WEBVTT 00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:04.480 Okay, excellent. Yes, that cameras are on the top ones. Okay, perfect 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 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 00:00:18.660 --> 00:00:21.560 1236 p.m 00:00:21.560 --> 00:00:24.180 For the record, we do not have commissioners Cole 00:00:24.180 --> 00:00:26.900 Anderson or Smith for this meeting 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 00:00:33.320 --> 00:00:36.160 Please 00:00:36.160 --> 00:00:38.840 Thank you 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 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 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 00:00:57.160 --> 00:01:02.320 Substantive information that I know you're interested and look forward to receiving your feedback 00:01:02.320 --> 00:01:07.160 We will be going to counsel tomorrow with a similar presentation 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 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 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 00:01:24.600 --> 00:01:29.680 Yes, good introduction we will be all over the first little bit really quickly 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 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 00:01:42.600 --> 00:01:44.600 thoughts or questions on 00:01:44.600 --> 00:01:47.960 What the fees are gonna be what the collection rate is how? 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 00:01:58.480 --> 00:02:00.480 They're one-time fee 00:02:00.480 --> 00:02:02.480 the 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 00:02:08.640 --> 00:02:11.520 We're also going to touch a little bit more on service units today 00:02:11.520 --> 00:02:14.320 with roadway impact fees 00:02:14.320 --> 00:02:15.920 Because it's water waste water impact fees 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? 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 00:02:25.640 --> 00:02:30.760 Our service areas as a reminder we have five service areas in Denton 00:02:30.760 --> 00:02:34.680 We had numerous discussions the first time the roadway in fact 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 00:02:40.540 --> 00:02:43.040 How will all those serve the city? 00:02:43.040 --> 00:02:45.920 We can talk a bit more about that later. We look at the fees 00:02:45.920 --> 00:02:49.440 Again, and I get your thoughts and questions on that 00:02:51.200 --> 00:02:54.560 Here's a service area map again 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 00:03:00.480 --> 00:03:06.400 Our land use assumptions again, we're based off the confidence of plans of that data 00:03:06.400 --> 00:03:13.220 Split it out into the four different categories residential basic service and retail 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 00:03:20.360 --> 00:03:22.360 Look at those numbers already 00:03:22.360 --> 00:03:23.960 this 00:03:23.960 --> 00:03:25.640 reflects a 00:03:25.640 --> 00:03:27.640 fair accurate 00:03:27.640 --> 00:03:29.920 estimate of the next ten years 00:03:29.920 --> 00:03:37.520 The capital improvements plan as we've shown before is based off of the repair plan 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 00:03:45.120 --> 00:03:47.360 Those were added to the impact BCIP 00:03:50.200 --> 00:03:52.200 Let's see 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 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 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 00:04:17.400 --> 00:04:22.240 So that full cost for all those roads isn't the cost that's being 00:04:22.240 --> 00:04:24.960 assessed 00:04:24.960 --> 00:04:30.760 Again this is an example of the service area be impact BCIP 00:04:30.760 --> 00:04:33.280 We have the two 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 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 00:04:47.960 --> 00:04:50.840 So I'm going to dive into the service units like I said earlier 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 00:04:55.840 --> 00:05:00.580 Chapter 395 of Texas Local Government Code 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 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 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 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 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 00:05:32.560 --> 00:05:36.360 To show this can kind of a visual comparison 00:05:36.360 --> 00:05:40.480 According to our report a single family home during the p.m. 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 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 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 00:05:58.320 --> 00:06:01.760 Those two uses are and we have a list 00:06:01.760 --> 00:06:06.120 Roughly 50 uses in the report 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 00:06:13.760 --> 00:06:16.560 to assess the fees 00:06:16.560 --> 00:06:19.720 While we're talking about service units 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 00:06:26.960 --> 00:06:32.560 There was a good amount of discussion about how to encourage redevelopment in the downtown area 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 00:06:40.340 --> 00:06:42.000 but 00:06:42.000 --> 00:06:46.240 this policy decision was made and is included in the ordinance that I 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 00:06:54.520 --> 00:07:00.720 In order to be charged an impact fee so going back to our service units 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 00:07:50.640 --> 00:07:55.640 So this next slide I'm going to walk through how that calculation is done 00:07:55.640 --> 00:07:59.240 Kind of step-by-step 