Good afternoon and welcome to this meeting of the CIAC, the Capital Improvements Advisory
Committee.
The Planning and Zoning Commission serves as this committee and with the quorum present,
I will call us to order at 4.06 p.m.
And Tina is just going to offer a brief explanation of our committee.
So I got to thinking that Margie probably has had experience and Tim, I don't know if
you've had past experience as well, adjourning as the, excuse me, convening as the CIAC.
But this is not uncommon for the Planning and Zoning Commission to serve in this capacity
in communities, particularly when we're working on reviewing our impact fee ordinances, whether
that's roadway impact fee or utility impact fees.
And so just wanted to, for the benefit of those of you that have not ever had the opportunity
to serve in this capacity, just wanted to share with you some items with respect to
your role and I'll be honest with you, I had to go back and look at the resolution that
formed the committee back in, looks like the committee has existed prior to 2018, but that's
the last time we made some adjustments.
So when in your capacity as the Capital Improvements Advisory Committee, really it's to advise
the team that is, in this case, Becky Davini and the Capital Projects team, you know, you're
going to be advising and assisting our team, ultimately City Council in adopting land use
assumptions as you're well aware of.
We adopted land use assumptions when we worked on the update to the Comprehensive Plan with
our 2040 plan.
So our consultant team is utilizing that information that we've done with respect to the Denton
2040 plan, as well as they're even taking into consideration the recently adopted mobility
plan that we adopted simultaneously with that.
You also have a responsibility to review the Capital Improvements Plans and technically
file in your written comments if you have any to provide to our staff team.
Also monitoring, evaluating, implementation of the Capital Improvements Plan, and I know
Becky's team will get more into this, but as we adopt updates to our impact fee ordinances,
we have presumably divided the city into different areas.
We've identified calculations or costs associated with the public infrastructure that would
have to be provided within those areas, and so, but we're looking to see what we've programmed
in that plan if that's consistent with our adopted, in this case it would be our mobility
plan, or if we had an adopted utility master plan, then we're looking to see, okay, does
our impact fee ordinance align with those adopted master plans.
You also have the ability to file semi-annual reports with respect to the progress of the
Capital Improvements Plan and report to City Council or any political subdivision any perceived
inequities in implementing the plan or the fees that are proposing to be recommended
for inclusion within the impact fee ordinance, and then also advising Council of the need
to update or revise the land use assumptions, Capital Improvements Plans, and impact fee.
So I think we're in a good position given the fact that we've updated our comprehensive
plan and our mobility plan earlier this year.
If our plans were really, really old, and here we are making modifications to our impact
fee ordinances, then we might be having that conversation about how are we making these
decisions, especially if our master plans are 10 years old, right?
So but we're in a good position given the fact that we've done a lot of heavy lifting
earlier this year with the adoption of the comprehensive plan and the mobility plan.
So with that, unless you have any questions, I believe we can turn it over to Becky and
her team, but just wanted to provide that context so that you understand what your roles
and responsibilities are.
Okay, great.
Thanks, Tina.
Yeah, so we just have one agenda item, and that is PZ 22245, receive a report, hold a
discussion regarding update to the roadway impact fees.
Hi, Becky.
Thank you so much for serving in this capacity is very important for our team to be able
to get your review.
And you'll you'll be, I'm sure, excited to hear about roadway impact fees.
And I will tell you that as a part of this update, there's been a lot of work and effort
that's gone into making sure that all of the projects that have been constructed over the
last couple of years are also a part of that overall update.
The last update was completed in 2016.
And so I am going to turn it over to Pete Kelly, who's with Kimberly horn who we've
been working with on all of the roadway impact fee updates.
He's going to mention to you some updates on some of the schedule to since we've posted
this there's been a couple of changes to the overall calendar.
I'm sure that doesn't surprise us things move pretty quickly around here.
But I'm going to turn over to Pete and then of course we'll be happy to answer any questions
that you might have but thank you for coming in today a little earlier in serving in this
capacity.
It's greatly appreciated.
Okay.
Thank you.
Becky.
Yes.
I'm Pete Kelly.
I'm representing the consultant team on this project with Kimberly horn for the roadway
impact fee update.
As you can see on the slide presentation, we've titled this impact fees 101.
This is really just to cover what an impact fee is, what are the basic components and
we will get into the line use assumptions and the CIP today.
But we are planning to come back and do a second meeting on November 16th with the final
results of the study.
