1 00:00:00,000 --> 00:00:04,480 Okay, excellent. Yes, that cameras are on the top ones. Okay, perfect 2 00:00:04,480 --> 00:00:11,060 All right. Well, then I will say good afternoon and welcome to this meeting of the CIA see the Capital Improvement Advisory 3 00:00:11,060 --> 00:00:18,660 Committee the PNC serves as this committee and with the forum present. I will call the meeting to order at 4 00:00:18,660 --> 00:00:21,560 1236 p.m 5 00:00:21,560 --> 00:00:24,180 For the record, we do not have commissioners Cole 6 00:00:24,180 --> 00:00:26,900 Anderson or Smith for this meeting 7 00:00:27,340 --> 00:00:33,320 We've got one thing on the agenda and that's receive a report hold a discussion and give staff direction regarding update to the growth 8 00:00:33,320 --> 00:00:36,160 Please 9 00:00:36,160 --> 00:00:38,840 Thank you 10 00:00:38,840 --> 00:00:45,140 Thank you so much for attending today. We are very excited to talk to you about the next steps for the way we impact fees 11 00:00:45,140 --> 00:00:50,600 I'm going to turn the presentation over to Pete Kelly who's going to do it a brief overview 12 00:00:50,600 --> 00:00:56,800 some of the slides you saw before at your previous meeting but at the very end we get into a little bit more of the 13 00:00:57,160 --> 00:01:02,320 Substantive information that I know you're interested and look forward to receiving your feedback 14 00:01:02,320 --> 00:01:07,160 We will be going to counsel tomorrow with a similar presentation 15 00:01:07,160 --> 00:01:13,320 And so we will take any comments or questions that we receive and make sure that we make counsel aware of those tomorrow 16 00:01:13,320 --> 00:01:17,160 Also, so with that Pete, I'm gonna turn it over to you and let you get going 17 00:01:17,160 --> 00:01:21,880 I'm told the dongle for the clickers over here. So I'm gonna stand over here to make sure 18 00:01:24,600 --> 00:01:29,680 Yes, good introduction we will be all over the first little bit really quickly 19 00:01:29,680 --> 00:01:36,200 We do have some updated numbers in the end as I mentioned. We're still in draft form. We're still receiving comments 20 00:01:36,200 --> 00:01:42,600 But we're starting to get close to what we expect the numbers to be so we can help have a productive discussion and get your 21 00:01:42,600 --> 00:01:44,600 thoughts or questions on 22 00:01:44,600 --> 00:01:47,960 What the fees are gonna be what the collection rate is how? 23 00:01:50,680 --> 00:01:58,480 The impact PCIP, so I'll move forward to do that now. This is a reminder impact fees are for new growth new developments 24 00:01:58,480 --> 00:02:00,480 They're one-time fee 25 00:02:00,480 --> 00:02:02,480 the 26 00:02:02,480 --> 00:02:08,640 Components in the effective study or the service areas our land use assumptions and our capital improvements plan 27 00:02:08,640 --> 00:02:11,520 We're also going to touch a little bit more on service units today 28 00:02:11,520 --> 00:02:14,320 with roadway impact fees 29 00:02:14,320 --> 00:02:15,920 Because it's water waste water impact fees 30 00:02:15,920 --> 00:02:20,200 It's what size your meter is with roadways how many people might you're gonna generate? 31 00:02:20,200 --> 00:02:25,640 So we'll talk about that and we'll show you the maximum fee calculation where it stands in draft form currently 32 00:02:25,640 --> 00:02:30,760 Our service areas as a reminder we have five service areas in Denton 33 00:02:30,760 --> 00:02:34,680 We had numerous discussions the first time the roadway in fact 34 00:02:34,680 --> 00:02:40,540 The study was was made to figure out where to put those we've continued to have a discussion this this time around is 35 00:02:40,540 --> 00:02:43,040 How will all those serve the city? 36 00:02:43,040 --> 00:02:45,920 We can talk a bit more about that later. We look at the fees 37 00:02:45,920 --> 00:02:49,440 Again, and I get your thoughts and questions on that 38 00:02:51,200 --> 00:02:54,560 Here's a service area map again 39 00:02:54,560 --> 00:03:00,480 We we did make it a little bit darker so you could hopefully see a little bit better this time 40 00:03:00,480 --> 00:03:06,400 Our land use assumptions again, we're based off the confidence of plans of that data 41 00:03:06,400 --> 00:03:13,220 Split it out into the four different categories residential basic service and retail 42 00:03:13,220 --> 00:03:19,320 And that's our our growth shown on the chart here if you can see it from that far away 43 00:03:20,360 --> 00:03:22,360 Look at those numbers already 44 00:03:22,360 --> 00:03:23,960 this 45 00:03:23,960 --> 00:03:25,640 reflects a 46 00:03:25,640 --> 00:03:27,640 fair accurate 47 00:03:27,640 --> 00:03:29,920 estimate of the next ten years 48 00:03:29,920 --> 00:03:37,520 The capital improvements plan as we've shown before is based off of the repair plan 49 00:03:37,520 --> 00:03:45,120 The roads that are in within the city limits have been that have been identified as future capacity being needed 50 00:03:45,120 --> 00:03:47,360 Those were added to the impact BCIP 51 00:03:50,200 --> 00:03:52,200 Let's see 52 00:03:52,200 --> 00:04:05,120 Yeah, essentially we're just saying here is a reminder again there are roads there are long lists of projects in your service area 53 00:04:05,120 --> 00:04:11,080 You'll see that that's not saying we expect to complete all those in the next ten years, but they're included for flexibility 54 00:04:11,080 --> 00:04:17,400 And then the amount needed to serve the ten-year growth is there's a percent reduction in the calculation 55 00:04:17,400 --> 00:04:22,240 So that full cost for all those roads isn't the cost that's being 56 00:04:22,240 --> 00:04:24,960 assessed 57 00:04:24,960 --> 00:04:30,760 Again this is an example of the service area be impact BCIP 58 00:04:30,760 --> 00:04:33,280 We have the two 59 00:04:33,280 --> 00:04:38,480 Different impact the eligible cost types in a new project and widen projects shown on the map 60 00:04:38,480 --> 00:04:42,980 We have a map like this for each of the five service areas showing which projects are 61 00:04:47,960 --> 00:04:50,840 So I'm going to dive into the service units like I said earlier 62 00:04:50,840 --> 00:04:55,840 We have to measure the impact of each development and we do that by calculating service units 63 00:04:55,840 --> 00:05:00,580 Chapter 395 of Texas Local Government Code 64 00:05:00,580 --> 00:05:06,840 Defined the service unit as a standardized measure of consumption attributable to an individual unit of development 65 00:05:06,840 --> 00:05:11,960 So for the roadway impact fees, that's a vehicle mile. So that's a combination of 66 00:05:12,680 --> 00:05:19,000 And the trip rate which we get from the ITT trip drainage manual the Institute of Transportation Engineers 67 00:05:19,000 --> 00:05:26,420 And then we get the trip length data from the National House of Travel Survey and that's data from the Dallas Port Metropods 68 00:05:26,420 --> 00:05:32,560 That's local trip length data. We combine those two to get vehicle miles for different types of land uses 69 00:05:32,560 --> 00:05:36,360 To show this can kind of a visual comparison 70 00:05:36,360 --> 00:05:40,480 According to our report a single family home during the p.m. 71 00:05:40,480 --> 00:05:46,600 peak hour for the evening rush hour is going to generate four point six one vehicle miles per house and 72 00:05:46,600 --> 00:05:53,480 Just one thousand square feet of a shopping center is going to generate nine point six vehicle miles 73 00:05:53,480 --> 00:05:58,320 So you start to add up a bigger and bigger shopping center. You can see how big of a difference in 74 00:05:58,320 --> 00:06:01,760 Those two uses are and we have a list 75 00:06:01,760 --> 00:06:06,120 Roughly 50 uses in the report 76 00:06:06,400 --> 00:06:13,760 That the land use vehicle mile frequency table and that's what's used as well when these are assessed later on and that's what's being used currently 77 00:06:13,760 --> 00:06:16,560 to assess the fees 78 00:06:16,560 --> 00:06:19,720 While we're talking about service units 79 00:06:19,720 --> 00:06:26,960 I did want to jump back to one of the policy decisions that came from the 2016 roadway effective study 80 00:06:26,960 --> 00:06:32,560 There was a good amount of discussion about how to encourage redevelopment in the downtown area 81 00:06:34,320 --> 00:06:40,340 Of an overlay and how where that could be placed and ultimately decision was made not to put an overlay at that time 82 00:06:40,340 --> 00:06:42,000 but 83 00:06:42,000 --> 00:06:46,240 this policy decision was made and is included in the ordinance that I 84 00:06:46,240 --> 00:06:54,520 Redevelopment must generate ten times the amount of demand as a previous compared to the previous use in order to 85 00:06:54,520 --> 00:07:00,720 In order to be charged an impact fee so going back to our service units 86 00:07:01,240 --> 00:07:07,720 You'd have to change to use that generates ten times more traffic over here to become subject to impact fees for the