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 00:08:05.540 --> 00:08:07.520 the 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 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 00:08:18.640 --> 00:08:23.300 So if we have in the top row, that's our eligible capital improvement cost 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 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 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 00:08:43.740 --> 00:08:47.840 So that that's what gives us our maximum fee per vehicle mile 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 00:08:57.400 --> 00:08:59.400 That's what this red line is 00:08:59.400 --> 00:09:03.640 It's this it's the vehicle model cost multiplied by four point six one 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 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 00:09:16.560 --> 00:09:19.280 We were close to just under 00:09:19.280 --> 00:09:24.480 $10,000 a single-family home that could be assessed at the maximum 00:09:25.040 --> 00:09:29.080 In 2016 and what's being charged today is $2,000. So it's roughly 00:09:29.080 --> 00:09:34.600 On the citywide basis, it's roughly about 20% of what could be charged 00:09:34.600 --> 00:09:37.440 Don't move forward 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 00:09:44.320 --> 00:09:47.280 This is currently an estimate in draft forms. These numbers 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 00:09:54.160 --> 00:10:00.240 Pending comments. We are still receiving from staff and from from you and from council 00:10:00.240 --> 00:10:04.480 So I won't walk through the calculation again just to note that we have 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 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 00:10:18.680 --> 00:10:21.680 So with that in mind 00:10:22.000 --> 00:10:26.560 Just wanted to have a quick discussion about how roads are funded and where 00:10:26.560 --> 00:10:32.400 Which buckets all those funds come from and what role impact fees play in that? 00:10:32.400 --> 00:10:35.320 so this pie 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 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 00:10:48.200 --> 00:10:50.720 1.8 billion. That's why it's as high as it is 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 00:10:59.180 --> 00:11:04.200 Money that can be recovered in the future with impact fees at least in part 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 00:11:09.680 --> 00:11:14.880 That impact fees are can't go towards so the thing we really look at 00:11:14.880 --> 00:11:18.400 Is the the red and the green and the purple? 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 00:11:21.540 --> 00:11:24.360 Because we're doing the credit calculation 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 00:11:30.640 --> 00:11:35.840 City has not elected to do the 50% we do the credit calculation 00:11:35.840 --> 00:11:40.120 so if we were to if the city were to charge the full 00:11:40.120 --> 00:11:43.880 maximum accessible fee, this is how how much the 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 00:11:50.220 --> 00:11:53.560 that would be roughly 30% of the overall need of 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 00:12:00.240 --> 00:12:05.560 So if you look at something similar to what's being done today 00:12:05.560 --> 00:12:09.240 Which is about 20% of what could be assessed an impact piece 00:12:09.240 --> 00:12:13.600 As you can see that purple slice of the pie grows by quite a bit 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 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 00:12:25.720 --> 00:12:31.960 And if you were to look at doing basically a 50/50 00:12:31.960 --> 00:12:34.800 Partnership between the city and development 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 00:12:41.680 --> 00:12:43.680 The cost to fund the rest of the roads 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 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 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 00:13:08.240 --> 00:13:12.940 So just to just to start off where we're starting from is in 2016 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 00:13:21.460 --> 00:13:23.840 $10,000 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% 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 00:13:38.360 --> 00:13:39.840 25% discount 00:13:39.840 --> 00:13:42.960 an addition beyond that and the 00:13:42.960 --> 00:13:46.320 Industrial uses were capped at the warehouse rate 00:13:46.320 --> 00:13:49.840 So moving forward to our 2022 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 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 00:14:06.160 --> 00:14:10.600 So if we were to look at these three different options we put up here again 00:14:10.600 --> 00:14:16.400 This is up to what council wants to collect and if that different percentage 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? 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 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 00:14:38.880 --> 00:14:40.880 so that would roughly 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 00:14:47.520 --> 00:14:52.400 Of course, we also included the max here just to show if we were to 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 00:15:01.120 --> 00:15:04.280 And then we also included a 50% option in here 00:15:04.280 --> 00:15:07.080 with the intent to recognize 00:15:07.080 --> 00:15:13.120 What state law is trying to do and encourage a partnership between the city and development? 