So really there's no formal action we're looking for in today's meeting.
It's more of a present the information and get any questions you have from us about the
technical aspects of the study.
So I'll go ahead and get into the presentation.
So an impact fee really is it's a one-time fee that's assessed to my presentations going
ahead of me here.
Here we go.
Okay.
It's a one-time fee assessed to the new development and that's intended to cover the cost of infrastructure
that's required to be built to support that new development.
It's governed by the Texas local government code chapter 395.
And so we follow all the requirements in that statute as we prepare the study.
One of those requirements is it needs to be updated every five years which is what brings
us to the point we are now in updating the study.
And that's just to reflect the fact that they are going to be changing dynamics in terms
of growth, in terms of infrastructure needs.
I know you all have seen a lot of changes in Denton and really all over Texas in the
last five years.
So there's a lot to capture there.
So why impact fees?
It provides an additional funding tool for infrastructure systems.
Currently what you have at your disposal are you have cash funds, you have debt funds,
and then you have the funding of development as they come in to share the burden of their
impact.
So and really impact fees is a mechanism to provide an orderly means of assessing that
impact and providing for that growth.
So the main components of an impact fee study.
We have to have service areas and we're going to talk about the land use assumptions.
That's really the growth or the demand that we're looking at.
And then capital improvements plans is what represents the infrastructure needed to support
that growth.
The service units are how we break down how impact fees are charged and then the maximum
fee calculation.
So we'll get to all those in the next slides.
So impact fee service areas, it's different for water, wastewater and roadway impact fees.
For water and wastewater, it can be the entire city and can even extend into the ETJ.
For roadway impact fees, the service areas are limited to six miles and that caused the
creation of five different service areas in the city of Denton.
Another part of the local government code is that any fees collected within a service
area must be spent within that service area, within 10 years on a CIP project.
Just covering again that the six mile restriction created the five separate service areas.
I'm going to flip to the map here.
This may be, hopefully that's okay.
It might be a little bit difficult to see.
But when we did this originally in 2016, we did a service area analysis to look at what's
the best way to divide up the city of Denton.
And the discussion back then was to try to separate out the service areas such that there's
an equal amount or near equal amount of projects in each service area so that you don't have
all the CIP projects and all the growth in one service area and very little in the others.
So that's the way they're divided up.
We also look at natural barriers such as interstate highways, we look at railroads, we look at
bodies of water.
For the most part, the service areas in Denton are divided up with the major roadways.
And we do have the inner loop touches three separate service areas rather than all just
being in its own service area.
And just to reiterate again, the roadway service areas cannot include any area in the ETJ.
It's limited to the corporate boundaries of the city.
So once we have the service areas established, the next step is to establish and forecast
the growth in each service area over the next 10 years.
So that's part of the state law is that we look at a 10-year window.
We don't look out 20 or 30 years or beyond.
We just look at the 10 years.
And then again, it's updated every five years to ensure that we're looking at the most up-to-date
growth projections and growth patterns.
So the way that we calculate these is we take all the growth and we simplify it down into
four categories.
And those categories are residential, which includes single-family and multi-family dwelling
units.
And then the non-residential or employment categories are basic service and retail.
So in the basic category that includes uses like industrial and agricultural.
In a service category that includes uses like office and institutional.
And in the retail category that includes essentially everything else in employment.
So shopping, dining, entertainment.
And as it was mentioned before, our employment and residential projections in the IMPACT
V study came directly from the efforts from the comp plan, from that data.
And so they're closely aligned, but we had to take that and separate it out into the
five separate service areas.
Again, this is the service areas map with the growth, the 10-year growth that we've
projected.
So if you were to add all these individual tables up, you'd see that we're projecting
just over 12,000 residential dwelling units in the next 10 years.
And if you were to include more than just the city limits, that figure would be a bit
higher, but we saw that we win that comparison, we saw that it was in alignment with the comprehensive
plan and the projections that it's showing.
And you can also see when you look at the employment numbers that the areas where we
have a lot of industrial growth going on right now.
So on the west side of the city in service area C and service area A, there's a lot more
industrial going on over there and there's a lot of residential projection going on in
service area A where we have some big developments there.
So after the land use assumptions, our next step is to develop the capital improvements
plan so that the land use assumptions establishes our demand over the next 10 years and the
capital improvements plan is how we establish the supply needed to serve that demand as
one way to look at it.