redevelopment 87 00:07:07,720 --> 00:07:13,200 so that's the current mechanism in place and there's options that can be discussed in this group and 88 00:07:13,200 --> 00:07:19,800 Suggestions can be given to council and we'll we'll respond to council's direction on what they want to do if there's anything 89 00:07:19,800 --> 00:07:29,600 And we've talked about service units we talked about land use assumptions we talked about the CIP 90 00:07:30,720 --> 00:07:36,040 It comes down to a calculation of the recoverable cost that's the IP which again the costs to 91 00:07:36,040 --> 00:07:43,000 Fix the existing problems has taken out the cost to build roads beyond the ten year demand is taken out and we also 92 00:07:43,000 --> 00:07:50,640 Complete the credit calculation required by law and divide that by the growth and service units to get our maximum fee 93 00:07:50,640 --> 00:07:55,640 So this next slide I'm going to walk through how that calculation is done 94 00:07:55,640 --> 00:07:59,240 Kind of step-by-step 95 00:07:59,240 --> 00:08:05,540 So you get an idea and we've got a couple slides here. This slide doesn't include the cost of financing. So this is the 96 00:08:05,540 --> 00:08:07,520 the 97 00:08:07,520 --> 00:08:12,200 really early on numbers that we started with as you see the I don't know if I have a 98 00:08:12,200 --> 00:08:18,640 That's my screen blackout. I have a pointer but I can point to the screen up here 99 00:08:18,640 --> 00:08:23,300 So if we have in the top row, that's our eligible capital improvement cost 100 00:08:23,300 --> 00:08:27,520 That's what that's how we've taken out everything that's not eligible in each service area 101 00:08:27,720 --> 00:08:34,220 Then we have our growth and service units. It's our vehicle miles being generated. So the higher numbers we're expecting more growth in those service areas 102 00:08:34,220 --> 00:08:43,740 And then we it's this light blue line is essentially the white line divided by the gray line the cost divided by the growth and service units 103 00:08:43,740 --> 00:08:47,840 So that that's what gives us our maximum fee per vehicle mile 104 00:08:47,840 --> 00:08:55,720 And we have this red line is if you remember few slides before we had four point six one vehicle miles per single-family home 105 00:08:57,400 --> 00:08:59,400 That's what this red line is 106 00:08:59,400 --> 00:09:03,640 It's this it's the vehicle model cost multiplied by four point six one 107 00:09:03,640 --> 00:09:09,720 So you do the same exercise for every other land use you take that vehicle miles and multiply it by the fee-per-service unit 108 00:09:09,720 --> 00:09:16,560 This is recap. So and just to look at what what was then what was calculated in 2016 and what's being charged today 109 00:09:16,560 --> 00:09:19,280 We were close to just under 110 00:09:19,280 --> 00:09:24,480 $10,000 a single-family home that could be assessed at the maximum 111 00:09:25,040 --> 00:09:29,080 In 2016 and what's being charged today is $2,000. So it's roughly 112 00:09:29,080 --> 00:09:34,600 On the citywide basis, it's roughly about 20% of what could be charged 113 00:09:34,600 --> 00:09:37,440 Don't move forward 114 00:09:37,440 --> 00:09:44,320 The next step is we we did add in financing costs and the the amount taken out for ad loan taxes 115 00:09:44,320 --> 00:09:47,280 This is currently an estimate in draft forms. These numbers 116 00:09:47,280 --> 00:09:53,560 Will likely change slightly but we like I said, we're getting pretty close to what we think the numbers are going to be 117 00:09:54,160 --> 00:10:00,240 Pending comments. We are still receiving from staff and from from you and from council 118 00:10:00,240 --> 00:10:04,480 So I won't walk through the calculation again just to note that we have 119 00:10:04,480 --> 00:10:10,280 a cost of financing being added in and that raises the maximum fee for service unit and 120 00:10:10,280 --> 00:10:18,680 The maximum fee for single-family home here is closer to an average of twenty two thousand dollars a house across the city 121 00:10:18,680 --> 00:10:21,680 So with that in mind 122 00:10:22,000 --> 00:10:26,560 Just wanted to have a quick discussion about how roads are funded and where 123 00:10:26,560 --> 00:10:32,400 Which buckets all those funds come from and what role impact fees play in that? 124 00:10:32,400 --> 00:10:35,320 so this pie 125 00:10:35,320 --> 00:10:43,000 Here is just showing essentially the costs that the impact fee study calculates in terms of total demands 126 00:10:43,000 --> 00:10:48,200 To build out the entire there for a plan. So there's a lot on there. That's why it's the numbers 127 00:10:48,200 --> 00:10:50,720 1.8 billion. That's why it's as high as it is 128 00:10:51,240 --> 00:10:59,180 the biggest piece of this pie is this light blue up here and that's really amount that is beyond the 10-year window, which is hopefully 129 00:10:59,180 --> 00:11:04,200 Money that can be recovered in the future with impact fees at least in part 130 00:11:04,200 --> 00:11:09,680 That's darker blue piece of the pie. Those are just the existing needs that need to be met 131 00:11:09,680 --> 00:11:14,880 That impact fees are can't go towards so the thing we really look at 132 00:11:14,880 --> 00:11:18,400 Is the the red and the green and the purple? 133 00:11:18,400 --> 00:11:21,540 so the red is the part that by law we have to take out of the study and 134 00:11:21,540 --> 00:11:24,360 Because we're doing the credit calculation 135 00:11:24,360 --> 00:11:30,640 It's actually pretty low. The other option is we can just set that at 50% and move forward. So 136 00:11:30,640 --> 00:11:35,840 City has not elected to do the 50% we do the credit calculation 137 00:11:35,840 --> 00:11:40,120 so if we were to if the city were to charge the full 138 00:11:40,120 --> 00:11:43,880 maximum accessible fee, this is how how much the 139 00:11:45,520 --> 00:11:50,220 Big green piece of the pie. That's the green piece of the pie. There is how much would be covered by impact fees 140 00:11:50,220 --> 00:11:53,560 that would be roughly 30% of the overall need of 141 00:11:53,560 --> 00:12:00,240 Roads to build out the thoroughfare plan and that's without tapping into any other other taxes or other funding 142 00:12:00,240 --> 00:12:05,560 So if you look at something similar to what's being done today 143 00:12:05,560 --> 00:12:09,240 Which is about 20% of what could be assessed an impact piece 144 00:12:09,240 --> 00:12:13,600 As you can see that purple slice of the pie grows by quite a bit 145 00:12:13,600 --> 00:12:20,360 You have to come up with moneys in other places because the impact fees only accounting for about 6% of the overall 146 00:12:20,360 --> 00:12:25,720 Need throughout the city of all the thoroughfares that that need to be be built at some point 147 00:12:25,720 --> 00:12:31,960 And if you were to look at doing basically a 50/50 148 00:12:31,960 --> 00:12:34,800 Partnership between the city and development 149 00:12:34,800 --> 00:12:40,840 You have your green and your purple slices being a lot more even there where you only have to come up with roughly half 150 00:12:41,680 --> 00:12:43,680 The cost to fund the rest of the roads 151 00:12:43,680 --> 00:12:51,480 And so your impact fee and your other funding sources are relatively equal at a 50% collection rate 152 00:12:51,480 --> 00:12:57,920 So those are just three examples of what it would look like in terms of funding roadways 153 00:12:57,920 --> 00:13:06,680 So I'll get into some options that we've worked with staff to put together to put up for discussion 154 00:13:08,240 --> 00:13:12,940 So just to just to start off where we're starting from is in 2016 155 00:13:12,940 --> 00:13:21,460 Our max for us vehicle mile was just over $2,000 and for single-family home the average was just under 156 00:13:21,460 --> 00:13:23,840 $10,000 157 00:13:23,840 --> 00:13:29,680 What was adopted is about again roughly 20% of that's not exactly 20% or roughly 20% 158 00:13:29,680 --> 00:13:37,920 I also just want to point out that the that's for the residential uses the non-resident uses also got a 159 00:13:38,360 --> 00:13:39,840 25% discount 160 00:13:39,840 --> 00:13:42,960 an addition beyond that and the 161 00:13:42,960 --> 00:13:46,320 Industrial uses were capped at the warehouse rate 162 00:13:46,320 --> 00:13:49,840 So moving forward to our 2022 163 00:13:49,840 --> 00:13:59,140 Calculations we're looking to be around this 45,000 or 45 hundred forty eight hundred dollars per vehicle mile number 164 00:13:59,140 --> 00:14:04,780 And that would put it one single-family homes maximum accessible fee around twenty two thousand dollars 165 00:14:06,160 --> 00:14:10,600 So if we were to look at these three different options we put up here again 166 00:14:10,600 --> 00:14:16,400 This is up to what council wants to collect and if that different percentage 167 00:14:16,400 --> 00:14:23,040 Makes more sense to you. You're welcome to ask us about what would that look like or can we pass this on? 168 00:14:23,040 --> 00:14:30,000 But they're all explaining to these options what they mean, but essentially the 20% option here is 169 00:14:30,880 --> 00:14:38,880 Basically keeping up with the rising costs with inflation. So we'd be keeping the same percentage, but we're using 2022 costs now 170 00:14:38,880 --> 00:14:40,880 so that would roughly 171 00:14:40,880 --> 00:14:47,520 Double the amount that we're collecting today push it up to upwards of four thousand dollars a house. We kept that 172 00:14:47,520 --> 00:14:52,400 Of course, we also included the max here just to show if we were to 173 00:14:52,400 --> 00:15:00,240 Again ask growth to pay for growth to pay fully for their impact as they come in. That's that's what that cost would be 174 00:15:01,120 --> 00:15:04,280 And then we also included a 50% option in here 175 00:15:04,280 --> 00:15:07,080 with the intent to recognize 176 00:15:07,080 --> 00:15:13,120 What state law is trying to do and encourage a partnership between the city and development? 