00:15:13.120 --> 00:15:15.520 So this is showing 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 00:15:20.700 --> 00:15:24.120 about eleven thousand dollars a single-family home or 00:15:24.120 --> 00:15:30.160 $2,400 at the upon model for those those three for that option 00:15:31.720 --> 00:15:33.720 I 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 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 00:15:44.800 --> 00:15:48.240 they're gonna see the same thing that you saw today as we 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 00:15:56.860 --> 00:15:59.640 we'll have a workshop with them in December and 00:16:00.400 --> 00:16:05.880 that public hearing will be advertised and that will be held on January 10th and 00:16:05.880 --> 00:16:08.440 Currently the plan is to hold 00:16:08.440 --> 00:16:13.320 the next City Council meeting to hold that meeting to actually adopt the 00:16:13.320 --> 00:16:17.280 Ordinance, so we'll do the study and one meeting and the ordinance 00:16:17.280 --> 00:16:24.480 So what what questions we have any slides we need to go back to 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 00:16:36.040 --> 00:16:44.080 Mostly I want to make sure I'm interpreting it correctly. Sorry. No problem. Yeah 00:16:44.080 --> 00:16:49.120 Are those numbers for residential dwelling units only 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 00:16:55.040 --> 00:17:00.560 Around 37,000 new units in the 20 year period and this is about 12,000 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 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 00:17:15.640 --> 00:17:18.520 We saw about 36 37,000 units like you said 00:17:18.520 --> 00:17:22.040 So when we're looking at what's going to happen in the next 10 years 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 00:17:28.000 --> 00:17:32.280 At about 18,000 in the next 10 years if you include 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 00:17:39.080 --> 00:17:41.080 That's what brought us down 00:17:41.080 --> 00:17:50.240 How did the developer come home? 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 00:17:55.080 --> 00:18:01.400 Would say in general, you know, they're wanting to receive the overall report 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 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 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 00:18:19.240 --> 00:18:24.160 You know, I think if there's a an option that the committee feels is 00:18:24.160 --> 00:18:28.060 More suited for them or one that they completely like would like to throw out 00:18:28.060 --> 00:18:30.560 That's something that we're interested in hearing from y'all today 00:18:30.560 --> 00:18:34.800 but in general, you know, we shared the presentation and 00:18:34.800 --> 00:18:38.120 The recording of meeting with lots of folks 00:18:38.120 --> 00:18:42.560 But you know probably the overall was you know a 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 00:18:50.300 --> 00:18:52.300 They think that's what we're going to be 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? 00:18:58.920 --> 00:19:02.120 So, you know, I felt like in general 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 00:19:10.840 --> 00:19:15.220 Just trying to make sure we educate and share the information. I will tell you too 00:19:15.220 --> 00:19:21.280 We assume and think we'll more than likely have a follow-up with council 00:19:21.280 --> 00:19:27.200 Just based on kind of bringing forward the overall study and their recommended fees 00:19:27.200 --> 00:19:29.920 And I think at that time 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 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 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 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 00:19:53.800 --> 00:19:56.880 but the the 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 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 00:20:10.840 --> 00:20:12.840 And so it's it's really a policy 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 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 00:20:24.840 --> 00:20:29.140 A lot of people are just asking kind of what the relationship was, you know 00:20:29.140 --> 00:20:32.320 There were questions asked about words that were shown on the mobility plan 00:20:33.160 --> 00:20:35.060 But are not a part of the impact fee 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 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 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 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 00:20:54.800 --> 00:20:57.960 You know that they're obviously on our mobility plan 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 00:21:02.400 --> 00:21:04.720 You know trying to be in lockstep with each other 00:21:04.720 --> 00:21:09.440 Are there any cities that collect the maximum? 00:21:09.440 --> 00:21:12.680 currently for roadway 00:21:12.680 --> 00:21:15.200 Flower Mountain does right now 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 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 00:21:26.800 --> 00:21:31.160 And so the maximum fees only, you know, a thousand two thousand a house or something 00:21:31.160 --> 00:21:33.520 but the maximum there there's 00:21:33.520 --> 00:21:39.440 In general the trend is going up and see these are wanting to collect more 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 00:21:43.900 --> 00:21:49.280 Fund roads and build roads for these people to drive on when that comes in 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 00:21:56.080 --> 00:21:58.080 that's before us and is happening and 00:21:59.280 --> 00:22:03.960 The difficulty we have with our runs out there that I would I would personally like 00:22:03.960 --> 00:22:08.360 It to not to go a little bit above