1 00:00:00,000 --> 00:00:10,560 >> Good afternoon and welcome to this meeting of the Capital Improvement Advisory Committee. 2 00:00:10,560 --> 00:00:15,120 The Planning and Zoning Commission does serve as this committee. 3 00:00:15,120 --> 00:00:18,640 And with the quorum present, I will call the meeting to order at 4.01 PM. 4 00:00:18,640 --> 00:00:23,920 Our one item of business today is receive a report, hold a discussion, 5 00:00:23,920 --> 00:00:28,240 give staff direction regarding the update to the roadway impact fees. 6 00:00:28,240 --> 00:00:33,200 Becky, I will give it to you. >> Thank you so much for having us today. 7 00:00:33,200 --> 00:00:38,080 Myself along with Pete Kelly will be here to give you the presentation. 8 00:00:38,080 --> 00:00:41,760 I'm going to ask Pete to come up here in just a minute. 9 00:00:41,760 --> 00:00:46,160 I want to remind you, we gave you a copy of the study. 10 00:00:46,160 --> 00:00:49,280 Hopefully you saw it as exhibit three. I know it was a lengthy report. 11 00:00:49,280 --> 00:00:56,240 Also a copy of the presentation in the AIS. I also want to mention to you that the calendar 12 00:00:56,240 --> 00:01:01,280 that's at the very end of the presentation is going to be updated. 13 00:01:01,280 --> 00:01:05,680 Some of those dates are going to move out just because of the council calendar 14 00:01:05,680 --> 00:01:11,520 and us meeting some of the statutory requirements of the 30 days with posting. 15 00:01:11,520 --> 00:01:19,360 Our goal here today is to receive feedback from you, not only on the land use to assumptions 16 00:01:19,360 --> 00:01:26,720 map that was presented to you in the study, also the capital improvement plan packet that was a 17 00:01:26,720 --> 00:01:32,480 part of the study and then of course some direction from you on percentages or other 18 00:01:32,480 --> 00:01:38,320 percentages that you would like for us to look at. We did meet with council and had conversations 19 00:01:38,320 --> 00:01:46,480 with them. They've asked us to come back looking at 30%, 40% and 50% and we will be having that 20 00:01:46,480 --> 00:01:51,840 presentation January 24th. As you might know, last night was the last council meeting for the 21 00:01:51,840 --> 00:01:57,680 month of December and then we are going to be taking a break until getting through the holidays. 22 00:01:57,680 --> 00:02:03,680 We will not be on the January 10th council meeting. At this time we'll be on the January 24th. 23 00:02:03,680 --> 00:02:08,880 So Pete's going to make sure, Tina's going to make sure, the entire team, we're going to really work 24 00:02:08,880 --> 00:02:14,720 to make sure we meet the intent of the state law today by receiving all the feedback that we need 25 00:02:14,720 --> 00:02:20,720 from those three different items from all of you and we look forward to the conversation. So I am 26 00:02:20,720 --> 00:02:34,640 going to open the presentation and get it started. So really just kind of an overview and then I'm 27 00:02:34,640 --> 00:02:41,760 going to have Pete come up and talk about the feedback we received from you last time and really 28 00:02:41,760 --> 00:02:46,000 appreciate it. I know it takes a little bit of time out of your day to get here early tonight and 29 00:02:46,000 --> 00:02:52,480 it can make for a long meeting so I do appreciate all of your attendance today. Our overview really 30 00:02:52,480 --> 00:02:58,320 is to talk about the final maximum fee results and calculations. That report is completed. You 31 00:02:58,320 --> 00:03:03,600 saw that in the overall study. Talk about collection rate options. You'll see three options that we're 32 00:03:03,600 --> 00:03:07,840 going to present to you. As I mentioned, council actually asked us to come back with a couple of 33 00:03:07,840 --> 00:03:15,040 different options. Talk about some comparison cities. I want to caveat this comparison city. 34 00:03:15,040 --> 00:03:20,960 It is extremely difficult to compare cities. There are no two cities alike. There are no two cities 35 00:03:20,960 --> 00:03:26,160 that think the same way or collect fees in the same fashion. I will also mention to you that the 36 00:03:26,160 --> 00:03:30,720 comparison cities that were selected, some were based on the fact that they are college towns. 