177 00:15:13,120 --> 00:15:15,520 So this is showing 178 00:15:15,520 --> 00:15:20,700 What it would look like to approach it as we do have it and you do have the cost would come out to 179 00:15:20,700 --> 00:15:24,120 about eleven thousand dollars a single-family home or 180 00:15:24,120 --> 00:15:30,160 $2,400 at the upon model for those those three for that option 181 00:15:31,720 --> 00:15:33,720 I 182 00:15:33,720 --> 00:15:38,640 Will jump to the dates that we can kind of go back whatever slides you want to go back to to ask questions about 183 00:15:38,640 --> 00:15:44,800 But kind of look at our roadmap moving forward here. We are going to City Council tomorrow 184 00:15:44,800 --> 00:15:48,240 they're gonna see the same thing that you saw today as we 185 00:15:48,240 --> 00:15:56,860 Continue to receive comments and when we finalize that study, it'll be posted ahead of the City Council meeting in December 186 00:15:56,860 --> 00:15:59,640 we'll have a workshop with them in December and 187 00:16:00,400 --> 00:16:05,880 that public hearing will be advertised and that will be held on January 10th and 188 00:16:05,880 --> 00:16:08,440 Currently the plan is to hold 189 00:16:08,440 --> 00:16:13,320 the next City Council meeting to hold that meeting to actually adopt the 190 00:16:13,320 --> 00:16:17,280 Ordinance, so we'll do the study and one meeting and the ordinance 191 00:16:17,280 --> 00:16:24,480 So what what questions we have any slides we need to go back to 192 00:16:29,520 --> 00:16:36,040 Thank you, just a question about the land use assumptions if you want to go back to that slide that had the map 193 00:16:36,040 --> 00:16:44,080 Mostly I want to make sure I'm interpreting it correctly. Sorry. No problem. Yeah 194 00:16:44,080 --> 00:16:49,120 Are those numbers for residential dwelling units only 195 00:16:49,120 --> 00:16:54,680 single-family homes perhaps the reason I ask is that when I look at the 20 40 plan that shows 196 00:16:55,040 --> 00:17:00,560 Around 37,000 new units in the 20 year period and this is about 12,000 197 00:17:00,560 --> 00:17:07,160 So that seems like significantly shorter linearity just trying to understand where where my disconnect is there? Yeah, that's a good question 198 00:17:07,160 --> 00:17:15,640 So that this number does include single-family and multi-family. We looked at the 20 40 plan about 20 years from now 199 00:17:15,640 --> 00:17:18,520 We saw about 36 37,000 units like you said 200 00:17:18,520 --> 00:17:22,040 So when we're looking at what's going to happen in the next 10 years 201 00:17:23,200 --> 00:17:28,000 We did our projections based on the comp plan data that we got and but it ended up 202 00:17:28,000 --> 00:17:32,280 At about 18,000 in the next 10 years if you include 203 00:17:32,280 --> 00:17:39,080 Everything outside the city limits as well and EPJ when you took out the units that were outside of the city limits 204 00:17:39,080 --> 00:17:41,080 That's what brought us down 205 00:17:41,080 --> 00:17:50,240 How did the developer come home? 206 00:17:51,280 --> 00:17:55,080 I think is great. We've got a lot of good questions got a little discussion. I 207 00:17:55,080 --> 00:18:01,400 Would say in general, you know, they're wanting to receive the overall report 208 00:18:01,400 --> 00:18:06,640 And kind of understand the basis for it, which we're currently finalizing kind of that review 209 00:18:06,640 --> 00:18:12,060 As far as questions that were asked, you know, of course, they're interested in what option 210 00:18:12,060 --> 00:18:18,000 And you know, we've explained to him that that's really a policy level decision that council will be moving forward with 211 00:18:19,240 --> 00:18:24,160 You know, I think if there's a an option that the committee feels is 212 00:18:24,160 --> 00:18:28,060 More suited for them or one that they completely like would like to throw out 213 00:18:28,060 --> 00:18:30,560 That's something that we're interested in hearing from y'all today 214 00:18:30,560 --> 00:18:34,800 but in general, you know, we shared the presentation and 215 00:18:34,800 --> 00:18:38,120 The recording of meeting with lots of folks 216 00:18:38,120 --> 00:18:42,560 But you know probably the overall was you know a 217 00:18:43,720 --> 00:18:50,300 Lot of it was educating I would say you know when they see the max fee and they see the 18,000 dollars 218 00:18:50,300 --> 00:18:52,300 They think that's what we're going to be 219 00:18:52,300 --> 00:18:58,920 Collecting we're explaining. That's the basis for the total amount of fee and then it's based on you know, what option? 220 00:18:58,920 --> 00:19:02,120 So, you know, I felt like in general 221 00:19:02,120 --> 00:19:10,160 There was a lot of question regarding where do we think we would land and that's not a staff level decision. So 222 00:19:10,840 --> 00:19:15,220 Just trying to make sure we educate and share the information. I will tell you too 223 00:19:15,220 --> 00:19:21,280 We assume and think we'll more than likely have a follow-up with council 224 00:19:21,280 --> 00:19:27,200 Just based on kind of bringing forward the overall study and their recommended fees 225 00:19:27,200 --> 00:19:29,920 And I think at that time 226 00:19:29,920 --> 00:19:34,200 There'll be some additional questions that are asked but you know, the one thing that I think 227 00:19:34,200 --> 00:19:39,280 And what we're planning to do is really kind of give the whole picture of all the fees that are currently 228 00:19:40,000 --> 00:19:46,160 Being being, you know brought forward as a part of a development. So I've been working with Scott and 229 00:19:46,160 --> 00:19:53,800 Some of his staff to prepare kind of that information so we can kind of share that message because we realize this is one of many fees 230 00:19:53,800 --> 00:19:56,880 but the the 231 00:19:56,880 --> 00:20:04,040 What they saw from the presentation and what you're seeing now is is a decision has to be made but ultimately 232 00:20:04,720 --> 00:20:10,840 You know currently we're you know selling bonds etc to be able to fund many of these roadways 233 00:20:10,840 --> 00:20:12,840 And so it's it's really a policy 234 00:20:12,840 --> 00:20:19,320 Oh, definitely. Yeah, I just wanted that. I felt I felt sure about it keep it as low as possible 235 00:20:19,320 --> 00:20:24,840 Obviously sure there were questions in regards to that there weren't anything specific that you know 236 00:20:24,840 --> 00:20:29,140 A lot of people are just asking kind of what the relationship was, you know 237 00:20:29,140 --> 00:20:32,320 There were questions asked about words that were shown on the mobility plan 238 00:20:33,160 --> 00:20:35,060 But are not a part of the impact fee 239 00:20:35,060 --> 00:20:38,720 But if it's in the ETJ it can't be a part of that if it's a road that's in the county 240 00:20:38,720 --> 00:20:42,600 That'd be something we would have to fund. It's not something the city would fund 241 00:20:42,600 --> 00:20:48,360 This is specifically related to the roads just in these five service areas and there are roads that are shown 242 00:20:48,360 --> 00:20:54,800 Kind of on the outskirts of those service areas are attached to those roadways, but they're not a part of the city. So 243 00:20:54,800 --> 00:20:57,960 You know that they're obviously on our mobility plan 244 00:20:57,960 --> 00:21:02,000 But our mobility plan the county's mobility plan and the state's mobility plan are all 245 00:21:02,400 --> 00:21:04,720 You know trying to be in lockstep with each other 246 00:21:04,720 --> 00:21:09,440 Are there any cities that collect the maximum? 