WEBVTT 00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:09.740 Good afternoon and welcome to this meeting of the CIAC, the Capital Improvements Advisory 00:00:09.740 --> 00:00:10.740 Committee. 00:00:10.740 --> 00:00:14.260 The Planning and Zoning Commission serves as this committee and with the quorum present, 00:00:14.260 --> 00:00:17.900 I will call us to order at 4.06 p.m. 00:00:17.900 --> 00:00:24.540 And Tina is just going to offer a brief explanation of our committee. 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 00:00:29.100 --> 00:00:35.280 you've had past experience as well, adjourning as the, excuse me, convening as the CIAC. 00:00:35.280 --> 00:00:40.220 But this is not uncommon for the Planning and Zoning Commission to serve in this capacity 00:00:40.220 --> 00:00:45.300 in communities, particularly when we're working on reviewing our impact fee ordinances, whether 00:00:45.300 --> 00:00:49.140 that's roadway impact fee or utility impact fees. 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 00:00:53.700 --> 00:00:57.840 to serve in this capacity, just wanted to share with you some items with respect to 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 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 00:01:06.220 --> 00:01:07.780 the last time we made some adjustments. 00:01:07.780 --> 00:01:14.380 So when in your capacity as the Capital Improvements Advisory Committee, really it's to advise 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 00:01:19.900 --> 00:01:25.540 going to be advising and assisting our team, ultimately City Council in adopting land use 00:01:25.540 --> 00:01:27.180 assumptions as you're well aware of. 00:01:27.180 --> 00:01:31.080 We adopted land use assumptions when we worked on the update to the Comprehensive Plan with 00:01:31.080 --> 00:01:32.700 our 2040 plan. 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 00:01:38.900 --> 00:01:42.220 2040 plan, as well as they're even taking into consideration the recently adopted mobility 00:01:42.220 --> 00:01:46.220 plan that we adopted simultaneously with that. 00:01:46.220 --> 00:01:49.620 You also have a responsibility to review the Capital Improvements Plans and technically 00:01:49.620 --> 00:01:54.700 file in your written comments if you have any to provide to our staff team. 00:01:54.700 --> 00:02:00.060 Also monitoring, evaluating, implementation of the Capital Improvements Plan, and I know 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, 00:02:08.100 --> 00:02:11.420 we have presumably divided the city into different areas. 00:02:11.420 --> 00:02:16.500 We've identified calculations or costs associated with the public infrastructure that would 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 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 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 00:02:31.300 --> 00:02:35.180 our impact fee ordinance align with those adopted master plans. 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 00:02:39.300 --> 00:02:43.740 Capital Improvements Plan and report to City Council or any political subdivision any perceived 00:02:43.740 --> 00:02:48.340 inequities in implementing the plan or the fees that are proposing to be recommended 00:02:48.340 --> 00:02:52.580 for inclusion within the impact fee ordinance, and then also advising Council of the need 00:02:52.580 --> 00:02:56.460 to update or revise the land use assumptions, Capital Improvements Plans, and impact fee. 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 00:03:00.740 --> 00:03:03.380 plan and our mobility plan earlier this year. 00:03:03.380 --> 00:03:09.220 If our plans were really, really old, and here we are making modifications to our impact 00:03:09.220 --> 00:03:13.100 fee ordinances, then we might be having that conversation about how are we making these 00:03:13.100 --> 00:03:16.740 decisions, especially if our master plans are 10 years old, right? 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 00:03:20.300 --> 00:03:23.500 earlier this year with the adoption of the comprehensive plan and the mobility plan. 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 00:03:27.280 --> 00:03:30.780 her team, but just wanted to provide that context so that you understand what your roles 00:03:30.780 --> 00:03:32.500 and responsibilities are. 00:03:32.500 --> 00:03:34.420 Okay, great. 00:03:34.420 --> 00:03:35.420 Thanks, Tina. 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 00:03:40.500 --> 00:03:44.380 discussion regarding update to the roadway impact fees. 00:03:44.380 --> 00:03:45.380 Hi, Becky. 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 00:03:52.780 --> 00:03:55.020 to get your review. 00:03:55.020 --> 00:04:00.340 And you'll you'll be, I'm sure, excited to hear about roadway impact fees. 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 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 00:04:12.380 --> 00:04:15.100 last couple of years are also a part of that overall update. 00:04:15.100 --> 00:04:18.220 The last update was completed in 2016. 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 00:04:22.140 --> 00:04:25.940 been working with on all of the roadway impact fee updates. 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 00:04:30.540 --> 00:04:33.620 this there's been a couple of changes to the overall calendar. 00:04:33.620 --> 00:04:37.620 I'm sure that doesn't surprise us things move pretty quickly around here. 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 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 00:04:45.080 --> 00:04:46.080 capacity. 00:04:46.080 --> 00:04:47.080 It's greatly appreciated. 00:04:47.080 --> 00:04:48.080 Okay. 00:04:48.080 --> 00:04:49.080 Thank you. 00:04:49.080 --> 00:04:50.080 Becky. 