the 20% that we're collecting now 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 00:22:14.440 --> 00:22:16.440 I just I mean I do 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 00:22:21.600 --> 00:22:27.520 just with with the state of our city the state of roads in our city and 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 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 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 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 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 00:23:02.720 --> 00:23:06.280 And you're only putting two million dollars to it or a 35 million dollar road 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 00:23:13.000 --> 00:23:15.000 So it's a fair statement 00:23:15.000 --> 00:23:20.240 You know, we're going to do whatever direction we receive but of course, you know 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 00:23:26.960 --> 00:23:30.080 Yeah, I'm just giving my thoughts just you know from this position 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 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 00:23:43.800 --> 00:23:50.600 In a lot of areas and clearly I mean we know what's already happening 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 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? 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 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 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 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 00:24:28.820 --> 00:24:32.680 We currently don't have a recommendation 00:24:32.680 --> 00:24:35.760 We we can express to you 00:24:35.760 --> 00:24:40.560 situations where we see just like I was talking about with current projects, but 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 00:24:48.360 --> 00:24:52.560 We would like to hear your feedback today as to kind of what y'all feel 00:24:52.560 --> 00:24:57.000 Pete's gonna make this same presentation tomorrow at council at 4 o'clock 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 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 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 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? 00:25:20.460 --> 00:25:23.680 So whatever your feedback is we'll gladly take that into consideration 00:25:23.680 --> 00:25:27.520 Well, I would like it to be as close to the maximum as possible, but 00:25:27.520 --> 00:25:32.040 Chair's point is more feasible and reasonable to council. I was 00:25:32.040 --> 00:25:40.680 And with these percentages these are it's not 20 50 or 100 it is 00:25:41.080 --> 00:25:43.160 Anywhere in in that slide, right? 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 00:25:49.560 --> 00:25:52.360 You know, they don't have to land on any of these numbers 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 00:26:00.360 --> 00:26:04.560 some sort of technical basis for why that percentage 00:26:04.560 --> 00:26:08.240 Makes sense and that's that's where we started from 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 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 00:26:18.400 --> 00:26:21.200 Maximum fee has ended up 00:26:21.200 --> 00:26:23.720 Mr. Prick. Thank you, Joe 00:26:23.720 --> 00:26:29.080 So I think my 00:26:29.080 --> 00:26:31.200 Direction is to go with a hundred percent 00:26:31.200 --> 00:26:34.520 And I want to explain a few things why 00:26:36.880 --> 00:26:41.520 You know if you look at our tax rate separated into O&M and 00:26:41.520 --> 00:26:44.600 And debt service over the last 10 or 15 years 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 00:26:51.420 --> 00:26:55.560 Make the full tax rate the council passes power, right? 00:26:55.560 --> 00:27:00.600 Our projections don't show us growth slowing down 00:27:00.600 --> 00:27:03.240 So in in my opinion 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 00:27:10.200 --> 00:27:12.480 That's the technical basis of your road cost 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 00:27:19.920 --> 00:27:23.260 People in developed areas may use that a lot less, right? 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? 00:27:28.760 --> 00:27:32.760 That's where that comes from my 00:27:33.280 --> 00:27:35.920 My biggest fear with impact fees 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 00:27:42.120 --> 00:27:46.440 but my fear in general with impact fees is that 00:27:46.440 --> 00:27:49.440 you set them forth and 00:27:49.440 --> 00:27:52.080 it becomes 00:27:52.080 --> 00:27:54.120 in some cases an 00:27:54.120 --> 00:27:57.000 incentive to 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 00:28:03.720 --> 00:28:06.340 You know, you need to build right and so you start 00:28:06.340 --> 00:28:10.760 Not that you actually make those decisions, but there is an incentive 00:28:10.760 --> 00:28:14.960 To accept development may not be 00:28:14.960 --> 00:28:20.880 100% in line with your comp plan in order to balance the books, right now 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? 00:28:27.760 --> 00:28:29.800 locally 00:28:29.800 --> 00:28:36.480 Maybe less than in other jurisdictions just because it's not as much. Are you understanding? 