247 00:21:09,440 --> 00:21:12,680 currently for roadway 248 00:21:12,680 --> 00:21:15,200 Flower Mountain does right now 249 00:21:15,200 --> 00:21:22,680 There's a few cities that will collect the maximum in a certain service areas because if when you do the study 250 00:21:22,680 --> 00:21:26,800 You may have a service here close to being built out. So there's not a lot of cost there 251 00:21:26,800 --> 00:21:31,160 And so the maximum fees only, you know, a thousand two thousand a house or something 252 00:21:31,160 --> 00:21:33,520 but the maximum there there's 253 00:21:33,520 --> 00:21:39,440 In general the trend is going up and see these are wanting to collect more 254 00:21:39,440 --> 00:21:43,900 percentage-wise and dollar wise than they had before just because they're seeing the need to 255 00:21:43,900 --> 00:21:49,280 Fund roads and build roads for these people to drive on when that comes in 256 00:21:49,280 --> 00:21:56,080 Yeah, I mean that's certainly my thought I do feel as a city that we don't collect enough. Honestly, especially with the growth 257 00:21:56,080 --> 00:21:58,080 that's before us and is happening and 258 00:21:59,280 --> 00:22:03,960 The difficulty we have with our runs out there that I would I would personally like 259 00:22:03,960 --> 00:22:08,360 It to not to go a little bit above the 20% that we're collecting now 260 00:22:08,360 --> 00:22:14,440 Just because and and you know, it's not to be a slap in the face to development and all that 261 00:22:14,440 --> 00:22:16,440 I just I mean I do 262 00:22:16,440 --> 00:22:21,600 If I could go 50% that's what I would do. I don't think Council's gonna want to do that. But um 263 00:22:21,600 --> 00:22:27,520 just with with the state of our city the state of roads in our city and 264 00:22:28,400 --> 00:22:35,200 The tremendous growth that we have seen over time. I don't think we have kept this up in line with 265 00:22:35,200 --> 00:22:41,680 With what we've seen for growth and what we could have where we could be now if we would have 266 00:22:41,680 --> 00:22:48,400 Possibly inched that up a little bit. So I'd love to see you take that back to Council. I don't know how they received that 267 00:22:48,400 --> 00:22:55,280 No, I think that's fair and you know, we just actually went through an assessment of the current early impact fees 268 00:22:55,880 --> 00:23:02,720 That are already, you know allocated for projects that we're working on and when you're talking about a 50 million dollar road 269 00:23:02,720 --> 00:23:06,280 And you're only putting two million dollars to it or a 35 million dollar road 270 00:23:06,280 --> 00:23:13,000 Such as Hickory Creek phase three and we're allocating a couple of million. It does put it a little bit in perspective 271 00:23:13,000 --> 00:23:15,000 So it's a fair statement 272 00:23:15,000 --> 00:23:20,240 You know, we're going to do whatever direction we receive but of course, you know 273 00:23:20,760 --> 00:23:26,960 Fair statement and yeah, some of those examples, you know becoming reality in the near, you know in the recent future 274 00:23:26,960 --> 00:23:30,080 Yeah, I'm just giving my thoughts just you know from this position 275 00:23:30,080 --> 00:23:35,000 for sure as a as a citizen here who drives on these roads on absolutely regular and 276 00:23:35,000 --> 00:23:43,800 And puts people in new houses in this area and what have you and yeah, we are significantly behind it, you know 277 00:23:43,800 --> 00:23:50,600 In a lot of areas and clearly I mean we know what's already happening 278 00:23:50,800 --> 00:23:56,920 And what's already you know being approved and being started and all of that. So we're just going to continue to get behind 279 00:23:56,920 --> 00:24:04,960 Sure. Thank you. No, I appreciate that feedback. Thank you. Commissioner Villarreal. Is there an option that staff is currently recommending the council? 280 00:24:04,960 --> 00:24:10,200 No, sir. We don't have a current staff recommendation. Gotcha. So you're just giving them the three options 281 00:24:10,200 --> 00:24:16,520 It'll be a policy level discussion tomorrow really just to talk through here are the options. Here's what you're currently doing 282 00:24:17,000 --> 00:24:22,320 Here's the maximum amount by law you can do and then here's you know, kind of a middle of the road 283 00:24:22,320 --> 00:24:28,820 And then based on their feedback, you know, we'll have that next follow-up conversation. So 284 00:24:28,820 --> 00:24:32,680 We currently don't have a recommendation 285 00:24:32,680 --> 00:24:35,760 We we can express to you 286 00:24:35,760 --> 00:24:40,560 situations where we see just like I was talking about with current projects, but 287 00:24:41,080 --> 00:24:48,360 Not a current staff recommendation kind of are you all looking to bring for our recommendation to council or yes, sir 288 00:24:48,360 --> 00:24:52,560 We would like to hear your feedback today as to kind of what y'all feel 289 00:24:52,560 --> 00:24:57,000 Pete's gonna make this same presentation tomorrow at council at 4 o'clock 290 00:24:57,000 --> 00:25:03,560 And he wants to be able to say and staffed us to you know, we've had a conversation with the CIAC 291 00:25:03,560 --> 00:25:10,240 It's it's a part of the overall review is that the CIAC has the opportunity to review and comment 292 00:25:11,120 --> 00:25:15,640 And so we would like to if you're feeling one way farther than the other, you know 293 00:25:15,640 --> 00:25:20,460 We'd like to be able to have kind of your feedback and it doesn't mean that everybody has the same feedback either, right? 294 00:25:20,460 --> 00:25:23,680 So whatever your feedback is we'll gladly take that into consideration 295 00:25:23,680 --> 00:25:27,520 Well, I would like it to be as close to the maximum as possible, but 296 00:25:27,520 --> 00:25:32,040 Chair's point is more feasible and reasonable to council. I was 297 00:25:32,040 --> 00:25:40,680 And with these percentages these are it's not 20 50 or 100 it is 298 00:25:41,080 --> 00:25:43,160 Anywhere in in that slide, right? 299 00:25:43,160 --> 00:25:49,560 Yeah, you're just giving it so you can so we saw the high slices basically, but yeah 300 00:25:49,560 --> 00:25:52,360 You know, they don't have to land on any of these numbers 301 00:25:52,360 --> 00:26:00,360 Correct. Yeah, what we what we usually take what you recommend is to try to think of 302 00:26:00,360 --> 00:26:04,560 some sort of technical basis for why that percentage 303 00:26:04,560 --> 00:26:08,240 Makes sense and that's that's where we started from 304 00:26:09,400 --> 00:26:15,400 Of course at the end of the day, it's gonna be a policy decision and that right the technical basis that we've done is 305 00:26:15,400 --> 00:26:18,400 Here's what the roads cost. Here's what we think the growth is going to be and that's 306 00:26:18,400 --> 00:26:21,200 Maximum fee has ended up 307 00:26:21,200 --> 00:26:23,720 Mr. Prick. Thank you, Joe 308 00:26:23,720 --> 00:26:29,080 So I think my 309 00:26:29,080 --> 00:26:31,200 Direction is to go with a hundred percent 310 00:26:31,200 --> 00:26:34,520 And I want to explain a few things why 311 00:26:36,880 --> 00:26:41,520 You know if you look at our tax rate separated into O&M and 312 00:26:41,520 --> 00:26:44,600 And debt service over the last 10 or 15 years 313 00:26:44,600 --> 00:26:51,420 It's debt service has consistently grown and O&M has sometimes had to go down in order to 314 00:26:51,420 --> 00:26:55,560 Make the full tax rate the council passes power, right? 315 00:26:55,560 --> 00:27:00,600 Our projections don't show us growth slowing down 316 00:27:00,600 --> 00:27:03,240 So in in my opinion 317 00:27:04,240 --> 00:27:10,200 Failing to or really the way I would phrase it is anything less than a hundred percent as you said 318 00:27:10,200 --> 00:27:12,480 That's the technical basis of your road cost 319 00:27:12,480 --> 00:27:19,920 So anything less than that is really a subsidy from existing taxpayers to build that infrastructure out where 320 00:27:19,920 --> 00:27:23,260 People in developed areas may use that a lot less, right? 321 00:27:23,260 --> 00:27:28,760 Right. There may be some exceptions to certain roads that have crossed connectivity and that sort of thing, right? 322 00:27:28,760 --> 00:27:32,760 That's where that comes from my 323 00:27:33,280 --> 00:27:35,920 My biggest fear with impact fees 324 00:27:35,920 --> 00:27:42,120 And I guess planning staff if you have any feedback why I should still fear this, please let me know 325 00:27:42,120 --> 00:27:46,440 but my fear in general with impact fees is that 326 00:27:46,440 --> 00:27:49,440 you set them forth and 327 00:27:49,440 --> 00:27:52,080 it becomes 328 00:27:52,080 --> 00:27:54,120 in some cases an 329 00:27:54,120 --> 00:27:57,000 incentive to 330 00:27:57,120 --> 00:28:03,720 Capture development that you might not otherwise capture just because you can get a cash influx to pay for this road 331 00:28:03,720 --> 00:28:06,340 You know, you need to build right and so you start 332 00:28:06,340 --> 00:28:10,760 Not that you actually make those decisions, but there is an incentive 333 00:28:10,760 --> 00:28:14,960 To accept development may not be 334 00:28:14,960 --> 00:28:20,880 100% in line with your comp plan in order to balance the books, right now 335 00:28:21,800 --> 00:28:27,760 My understanding with annexation law changes in the state of Texas, etc. Etc. Is that that risk? 336 00:28:27,760 --> 00:28:29,800 locally 337 00:28:29,800 --> 00:28:36,480 Maybe less than in other jurisdictions just because it's not as much. Are you understanding? 