has to be done to make sure that we're not putting more burden on the developer than 369 00:25:30,700 --> 00:25:31,700 shall be. 370 00:25:31,700 --> 00:25:36,140 I'm trying to trivialize a very complex subject to be able to get some comprehension here. 371 00:25:36,140 --> 00:25:43,460 It is also not a situation where every single role applies to every single situation, right? 372 00:25:43,460 --> 00:25:45,140 100% agree. 373 00:25:45,140 --> 00:25:49,420 The roadway impact fee calculations are something that are done a part of the development process, 374 00:25:49,420 --> 00:25:51,700 so I'll let Tina speak to that. 375 00:25:51,700 --> 00:25:52,700 Okay. 376 00:25:52,700 --> 00:25:55,860 I was just confirming our processes. 377 00:25:55,860 --> 00:25:59,620 So what we do is we would assess the fee at the time of platting, but then it's actually 378 00:25:59,620 --> 00:26:01,380 collected at building permit. 379 00:26:01,380 --> 00:26:07,180 So it takes into consideration, if it is a phase development, depending upon what phases 380 00:26:07,180 --> 00:26:11,780 are being constructed, then we would be collecting the appropriate fee at that time. 381 00:26:11,780 --> 00:26:12,780 Gotcha. 382 00:26:12,780 --> 00:26:13,780 Cool. 383 00:26:13,780 --> 00:26:14,780 Thank you. 384 00:26:14,780 --> 00:26:16,620 Last two questions, then I'll give the four. 385 00:26:16,620 --> 00:26:21,580 I know those are going to sound way more pointed and with an agenda behind them than they're 386 00:26:21,580 --> 00:26:22,580 meant to. 387 00:26:22,580 --> 00:26:26,940 It's just really just trying to get comprehension because it sounds like November 16th, we're 388 00:26:26,940 --> 00:26:30,660 going to be coming back and being shown, this is what the recommendation, city council's 389 00:26:30,660 --> 00:26:34,980 already seen it, CIAC, you guys got any feedback? 390 00:26:34,980 --> 00:26:38,140 So it really sounds like today is really our biggest time to be able to give some sort 391 00:26:38,140 --> 00:26:39,780 of direction and feedback. 392 00:26:39,780 --> 00:26:43,140 I guess, before I ask my questions, I'll let... 393 00:26:43,140 --> 00:26:44,540 Not necessarily. 394 00:26:44,540 --> 00:26:48,100 You're going to receive the information on Friday, the same day that council will receive 395 00:26:48,100 --> 00:26:49,380 the information. 396 00:26:49,380 --> 00:26:55,540 We're going to listen to all of the feedback that's received and it is a purpose of us 397 00:26:55,540 --> 00:26:58,060 bringing it forward to council and to CIAC. 398 00:26:58,060 --> 00:27:03,700 It just happens to be that the dates are a little bit awkward for the holiday month, 399 00:27:03,700 --> 00:27:09,420 but not necessarily, and you actually have a period of time that's actually longer from 400 00:27:09,420 --> 00:27:14,980 the perspective of you have five days before the day that the public hearing lands to give 401 00:27:14,980 --> 00:27:16,340 us the feedback and the comment. 402 00:27:16,340 --> 00:27:21,500 But all comments received, we're going to take into consideration and evaluate. 403 00:27:21,500 --> 00:27:27,160 And to be honest with you, when we have the council presentation on the 15th, we can tell 404 00:27:27,160 --> 00:27:30,500 you what came of that and what happened. 405 00:27:30,500 --> 00:27:36,540 But we will just put that as a slide as the council meeting was held and be able to give 406 00:27:36,540 --> 00:27:37,580 you some feedback. 407 00:27:37,580 --> 00:27:43,620 But ultimately, we want to understand your feedback that you have on the overall fee 408 00:27:43,620 --> 00:27:44,620 also. 409 00:27:44,620 --> 00:27:45,620 Cool. 410 00:27:45,620 --> 00:27:46,620 Okay. 411 00:27:46,620 --> 00:27:53,060 To the two questions then, why would a city choose to take a smaller portion of the maximum 412 00:27:53,060 --> 00:27:57,780 credit and why would a city choose to take the maximum portion rather than only taking 413 00:27:57,780 --> 00:27:58,780 a smaller portion of it? 414 00:27:58,780 --> 00:28:01,700 Does that make sense that why would a city choose to do more, why would a city choose 415 00:28:01,700 --> 00:28:02,700 to do less? 416 00:28:02,700 --> 00:28:07,020 My assumption, and I really want to make sure I not to answer my own question, but my assumption 417 00:28:07,020 --> 00:28:12,140 is taking a smaller percentage of that, so 10,000 maximum for a single family in 2016, 418 00:28:12,140 --> 00:28:17,660 but city council said let's only take two, would encourage development and growth. 