00:28:36.480 --> 00:28:42.600 I would say that I don't know that the city would accept any 00:28:42.600 --> 00:28:46.400 Inferior development as a result of the revenue 00:28:46.400 --> 00:28:49.280 but I will also 00:28:49.280 --> 00:28:51.840 counterbalance that the market drives this 00:28:51.840 --> 00:28:56.120 So the housing stock that we get in Denton 00:28:56.120 --> 00:29:02.880 Will have significantly more fees and the fees need to be increased. There's no question 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 00:29:10.720 --> 00:29:13.720 Don't recall what the number is 00:29:19.480 --> 00:29:21.480 So 00:29:21.480 --> 00:29:25.040 Twenty-two thousand 00:29:25.040 --> 00:29:27.640 Homes will still be built here 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 00:29:35.320 --> 00:29:40.960 in Aubrey or any of our neighboring communities because it's 00:29:40.960 --> 00:29:44.520 Imposed at the time of the building permit 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 00:29:50.680 --> 00:29:53.520 And I guess Margie would be able to speak to this better than me 00:29:53.520 --> 00:29:58.320 The cost of the consumer is how much is this per square foot? 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 00:30:06.720 --> 00:30:08.800 then we'll 00:30:08.800 --> 00:30:12.320 You know put fiberglass insulation instead of spray foam or whatever it is 00:30:12.320 --> 00:30:15.640 All of these other pieces to the interior of the structure 00:30:15.640 --> 00:30:18.800 May get compromised 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 00:30:25.540 --> 00:30:28.120 That that's not necessarily going to help us 00:30:28.120 --> 00:30:31.840 Residential is a losing business for any municipality 00:30:31.840 --> 00:30:34.640 Residential subdivisions do not make money 00:30:34.640 --> 00:30:39.200 Even if we were to get $20,000 per home, it's still a losing business 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 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 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 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 00:31:08.480 --> 00:31:13.240 And then and those are in addition and we're cost. We're cost recovery 00:31:13.240 --> 00:31:17.740 So we have some of the highest if not the highest fees in Metroplex 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 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 00:31:32.280 --> 00:31:35.380 But just to be able to show here all the fees currently 00:31:36.160 --> 00:31:40.920 Being assessed. Yeah. No, I really appreciate that and and I know there are 00:31:40.920 --> 00:31:46.840 things to look at from a surrounding community perspective, especially with development ETJ, etc 00:31:46.840 --> 00:31:50.840 My 00:31:50.840 --> 00:31:53.000 Impression of this data is just that 00:31:53.000 --> 00:31:59.960 we're starting to better understand how much different developments cost to serve and 00:31:59.960 --> 00:32:05.280 It's a bitter pill to swallow that. Oh wow. This costs a lot of money 00:32:06.160 --> 00:32:08.280 and for decades we've been 00:32:08.280 --> 00:32:12.160 Essentially subsidizing that type of 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 00:32:18.720 --> 00:32:21.800 That is beneficial 00:32:21.800 --> 00:32:24.400 Denton as a whole so I think 00:32:24.400 --> 00:32:27.160 similar to Jordan 00:32:27.160 --> 00:32:29.160 Something as close to a hundred percent 00:32:29.160 --> 00:32:31.400 Would be my direction 00:32:31.400 --> 00:32:34.080 And I would prefer that it be 00:32:34.240 --> 00:32:36.240 couched in the terms of 00:32:36.240 --> 00:32:38.720 Here's the cost 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 00:32:43.880 --> 00:32:45.880 Tax rate over the next 10 years 00:32:45.880 --> 00:32:48.240 essentially 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 00:33:00.880 --> 00:33:04.420 But that doesn't mean that multiple rounds of comments 00:33:04.420 --> 00:33:12.240 Okay, and I guess just a fun finish out so I don't keep 00:33:12.240 --> 00:33:15.780 I would say the 00:33:15.780 --> 00:33:21.120 as far as the service areas, I appreciate that discussion. I'm glad that the 00:33:21.120 --> 00:33:24.800 Redevelopment clause is in the current 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 00:33:33.480 --> 00:33:39.760 Requests that the cake had in 2016 of looking at some overlay options 00:33:39.760 --> 00:33:47.880 Especially if council can stomach, you know charging what it costs to this development 00:33:47.880 --> 00:33:50.900 Because I think that that's you know 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 00:33:58.160 --> 00:34:01.400 The style of development the area of development 00:34:01.400 --> 00:34:06.560 What you want to what council wants it to bring to the community etc, etc? 00:34:06.560 --> 00:34:11.360 That they can have more of an economic 00:34:11.360 --> 00:34:15.400 Than many of the other tools that we have just by their nature 00:34:15.400 --> 00:34:19.160 So I think it's worth moving forward with that 00:34:19.880 --> 00:34:24.880 I think maybe not in this round, but in the next round. I hope we 00:34:24.880 --> 00:34:28.640 Consider other ways of 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 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 00:34:44.120 --> 00:34:49.640 Mean, I think you know, I was looking at Fort Worth, right they have 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 00:34:53.520 --> 00:34:56.960 You know six times as many service areas as we do 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? 