00:04:50.080 --> 00:04:51.080 Yes. 00:04:51.080 --> 00:04:54.080 I'm Pete Kelly. 00:04:54.080 --> 00:04:59.060 I'm representing the consultant team on this project with Kimberly horn for the roadway 00:04:59.060 --> 00:05:00.500 impact fee update. 00:05:00.500 --> 00:05:05.580 As you can see on the slide presentation, we've titled this impact fees 101. 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 00:05:09.700 --> 00:05:13.820 we will get into the line use assumptions and the CIP today. 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 00:05:18.940 --> 00:05:20.760 results of the study. 00:05:20.760 --> 00:05:25.560 So really there's no formal action we're looking for in today's meeting. 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 00:05:31.300 --> 00:05:35.060 technical aspects of the study. 00:05:35.060 --> 00:05:38.900 So I'll go ahead and get into the presentation. 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 00:05:46.280 --> 00:05:47.280 ahead of me here. 00:05:47.280 --> 00:05:48.280 Here we go. 00:05:48.280 --> 00:05:49.280 Okay. 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 00:05:55.080 --> 00:05:58.860 that's required to be built to support that new development. 00:05:58.860 --> 00:06:02.740 It's governed by the Texas local government code chapter 395. 00:06:02.740 --> 00:06:08.380 And so we follow all the requirements in that statute as we prepare the study. 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 00:06:11.980 --> 00:06:17.000 us to the point we are now in updating the study. 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 00:06:21.380 --> 00:06:24.220 of growth, in terms of infrastructure needs. 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 00:06:30.500 --> 00:06:31.500 last five years. 00:06:31.500 --> 00:06:33.740 So there's a lot to capture there. 00:06:33.740 --> 00:06:35.360 So why impact fees? 00:06:35.360 --> 00:06:39.140 It provides an additional funding tool for infrastructure systems. 00:06:39.140 --> 00:06:44.220 Currently what you have at your disposal are you have cash funds, you have debt funds, 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 00:06:51.660 --> 00:06:52.660 impact. 00:06:52.660 --> 00:06:59.220 So and really impact fees is a mechanism to provide an orderly means of assessing that 00:06:59.220 --> 00:07:03.400 impact and providing for that growth. 00:07:03.400 --> 00:07:06.060 So the main components of an impact fee study. 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. 00:07:10.700 --> 00:07:13.580 That's really the growth or the demand that we're looking at. 00:07:13.580 --> 00:07:18.780 And then capital improvements plans is what represents the infrastructure needed to support 00:07:18.780 --> 00:07:19.980 that growth. 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 00:07:26.180 --> 00:07:27.180 fee calculation. 00:07:27.180 --> 00:07:30.740 So we'll get to all those in the next slides. 00:07:30.740 --> 00:07:37.940 So impact fee service areas, it's different for water, wastewater and roadway impact fees. 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. 00:07:43.620 --> 00:07:49.360 For roadway impact fees, the service areas are limited to six miles and that caused the 00:07:49.360 --> 00:07:52.940 creation of five different service areas in the city of Denton. 00:07:52.940 --> 00:07:58.260 Another part of the local government code is that any fees collected within a service 00:07:58.260 --> 00:08:07.420 area must be spent within that service area, within 10 years on a CIP project. 00:08:07.420 --> 00:08:14.580 Just covering again that the six mile restriction created the five separate service areas. 00:08:14.580 --> 00:08:16.860 I'm going to flip to the map here. 00:08:16.860 --> 00:08:19.740 This may be, hopefully that's okay. 00:08:19.740 --> 00:08:22.900 It might be a little bit difficult to see. 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 00:08:29.100 --> 00:08:32.620 the best way to divide up the city of Denton. 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 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 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. 00:08:46.940 --> 00:08:49.180 So that's the way they're divided up. 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 00:08:55.300 --> 00:08:56.940 bodies of water. 00:08:56.940 --> 00:09:02.540 For the most part, the service areas in Denton are divided up with the major roadways. 00:09:02.540 --> 00:09:07.340 And we do have the inner loop touches three separate service areas rather than all just 00:09:07.340 --> 00:09:10.980 being in its own service area. 00:09:10.980 --> 00:09:16.340 And just to reiterate again, the roadway service areas cannot include any area in the ETJ. 00:09:16.340 --> 00:09:20.500 It's limited to the corporate boundaries of the city. 00:09:20.500 --> 00:09:28.180 So once we have the service areas established, the next step is to establish and forecast 00:09:28.180 --> 00:09:31.920 the growth in each service area over the next 10 years. 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. 00:09:34.860 --> 00:09:37.720 We don't look out 20 or 30 years or beyond. 00:09:37.720 --> 00:09:38.980 We just look at the 10 years. 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 00:09:44.340 --> 00:09:47.300 growth projections and growth patterns. 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 00:09:53.980 --> 00:09:55.880 four categories. 00:09:55.880 --> 00:09:59.980 And those categories are residential, which includes single-family and multi-family dwelling 00:09:59.980 --> 00:10:01.100 units. 00:10:01.100 --> 00:10:05.100 And then the non-residential or employment categories are basic service and retail. 00:10:05.100 --> 00:10:09.740 So in the basic category that includes uses like industrial and agricultural. 