419 00:28:17,660 --> 00:28:22,180 Whereas saying maximum is 10,000, we're going to enforce 10,000. 420 00:28:22,180 --> 00:28:24,020 That would discourage growth. 421 00:28:24,020 --> 00:28:28,260 Anything else within there that just my comprehension that I'm missing within there about why they 422 00:28:28,260 --> 00:28:33,160 would recommend less, why they would recommend more? 423 00:28:33,160 --> 00:28:36,580 I think you're on the right track with that. 424 00:28:36,580 --> 00:28:43,740 It goes back to the economic development attitude and policies on what the priorities are for 425 00:28:43,740 --> 00:28:44,820 economic development. 426 00:28:44,820 --> 00:28:49,540 I've been to some communities that want to discourage residential and want to encourage 427 00:28:49,540 --> 00:28:55,740 non-residential and so the collection policies are different there and there's the reality 428 00:28:55,740 --> 00:29:00,660 that some of these, like a lot of these costs, the developers will pass on to the home builders 429 00:29:00,660 --> 00:29:05,220 that will pass on the home buyers and there may be a desire to not make the new homes 430 00:29:05,220 --> 00:29:08,820 as expensive for residential. 431 00:29:08,820 --> 00:29:12,580 You've essentially got the understanding of the rec. 432 00:29:12,580 --> 00:29:13,580 Yes. 433 00:29:13,580 --> 00:29:17,700 But yeah, there's some competing interest there. 434 00:29:17,700 --> 00:29:22,900 We want to encourage development, but we also need to have roads for those patrons of businesses 435 00:29:22,900 --> 00:29:25,900 and for those residents to drive on when they come in. 436 00:29:25,900 --> 00:29:29,740 Part of the recommendation, you guys come back about the 2022 recommendation for this 437 00:29:29,740 --> 00:29:34,140 is what the maximum credits should be and then obviously city council would determine 438 00:29:34,140 --> 00:29:37,980 what is actually going to be levied against. 439 00:29:37,980 --> 00:29:46,260 I guess my thought process really goes to how much thought is given to developments 440 00:29:46,260 --> 00:29:50,860 that are ... Never mind. 441 00:29:50,860 --> 00:29:51,860 Okay. 442 00:29:51,860 --> 00:29:52,860 Okay. 443 00:29:52,860 --> 00:29:57,540 Are there any other questions? 444 00:29:57,540 --> 00:29:58,540 Any other questions? 445 00:29:58,540 --> 00:29:59,540 Commissioner Pruitt? 446 00:29:59,540 --> 00:30:00,540 Thank you, Chair. 447 00:30:00,540 --> 00:30:01,540 Okay. 448 00:30:01,540 --> 00:30:06,660 Let me see if I can make this logical in the flow. 449 00:30:06,660 --> 00:30:08,660 First, a couple small things. 450 00:30:08,660 --> 00:30:13,700 When you mentioned the 10-year requirement to spend the money within 10 years, is that 451 00:30:13,700 --> 00:30:21,980 like a clock based on when each payment is received, that that payment must be distributed 452 00:30:21,980 --> 00:30:23,300 within 10 years? 453 00:30:23,300 --> 00:30:24,700 Yes, that's correct. 454 00:30:24,700 --> 00:30:25,700 Okay. 455 00:30:25,700 --> 00:30:29,020 What happens to that money if it's not spent within 10 years? 456 00:30:29,020 --> 00:30:30,860 For the state code, it needs to be refunded. 457 00:30:30,860 --> 00:30:31,860 Okay. 458 00:30:31,860 --> 00:30:32,860 To the original? 459 00:30:32,860 --> 00:30:33,860 Right. 460 00:30:33,860 --> 00:30:34,860 Okay. 461 00:30:34,860 --> 00:30:35,860 So you got this first in, first out kind of thing. 462 00:30:35,860 --> 00:30:36,860 Yes. 463 00:30:36,860 --> 00:30:40,020 Got it. 464 00:30:40,020 --> 00:30:47,300 I really appreciate the comments of Tina when we were thinking through the fact that we 465 00:30:47,300 --> 00:30:52,820 have the new plans recently updated for this. 466 00:30:52,820 --> 00:30:54,140 I saw one thing in the slide. 