338 00:28:36,480 --> 00:28:42,600 I would say that I don't know that the city would accept any 339 00:28:42,600 --> 00:28:46,400 Inferior development as a result of the revenue 340 00:28:46,400 --> 00:28:49,280 but I will also 341 00:28:49,280 --> 00:28:51,840 counterbalance that the market drives this 342 00:28:51,840 --> 00:28:56,120 So the housing stock that we get in Denton 343 00:28:56,120 --> 00:29:02,880 Will have significantly more fees and the fees need to be increased. There's no question 344 00:29:02,880 --> 00:29:10,720 But when you talk about the max and that max on a single-family dwelling, whatever that number is ten thousand. I 345 00:29:10,720 --> 00:29:13,720 Don't recall what the number is 346 00:29:19,480 --> 00:29:21,480 So 347 00:29:21,480 --> 00:29:25,040 Twenty-two thousand 348 00:29:25,040 --> 00:29:27,640 Homes will still be built here 349 00:29:27,640 --> 00:29:35,320 But I assure you the home that is built here will not be as nice as the one that would be built in the county or 350 00:29:35,320 --> 00:29:40,960 in Aubrey or any of our neighboring communities because it's 351 00:29:40,960 --> 00:29:44,520 Imposed at the time of the building permit 352 00:29:44,960 --> 00:29:50,680 So if it's a pass-through to the homeowner, I'm buying a house as a consumer 353 00:29:50,680 --> 00:29:53,520 And I guess Margie would be able to speak to this better than me 354 00:29:53,520 --> 00:29:58,320 The cost of the consumer is how much is this per square foot? 355 00:29:58,320 --> 00:30:06,720 Well, I just had it $20,000. Well, the first place that will cut is, you know grant countertops then we'll get rid of ceramic tile 356 00:30:06,720 --> 00:30:08,800 then we'll 357 00:30:08,800 --> 00:30:12,320 You know put fiberglass insulation instead of spray foam or whatever it is 358 00:30:12,320 --> 00:30:15,640 All of these other pieces to the interior of the structure 359 00:30:15,640 --> 00:30:18,800 May get compromised 360 00:30:18,800 --> 00:30:25,540 So city will not accept some standard development as a result of getting $20,000 per single-family home 361 00:30:25,540 --> 00:30:28,120 That that's not necessarily going to help us 362 00:30:28,120 --> 00:30:31,840 Residential is a losing business for any municipality 363 00:30:31,840 --> 00:30:34,640 Residential subdivisions do not make money 364 00:30:34,640 --> 00:30:39,200 Even if we were to get $20,000 per home, it's still a losing business 365 00:30:39,920 --> 00:30:47,920 It's commercial. It's multifamily those those ultimately provide more tax base and again help for sustainability 366 00:30:47,920 --> 00:30:56,620 So not not a risk again. I see a need to increase the fees the max scares me for that reason 367 00:30:56,620 --> 00:31:02,560 Well, and if I could add to that and this is only one seat, so there's water 368 00:31:02,560 --> 00:31:08,460 There's wastewater impact fees that come into play. There's the park fees that are added on top of that 369 00:31:08,480 --> 00:31:13,240 And then and those are in addition and we're cost. We're cost recovery 370 00:31:13,240 --> 00:31:17,740 So we have some of the highest if not the highest fees in Metroplex 371 00:31:17,740 --> 00:31:27,240 And that's part of the conversation on the six is to be able to share all the current fees and 372 00:31:27,240 --> 00:31:32,280 What our wastewater is going through an impact fee update - it's gonna be to the later part of 2023 373 00:31:32,280 --> 00:31:35,380 But just to be able to show here all the fees currently 374 00:31:36,160 --> 00:31:40,920 Being assessed. Yeah. No, I really appreciate that and and I know there are 375 00:31:40,920 --> 00:31:46,840 things to look at from a surrounding community perspective, especially with development ETJ, etc 376 00:31:46,840 --> 00:31:50,840 My 377 00:31:50,840 --> 00:31:53,000 Impression of this data is just that 378 00:31:53,000 --> 00:31:59,960 we're starting to better understand how much different developments cost to serve and 379 00:31:59,960 --> 00:32:05,280 It's a bitter pill to swallow that. Oh wow. This costs a lot of money 380 00:32:06,160 --> 00:32:08,280 and for decades we've been 381 00:32:08,280 --> 00:32:12,160 Essentially subsidizing that type of 382 00:32:12,160 --> 00:32:18,720 With tax base from the rest of the city and I don't know that that is something 383 00:32:18,720 --> 00:32:21,800 That is beneficial 384 00:32:21,800 --> 00:32:24,400 Denton as a whole so I think 385 00:32:24,400 --> 00:32:27,160 similar to Jordan 386 00:32:27,160 --> 00:32:29,160 Something as close to a hundred percent 387 00:32:29,160 --> 00:32:31,400 Would be my direction 388 00:32:31,400 --> 00:32:34,080 And I would prefer that it be 389 00:32:34,240 --> 00:32:36,240 couched in the terms of 390 00:32:36,240 --> 00:32:38,720 Here's the cost 391 00:32:38,720 --> 00:32:43,880 And if we want to have a discussion here's how much we want to subsidize that and that's what it would do to our debt service 392 00:32:43,880 --> 00:32:45,880 Tax rate over the next 10 years 393 00:32:45,880 --> 00:32:48,240 essentially 394 00:32:48,240 --> 00:33:00,320 I'll just mention as well that the requirement for this body is to provide written commerce council five days before the hearing 395 00:33:00,880 --> 00:33:04,420 But that doesn't mean that multiple rounds of comments 396 00:33:04,420 --> 00:33:12,240 Okay, and I guess just a fun finish out so I don't keep 397 00:33:12,240 --> 00:33:15,780 I would say the 398 00:33:15,780 --> 00:33:21,120 as far as the service areas, I appreciate that discussion. I'm glad that the 399 00:33:21,120 --> 00:33:24,800 Redevelopment clause is in the current 400 00:33:26,040 --> 00:33:33,480 Current the ordinance was not aware of that. I think it still does behoove us to look into the 401 00:33:33,480 --> 00:33:39,760 Requests that the cake had in 2016 of looking at some overlay options 402 00:33:39,760 --> 00:33:47,880 Especially if council can stomach, you know charging what it costs to this development 403 00:33:47,880 --> 00:33:50,900 Because I think that that's you know 404 00:33:51,920 --> 00:33:58,160 If that fees are can be a lot of money and therefore they're a big knob to be able to turn to tweak 405 00:33:58,160 --> 00:34:01,400 The style of development the area of development 406 00:34:01,400 --> 00:34:06,560 What you want to what council wants it to bring to the community etc, etc? 407 00:34:06,560 --> 00:34:11,360 That they can have more of an economic 408 00:34:11,360 --> 00:34:15,400 Than many of the other tools that we have just by their nature 409 00:34:15,400 --> 00:34:19,160 So I think it's worth moving forward with that 410 00:34:19,880 --> 00:34:24,880 I think maybe not in this round, but in the next round. I hope we 411 00:34:24,880 --> 00:34:28,640 Consider other ways of 412 00:34:28,640 --> 00:34:35,920 Chopping up the service areas just to make sure we understand which directions of outward growth are more 413 00:34:35,920 --> 00:34:44,120 Fiscally supportive and which ones are more of a challenge from a debt service perspective in the future. I 414 00:34:44,120 --> 00:34:49,640 Mean, I think you know, I was looking at Fort Worth, right they have 415 00:34:49,920 --> 00:34:53,520 a whole lot of service areas they've got three and a half times as much land area, but they have 416 00:34:53,520 --> 00:34:56,960 You know six times as many service areas as we do 417 00:34:56,960 --> 00:35:04,480 And they have a central five or six near their core that they they don't charge any for that area, right? 