00:35:04.480 --> 00:35:07.320 But when you look at the calculations, it's already a whole lot lower 00:35:07.320 --> 00:35:10.000 per per unit 00:35:10.000 --> 00:35:12.120 and I think that just I 00:35:12.120 --> 00:35:16.520 Recognize it's hard to change streams 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 00:35:26.040 --> 00:35:29.960 They may lead to some good discussion 00:35:29.960 --> 00:35:32.640 and then lastly the 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 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 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 00:35:55.200 --> 00:35:58.840 it was just high construction inflation and other things and so 00:35:58.840 --> 00:36:04.480 My concern with even going as low as 50 is that that's 50 day one 00:36:04.480 --> 00:36:08.040 But then what about three years from now when? 00:36:08.040 --> 00:36:11.880 Inflation continues to go it doesn't seem like it's slowing down at all 00:36:11.880 --> 00:36:14.680 right 00:36:14.680 --> 00:36:17.320 It seems like 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 00:36:24.320 --> 00:36:35.440 Yes, so a couple comments I mean 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 00:36:41.200 --> 00:36:44.880 Absolutely understand where you are with that 00:36:46.640 --> 00:36:50.480 From a single-family home perspective as Scott mentioned some of those concerns 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 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 00:37:01.320 --> 00:37:04.280 It just absolutely will it'll it will 00:37:04.280 --> 00:37:06.920 Impact it greatly 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 00:37:14.640 --> 00:37:18.360 But you know, we can't say this and then on the other hand say well 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 00:37:25.240 --> 00:37:29.520 As well, but I think with everything that's being said 00:37:29.520 --> 00:37:35.520 We need to get this I mean, I think that's just there's there's 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 00:37:41.960 --> 00:37:46.720 To go from where we're at. Um, and at least get something done 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 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 00:37:59.720 --> 00:38:05.280 Pointed out 20% and just to catch up with kind of where prices are right now 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 00:38:11.280 --> 00:38:13.280 we should be 00:38:13.280 --> 00:38:18.960 making strides to improve the impact and all we're doing here is just like 00:38:18.960 --> 00:38:21.720 We're not getting ahead. We're not 00:38:21.720 --> 00:38:25.640 at all, so it's almost kind of a I 00:38:25.640 --> 00:38:28.280 mean 00:38:28.280 --> 00:38:30.600 It's kind of a waste. I mean, we're just not 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 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 00:38:42.760 --> 00:38:44.240 like that 00:38:44.240 --> 00:38:46.080 so 00:38:46.080 --> 00:38:50.000 I'm not sure exactly where the percentage is, you know, I mean 00:38:50.000 --> 00:38:56.880 Obviously I'd be good discussion to hear where council is on setting that policy 00:38:56.880 --> 00:39:00.960 It just 00:39:00.960 --> 00:39:04.600 It just needs to be higher than what it is and if we could yeah 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 00:39:09.640 --> 00:39:12.160 That's at least 00:39:12.160 --> 00:39:14.400 As you put it growth paying 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 00:39:20.560 --> 00:39:22.920 to 00:39:22.920 --> 00:39:24.800 to maintain and 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 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 00:39:36.800 --> 00:39:44.260 If it could go higher than that, but I just don't know that 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 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 00:40:02.200 --> 00:40:05.200 existing 00:40:05.200 --> 00:40:08.840 Non-residential uses so that's something that 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 00:40:16.960 --> 00:40:19.160 much higher you could choose to 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 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 00:40:32.160 --> 00:40:34.880 Get the right kind of projects built 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 00:40:41.400 --> 00:40:49.580 Yeah, it's also easy to think of the cost per home 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 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 00:41:04.560 --> 00:41:06.840 You just put them basically into a service unit category 00:41:06.840 --> 00:41:09.480 Yes, let me go back to that 00:41:09.480 --> 00:41:15.080 That slide here so these two numbers four point six one and nine point six 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 00:41:21.120 --> 00:41:24.560 That numbers are exact, but all those line uses that are that are in that tape 00:41:24.560 --> 00:41:29.560 Yeah, and so it's split up into different categories even industrial residential 00:41:29.560 --> 00:41:36.160 Retail medical educational all those different categories are 00:41:36.160 --> 00:41:40.000 Yeah, there's some place for everyone to land that yes 00:41:48.480 --> 00:41:55.360 Thank you appreciate your comments, I think our role is just to give 00:41:55.360 --> 00:41:58.440 council an impression of 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 00:42:05.380 --> 00:42:07.760 broader circumstances 00:42:07.760 --> 00:42:11.120 Certainly understand that I would just say that when we talk about 00:42:11.120 --> 00:42:14.560 I 00:42:14.560 --> 00:42:16.560 don't think a 00:42:17.160 --> 00:42:19.160 detached single family home 00:42:19.160 --> 00:42:22.960 And so by 00:42:22.960 --> 00:42:28.320 By trying to reduce an impact be because of a single family home impact charge 00:42:28.320 --> 00:42:31.700 Really what we're trying to do is make the you know 00:42:31.700 --> 00:42:36.560 Call it like the third queen tile of the housing market cheaper, but 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 00:42:51.120 --> 00:42:54.200 there's none of these other benefits that they get and so I 00:42:54.200 --> 00:42:57.040 Think we just have to be careful when we talk about 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 00:43:03.200 --> 00:43:07.640 lowest quintile