467 00:30:54,140 --> 00:30:58,540 It said that the water wastewater, I know we're not ... We'll get to that later, but 468 00:30:58,540 --> 00:31:03,500 this relates to a question I'm about to ask on the roadways, so if you forgive me. 469 00:31:03,500 --> 00:31:04,500 Sure. 470 00:31:04,500 --> 00:31:08,900 Mentioned that the plan was to have a single service area for the water. 471 00:31:08,900 --> 00:31:11,300 It was like the second or third slide, I think. 472 00:31:11,300 --> 00:31:12,620 Right, right. 473 00:31:12,620 --> 00:31:22,900 And I believe that the current water impact fee map is actually divided into zone 1A, 1B, 474 00:31:22,900 --> 00:31:23,900 and zone 2. 475 00:31:23,900 --> 00:31:24,900 Is that correct? 476 00:31:24,900 --> 00:31:29,900 Sounds like Nick's got an answer to that. 477 00:31:29,900 --> 00:31:31,100 Okay. 478 00:31:31,100 --> 00:31:33,300 So Nick Menson, Assistant Director of Finance. 479 00:31:33,300 --> 00:31:38,060 To answer your question, this is not talking about the service areas of water and wastewater. 480 00:31:38,060 --> 00:31:43,180 It's when the water utility is actually three service areas and wastewater is actually one. 481 00:31:43,180 --> 00:31:47,700 We will bring in some recommendations forward to the PB and City Council in the coming months, 482 00:31:47,700 --> 00:31:50,280 once we work through that. 483 00:31:50,280 --> 00:31:54,300 So does that answer your question? 484 00:31:54,300 --> 00:32:02,660 So when it says service area citywide, what is that referring to? 485 00:32:02,660 --> 00:32:07,580 I can tell you back on that one. 486 00:32:07,580 --> 00:32:10,820 For water and wastewater, it's allowed to be citywide. 487 00:32:10,820 --> 00:32:12,180 You're not limited to six miles. 488 00:32:12,180 --> 00:32:13,180 Got it. 489 00:32:13,180 --> 00:32:14,780 Okay, so those are the requirements. 490 00:32:14,780 --> 00:32:15,780 Okay. 491 00:32:15,780 --> 00:32:16,780 Correct. 492 00:32:16,780 --> 00:32:17,780 So I've reviewed it. 493 00:32:17,780 --> 00:32:23,680 Actually, our water impact fees right now are in zone 1A, 1B, and zone 2. 494 00:32:23,680 --> 00:32:27,700 And it looks like it's basically oriented in sort of a bullseye pattern. 495 00:32:27,700 --> 00:32:30,780 And you can do that at the outskirts because there's none of this six mile requirement 496 00:32:30,780 --> 00:32:31,780 for them. 497 00:32:31,780 --> 00:32:34,140 So that makes sense now. 498 00:32:34,140 --> 00:32:40,300 And I appreciate the background that you shared of the direction when we went through the 499 00:32:40,300 --> 00:32:48,180 2016 impact fee study was to try to keep the amount of new development in each defined 500 00:32:48,180 --> 00:32:55,020 service area consistent between the three to avoid the denominator being small, I imagine, 501 00:32:55,020 --> 00:32:57,700 in that calculation. 502 00:32:57,700 --> 00:33:05,640 My question is, has any thought been given to establishing those service areas in a way 503 00:33:05,640 --> 00:33:16,220 that would most correlate with some of our comprehensive plan goals that I think we just 504 00:33:16,220 --> 00:33:22,260 reiterated about infill development and redevelopment? 505 00:33:22,260 --> 00:33:29,060 As I look at that map, what I see is there's people north of UNT who, if a new home goes 506 00:33:29,060 --> 00:33:34,380 up there, they're paying an impact fee to rebuild May Hill or even the road east of 507 00:33:34,380 --> 00:33:37,360 May Hill that's on the mobility plan, right? 508 00:33:37,360 --> 00:33:42,060 And that seems a little bit of a stretch of the roadways that they would be using on a 509 00:33:42,060 --> 00:33:44,100 regular basis. 510 00:33:44,100 --> 00:33:52,200 So I guess it's just my feedback to staff is that I would really like to see a comprehensive 511 00:33:52,200 --> 00:33:59,740 understanding of, hey, let's make sure we design these areas in a way that gives us 512 00:33:59,740 --> 00:34:03,960 the biggest leg up to achieve the goals that we have, right? 