And one distinction I like to make when we're talking about the impact VCIP is that it's
different from the city five year CIP, which is the program of projects that includes new
roadways, widenings and maintenance as well.
The impact VCIP is only conceptual, it's a planning document and it cannot include any
maintenance projects, it's just for new roadways and widening, anything that can add capacity.
And so that really is the governing document that guides what impact fee funds can be spent
on, that's what the CIP is.
Another part of the state statute is that the impact VCIP needs to be based on an adopted
plan and so the adopted plan that this is based off of is the mobility plan that was
done as part of the comprehensive plan as you can see on the screen here.
So all the projects on the roadway impact VCIP are directly from the mobility plan.
And one thing you'll see when you look at the CIP is all the roadways on the mobility
plan that aren't built to their full configuration today, they're included in each of the service
areas.
Even though not all those projects will necessarily get built in the next 10 years, they're included
on there for flexibility so that the ones that need to get built can get built but it's
only the percentage of that capacity that's going to be used within the next 10 years
that actually gets included in the calculation.
So it's still limited to that 10 year window.
We are currently in the, still in the draft review phase with the CIP, the staff has done
a preliminary review of CIP, they're currently in the final review of the CIP and a draft
of the impact fee report.
So this represents a near finished version of the CIP for service area B. You can see
we have two different project types, we have the blue lines represent roadways that need
to be widened beyond what they are today based on the mobility plan and then the red dash
lines represent new roads that need to be built that don't exist today.
And the black solid and dash lines are roads that are either ineligible to be included
in the impact fee CIP or they are currently built to their full configuration.
So all this brings us to how the impact fee itself is actually calculated.
So we started out with the service areas, we calculated the growth in each service area
and then we mapped out the projects in each service area and then we costed out each of
those projects in each service area.
So we have a project cost total for each service area and that project cost total, we take
out the cost needed to extend that project beyond 10 years and we take out the cost needed
to fix existing problems.
And so we have just the cost that's eligible for the 10 year window and that gets divided
by the service units of growth that are projected out over the next 10 years.
So that's the equation you see on the screen there.
That's how we calculate the maximum fee.
After the maximum fee is, I should say as part of the maximum fee calculation, state
law requires that there is an accounting for, there's a credit calculation to account for
ad valorem taxes and there's two ways that that can be done.
It can be just a straight 50% reduction or you can go down the route of calculating what
that actual impact is and that's what the city of Denton has elected to do.
We have a financial firm, Nugen, that helps us do that.
They're in the process of completing that credit calculation to determine that impact.
So that's another part of it as well.
Just to review where we've been and where we're going, the 2016 impact fee, when you
look at just a single family home, so it'll be different depending on the land use that
you're looking at because a big box store is going to generate a lot more traffic than
a single family home.
So this is just what the maximum assessable fee of a single family home was calculated
to be in the 2016 study.
It's about an average of just under $10,000 a home.
As the study went through the adoption process, council elected to collect roughly 20% of
that cost from development.
So then the remainder of the cost is still the burden of the city to provide for.
Like I said, we're still in the draft stage of calculating the maximum fee for the 2022
study.
Based on what we're seeing is construction costs have nearly doubled since then.
So our max fees are looking to be close in the range of double to what they were in 2016.
And of course, we'll go through the same process where we'll get a chance to hear your recommendation
to staff and to council on what you think should be done, and they will ultimately determine
what percentage or what portion of that maximum fee gets calculated in each service area.
So like Becky said, we have some updates to this schedule.
We are meeting with the developers tomorrow to introduce the study to the development
community.
We're actually, instead of November 1st, it's going to be November 15th that we'll be holding
a workshop with council.
And the other date that's not included on here as well is that we're coming back to
this committee on November 16th to present the final results and the maximum fees to
you then as well.
And the final adoption that we're targeting is going to be January 10th of next year.
In addition, the water wastewater impact fees are, they're a little further behind, but
they're getting underway as well, and they're looking at an adoption of the water waster
impact fees next fall.
Are there any questions?
Commissioner Smith?
Thank you, Chair.
Just to reiterate, Tina, the November 16th, our direction at that point in time that's
given to council at that point will be, this is what Kimley-Horn decides, this is what
the maximum fee should be, and then we as a commission will make a recommendation, not
commission, a committee would probably have a non-official vote, but just kind of a direction
to be given that would go then to council to be discussed about how much of that maximum
fee they would then leverage.