most affordable housing that our city currently has 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 00:43:17.200 --> 00:43:19.720 so 00:43:19.720 --> 00:43:24.040 You know keeping single family housing prices in a certain way is 00:43:24.040 --> 00:43:28.520 Still in that discussion and I absolutely hear 100% what you're saying 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 00:43:35.040 --> 00:43:38.400 Complicated term 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 00:43:45.640 --> 00:43:48.840 part of my 00:43:48.840 --> 00:43:50.840 direction to go forward with an 00:43:50.840 --> 00:43:54.240 Infill ordinance is because that existing, you know 00:43:54.240 --> 00:43:57.400 No more than tax kind of handles the redevelopment aspect 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 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 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 00:44:15.320 --> 00:44:25.660 Do you think from else there are there any no just like Pete mentioned 00:44:25.660 --> 00:44:30.520 Written comment is what is required today. You're gonna want to see the final document 00:44:30.520 --> 00:44:34.560 So we're working through getting all of staff's comments completed 00:44:34.560 --> 00:44:38.240 And we got an updated version of the report 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 00:44:46.920 --> 00:44:52.880 So that that document can be finalized and then like I mentioned we anticipate 00:44:52.880 --> 00:44:56.120 coming back to council on December 6 and 00:44:56.120 --> 00:45:03.360 If there's a need to have any additional conversations with the CIA see well definitely 00:45:03.360 --> 00:45:08.080 Of course work with Tina and her team to make sure 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 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 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 00:45:27.360 --> 00:45:30.020 Take care of that consideration. So 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 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 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 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 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 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 00:46:09.620 --> 00:46:11.620 This is where they're standing. So 00:46:11.620 --> 00:46:14.960 And Pete has that level of information 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 00:46:20.800 --> 00:46:23.580 Have provided us information on Fort Worth 00:46:23.580 --> 00:46:26.280 Frisco fly around 00:46:26.280 --> 00:46:30.680 Salina there's several different cities where they have that detailed information. So 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 00:46:37.040 --> 00:46:39.320 I think Pete would explain that to you, too 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 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 00:46:51.820 --> 00:46:55.060 further to the max be 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 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 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 00:47:25.600 --> 00:47:29.760 But as infrastructure got built out and started less and less 00:47:29.760 --> 00:47:34.200 We saw the key drop down in the calculation that then the policy decision was made 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 00:47:38.600 --> 00:47:40.880 There's not as much sense to keep it in here right now 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 00:47:47.340 --> 00:47:49.320 so that's 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? 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 00:47:57.880 --> 00:48:00.880 In respect of service area 00:48:00.880 --> 00:48:08.020 I'm sure just that I guess a question for me or maybe a statement 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 00:48:17.440 --> 00:48:23.360 So if this is the if this is the committee, there are several members missing 00:48:23.360 --> 00:48:28.440 So it's not going to be individual statements. It will be really kind of 00:48:28.440 --> 00:48:31.440 The minutes from this meeting to state 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 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 00:48:47.600 --> 00:48:53.800 Provide written statement. Is it the members of or is it the committee that is? 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 00:49:02.380 --> 00:49:06.640 We can take the minutes to into consideration also as a part of the comment 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 00:49:12.540 --> 00:49:17.020 To have that information if they have any additional written comments they would like to provide 00:49:17.760 --> 00:49:22.280 So you're picturing presenting like a synthesis of the individual comments or something 00:49:22.280 --> 00:49:25.000 Pete 00:49:25.000 --> 00:49:27.600 Yeah, I think if we've got you know 00:49:27.600 --> 00:49:32.140 Percentage rates all across the board. I think what we have to separate out two things 00:49:32.140 --> 00:49:35.260 One is the the study the so the CIP and language assumptions 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 00:49:42.720 --> 00:49:44.720 to collect moving forward so if there is a 00:49:44.720 --> 00:49:46.880 wide range across the board of 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 00:49:53.640 --> 00:49:57.520 You know the CAC recommends increasing 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 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? 00:50:22.160 --> 00:50:26.880 Well, the minutes can reflect so-and-so said something, right? 