00:10:09.740 --> 00:10:14.380 In a service category that includes uses like office and institutional. 00:10:14.380 --> 00:10:19.580 And in the retail category that includes essentially everything else in employment. 00:10:19.580 --> 00:10:23.420 So shopping, dining, entertainment. 00:10:23.420 --> 00:10:30.500 And as it was mentioned before, our employment and residential projections in the IMPACT 00:10:30.500 --> 00:10:36.020 V study came directly from the efforts from the comp plan, from that data. 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 00:10:39.820 --> 00:10:42.860 five separate service areas. 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 00:10:49.540 --> 00:10:50.540 projected. 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 00:10:55.220 --> 00:11:00.300 just over 12,000 residential dwelling units in the next 10 years. 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 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 00:11:10.260 --> 00:11:14.060 plan and the projections that it's showing. 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 00:11:20.260 --> 00:11:22.300 have a lot of industrial growth going on right now. 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 00:11:26.820 --> 00:11:31.740 industrial going on over there and there's a lot of residential projection going on in 00:11:31.740 --> 00:11:39.900 service area A where we have some big developments there. 00:11:39.900 --> 00:11:43.740 So after the land use assumptions, our next step is to develop the capital improvements 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 00:11:48.860 --> 00:11:55.780 capital improvements plan is how we establish the supply needed to serve that demand as 00:11:55.780 --> 00:11:57.740 one way to look at it. 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 00:12:02.580 --> 00:12:07.740 different from the city five year CIP, which is the program of projects that includes new 00:12:07.740 --> 00:12:11.800 roadways, widenings and maintenance as well. 00:12:11.800 --> 00:12:17.580 The impact VCIP is only conceptual, it's a planning document and it cannot include any 00:12:17.580 --> 00:12:23.340 maintenance projects, it's just for new roadways and widening, anything that can add capacity. 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 00:12:28.780 --> 00:12:35.580 on, that's what the CIP is. 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 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 00:12:45.720 --> 00:12:48.940 done as part of the comprehensive plan as you can see on the screen here. 00:12:48.940 --> 00:12:59.020 So all the projects on the roadway impact VCIP are directly from the mobility plan. 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 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 00:13:09.700 --> 00:13:10.900 areas. 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 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 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 00:13:26.260 --> 00:13:31.500 that actually gets included in the calculation. 00:13:31.500 --> 00:13:37.420 So it's still limited to that 10 year window. 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 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 00:13:49.940 --> 00:13:53.420 of the impact fee report. 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 00:13:58.620 --> 00:14:04.700 we have two different project types, we have the blue lines represent roadways that need 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 00:14:10.460 --> 00:14:15.320 lines represent new roads that need to be built that don't exist today. 00:14:15.320 --> 00:14:20.860 And the black solid and dash lines are roads that are either ineligible to be included 00:14:20.860 --> 00:14:31.260 in the impact fee CIP or they are currently built to their full configuration. 00:14:31.260 --> 00:14:36.240 So all this brings us to how the impact fee itself is actually calculated. 00:14:36.240 --> 00:14:40.860 So we started out with the service areas, we calculated the growth in each service area 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 00:14:45.020 --> 00:14:46.460 those projects in each service area. 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 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 00:14:58.940 --> 00:15:02.060 to fix existing problems. 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 00:15:06.340 --> 00:15:10.540 by the service units of growth that are projected out over the next 10 years. 00:15:10.540 --> 00:15:13.660 So that's the equation you see on the screen there. 00:15:13.660 --> 00:15:15.900 That's how we calculate the maximum fee. 00:15:15.900 --> 00:15:20.660 After the maximum fee is, I should say as part of the maximum fee calculation, state 00:15:20.660 --> 00:15:26.620 law requires that there is an accounting for, there's a credit calculation to account for 00:15:26.620 --> 00:15:30.700 ad valorem taxes and there's two ways that that can be done. 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 00:15:36.100 --> 00:15:39.700 that actual impact is and that's what the city of Denton has elected to do. 00:15:39.700 --> 00:15:44.460 We have a financial firm, Nugen, that helps us do that. 00:15:44.460 --> 00:15:48.980 They're in the process of completing that credit calculation to determine that impact. 00:15:48.980 --> 00:15:53.800 So that's another part of it as well. 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 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 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 00:16:10.620 --> 00:16:11.620 a single family home. 00:16:11.620 --> 00:16:17.220 So this is just what the maximum assessable fee of a single family home was calculated 00:16:17.220 --> 00:16:18.960 to be in the 2016 study. 