Is that correct, my understanding?
So I'm going to defer that question to Becky because this is, I want to make sure I don't
speak out of turn.
So we will be having actually the council meeting on November 15th where the same information
that will be presented about the max fee on the 15th, the council, on the 16th, the CIAC.
Then we will request from you is any feedback that we receive at that CIAC.
We will then come back to council if needed at a December 6th meeting and call a public
hearing that has to last for 30 days.
During that timeframe, we can still receive comments from the CIAC.
It just has to go up until the date of, January 10th is the anticipated council date at this
point, and you have five days before that timeframe to give us comments.
Gotcha.
And correct me if I stated anything incorrectly.
Okay.
I'm trying to remember dates.
So it's a little bit interesting.
You're good.
And capital improvements makes recommendations on a city staff goes to city council with,
hey, this is what Kim Lee Warren says the maximum is.
Our recommendation would be like the 20% that was decided upon in 2016.
Did that come from staff that come from council?
Where do those directions come from traditionally?
Well, I wasn't here during that timeframe, but I would tell you that we will work with
the consultant and they will give us the recommendations.
They also give us multiple recommendations.
We work with what we feel like is the best recommendation to bring forward to council
and to you.
And then obviously there may be several different options and you may say, well, we really think
that it should be X instead of Y.
So we will work through that process.
I mean, there is a maximum allowable fee that is allowed, but we do understand that there's
other fees and part of the presentation to council on the 15th and then to you on the
16th, we'll be able to also describe all the fees.
So you can look at it more in my word holistically for the entire city versus just looking at
roadway versus water, wastewater versus parks.
We'd like to bring it forward to you where you see the entire big picture and you can
understand all the impacts.
Keep in mind the impact fees that are collected for these roadways are currently being used
on projects that are within those service areas.
So the fee does have a direct correlation with the amount of work that can be done and
funded through the roadway impact fee.
So hopefully that answers your question essentially there because of the mobility plan and capital
impact that the CIP that comes out, there could be impact fees that are collected that
don't have a project that is in the work within that five year CIP.
Is that correct?
My understanding of that, that we're collecting impact fee, but right now as our capital improvements
doesn't have a project anywhere slated for this.
So collecting 20% of the maximum allowable fee kind of comes down to the fact that we
just won't be using this money for a period of time, right?
There's not a time we're going to be using that.
Correct to a certain extent where we do try to use the fee on specific projects that are
located in the mobility plan and a part of the impact fee CIP.
So we do have specific projects.
We just had recent conversations with finance on we'd like to take the roadway impact fee
funding that is currently available and put it on these particular projects because they
are a part of the roadway impact fee.
And it makes sense from a financial perspective to use those fundings because the way that
roadways are funded are either through a bond election, a county bond proposal, if it show
so should pass or of course, you know, so, you know, this is just another funding mechanism
that we work through.
Another important piece of that as well is even if the funds aren't going directly to
build roads, developers are eligible to build the road and get impact fee credit for that.
So even if the funds aren't going from the city's account to build the roads, the impact
fee assessed is still accomplishing the means of getting the roads built, whether it's the
developer that builds it or whether it's the city that builds it.
With your experience at Kimley-Horne, how often does a developer go in and actually
build the roads themselves?
We don't see that on the planning, I know this is the capacity of CIAC, but in the capacity
of planning and zoning, we never really see those types of conversations pass that, so.
Sure.
Yeah, they're going to do what makes the most sense for them.
They're going to look at what kind of credits they're eligible for.
If it makes more sense for them to build it, they'll build it.
It just depends on how the math works out.
If the fee's low and it's going to be half for them to build it, they're going to want
to not do that.
So I think that's what I was getting to, that essentially, as you know, this is updated
every five years, that if it's not, if we're in the later part of that, then it's more
likely that someone will pay the fee rather than build the road, whereas if it's earlier
in that fee, that fee reassessment, that it'd be more likely they'd build it themselves
and take the credit, then they pay the fee, would that be a fair assessment, and either
of you guys can answer that.
So if I understand your question, you're talking about a five-year project life cycle.
I'm talking more about, like, whenever we update these fees, right?
So we're updating a roadway impact fee, and if the developer has a choice between either
building the road themselves and then taking a credit or paying the impact fee and put
it up on the city to build it, obviously disregarding any roadway that needs to be built for mobility
and access purposes, that, you know, if they say we want to take it upon ourselves and
do it, that is probably more apt to happen when the impact fee is more updated, therefore
it is at a higher cost than it is whenever the impact fee is maybe more outdated and
therefore at a lower cost in comparison to inflation of construction materials and costs
to build.