513 00:34:03,960 --> 00:34:07,940 I mean, we've seen development come in in different places in different areas of the 514 00:34:07,940 --> 00:34:14,740 city, and as far as I can tell, right, we have this desire for infill and redevelopment, 515 00:34:14,740 --> 00:34:20,220 and it's just not going to happen at the same pace or faster than Greenfield until projects 516 00:34:20,220 --> 00:34:22,300 can pencil more easily, right? 517 00:34:22,300 --> 00:34:26,800 And the impact fees are a big part of that, as far as I understand. 518 00:34:26,800 --> 00:34:32,420 We haven't had extensive discussions on changing the service areas to meet that goal. 519 00:34:32,420 --> 00:34:39,580 There is a part of the ordinance that was adopted, it really more touches on redevelopment 520 00:34:39,580 --> 00:34:46,620 that if a use redevelops and it's less than 10 times the amount of traffic demand, then 521 00:34:46,620 --> 00:34:50,140 the impact fees not assessed, they're exempt from the impact fee in that situation. 522 00:34:50,140 --> 00:34:53,860 So that is one component that's just built into the policy, but not really built into 523 00:34:53,860 --> 00:35:01,620 the service areas, and there are other policies that could be implemented along with the existing 524 00:35:01,620 --> 00:35:08,620 service areas to encourage infill and redevelopment, and that could be something that we could 525 00:35:08,620 --> 00:35:11,900 discuss with staff as well on any recommendations. 526 00:35:11,900 --> 00:35:18,060 Well, and if I can add to that, Eric, I think I understand where you're going, especially 527 00:35:18,060 --> 00:35:21,900 with respect to if we're trying to encourage infill development, and that really becomes 528 00:35:21,900 --> 00:35:27,900 a policy discussion question for council, probably separate and apart from this process. 529 00:35:27,900 --> 00:35:32,460 But that is, for example, if we are trying to encourage infill development within certain 530 00:35:32,460 --> 00:35:39,820 areas of the community in which the roadway network is already built, then becomes a conversation 531 00:35:39,820 --> 00:35:45,260 about do we want to potentially consider reducing the roadway impact fee collected on infill 532 00:35:45,260 --> 00:35:49,140 development in areas where additional roadway capacity cannot be added. 533 00:35:49,140 --> 00:35:57,260 So it's, but to me, that's a discussion that happens in all likelihood outside of this 534 00:35:57,260 --> 00:36:03,700 particular process, because again, this is with respect to adopting the roadway impact 535 00:36:03,700 --> 00:36:08,860 fee ordinance, the plan associated with it, the calculations that have been generated, 536 00:36:08,860 --> 00:36:14,060 but it becomes a separate conversation of if we are wanting to incentivize certain types 537 00:36:14,060 --> 00:36:18,220 of development in certain locations of the city, then what are some of the carrots that 538 00:36:18,220 --> 00:36:24,900 we offer to incentivize that development, and impact fees is part of that discussion, 539 00:36:24,900 --> 00:36:30,140 because in other communities I've worked in, in cities where their networks are already 540 00:36:30,140 --> 00:36:34,980 built and we're not adding additional capacity, they've done away with their impact fees. 541 00:36:34,980 --> 00:36:40,860 And so that provides an incentive to infill development happening within a community, 542 00:36:40,860 --> 00:36:45,140 because that's just one less development cost, so, but I really think that that's a policy 543 00:36:45,140 --> 00:36:47,300 decision that council needs to provide direction on. 544 00:36:47,300 --> 00:36:52,140 Yeah, so that helps, and maybe just a quick thing to clarify so that my understanding 545 00:36:52,140 --> 00:36:54,860 can be broadened. 