00:16:18.960 --> 00:16:23.140 It's about an average of just under $10,000 a home. 00:16:23.140 --> 00:16:28.820 As the study went through the adoption process, council elected to collect roughly 20% of 00:16:28.820 --> 00:16:30.300 that cost from development. 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. 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 00:16:44.340 --> 00:16:45.340 study. 00:16:45.340 --> 00:16:49.500 Based on what we're seeing is construction costs have nearly doubled since then. 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. 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 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 00:17:05.620 --> 00:17:15.540 what percentage or what portion of that maximum fee gets calculated in each service area. 00:17:15.540 --> 00:17:19.580 So like Becky said, we have some updates to this schedule. 00:17:19.580 --> 00:17:24.860 We are meeting with the developers tomorrow to introduce the study to the development 00:17:24.860 --> 00:17:25.860 community. 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 00:17:30.180 --> 00:17:32.380 a workshop with council. 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 00:17:36.140 --> 00:17:41.800 this committee on November 16th to present the final results and the maximum fees to 00:17:41.800 --> 00:17:43.700 you then as well. 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. 00:17:52.700 --> 00:18:01.260 In addition, the water wastewater impact fees are, they're a little further behind, but 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 00:18:04.860 --> 00:18:07.860 impact fees next fall. 00:18:07.860 --> 00:18:16.860 Are there any questions? 00:18:16.860 --> 00:18:17.860 Commissioner Smith? 00:18:17.860 --> 00:18:20.980 Thank you, Chair. 00:18:20.980 --> 00:18:27.900 Just to reiterate, Tina, the November 16th, our direction at that point in time that's 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 00:18:31.900 --> 00:18:35.940 the maximum fee should be, and then we as a commission will make a recommendation, not 00:18:35.940 --> 00:18:40.680 commission, a committee would probably have a non-official vote, but just kind of a direction 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 00:18:44.860 --> 00:18:45.860 fee they would then leverage. 00:18:45.860 --> 00:18:47.820 Is that correct, my understanding? 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 00:18:53.300 --> 00:18:54.460 speak out of turn. 00:18:54.460 --> 00:18:58.980 So we will be having actually the council meeting on November 15th where the same information 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. 00:19:05.260 --> 00:19:10.020 Then we will request from you is any feedback that we receive at that CIAC. 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 00:19:15.080 --> 00:19:18.740 hearing that has to last for 30 days. 00:19:18.740 --> 00:19:22.420 During that timeframe, we can still receive comments from the CIAC. 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 00:19:27.100 --> 00:19:31.340 point, and you have five days before that timeframe to give us comments. 00:19:31.340 --> 00:19:32.340 Gotcha. 00:19:32.340 --> 00:19:34.300 And correct me if I stated anything incorrectly. 00:19:34.300 --> 00:19:35.300 Okay. 00:19:35.300 --> 00:19:37.320 I'm trying to remember dates. 00:19:37.320 --> 00:19:38.320 So it's a little bit interesting. 00:19:38.320 --> 00:19:39.320 You're good. 00:19:39.320 --> 00:19:42.700 And capital improvements makes recommendations on a city staff goes to city council with, 00:19:42.700 --> 00:19:44.560 hey, this is what Kim Lee Warren says the maximum is. 00:19:44.560 --> 00:19:49.220 Our recommendation would be like the 20% that was decided upon in 2016. 00:19:49.220 --> 00:19:51.540 Did that come from staff that come from council? 00:19:51.540 --> 00:19:53.700 Where do those directions come from traditionally? 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 00:19:59.380 --> 00:20:03.520 the consultant and they will give us the recommendations. 00:20:03.520 --> 00:20:05.700 They also give us multiple recommendations. 00:20:05.700 --> 00:20:10.980 We work with what we feel like is the best recommendation to bring forward to council 00:20:10.980 --> 00:20:12.900 and to you. 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 00:20:18.540 --> 00:20:20.660 that it should be X instead of Y. 00:20:20.660 --> 00:20:22.380 So we will work through that process. 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 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 00:20:32.460 --> 00:20:36.060 16th, we'll be able to also describe all the fees. 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 00:20:42.380 --> 00:20:45.940 roadway versus water, wastewater versus parks. 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 00:20:49.100 --> 00:20:51.980 understand all the impacts. 00:20:51.980 --> 00:20:58.340 Keep in mind the impact fees that are collected for these roadways are currently being used 00:20:58.340 --> 00:21:00.820 on projects that are within those service areas. 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 00:21:05.320 --> 00:21:07.100 funded through the roadway impact fee. 00:21:07.100 --> 00:21:11.080 So hopefully that answers your question essentially there because of the mobility plan and capital 00:21:11.080 --> 00:21:15.140 impact that the CIP that comes out, there could be impact fees that are collected that 00:21:15.140 --> 00:21:19.020 don't have a project that is in the work within that five year CIP. 00:21:19.020 --> 00:21:20.020 Is that correct? 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 00:21:25.300 --> 00:21:27.820 doesn't have a project anywhere slated for this. 