418 00:35:04,480 --> 00:35:07,320 But when you look at the calculations, it's already a whole lot lower 419 00:35:07,320 --> 00:35:10,000 per per unit 420 00:35:10,000 --> 00:35:12,120 and I think that just I 421 00:35:12,120 --> 00:35:16,520 Recognize it's hard to change streams 422 00:35:19,280 --> 00:35:26,040 But having an understanding of what do we want to learn from calculating the impact fees in the future 423 00:35:26,040 --> 00:35:29,960 They may lead to some good discussion 424 00:35:29,960 --> 00:35:32,640 and then lastly the 425 00:35:32,640 --> 00:35:39,920 The thing I would say about you know, how high do we set when we set the 20% level right that was in 426 00:35:39,920 --> 00:35:48,120 2015 was adopted in 16 and as we saw we're only we're less than half of 427 00:35:48,840 --> 00:35:55,200 What the inflation would come back up to now, right and and there was low inflation for a lot long period at that time 428 00:35:55,200 --> 00:35:58,840 it was just high construction inflation and other things and so 429 00:35:58,840 --> 00:36:04,480 My concern with even going as low as 50 is that that's 50 day one 430 00:36:04,480 --> 00:36:08,040 But then what about three years from now when? 431 00:36:08,040 --> 00:36:11,880 Inflation continues to go it doesn't seem like it's slowing down at all 432 00:36:11,880 --> 00:36:14,680 right 433 00:36:14,680 --> 00:36:17,320 It seems like 434 00:36:17,800 --> 00:36:24,320 That might be, you know 50% now and then 20% in four or five years is my word 435 00:36:24,320 --> 00:36:35,440 Yes, so a couple comments I mean 436 00:36:35,440 --> 00:36:41,200 We could go a hundred percent in in my brain thinking that we could get that done. I mean, I 437 00:36:41,200 --> 00:36:44,880 Absolutely understand where you are with that 438 00:36:46,640 --> 00:36:50,480 From a single-family home perspective as Scott mentioned some of those concerns 439 00:36:50,480 --> 00:36:56,280 For sure, but also pricing, you know, we talked about all the time. We don't have affordable house 440 00:36:56,280 --> 00:37:01,320 We you know, nobody can afford a house somebody can afford house that will impact the price of a house 441 00:37:01,320 --> 00:37:04,280 It just absolutely will it'll it will 442 00:37:04,280 --> 00:37:06,920 Impact it greatly 443 00:37:06,920 --> 00:37:14,640 So it is something that I think we have to weigh very carefully because this is just one thing we're discussing 444 00:37:14,640 --> 00:37:18,360 But you know, we can't say this and then on the other hand say well 445 00:37:18,360 --> 00:37:25,240 Well housing prices are ridiculous and and we can't so, you know, I mean, it's it's definitely something that has to be looked at 446 00:37:25,240 --> 00:37:29,520 As well, but I think with everything that's being said 447 00:37:29,520 --> 00:37:35,520 We need to get this I mean, I think that's just there's there's 448 00:37:35,520 --> 00:37:41,920 It just has to and so I think the reason I threw out the 50 was because I thought that might be doable 449 00:37:41,960 --> 00:37:46,720 To go from where we're at. Um, and at least get something done 450 00:37:46,720 --> 00:37:53,000 But I mean, I please take all of that discussion back to council. Honestly, um, I think 451 00:37:53,000 --> 00:37:59,720 Collectively we're in agreement that the percentage has to move forward. I mean, it's silly that yeah, we're sitting here at 452 00:37:59,720 --> 00:38:05,280 Pointed out 20% and just to catch up with kind of where prices are right now 453 00:38:05,280 --> 00:38:10,840 It doesn't make any sense. We're not getting anywhere done with if it's called an impact 454 00:38:11,280 --> 00:38:13,280 we should be 455 00:38:13,280 --> 00:38:18,960 making strides to improve the impact and all we're doing here is just like 456 00:38:18,960 --> 00:38:21,720 We're not getting ahead. We're not 457 00:38:21,720 --> 00:38:25,640 at all, so it's almost kind of a I 458 00:38:25,640 --> 00:38:28,280 mean 459 00:38:28,280 --> 00:38:30,600 It's kind of a waste. I mean, we're just not 460 00:38:30,600 --> 00:38:37,360 We're just not keeping up. So we're just always playing catch-up always playing catch-up and that just doesn't make any sense 461 00:38:37,360 --> 00:38:42,760 I mean if we're calling an impact for you, then it should have an impact on the city and it doesn't when you look at it 462 00:38:42,760 --> 00:38:44,240 like that 463 00:38:44,240 --> 00:38:46,080 so 464 00:38:46,080 --> 00:38:50,000 I'm not sure exactly where the percentage is, you know, I mean 465 00:38:50,000 --> 00:38:56,880 Obviously I'd be good discussion to hear where council is on setting that policy 466 00:38:56,880 --> 00:39:00,960 It just 467 00:39:00,960 --> 00:39:04,600 It just needs to be higher than what it is and if we could yeah 468 00:39:04,600 --> 00:39:09,640 I mean to me if we couldn't I'd be happy if we could meet at a 50% if you just like look 469 00:39:09,640 --> 00:39:12,160 That's at least 470 00:39:12,160 --> 00:39:14,400 As you put it growth paying 471 00:39:14,400 --> 00:39:20,560 No, the growth paying for growth the equal partnership kind of thing. So yes, we have responsibility city to 472 00:39:20,560 --> 00:39:22,920 to 473 00:39:22,920 --> 00:39:24,800 to maintain and 474 00:39:24,800 --> 00:39:30,920 Improve and all of this as we collect money on development because obviously the city brings in money from as we develop 475 00:39:31,160 --> 00:39:36,800 But also, I mean there is a cost so that's that's kind of where I like that 476 00:39:36,800 --> 00:39:44,260 If it could go higher than that, but I just don't know that 477 00:39:44,260 --> 00:39:53,640 Especially where we're at and especially for what the impact the negative impact that it could have with regard to 478 00:39:56,680 --> 00:40:02,200 It's not shown as well on this slide only showing the single family on here we do have 479 00:40:02,200 --> 00:40:05,200 existing 480 00:40:05,200 --> 00:40:08,840 Non-residential uses so that's something that 481 00:40:08,840 --> 00:40:16,960 City leadership that you could choose to maintain that you can choose to if the single family or the residential rate goes 482 00:40:16,960 --> 00:40:19,160 much higher you could choose to 483 00:40:19,160 --> 00:40:24,400 Extend a even bigger discount to non-residential if that's something that you want to encourage 484 00:40:24,720 --> 00:40:32,160 So there there are lots of options in ways to tackle it to encourage the right kind of development that the city wants 485 00:40:32,160 --> 00:40:34,880 Get the right kind of projects built 486 00:40:34,880 --> 00:40:41,400 There's something to remind you of because in a way we've kind of centralized the conversation on single family, but there's 487 00:40:41,400 --> 00:40:49,580 Yeah, it's also easy to think of the cost per home 488 00:40:53,440 --> 00:40:58,880 And you mentioned earlier but talk about service units and they're being like 50 or something different 489 00:40:58,880 --> 00:41:04,560 Types I guess it would be of how you calculate. So you just so when it felt and comes in 490 00:41:04,560 --> 00:41:06,840 You just put them basically into a service unit category 491 00:41:06,840 --> 00:41:09,480 Yes, let me go back to that 492 00:41:09,480 --> 00:41:15,080 That slide here so these two numbers four point six one and nine point six 493 00:41:15,080 --> 00:41:20,680 There's a number like that in the report in a table for all fifty of those 494 00:41:21,120 --> 00:41:24,560 That numbers are exact, but all those line uses that are that are in that tape 495 00:41:24,560 --> 00:41:29,560 Yeah, and so it's split up into different categories even industrial residential 496 00:41:29,560 --> 00:41:36,160 Retail medical educational all those different categories are 497 00:41:36,160 --> 00:41:40,000 Yeah, there's some place for everyone to land that yes 498 00:41:48,480 --> 00:41:55,360 Thank you appreciate your comments, I think our role is just to give 499 00:41:55,360 --> 00:41:58,440 council an impression of 500 00:41:58,440 --> 00:42:05,380 What we think as we see development moving toward the city and some other action because of 501 00:42:05,380 --> 00:42:07,760 broader circumstances 502 00:42:07,760 --> 00:42:11,120 Certainly understand that I would just say that when we talk about 503 00:42:11,120 --> 00:42:14,560 I 504 00:42:14,560 --> 00:42:16,560 don't think a 505 00:42:17,160 --> 00:42:19,160 detached single family home 506 00:42:19,160 --> 00:42:22,960 And so by 507 00:42:22,960 --> 00:42:28,320 By trying to reduce an impact be because of a single family home impact charge 508 00:42:28,320 --> 00:42:31,700 Really what we're trying to do is make the you know 509 00:42:31,700 --> 00:42:36,560 Call it like the third queen tile of the housing market cheaper, but 510 00:42:41,400 --> 00:42:51,120 Some people who are paying rent are essentially paying property taxes to pass through and there's no homestead exception 511 00:42:51,120 --> 00:42:54,200 there's none of these other benefits that they get and so I 512 00:42:54,200 --> 00:42:57,040 Think we just have to be careful when we talk about 513 00:42:57,040 --> 00:43:03,200 Affordable housing and what does this impact you do because by lowering this impact fee we're actually raising the tax pressure 514 00:43:03,200 --> 00:43:07,640 lowest quintile most affordable housing that our city currently has 515 00:43:08,720 --> 00:43:17,200 Sure, it absolutely does and I think that's the affordable housing concept is complicated because it means something different to everyone 516 00:43:17,200 --> 00:43:19,720 so 517 00:43:19,720 --> 00:43:24,040 You know keeping single family housing prices in a certain way is 518 00:43:24,040 --> 00:43:28,520 Still in that discussion and I absolutely hear 100% what you're saying 519 00:43:28,520 --> 00:43:35,040 But it it it does also mean that as well. It's just it's a very 520 00:43:35,040 --> 00:43:38,400 Complicated term 521 00:43:39,120 --> 00:43:45,640 For sure and I guess also I don't want to get into the leaves because I don't think we're posted for it but 522 00:43:45,640 --> 00:43:48,840 part of my 523 00:43:48,840 --> 00:43:50,840 direction to go forward with an 524 00:43:50,840 --> 00:43:54,240 Infill ordinance is because that existing, you know 525 00:43:54,240 --> 