37 00:03:30,720 --> 00:03:37,120 You'll see College Station. You'll see New Bronze Fools. You'll see Lubbock. We like to compare 38 00:03:37,120 --> 00:03:41,920 ourselves to other college towns. One thing that's interesting about the city of Denton is not only 39 00:03:41,920 --> 00:03:46,560 do we have our own water and wastewater systems, we also have our own electric system. It makes the 40 00:03:46,560 --> 00:03:52,000 city operate in a little bit different fashion so we like to use comparable cities and there are some 41 00:03:52,000 --> 00:03:56,640 of those that you'll see. You'll also see some cities that are local that sometimes we compare 42 00:03:56,640 --> 00:04:02,320 ourselves to. We don't grow exactly the same way they do and they have a little bit different 43 00:04:02,320 --> 00:04:07,920 information as far as collection rates and you'll see that. We'll talk about the existing fees. 44 00:04:07,920 --> 00:04:12,800 Transportation funding options is something that we want to discuss because impact fees 45 00:04:12,800 --> 00:04:18,320 are just one way of funding transportation from the development perspective of those fees being 46 00:04:18,320 --> 00:04:24,560 accounted for during the development process. You might be aware that there is a roadway funding 47 00:04:24,560 --> 00:04:29,760 strategy conversation that's ongoing through the finance department and our department, 48 00:04:29,760 --> 00:04:34,560 capital projects engineering department and also I also manage the street strategy and traffic 49 00:04:34,560 --> 00:04:39,680 department so it's kind of an ongoing conversation amongst of all those individuals talking about 50 00:04:39,680 --> 00:04:47,520 transportation funding options. There is a topic that will come up discussion of a possible roadway 51 00:04:47,520 --> 00:04:52,800 user fee and so that's a little bit different conversation. So when we show this to you, 52 00:04:52,800 --> 00:04:57,600 understand this is kind of the cafeteria plan of different ways roadways can be funded 53 00:04:58,560 --> 00:05:02,960 and that overall roadway funding strategy is currently slated for the same council 54 00:05:02,960 --> 00:05:09,360 meeting as the roadway impact fees which is on the 24th and then next steps and schedule. 55 00:05:09,360 --> 00:05:13,440 Sorry, I've been struggling. I haven't had a voice this week and now I have a voice but I'm still 56 00:05:13,440 --> 00:05:19,920 having a hard time talking. So we'll talk about that. You'll see a preliminary schedule but there 57 00:05:19,920 --> 00:05:23,840 are going to be some dates that are going to slip just because of the time it takes to get on the 58 00:05:23,840 --> 00:05:28,400 council calendar right after the first of the year. Like I mentioned with the month gap it does 59 00:05:28,400 --> 00:05:34,480 make it difficult for all departments to really work to try to get on the agenda. So with that, 60 00:05:34,480 --> 00:05:39,040 I'm going to turn it over to Pete, let him talk about the final roadway impact fee calculations 61 00:05:39,040 --> 00:05:42,400 and move forward through the process. So Pete, come on up. 62 00:05:42,400 --> 00:05:54,000 All right, thank you Becky and good afternoon commissioners. So as Becky mentioned, we wanted 63 00:05:54,000 --> 00:05:59,680 to come back and present the results, the final results of the impact fee calculations for you. 64 00:05:59,680 --> 00:06:07,040 So the table that we're looking at right here is a condensed version of the maximum accessible fee 65 00:06:07,040 --> 00:06:13,840 table that's in the report, that's table nine. So on the first line here there's actually a 66 00:06:13,840 --> 00:06:19,600 number of calculations that take place before this but essentially we start with what is the cost to 67 00:06:20,640 --> 00:06:26,080 build out the thoroughfare plan, what's the overall need in the city, and then we remove the costs 68 00:06:26,080 --> 00:06:31,440 that are outside of the 10-year window that we're constricted to for impact fees. So this is after 69 00:06:31,440 --> 00:06:36,080 those costs have been removed, that's where we're starting at the top of this table. And then we look 70 00:06:36,080 --> 00:06:40,960 at how much growth are we expecting over the next 10 years and that's in the service units is a 71 00:06:40,960 --> 00:06:51,520 vehicle mile which is the capacity consumed by a one-mile vehicle trip. And then we also add in 72 00:06:51,520 --> 00:06:58,320 the cost of financing and the ad valorem tax credit which was done by new gen and associates. 