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 00:21:32.420 --> 00:21:34.780 just won't be using this money for a period of time, right? 00:21:34.780 --> 00:21:37.660 There's not a time we're going to be using that. 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 00:21:42.380 --> 00:21:47.100 located in the mobility plan and a part of the impact fee CIP. 00:21:47.100 --> 00:21:48.900 So we do have specific projects. 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 00:21:53.260 --> 00:21:59.940 funding that is currently available and put it on these particular projects because they 00:21:59.940 --> 00:22:02.140 are a part of the roadway impact fee. 00:22:02.140 --> 00:22:06.420 And it makes sense from a financial perspective to use those fundings because the way that 00:22:06.420 --> 00:22:11.980 roadways are funded are either through a bond election, a county bond proposal, if it show 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 00:22:19.660 --> 00:22:20.660 that we work through. 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 00:22:30.900 --> 00:22:37.660 build roads, developers are eligible to build the road and get impact fee credit for that. 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 00:22:42.620 --> 00:22:48.460 fee assessed is still accomplishing the means of getting the roads built, whether it's the 00:22:48.460 --> 00:22:51.420 developer that builds it or whether it's the city that builds it. 00:22:51.420 --> 00:22:54.340 With your experience at Kimley-Horne, how often does a developer go in and actually 00:22:54.340 --> 00:22:56.900 build the roads themselves? 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 00:23:01.500 --> 00:23:07.500 of planning and zoning, we never really see those types of conversations pass that, so. 00:23:07.500 --> 00:23:08.500 Sure. 00:23:08.500 --> 00:23:11.860 Yeah, they're going to do what makes the most sense for them. 00:23:11.860 --> 00:23:16.060 They're going to look at what kind of credits they're eligible for. 00:23:16.060 --> 00:23:18.960 If it makes more sense for them to build it, they'll build it. 00:23:18.960 --> 00:23:20.780 It just depends on how the math works out. 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 00:23:25.260 --> 00:23:26.260 to not do that. 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 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 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 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 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 00:23:46.180 --> 00:23:47.380 of you guys can answer that. 00:23:47.380 --> 00:23:51.940 So if I understand your question, you're talking about a five-year project life cycle. 00:23:51.940 --> 00:23:55.100 I'm talking more about, like, whenever we update these fees, right? 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 00:23:59.980 --> 00:24:04.140 building the road themselves and then taking a credit or paying the impact fee and put 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 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 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 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 00:24:22.140 --> 00:24:27.220 therefore at a lower cost in comparison to inflation of construction materials and costs 00:24:27.220 --> 00:24:28.340 to build. 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. 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 00:24:37.540 --> 00:24:43.940 in the presentation were, just about 10,000 house, they're collecting 2,000 right now, 00:24:43.940 --> 00:24:48.340 so they could still do that today without an updated study, but the updated study, we 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 00:24:53.100 --> 00:24:54.100 update the study. 00:24:54.100 --> 00:24:55.100 Gotcha. 00:24:55.100 --> 00:24:56.100 Yeah. 00:24:56.100 --> 00:25:00.300 How is it calculated when it comes to phasing in a development that gets approved that, 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, 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 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 00:25:12.940 --> 00:25:15.980 the platting and site plan process. 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, 00:25:20.620 --> 00:25:26.420 it's not just a roadway impact fee calculation, there also is a proportionality calculation 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 00:25:30.700 --> 00:25:31.700 shall be. 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. 00:25:36.140 --> 00:25:43.460 It is also not a situation where every single role applies to every single situation, right? 00:25:43.460 --> 00:25:45.140 100% agree. 00:25:45.140 --> 00:25:49.420 The roadway impact fee calculations are something that are done a part of the development process, 00:25:49.420 --> 00:25:51.700 so I'll let Tina speak to that. 00:25:51.700 --> 00:25:52.700 Okay. 00:25:52.700 --> 00:25:55.860 I was just confirming our processes. 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 00:25:59.620 --> 00:26:01.380 collected at building permit. 00:26:01.380 --> 00:26:07.180 So it takes into consideration, if it is a phase development, depending upon what phases 00:26:07.180 --> 00:26:11.780 are being constructed, then we would be collecting the appropriate fee at that time. 00:26:11.780 --> 00:26:12.780 Gotcha. 00:26:12.780 --> 00:26:13.780 Cool. 00:26:13.780 --> 00:26:14.780 Thank you. 00:26:14.780 --> 00:26:16.620 Last two questions, then I'll give the four. 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 00:26:21.580 --> 00:26:22.580 meant to. 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 00:26:26.940 --> 00:26:30.660 going to be coming back and being shown, this is what the recommendation, city council's 00:26:30.660 --> 00:26:34.980 already seen it, CIAC, you guys got any feedback? 