546 00:36:54,860 --> 00:37:01,220 Is it a state law requirement that the impact fee assessed within each one of the defined 547 00:37:01,220 --> 00:37:06,860 service areas be the same for every development of that type? 548 00:37:06,860 --> 00:37:13,360 Or is council free, like you said, to adopt a policy where a portion of a service area 549 00:37:13,360 --> 00:37:17,860 can have one impact fee and a different portion can have a lesser impact fee? 550 00:37:17,860 --> 00:37:23,540 So I'm gonna defer that one to Pete, since he's our technical expert on that. 551 00:37:23,540 --> 00:37:28,100 There can be situations where there's an overlay area where development in a certain area, 552 00:37:28,100 --> 00:37:30,420 there's different rates. 553 00:37:30,420 --> 00:37:35,680 We've even worked with a lot of cities where you have different rates for different types 554 00:37:35,680 --> 00:37:42,140 of uses, where all the developments in one particular type of use pay a certain rate. 555 00:37:42,140 --> 00:37:47,300 For example, industrial versus shopping versus residential, those can all have different 556 00:37:47,300 --> 00:37:53,140 rates applied to them if there's a reason to encourage a different type of use. 557 00:37:53,140 --> 00:37:56,460 But there's some geographic flexibility as well. 558 00:37:56,460 --> 00:38:02,260 Okay, so those overlays don't have to be related to the surface area map? 559 00:38:02,260 --> 00:38:03,260 No. 560 00:38:03,260 --> 00:38:04,260 Okay. 561 00:38:04,260 --> 00:38:06,140 All right, thank you. 562 00:38:06,140 --> 00:38:09,300 Is that it? 563 00:38:09,300 --> 00:38:10,300 Okay. 564 00:38:10,300 --> 00:38:13,900 Any other questions, Commissioner? 565 00:38:13,900 --> 00:38:18,820 I guess, just to piggyback a little bit on that, you mentioned, so there's nothing in 566 00:38:18,820 --> 00:38:26,020 state law that precludes incentivizing, as Tina mentioned, as a possible incentive for 567 00:38:26,020 --> 00:38:29,020 infill development to retract the impact fee. 568 00:38:29,020 --> 00:38:30,020 Is that correct? 569 00:38:30,020 --> 00:38:31,020 Right. 570 00:38:31,020 --> 00:38:35,740 So, if we can apply that fairly to everyone in that area, then yeah. 571 00:38:35,740 --> 00:38:36,740 In the -- 572 00:38:36,740 --> 00:38:37,740 In the infill area. 573 00:38:37,740 --> 00:38:39,860 In that specific regional area. 574 00:38:39,860 --> 00:38:40,860 Understood. 575 00:38:40,860 --> 00:38:41,860 Okay. 576 00:38:41,860 --> 00:38:42,860 Anybody else? 577 00:38:42,860 --> 00:38:43,860 Okay. 578 00:38:43,860 --> 00:38:46,980 Thank you for the information. 579 00:38:46,980 --> 00:38:51,620 I think I would encourage, if something kind of trips your brain between now and then, 580 00:38:51,620 --> 00:38:55,620 Becky, to you, would the feedback go, or where would you like that feedback? 581 00:38:55,620 --> 00:38:56,620 Okay. 582 00:38:56,620 --> 00:38:57,620 Yeah. 583 00:38:57,620 --> 00:39:03,260 So, they can even present some of that feedback possible to Council on the 15th, prior to 584 00:39:03,260 --> 00:39:04,940 us seeing it again on the 16th. 585 00:39:04,940 --> 00:39:05,940 Right? 586 00:39:05,940 --> 00:39:06,940 Commissioner Perot. 587 00:39:06,940 --> 00:39:07,940 Thank you, Chair. 588 00:39:07,940 --> 00:39:11,140 Just, I guess, a question to Chair and the Commission. 589 00:39:11,140 --> 00:39:16,460 It strikes me, obviously, I don't want to cause a challenge for staff, but to some of 590 00:39:16,460 --> 00:39:21,180 the questions that Commissioner Smith was asking about the order and the priority and 591 00:39:21,180 --> 00:39:27,260 how does all that work, are we doing it in the right order, I, myself, I think I could 592 00:39:27,260 --> 00:39:32,100 be available that Monday afternoon evening, just for the cake committee, if that would 593 00:39:32,100 --> 00:39:37,220 be something that would alleviate your concerns, but I don't know what, if that's a possibility 594 00:39:37,220 --> 00:39:39,580 for staff or not. 595 00:39:39,580 --> 00:39:41,420 That's totally up to your flexibility. 