I think that's probably fair to say, and it all depends on what council chooses to adopt.
Council could raise the fee today if they wanted to, based on what the max fees we showed
in the presentation were, just about 10,000 house, they're collecting 2,000 right now,
so they could still do that today without an updated study, but the updated study, we
are looking at higher costs, and it is also part of the state law requirement that we
update the study.
Gotcha.
Yeah.
How is it calculated when it comes to phasing in a development that gets approved that,
I'm guessing, because these impact fees come in at the platting or the site plan process,
so it's really if there's a development that's approved, there's a phasing process that those
impact fees are recalculated every time there's a new phase that's started and gone through
the platting and site plan process.
So I'm going to let Tina answer that, but one thing I want to mention is, keep in mind,
it's not just a roadway impact fee calculation, there also is a proportionality calculation
that has to be done to make sure that we're not putting more burden on the developer than
shall be.
I'm trying to trivialize a very complex subject to be able to get some comprehension here.
It is also not a situation where every single role applies to every single situation, right?
100% agree.
The roadway impact fee calculations are something that are done a part of the development process,
so I'll let Tina speak to that.
Okay.
I was just confirming our processes.
So what we do is we would assess the fee at the time of platting, but then it's actually
collected at building permit.
So it takes into consideration, if it is a phase development, depending upon what phases
are being constructed, then we would be collecting the appropriate fee at that time.
Gotcha.
Cool.
Thank you.
Last two questions, then I'll give the four.
I know those are going to sound way more pointed and with an agenda behind them than they're
meant to.
It's just really just trying to get comprehension because it sounds like November 16th, we're
going to be coming back and being shown, this is what the recommendation, city council's
already seen it, CIAC, you guys got any feedback?
So it really sounds like today is really our biggest time to be able to give some sort
of direction and feedback.
I guess, before I ask my questions, I'll let...
Not necessarily.
You're going to receive the information on Friday, the same day that council will receive
the information.
We're going to listen to all of the feedback that's received and it is a purpose of us
bringing it forward to council and to CIAC.
It just happens to be that the dates are a little bit awkward for the holiday month,
but not necessarily, and you actually have a period of time that's actually longer from
the perspective of you have five days before the day that the public hearing lands to give
us the feedback and the comment.
But all comments received, we're going to take into consideration and evaluate.
And to be honest with you, when we have the council presentation on the 15th, we can tell
you what came of that and what happened.
But we will just put that as a slide as the council meeting was held and be able to give
you some feedback.
But ultimately, we want to understand your feedback that you have on the overall fee
also.
Cool.
Okay.
To the two questions then, why would a city choose to take a smaller portion of the maximum
credit and why would a city choose to take the maximum portion rather than only taking
a smaller portion of it?
Does that make sense that why would a city choose to do more, why would a city choose
to do less?
My assumption, and I really want to make sure I not to answer my own question, but my assumption
is taking a smaller percentage of that, so 10,000 maximum for a single family in 2016,
but city council said let's only take two, would encourage development and growth.
Whereas saying maximum is 10,000, we're going to enforce 10,000.
That would discourage growth.
Anything else within there that just my comprehension that I'm missing within there about why they
would recommend less, why they would recommend more?
I think you're on the right track with that.
It goes back to the economic development attitude and policies on what the priorities are for
economic development.
I've been to some communities that want to discourage residential and want to encourage
non-residential and so the collection policies are different there and there's the reality
that some of these, like a lot of these costs, the developers will pass on to the home builders
that will pass on the home buyers and there may be a desire to not make the new homes
as expensive for residential.
You've essentially got the understanding of the rec.
Yes.
But yeah, there's some competing interest there.
We want to encourage development, but we also need to have roads for those patrons of businesses
and for those residents to drive on when they come in.
Part of the recommendation, you guys come back about the 2022 recommendation for this
is what the maximum credits should be and then obviously city council would determine
what is actually going to be levied against.
I guess my thought process really goes to how much thought is given to developments
that are ... Never mind.
Okay.
Are there any other questions?
Any other questions?
Commissioner Pruitt?
Thank you, Chair.
Okay.
Let me see if I can make this logical in the flow.
First, a couple small things.