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 00:26:38.140 --> 00:26:39.780 of direction and feedback. 00:26:39.780 --> 00:26:43.140 I guess, before I ask my questions, I'll let... 00:26:43.140 --> 00:26:44.540 Not necessarily. 00:26:44.540 --> 00:26:48.100 You're going to receive the information on Friday, the same day that council will receive 00:26:48.100 --> 00:26:49.380 the information. 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 00:26:55.540 --> 00:26:58.060 bringing it forward to council and to CIAC. 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, 00:27:03.700 --> 00:27:09.420 but not necessarily, and you actually have a period of time that's actually longer from 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 00:27:14.980 --> 00:27:16.340 us the feedback and the comment. 00:27:16.340 --> 00:27:21.500 But all comments received, we're going to take into consideration and evaluate. 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 00:27:27.160 --> 00:27:30.500 you what came of that and what happened. 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 00:27:36.540 --> 00:27:37.580 you some feedback. 00:27:37.580 --> 00:27:43.620 But ultimately, we want to understand your feedback that you have on the overall fee 00:27:43.620 --> 00:27:44.620 also. 00:27:44.620 --> 00:27:45.620 Cool. 00:27:45.620 --> 00:27:46.620 Okay. 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 00:27:53.060 --> 00:27:57.780 credit and why would a city choose to take the maximum portion rather than only taking 00:27:57.780 --> 00:27:58.780 a smaller portion of it? 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 00:28:01.700 --> 00:28:02.700 to do less? 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 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, 00:28:12.140 --> 00:28:17.660 but city council said let's only take two, would encourage development and growth. 00:28:17.660 --> 00:28:22.180 Whereas saying maximum is 10,000, we're going to enforce 10,000. 00:28:22.180 --> 00:28:24.020 That would discourage growth. 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 00:28:28.260 --> 00:28:33.160 would recommend less, why they would recommend more? 00:28:33.160 --> 00:28:36.580 I think you're on the right track with that. 00:28:36.580 --> 00:28:43.740 It goes back to the economic development attitude and policies on what the priorities are for 00:28:43.740 --> 00:28:44.820 economic development. 00:28:44.820 --> 00:28:49.540 I've been to some communities that want to discourage residential and want to encourage 00:28:49.540 --> 00:28:55.740 non-residential and so the collection policies are different there and there's the reality 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 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 00:29:05.220 --> 00:29:08.820 as expensive for residential. 00:29:08.820 --> 00:29:12.580 You've essentially got the understanding of the rec. 00:29:12.580 --> 00:29:13.580 Yes. 00:29:13.580 --> 00:29:17.700 But yeah, there's some competing interest there. 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 00:29:22.900 --> 00:29:25.900 and for those residents to drive on when they come in. 00:29:25.900 --> 00:29:29.740 Part of the recommendation, you guys come back about the 2022 recommendation for this 00:29:29.740 --> 00:29:34.140 is what the maximum credits should be and then obviously city council would determine 00:29:34.140 --> 00:29:37.980 what is actually going to be levied against. 00:29:37.980 --> 00:29:46.260 I guess my thought process really goes to how much thought is given to developments 00:29:46.260 --> 00:29:50.860 that are ... Never mind. 00:29:50.860 --> 00:29:51.860 Okay. 00:29:51.860 --> 00:29:52.860 Okay. 00:29:52.860 --> 00:29:57.540 Are there any other questions? 00:29:57.540 --> 00:29:58.540 Any other questions? 00:29:58.540 --> 00:29:59.540 Commissioner Pruitt? 00:29:59.540 --> 00:30:00.540 Thank you, Chair. 00:30:00.540 --> 00:30:01.540 Okay. 00:30:01.540 --> 00:30:06.660 Let me see if I can make this logical in the flow. 00:30:06.660 --> 00:30:08.660 First, a couple small things. 00:30:08.660 --> 00:30:13.700 When you mentioned the 10-year requirement to spend the money within 10 years, is that 00:30:13.700 --> 00:30:21.980 like a clock based on when each payment is received, that that payment must be distributed 00:30:21.980 --> 00:30:23.300 within 10 years? 00:30:23.300 --> 00:30:24.700 Yes, that's correct. 00:30:24.700 --> 00:30:25.700 Okay. 00:30:25.700 --> 00:30:29.020 What happens to that money if it's not spent within 10 years? 00:30:29.020 --> 00:30:30.860 For the state code, it needs to be refunded. 00:30:30.860 --> 00:30:31.860 Okay. 00:30:31.860 --> 00:30:32.860 To the original? 00:30:32.860 --> 00:30:33.860 Right. 00:30:33.860 --> 00:30:34.860 Okay. 00:30:34.860 --> 00:30:35.860 So you got this first in, first out kind of thing. 00:30:35.860 --> 00:30:36.860 Yes. 00:30:36.860 --> 00:30:40.020 Got it. 00:30:40.020 --> 00:30:47.300 I really appreciate the comments of Tina when we were thinking through the fact that we 00:30:47.300 --> 00:30:52.820 have the new plans recently updated for this. 00:30:52.820 --> 00:30:54.140 I saw one thing in the slide. 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 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. 00:31:03.500 --> 00:31:04.500 Sure. 00:31:04.500 --> 00:31:08.900 Mentioned that the plan was to have a single service area for the water. 00:31:08.900 --> 00:31:11.300 It was like the second or third slide, I think. 00:31:11.300 --> 00:31:12.620 Right, right. 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, 00:31:22.900 --> 00:31:23.900 and zone 2. 00:31:23.900 --> 00:31:24.900 Is that correct? 