00:43:57,400 No more than tax kind of handles the redevelopment aspect 526 00:43:57,400 --> 00:44:02,620 But I don't think it really handles the infill development aspect of a big lot for instance 527 00:44:02,620 --> 00:44:07,880 and and so I think that that goes to some of the things you're talking about about different ways of 528 00:44:08,720 --> 00:44:15,320 Taking certain land uses or certain development styles to incentivize what council thinks we need in certain areas 529 00:44:15,320 --> 00:44:25,660 Do you think from else there are there any no just like Pete mentioned 530 00:44:25,660 --> 00:44:30,520 Written comment is what is required today. You're gonna want to see the final document 531 00:44:30,520 --> 00:44:34,560 So we're working through getting all of staff's comments completed 532 00:44:34,560 --> 00:44:38,240 And we got an updated version of the report 533 00:44:38,720 --> 00:44:46,920 Late last week. So working through getting all the city's comments addressed and then wanting to take into consideration anything that comes from council tomorrow 534 00:44:46,920 --> 00:44:52,880 So that that document can be finalized and then like I mentioned we anticipate 535 00:44:52,880 --> 00:44:56,120 coming back to council on December 6 and 536 00:44:56,120 --> 00:45:03,360 If there's a need to have any additional conversations with the CIA see well definitely 537 00:45:03,360 --> 00:45:08,080 Of course work with Tina and her team to make sure 538 00:45:09,680 --> 00:45:15,120 Those meetings, but I think from where we stand today and the information we've provided to you 539 00:45:15,120 --> 00:45:21,580 We kind of have an overall understanding of where your direction is and then just making sure that you get copies of those 540 00:45:21,580 --> 00:45:27,360 Documents those reports and you have an opportunity to give us that written comment back by state law to make sure we 541 00:45:27,360 --> 00:45:30,020 Take care of that consideration. So 542 00:45:30,020 --> 00:45:38,080 One other additional thing I think as I was looking at surrounding communities until you looked at Fort Worth and how they had it 543 00:45:39,120 --> 00:45:42,200 I don't remember if it's Kim Lee Horn who's assisting them right now. Yes 544 00:45:42,200 --> 00:45:49,660 My understanding is they're moving forward with an 80% fee recommendation to council. I don't know if that's gone through the process yet 545 00:45:49,660 --> 00:45:56,280 But just to level set what the other people are doing. It's one thing to compare to other communities who have like us haven't 546 00:45:56,280 --> 00:46:03,780 Haven't modified our ordinances in several years, right due to and the growth has changed so much since 2015 547 00:46:04,600 --> 00:46:09,620 But it would be who best to kind of understand. Well the people who are moving forward now like us 548 00:46:09,620 --> 00:46:11,620 This is where they're standing. So 549 00:46:11,620 --> 00:46:14,960 And Pete has that level of information 550 00:46:14,960 --> 00:46:20,800 they're doing the impact these studies for roadway for quite a few different cities throughout the Metroplex and 551 00:46:20,800 --> 00:46:23,580 Have provided us information on Fort Worth 552 00:46:23,580 --> 00:46:26,280 Frisco fly around 553 00:46:26,280 --> 00:46:30,680 Salina there's several different cities where they have that detailed information. So 554 00:46:31,560 --> 00:46:37,040 And and I guess one thing I'd caution you is it's not all an apples-and-apples comparison 555 00:46:37,040 --> 00:46:39,320 I think Pete would explain that to you, too 556 00:46:39,320 --> 00:46:46,140 But in general if you were to make a general statement, I think that you could see what we're presenting before you today 557 00:46:46,140 --> 00:46:51,820 You're starting to see that movement of exactly which I'll discuss is moving the needle 558 00:46:51,820 --> 00:46:55,060 further to the max be 559 00:46:55,720 --> 00:47:03,280 Not being as a low lower fee as you see today. I don't know you can explain that better than I did. Yeah, I think was 560 00:47:03,280 --> 00:47:11,080 Especially was thinking about four words. They are looking at going towards an 8% that discussion is 561 00:47:11,080 --> 00:47:25,600 And I was also going to mention about the inner city service areas down there they started as fee service areas 562 00:47:25,600 --> 00:47:29,760 But as infrastructure got built out and started less and less 563 00:47:29,760 --> 00:47:34,200 We saw the key drop down in the calculation that then the policy decision was made 564 00:47:34,200 --> 00:47:38,600 So that was that was what drove it was the the fee coming down and seeing okay 565 00:47:38,600 --> 00:47:40,880 There's not as much sense to keep it in here right now 566 00:47:40,880 --> 00:47:47,340 We're still seeing a lot of infrastructure need a lot of growth in like service area ease where most of downtown then is 567 00:47:47,340 --> 00:47:49,320 so that's 568 00:47:49,320 --> 00:47:53,600 That would be one thing to consider when we're talking about do we drop the fee in certain years? 569 00:47:53,600 --> 00:47:57,880 We change it up and we both we want to watch over time as if you go up or down 570 00:47:57,880 --> 00:48:00,880 In respect of service area 571 00:48:00,880 --> 00:48:08,020 I'm sure just that I guess a question for me or maybe a statement 572 00:48:08,020 --> 00:48:17,440 So the the purpose is to get written comment. I don't know if the minutes suffice for those written comments 573 00:48:17,440 --> 00:48:23,360 So if this is the if this is the committee, there are several members missing 574 00:48:23,360 --> 00:48:28,440 So it's not going to be individual statements. It will be really kind of 575 00:48:28,440 --> 00:48:31,440 The minutes from this meeting to state 576 00:48:31,440 --> 00:48:36,760 They met this was the conversation and Hillary you can correct me if I'm wrong in that 577 00:48:36,760 --> 00:48:46,700 On the schedule we don't have another meeting so for the committee to make recommendation or 578 00:48:47,600 --> 00:48:53,800 Provide written statement. Is it the members of or is it the committee that is? 579 00:48:53,800 --> 00:49:02,380 So it's actually the the committee that makes the recommendation and the written statement and so we've received their feedback 580 00:49:02,380 --> 00:49:06,640 We can take the minutes to into consideration also as a part of the comment 581 00:49:06,640 --> 00:49:12,540 But we actually want to get the full-fledged report in front of them that they can then submit comment back just through email 582 00:49:12,540 --> 00:49:17,020 To have that information if they have any additional written comments they would like to provide 583 00:49:17,760 --> 00:49:22,280 So you're picturing presenting like a synthesis of the individual comments or something 584 00:49:22,280 --> 00:49:25,000 Pete 585 00:49:25,000 --> 00:49:27,600 Yeah, I think if we've got you know 586 00:49:27,600 --> 00:49:32,140 Percentage rates all across the board. I think what we have to separate out two things 587 00:49:32,140 --> 00:49:35,260 One is the the study the so the CIP and language assumptions 588 00:49:35,260 --> 00:49:42,720 There needs to be a comment specifically on whether that's you know recommended for approval and then separate that out from the what we want 589 00:49:42,720 --> 00:49:44,720 to collect moving forward so if there is a 590 00:49:44,720 --> 00:49:46,880 wide range across the board of 591 00:49:47,480 --> 00:49:53,640 You know 20 percent to 80 percent or 20 percent to 100 percent. We would probably need some type of synthesis and 592 00:49:53,640 --> 00:49:57,520 You know the CAC recommends increasing 593 00:49:57,520 --> 00:50:17,120 So would that be individual comments though or one collective comment from the committee was that your question really 594 00:50:17,520 --> 00:50:22,160 Is I don't think we can have a bunch of individual comments if it's the committee that's me, right? 595 00:50:22,160 --> 00:50:26,880 Well, the minutes can reflect so-and-so said something, right? 