When you mentioned the 10-year requirement to spend the money within 10 years, is that
like a clock based on when each payment is received, that that payment must be distributed
within 10 years?
Yes, that's correct.
Okay.
What happens to that money if it's not spent within 10 years?
For the state code, it needs to be refunded.
Okay.
To the original?
Right.
Okay.
So you got this first in, first out kind of thing.
Yes.
Got it.
I really appreciate the comments of Tina when we were thinking through the fact that we
have the new plans recently updated for this.
I saw one thing in the slide.
It said that the water wastewater, I know we're not ... We'll get to that later, but
this relates to a question I'm about to ask on the roadways, so if you forgive me.
Sure.
Mentioned that the plan was to have a single service area for the water.
It was like the second or third slide, I think.
Right, right.
And I believe that the current water impact fee map is actually divided into zone 1A, 1B,
and zone 2.
Is that correct?
Sounds like Nick's got an answer to that.
Okay.
So Nick Menson, Assistant Director of Finance.
To answer your question, this is not talking about the service areas of water and wastewater.
It's when the water utility is actually three service areas and wastewater is actually one.
We will bring in some recommendations forward to the PB and City Council in the coming months,
once we work through that.
So does that answer your question?
So when it says service area citywide, what is that referring to?
I can tell you back on that one.
For water and wastewater, it's allowed to be citywide.
You're not limited to six miles.
Got it.
Okay, so those are the requirements.
Okay.
Correct.
So I've reviewed it.
Actually, our water impact fees right now are in zone 1A, 1B, and zone 2.
And it looks like it's basically oriented in sort of a bullseye pattern.
And you can do that at the outskirts because there's none of this six mile requirement
for them.
So that makes sense now.
And I appreciate the background that you shared of the direction when we went through the
2016 impact fee study was to try to keep the amount of new development in each defined
service area consistent between the three to avoid the denominator being small, I imagine,
in that calculation.
My question is, has any thought been given to establishing those service areas in a way
that would most correlate with some of our comprehensive plan goals that I think we just
reiterated about infill development and redevelopment?
As I look at that map, what I see is there's people north of UNT who, if a new home goes
up there, they're paying an impact fee to rebuild May Hill or even the road east of
May Hill that's on the mobility plan, right?
And that seems a little bit of a stretch of the roadways that they would be using on a
regular basis.
So I guess it's just my feedback to staff is that I would really like to see a comprehensive
understanding of, hey, let's make sure we design these areas in a way that gives us
the biggest leg up to achieve the goals that we have, right?
I mean, we've seen development come in in different places in different areas of the
city, and as far as I can tell, right, we have this desire for infill and redevelopment,
and it's just not going to happen at the same pace or faster than Greenfield until projects
can pencil more easily, right?
And the impact fees are a big part of that, as far as I understand.
We haven't had extensive discussions on changing the service areas to meet that goal.
There is a part of the ordinance that was adopted, it really more touches on redevelopment
that if a use redevelops and it's less than 10 times the amount of traffic demand, then
the impact fees not assessed, they're exempt from the impact fee in that situation.
So that is one component that's just built into the policy, but not really built into
the service areas, and there are other policies that could be implemented along with the existing
service areas to encourage infill and redevelopment, and that could be something that we could
discuss with staff as well on any recommendations.
Well, and if I can add to that, Eric, I think I understand where you're going, especially
with respect to if we're trying to encourage infill development, and that really becomes
a policy discussion question for council, probably separate and apart from this process.
But that is, for example, if we are trying to encourage infill development within certain
areas of the community in which the roadway network is already built, then becomes a conversation
about do we want to potentially consider reducing the roadway impact fee collected on infill
development in areas where additional roadway capacity cannot be added.
So it's, but to me, that's a discussion that happens in all likelihood outside of this
particular process, because again, this is with respect to adopting the roadway impact
fee ordinance, the plan associated with it, the calculations that have been generated,
but it becomes a separate conversation of if we are wanting to incentivize certain types
of development in certain locations of the city, then what are some of the carrots that
we offer to incentivize that development, and impact fees is part of that discussion,
because in other communities I've worked in, in cities where their networks are already
built and we're not adding additional capacity, they've done away with their impact fees.
And so that provides an incentive to infill development happening within a community,
because that's just one less development cost, so, but I really think that that's a policy
decision that council needs to provide direction on.