00:31:24.900 --> 00:31:29.900 Sounds like Nick's got an answer to that. 00:31:29.900 --> 00:31:31.100 Okay. 00:31:31.100 --> 00:31:33.300 So Nick Menson, Assistant Director of Finance. 00:31:33.300 --> 00:31:38.060 To answer your question, this is not talking about the service areas of water and wastewater. 00:31:38.060 --> 00:31:43.180 It's when the water utility is actually three service areas and wastewater is actually one. 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, 00:31:47.700 --> 00:31:50.280 once we work through that. 00:31:50.280 --> 00:31:54.300 So does that answer your question? 00:31:54.300 --> 00:32:02.660 So when it says service area citywide, what is that referring to? 00:32:02.660 --> 00:32:07.580 I can tell you back on that one. 00:32:07.580 --> 00:32:10.820 For water and wastewater, it's allowed to be citywide. 00:32:10.820 --> 00:32:12.180 You're not limited to six miles. 00:32:12.180 --> 00:32:13.180 Got it. 00:32:13.180 --> 00:32:14.780 Okay, so those are the requirements. 00:32:14.780 --> 00:32:15.780 Okay. 00:32:15.780 --> 00:32:16.780 Correct. 00:32:16.780 --> 00:32:17.780 So I've reviewed it. 00:32:17.780 --> 00:32:23.680 Actually, our water impact fees right now are in zone 1A, 1B, and zone 2. 00:32:23.680 --> 00:32:27.700 And it looks like it's basically oriented in sort of a bullseye pattern. 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 00:32:30.780 --> 00:32:31.780 for them. 00:32:31.780 --> 00:32:34.140 So that makes sense now. 00:32:34.140 --> 00:32:40.300 And I appreciate the background that you shared of the direction when we went through the 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 00:32:48.180 --> 00:32:55.020 service area consistent between the three to avoid the denominator being small, I imagine, 00:32:55.020 --> 00:32:57.700 in that calculation. 00:32:57.700 --> 00:33:05.640 My question is, has any thought been given to establishing those service areas in a way 00:33:05.640 --> 00:33:16.220 that would most correlate with some of our comprehensive plan goals that I think we just 00:33:16.220 --> 00:33:22.260 reiterated about infill development and redevelopment? 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 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 00:33:34.380 --> 00:33:37.360 May Hill that's on the mobility plan, right? 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 00:33:42.060 --> 00:33:44.100 regular basis. 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 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 00:33:59.740 --> 00:34:03.960 the biggest leg up to achieve the goals that we have, right? 00:34:03.960 --> 00:34:07.940 I mean, we've seen development come in in different places in different areas of the 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, 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 00:34:20.220 --> 00:34:22.300 can pencil more easily, right? 00:34:22.300 --> 00:34:26.800 And the impact fees are a big part of that, as far as I understand. 00:34:26.800 --> 00:34:32.420 We haven't had extensive discussions on changing the service areas to meet that goal. 00:34:32.420 --> 00:34:39.580 There is a part of the ordinance that was adopted, it really more touches on redevelopment 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 00:34:46.620 --> 00:34:50.140 the impact fees not assessed, they're exempt from the impact fee in that situation. 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 00:34:53.860 --> 00:35:01.620 the service areas, and there are other policies that could be implemented along with the existing 00:35:01.620 --> 00:35:08.620 service areas to encourage infill and redevelopment, and that could be something that we could 00:35:08.620 --> 00:35:11.900 discuss with staff as well on any recommendations. 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 00:35:18.060 --> 00:35:21.900 with respect to if we're trying to encourage infill development, and that really becomes 00:35:21.900 --> 00:35:27.900 a policy discussion question for council, probably separate and apart from this process. 00:35:27.900 --> 00:35:32.460 But that is, for example, if we are trying to encourage infill development within certain 00:35:32.460 --> 00:35:39.820 areas of the community in which the roadway network is already built, then becomes a conversation 00:35:39.820 --> 00:35:45.260 about do we want to potentially consider reducing the roadway impact fee collected on infill 00:35:45.260 --> 00:35:49.140 development in areas where additional roadway capacity cannot be added. 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 00:35:57.260 --> 00:36:03.700 particular process, because again, this is with respect to adopting the roadway impact 00:36:03.700 --> 00:36:08.860 fee ordinance, the plan associated with it, the calculations that have been generated, 00:36:08.860 --> 00:36:14.060 but it becomes a separate conversation of if we are wanting to incentivize certain types 00:36:14.060 --> 00:36:18.220 of development in certain locations of the city, then what are some of the carrots that 00:36:18.220 --> 00:36:24.900 we offer to incentivize that development, and impact fees is part of that discussion, 00:36:24.900 --> 00:36:30.140 because in other communities I've worked in, in cities where their networks are already 00:36:30.140 --> 00:36:34.980 built and we're not adding additional capacity, they've done away with their impact fees. 00:36:34.980 --> 00:36:40.860 And so that provides an incentive to infill development happening within a community, 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 00:36:45.140 --> 00:36:47.300 decision that council needs to provide direction on. 00:36:47.300 --> 00:36:52.140 Yeah, so that helps, and maybe just a quick thing to clarify so that my understanding 00:36:52.140 --> 00:36:54.860 can be broadened. 