596 00:39:41,420 --> 00:39:46,540 If you would like to meet on the Monday, the 14th, I'll feel really old that day, I'm going 597 00:39:46,540 --> 00:39:52,660 to have a 21-year-old, but I would be happy to meet on that day, if you would like. 598 00:39:52,660 --> 00:39:57,420 If you would like to be able to have the opportunity to give us your feedback before it goes to 599 00:39:57,420 --> 00:39:59,260 Council on the next day. 600 00:39:59,260 --> 00:40:04,020 I'm sure, you know, as long as that's okay with the Commission and, the committee and 601 00:40:04,020 --> 00:40:08,960 Tina and her team, I don't have an issue with it, I mean, you've had to come at a particular 602 00:40:08,960 --> 00:40:12,540 time before your planning and zoning, we were really working with your calendar to make 603 00:40:12,540 --> 00:40:17,040 sure you were only here one day during the week versus two, so trying to be respectful 604 00:40:17,040 --> 00:40:18,040 of your time. 605 00:40:18,040 --> 00:40:23,020 I also wanted to mention tomorrow at the Developer Town Hall, there will not only be this similar 606 00:40:23,020 --> 00:40:26,700 presentation, there'll be a few minor updates, there's also going to be a presentation of 607 00:40:26,700 --> 00:40:32,100 the water wastewater, and if you're not able to be present, that is at the Development 608 00:40:32,100 --> 00:40:39,780 Services Center tomorrow at 10 a.m., and after that presentation, then we'll also post that 609 00:40:39,780 --> 00:40:45,540 information when the posting and recording of the meeting is available, so you can actually 610 00:40:45,540 --> 00:40:51,340 watch that too, but of course we'll take whatever questions, but Tina, I think that's really 611 00:40:51,340 --> 00:40:56,260 kind of up to you if we want to look at considering the 14th at four o'clock, I know we have a 612 00:40:56,260 --> 00:41:00,180 typical meeting during that day, but if we'd like to switch, our team doesn't have an issue 613 00:41:00,180 --> 00:41:03,820 with it being the 14th or the 16th. 614 00:41:03,820 --> 00:41:08,340 And I think what maybe you can do is, maybe we probably can't answer that right now because 615 00:41:08,340 --> 00:41:12,580 it probably is going to depend on how many Commissioners we can get, but maybe what we 616 00:41:12,580 --> 00:41:17,600 can do is you think about it with your schedule, and if that's a possibility, then let's throw 617 00:41:17,600 --> 00:41:24,740 out an email ahead of time, see how many of us can make it on that day, so yeah, because 618 00:41:24,740 --> 00:41:30,180 you may not be able to answer that question right now given what's between now and then. 619 00:41:30,180 --> 00:41:35,780 Yeah, I was just looking at the calendar, I mean, if it's the consensus of at least 620 00:41:35,780 --> 00:41:40,740 the Commissioners present to try and convene on the day, then I'm sure we can make it work, 621 00:41:40,740 --> 00:41:46,800 I think our biggest challenge might be room availability, and if we want to do it early 622 00:41:46,800 --> 00:41:53,520 in the afternoon, if that is this, we can do that as well, so tell you what, why don't 623 00:41:53,520 --> 00:41:59,060 we all have, I'll work with Kelly and her team, we'll send maybe a survey monkey out 624 00:41:59,060 --> 00:42:04,580 to you to find out what your availability is on the 14th, and then also if there's a 625 00:42:04,580 --> 00:42:09,260 time range that works better for you, and then we can also check facility availability 626 00:42:09,260 --> 00:42:13,540 as well, but if that's the desire, I mean, if that benefits your team, I'm open to that 627 00:42:13,540 --> 00:42:14,540 as well. 628 00:42:14,540 --> 00:42:16,100 Yeah, sure, we don't have an issue with that. 629 00:42:16,100 --> 00:42:17,100 Okay. 630 00:42:17,100 --> 00:42:18,100 Excellent. 631 00:42:18,100 --> 00:42:19,100 Okay. 632 00:42:19,100 --> 00:42:20,100 Sure thing. 633 00:42:20,100 --> 00:42:21,100 All right, anything else? 634 00:42:21,100 --> 00:42:24,100 No, thank you so much, we appreciate it. 635 00:42:24,100 --> 00:42:29,460 Okay, any concluding items to add at the end of this meeting? 636 00:42:29,460 --> 00:42:38,740 Okay, with that, then I will close this CIAC meeting at 4.48 p.m. We will convene back 637 00:42:38,740 --> 00:42:43,140 here at 5 p.m. for our Planning and Zoning Commission work session.