Yeah, so that helps, and maybe just a quick thing to clarify so that my understanding
can be broadened.
Is it a state law requirement that the impact fee assessed within each one of the defined
service areas be the same for every development of that type?
Or is council free, like you said, to adopt a policy where a portion of a service area
can have one impact fee and a different portion can have a lesser impact fee?
So I'm gonna defer that one to Pete, since he's our technical expert on that.
There can be situations where there's an overlay area where development in a certain area,
there's different rates.
We've even worked with a lot of cities where you have different rates for different types
of uses, where all the developments in one particular type of use pay a certain rate.
For example, industrial versus shopping versus residential, those can all have different
rates applied to them if there's a reason to encourage a different type of use.
But there's some geographic flexibility as well.
Okay, so those overlays don't have to be related to the surface area map?
No.
Okay.
All right, thank you.
Is that it?
Okay.
Any other questions, Commissioner?
I guess, just to piggyback a little bit on that, you mentioned, so there's nothing in
state law that precludes incentivizing, as Tina mentioned, as a possible incentive for
infill development to retract the impact fee.
Is that correct?
Right.
So, if we can apply that fairly to everyone in that area, then yeah.
In the --
In the infill area.
In that specific regional area.
Understood.
Okay.
Anybody else?
Okay.
Thank you for the information.
I think I would encourage, if something kind of trips your brain between now and then,
Becky, to you, would the feedback go, or where would you like that feedback?
Okay.
Yeah.
So, they can even present some of that feedback possible to Council on the 15th, prior to
us seeing it again on the 16th.
Right?
Commissioner Perot.
Thank you, Chair.
Just, I guess, a question to Chair and the Commission.
It strikes me, obviously, I don't want to cause a challenge for staff, but to some of
the questions that Commissioner Smith was asking about the order and the priority and
how does all that work, are we doing it in the right order, I, myself, I think I could
be available that Monday afternoon evening, just for the cake committee, if that would
be something that would alleviate your concerns, but I don't know what, if that's a possibility
for staff or not.
That's totally up to your flexibility.
If you would like to meet on the Monday, the 14th, I'll feel really old that day, I'm going
to have a 21-year-old, but I would be happy to meet on that day, if you would like.
If you would like to be able to have the opportunity to give us your feedback before it goes to
Council on the next day.
I'm sure, you know, as long as that's okay with the Commission and, the committee and
Tina and her team, I don't have an issue with it, I mean, you've had to come at a particular
time before your planning and zoning, we were really working with your calendar to make
sure you were only here one day during the week versus two, so trying to be respectful
of your time.
I also wanted to mention tomorrow at the Developer Town Hall, there will not only be this similar
presentation, there'll be a few minor updates, there's also going to be a presentation of
the water wastewater, and if you're not able to be present, that is at the Development
Services Center tomorrow at 10 a.m., and after that presentation, then we'll also post that
information when the posting and recording of the meeting is available, so you can actually
watch that too, but of course we'll take whatever questions, but Tina, I think that's really
kind of up to you if we want to look at considering the 14th at four o'clock, I know we have a
typical meeting during that day, but if we'd like to switch, our team doesn't have an issue
with it being the 14th or the 16th.
And I think what maybe you can do is, maybe we probably can't answer that right now because
it probably is going to depend on how many Commissioners we can get, but maybe what we
can do is you think about it with your schedule, and if that's a possibility, then let's throw
out an email ahead of time, see how many of us can make it on that day, so yeah, because
you may not be able to answer that question right now given what's between now and then.
Yeah, I was just looking at the calendar, I mean, if it's the consensus of at least
the Commissioners present to try and convene on the day, then I'm sure we can make it work,
I think our biggest challenge might be room availability, and if we want to do it early
in the afternoon, if that is this, we can do that as well, so tell you what, why don't
we all have, I'll work with Kelly and her team, we'll send maybe a survey monkey out
to you to find out what your availability is on the 14th, and then also if there's a
time range that works better for you, and then we can also check facility availability
as well, but if that's the desire, I mean, if that benefits your team, I'm open to that
as well.
Yeah, sure, we don't have an issue with that.
Okay.
Excellent.
Okay.
Sure thing.
All right, anything else?
No, thank you so much, we appreciate it.
Okay, any concluding items to add at the end of this meeting?
Okay, with that, then I will close this CIAC meeting at 4.48 p.m. We will convene back
here at 5 p.m. for our Planning and Zoning Commission work session.