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 00:37:01.220 --> 00:37:06.860 service areas be the same for every development of that type? 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 00:37:13.360 --> 00:37:17.860 can have one impact fee and a different portion can have a lesser impact fee? 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. 00:37:23.540 --> 00:37:28.100 There can be situations where there's an overlay area where development in a certain area, 00:37:28.100 --> 00:37:30.420 there's different rates. 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 00:37:35.680 --> 00:37:42.140 of uses, where all the developments in one particular type of use pay a certain rate. 00:37:42.140 --> 00:37:47.300 For example, industrial versus shopping versus residential, those can all have different 00:37:47.300 --> 00:37:53.140 rates applied to them if there's a reason to encourage a different type of use. 00:37:53.140 --> 00:37:56.460 But there's some geographic flexibility as well. 00:37:56.460 --> 00:38:02.260 Okay, so those overlays don't have to be related to the surface area map? 00:38:02.260 --> 00:38:03.260 No. 00:38:03.260 --> 00:38:04.260 Okay. 00:38:04.260 --> 00:38:06.140 All right, thank you. 00:38:06.140 --> 00:38:09.300 Is that it? 00:38:09.300 --> 00:38:10.300 Okay. 00:38:10.300 --> 00:38:13.900 Any other questions, Commissioner? 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 00:38:18.820 --> 00:38:26.020 state law that precludes incentivizing, as Tina mentioned, as a possible incentive for 00:38:26.020 --> 00:38:29.020 infill development to retract the impact fee. 00:38:29.020 --> 00:38:30.020 Is that correct? 00:38:30.020 --> 00:38:31.020 Right. 00:38:31.020 --> 00:38:35.740 So, if we can apply that fairly to everyone in that area, then yeah. 00:38:35.740 --> 00:38:36.740 In the -- 00:38:36.740 --> 00:38:37.740 In the infill area. 00:38:37.740 --> 00:38:39.860 In that specific regional area. 00:38:39.860 --> 00:38:40.860 Understood. 00:38:40.860 --> 00:38:41.860 Okay. 00:38:41.860 --> 00:38:42.860 Anybody else? 00:38:42.860 --> 00:38:43.860 Okay. 00:38:43.860 --> 00:38:46.980 Thank you for the information. 00:38:46.980 --> 00:38:51.620 I think I would encourage, if something kind of trips your brain between now and then, 00:38:51.620 --> 00:38:55.620 Becky, to you, would the feedback go, or where would you like that feedback? 00:38:55.620 --> 00:38:56.620 Okay. 00:38:56.620 --> 00:38:57.620 Yeah. 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 00:39:03.260 --> 00:39:04.940 us seeing it again on the 16th. 00:39:04.940 --> 00:39:05.940 Right? 00:39:05.940 --> 00:39:06.940 Commissioner Perot. 00:39:06.940 --> 00:39:07.940 Thank you, Chair. 00:39:07.940 --> 00:39:11.140 Just, I guess, a question to Chair and the Commission. 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 00:39:16.460 --> 00:39:21.180 the questions that Commissioner Smith was asking about the order and the priority and 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 00:39:27.260 --> 00:39:32.100 be available that Monday afternoon evening, just for the cake committee, if that would 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 00:39:37.220 --> 00:39:39.580 for staff or not. 00:39:39.580 --> 00:39:41.420 That's totally up to your flexibility. 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 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. 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 00:39:57.420 --> 00:39:59.260 Council on the next day. 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 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 00:40:08.960 --> 00:40:12.540 time before your planning and zoning, we were really working with your calendar to make 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 00:40:17.040 --> 00:40:18.040 of your time. 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 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 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 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 00:40:39.780 --> 00:40:45.540 information when the posting and recording of the meeting is available, so you can actually 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 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 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 00:41:00.180 --> 00:41:03.820 with it being the 14th or the 16th. 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 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 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 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 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. 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 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, 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 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 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 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 00:42:04.580 --> 00:42:09.260 time range that works better for you, and then we can also check facility availability 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 00:42:13.540 --> 00:42:14.540 as well. 00:42:14.540 --> 00:42:16.100 Yeah, sure, we don't have an issue with that. 00:42:16.100 --> 00:42:17.100 Okay. 00:42:17.100 --> 00:42:18.100 Excellent. 00:42:18.100 --> 00:42:19.100 Okay. 00:42:19.100 --> 00:42:20.100 Sure thing. 00:42:20.100 --> 00:42:21.100 All right, anything else? 00:42:21.100 --> 00:42:24.100 No, thank you so much, we appreciate it. 00:42:24.100 --> 00:42:29.460 Okay, any concluding items to add at the end of this meeting? 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 00:42:38.740 --> 00:42:43.140 here at 5 p.m. for our Planning and Zoning Commission work session.