00:50:26.880 --> 00:50:32.280 But the overall comment will be the committee said correct, you know a whatever 00:50:32.280 --> 00:50:38.480 Majority recommendation whatever and that's where the synthesis of the the comment would be received 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 00:50:42.460 --> 00:50:45.280 So you have an opportunity to make comments on that? 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 00:50:52.480 --> 00:50:54.680 If you have any questions, what is that? 00:50:54.680 --> 00:50:56.880 What now? Oh, yeah 00:50:56.880 --> 00:50:59.720 Sorry 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? 00:51:20.560 --> 00:51:27.200 So the first one is the the study itself so the technical 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? 00:51:31.640 --> 00:51:36.920 And then the second part is the policy side. So it's technical and policy. Okay 00:51:36.920 --> 00:51:43.360 We don't want to just focus on the policy because they need to 00:51:44.240 --> 00:51:47.240 Make comment on whether the study is accepted or 00:51:47.240 --> 00:51:59.680 So just 00:51:59.680 --> 00:52:01.680 Follow up on kind of the conversation 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 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 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 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 00:52:21.880 --> 00:52:26.280 So that report should be ready for that December 6th meeting 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 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 00:52:38.120 --> 00:52:39.560 was just explaining 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 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 00:52:54.280 --> 00:52:59.360 Plan that was developed and so this will also be a part of the report 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 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 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 00:53:16.760 --> 00:53:19.400 and if it's the 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 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 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 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 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 00:53:54.140 --> 00:54:00.200 Commissioner for it's at X, right? So, you know, that's kind of your decision 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 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 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 00:54:18.560 --> 00:54:23.520 which is after when we plan to go to council, but still prior to 00:54:23.520 --> 00:54:26.400 the anticipated public hearing 00:54:26.400 --> 00:54:32.000 Yeah, I guess I'll just make a suggestion if this is 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 00:54:40.980 --> 00:54:43.720 final feedback 00:54:43.720 --> 00:54:48.000 And so that I think would be on this January 10th 00:54:48.000 --> 00:54:50.720 days, right and so 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 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 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 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 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 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? 00:55:33.520 --> 00:55:37.080 Company I guess if everything is prepared and 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 00:55:45.120 --> 00:55:49.200 conversations we anticipate at least one if not two so 00:55:49.200 --> 00:55:51.920 if it works for the 00:55:51.920 --> 00:55:54.800 Commission committee 00:55:54.800 --> 00:55:58.760 To to meet in advance of the 14th. That's what Tina and I were discussing 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 00:56:03.880 --> 00:56:07.120 The CIA say is what you mean perhaps. I I think it's a good idea 00:56:07.120 --> 00:56:14.960 If anybody has any other needs then I I'd be fine with meeting before there 00:56:14.960 --> 00:56:17.600 but I 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 00:56:23.320 --> 00:56:27.500 The council discussions kick off tomorrow was just to make sure staff understood 00:56:27.840 --> 00:56:32.120 You know what we're thinking as a body. Oh wait for you. So yeah 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 00:56:38.480 --> 00:56:41.320 Are we going to try to have this as a? 00:56:41.320 --> 00:56:43.560 meeting 00:56:43.560 --> 00:56:45.560 tied to a P&Z meeting 00:56:45.560 --> 00:56:49.160 So P&Z and then a work session so mid-December 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? 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 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 00:57:07.460 --> 00:57:13.280 Need at four o'clock start in advance because we have that we have been yeah 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 00:57:20.320 --> 00:57:22.640 505 so 00:57:23.800 --> 00:57:28.520 And I guess depend honestly depending on what our agenda looks like for that too 00:57:28.520 --> 00:57:33.640 We we we could do a 505 and then do a 00:57:33.640 --> 00:57:39.360 Yeah, and have that done in an hour and then if it's a small job 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 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 00:57:53.960 --> 00:57:57.520 To council to mention that we're going to go ahead and add the December 14th 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 00:58:02.920 --> 00:58:06.440 Not an issue with meeting on the 14th. That's no problem 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 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 00:58:21.840 --> 00:58:23.840 anything else 00:58:23.840 --> 00:58:26.000 Awesome including items 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