596 00:50:26,880 --> 00:50:32,280 But the overall comment will be the committee said correct, you know a whatever 597 00:50:32,280 --> 00:50:38,480 Majority recommendation whatever and that's where the synthesis of the the comment would be received 598 00:50:38,480 --> 00:50:42,460 And then I want to make sure you get a copy of the report in front of you 599 00:50:42,460 --> 00:50:45,280 So you have an opportunity to make comments on that? 600 00:50:45,960 --> 00:50:52,480 And I guess because we've discussed it if you want to as a part of the minutes going to discuss 601 00:50:52,480 --> 00:50:54,680 If you have any questions, what is that? 602 00:50:54,680 --> 00:50:56,880 What now? Oh, yeah 603 00:50:56,880 --> 00:50:59,720 Sorry 604 00:51:15,320 --> 00:51:20,560 One-twenty-seven for life reform. What was the first you said two approvals? What was the first one? 605 00:51:20,560 --> 00:51:27,200 So the first one is the the study itself so the technical 606 00:51:27,200 --> 00:51:31,640 Components of the study to land use stuff and all the other yeah, why use the CFP? 607 00:51:31,640 --> 00:51:36,920 And then the second part is the policy side. So it's technical and policy. Okay 608 00:51:36,920 --> 00:51:43,360 We don't want to just focus on the policy because they need to 609 00:51:44,240 --> 00:51:47,240 Make comment on whether the study is accepted or 610 00:51:47,240 --> 00:51:59,680 So just 611 00:51:59,680 --> 00:52:01,680 Follow up on kind of the conversation 612 00:52:01,680 --> 00:52:08,800 Overall the minutes that we receive kind of give us overall direction. We understand what those comments are that we've received 613 00:52:08,800 --> 00:52:13,320 We also want to get a copy of the report in front of you once it's ready for your viewing 614 00:52:13,600 --> 00:52:17,760 Which we hope is going to be very soon. We plan to present and get a follow-up to council 615 00:52:17,760 --> 00:52:21,880 We imagine there's going to be a follow-up and we are currently on the schedule for December 6 616 00:52:21,880 --> 00:52:26,280 So that report should be ready for that December 6th meeting 617 00:52:26,280 --> 00:52:32,240 So I think as far as kind of a generalist statement the committee has made kind of a general statement of where they'd like to head 618 00:52:32,240 --> 00:52:38,120 The only thing I was going to add additionally is if you'd like for it to be a reflection of the the map and that's what Pete 619 00:52:38,120 --> 00:52:39,560 was just explaining 620 00:52:39,560 --> 00:52:47,680 to Ron was is that we would like an overall direction if you're comfortable with the land use assumptions are used being in concert with 621 00:52:47,680 --> 00:52:54,280 What was a part of the 20/40 comprehensive plan and then also making sure that you're comfortable with kind of the overall CIP 622 00:52:54,280 --> 00:52:59,360 Plan that was developed and so this will also be a part of the report 623 00:52:59,360 --> 00:53:02,840 But I don't know if you would like to add anything Pete. No, I think yeah 624 00:53:02,840 --> 00:53:08,360 The report will have all the maps have a project listed out the cost for each project and nothing you did 625 00:53:09,880 --> 00:53:16,760 The level until you go into is up to you, but it's gonna all be in there to review the technical components of it 626 00:53:16,760 --> 00:53:19,400 and if it's the 627 00:53:19,400 --> 00:53:26,880 The desire of the committee to have to get together again so that you can give us your feedback and we can collect notes 628 00:53:26,880 --> 00:53:33,560 We can also work that into the calendar if that's something that you would prefer versus emailing comments, etc 629 00:53:33,560 --> 00:53:39,240 We we by law have met our requirements of having this meeting and discussing these things with you 630 00:53:39,240 --> 00:53:45,120 but we have to receive, you know that written comment and as mentioned, it's either synthesizing it through a set of minutes and 631 00:53:45,120 --> 00:53:54,140 Receiving it from you individually, etc. We would still synthesize it as you're representing the committee, right? It would not be an individual 632 00:53:54,140 --> 00:54:00,200 Commissioner for it's at X, right? So, you know, that's kind of your decision 633 00:54:00,200 --> 00:54:06,560 We'll get a better feel tomorrow after we go through council. And then like I said, we imagine follow up with them on the six 634 00:54:07,360 --> 00:54:12,960 And obviously if once you receive the report, you feel like it would be best for us to get back together 635 00:54:12,960 --> 00:54:18,560 We don't have an issue with that. Your planning and zoning meeting is not until the 14th 636 00:54:18,560 --> 00:54:23,520 which is after when we plan to go to council, but still prior to 637 00:54:23,520 --> 00:54:26,400 the anticipated public hearing 638 00:54:26,400 --> 00:54:32,000 Yeah, I guess I'll just make a suggestion if this is 639 00:54:33,720 --> 00:54:40,980 Satisfies the legal needs for the committee. I think there's like a certain number of days before the public hearing that we have to have our 640 00:54:40,980 --> 00:54:43,720 final feedback 641 00:54:43,720 --> 00:54:48,000 And so that I think would be on this January 10th 642 00:54:48,000 --> 00:54:50,720 days, right and so 643 00:54:50,720 --> 00:54:55,480 Certainly, I want to make sure other members who maybe aren't even here get some input 644 00:54:55,480 --> 00:55:03,400 And so I wonder if it would work to you know finalize a report get that to everybody have some email 645 00:55:04,720 --> 00:55:11,520 Responses you kind of have a general feel from this committee and from some emails to direct the the general 646 00:55:11,520 --> 00:55:17,000 Direction to council when you have discussions on the 6th, but then maybe on our meeting on the 14th 647 00:55:17,000 --> 00:55:23,720 We could have a small work session where you collect all that stuff into an official statement 648 00:55:23,720 --> 00:55:30,600 Sure, we all just kind of give direction because we agree. That's our final statement at that time. Does that seem like it works? 649 00:55:33,520 --> 00:55:37,080 Company I guess if everything is prepared and 650 00:55:37,080 --> 00:55:45,120 Yeah, there should be no reason why the reports not finalized and we've already will have reset received two different council 651 00:55:45,120 --> 00:55:49,200 conversations we anticipate at least one if not two so 652 00:55:49,200 --> 00:55:51,920 if it works for the 653 00:55:51,920 --> 00:55:54,800 Commission committee 654 00:55:54,800 --> 00:55:58,760 To to meet in advance of the 14th. That's what Tina and I were discussing 655 00:55:58,760 --> 00:56:03,880 I was looking to see when the next meeting was so Commissioner fruit you're saying so make so like that hour before meet as 656 00:56:03,880 --> 00:56:07,120 The CIA say is what you mean perhaps. I I think it's a good idea 657 00:56:07,120 --> 00:56:14,960 If anybody has any other needs then I I'd be fine with meeting before there 658 00:56:14,960 --> 00:56:17,600 but I 659 00:56:17,600 --> 00:56:23,320 Think the reason that maybe Commissioner Smith and myself had a desire to try to convene before 660 00:56:23,320 --> 00:56:27,500 The council discussions kick off tomorrow was just to make sure staff understood 661 00:56:27,840 --> 00:56:32,120 You know what we're thinking as a body. Oh wait for you. So yeah 662 00:56:32,120 --> 00:56:38,480 Just a thought it in trying to do all that and I make an assumption here and I may have missed something 663 00:56:38,480 --> 00:56:41,320 Are we going to try to have this as a? 664 00:56:41,320 --> 00:56:43,560 meeting 665 00:56:43,560 --> 00:56:45,560 tied to a P&Z meeting 666 00:56:45,560 --> 00:56:49,160 So P&Z and then a work session so mid-December 667 00:56:49,160 --> 00:56:55,280 Is that where you're at December 14th is the only planning zoning meeting of the commission in December? 668 00:56:55,280 --> 00:57:02,160 So that would meet the intent of meeting prior to the January 10th meeting and they would already be convening for the planning and zoning 669 00:57:02,160 --> 00:57:07,460 Commission, so I don't mind if we're a part of the work session at five o'clock or if we and we 670 00:57:07,460 --> 00:57:13,280 Need at four o'clock start in advance because we have that we have been yeah 671 00:57:13,280 --> 00:57:20,320 Just for four o'clock meeting just know that you may not have one of the one of the members because he doesn't get there until 672 00:57:20,320 --> 00:57:22,640 505 so 673 00:57:23,800 --> 00:57:28,520 And I guess depend honestly depending on what our agenda looks like for that too 674 00:57:28,520 --> 00:57:33,640 We we we could do a 505 and then do a 675 00:57:33,640 --> 00:57:39,360 Yeah, and have that done in an hour and then if it's a small job 676 00:57:39,360 --> 00:57:46,140 So we can play with that but maybe let's have that as kind of what we would want to do is me sure as the CIA see 677 00:57:46,140 --> 00:57:53,520 Before that meeting at some point. No, I think that makes sense and we can make sure tomorrow when Pete's making the presentation 678 00:57:53,960 --> 00:57:57,520 To council to mention that we're going to go ahead and add the December 14th 679 00:57:57,520 --> 00:58:02,920 That'll give an opportunity for the report to be reviewed and for us to have a discussion with you based on council feedback 680 00:58:02,920 --> 00:58:06,440 Not an issue with meeting on the 14th. That's no problem 681 00:58:06,440 --> 00:58:13,520 And then we can take that comment collectively as a part of another step of the written comments. Sure. Yeah problems 682 00:58:13,520 --> 00:58:20,720 Well, and we'll just work on schedule based on agenda and so a problem perfect. Thank you 683 00:58:21,840 --> 00:58:23,840 anything else 684 00:58:23,840 --> 00:58:26,000 Awesome including items 685 00:58:26,000 --> 00:58:32,760 Okay. Well with that, thank you everyone. I'll adjourn us at 1 35 p.m. Thank you and bye