73 00:06:58,320 --> 00:07:06,560 That's another stipulation of state law that needs to be done and so that brings us to 74 00:07:07,360 --> 00:07:14,720 our maximum impact fee per vehicle mile which is the light blue row or the the fourth row in the 75 00:07:14,720 --> 00:07:21,520 table. So you can see how that comes out for each of the service areas and that's what's actually 76 00:07:21,520 --> 00:07:29,040 presented and calculated in the study. The red line, the red row here for a single family home 77 00:07:29,040 --> 00:07:34,640 is really just a calculation similar to what will be done on the back end when the fees are assessed 78 00:07:34,640 --> 00:07:39,760 but that's not actually provided shown in the study. Instead there's a table that shows how 79 00:07:39,760 --> 00:07:44,720 many vehicle miles are generated by each different land use. So we've kind of done some of the math 80 00:07:44,720 --> 00:07:53,280 there for you to show how much per single family home the maximum accessible fee will be. So it's 81 00:07:53,280 --> 00:08:00,960 average around, we have the average on the next slide, but around $20,000 per single family home 82 00:08:00,960 --> 00:08:06,640 for the maximum accessible fee across the service areas. And as a comparison of what's being done 83 00:08:06,640 --> 00:08:12,240 now, we've covered this a couple times, it's close to just under $10,000 a single family home 84 00:08:12,240 --> 00:08:16,320 and we're currently collecting about 20% of that in the city. 85 00:08:16,320 --> 00:08:27,040 As Becky mentioned, the three collection rate options that we showed council consists of 20%, 86 00:08:27,040 --> 00:08:36,480 50%, and 100% rate options. Just to provide a little bit more context to what this slide is 87 00:08:36,480 --> 00:08:43,600 saying in the red columns, that's our existing maximum accessible fee from the 2016 study and 88 00:08:43,600 --> 00:08:53,840 the adopted collection rate which is roughly 20%. The average maximum fee per vehicle mile for 2022 89 00:08:53,840 --> 00:09:01,360 is just over $4,400. And then as you look at the collection rate for single family homes in the 90 00:09:01,360 --> 00:09:08,320 bottom row on the far right columns at 20%, it would be $4,100 a home just over that. 91 00:09:08,320 --> 00:09:17,760 And at a 50% collection rate, it would be just under $10,300 per single family home. 92 00:09:17,760 --> 00:09:24,320 And if we were to collect the maximum accessible fee, it would be just over $20,500 a single family 93 00:09:24,320 --> 00:09:31,600 home. And as a reminder again, you currently have a discount on non-residential uses, 94 00:09:31,600 --> 00:09:35,840 so they're paying 25% less than residential uses per vehicle mile. 95 00:09:35,840 --> 00:09:46,080 And on to the comparison data that Becky mentioned we were going to talk about. Like she said, 96 00:09:46,080 --> 00:09:51,920 we do have a few cities here that have universities. We do have a few cities here that 97 00:09:51,920 --> 00:09:56,400 are a little bit closer to Denton that could be geographically more of a competitor, but there's 98 00:09:56,400 --> 00:10:01,760 obviously definitely some characteristics that are different about some of these other cities. 99 00:10:01,760 --> 00:10:07,360 But just to help provide some context for what other cities with roadway impact fees are doing, 100 00:10:07,360 --> 00:10:16,720 and all of these have been updated or adopted within the past three years. So I'll explain 101 00:10:16,720 --> 00:10:22,240 a few of these and kind of walk through them. So with the city of Lubbock, they just adopted 102 00:10:22,240 --> 00:10:29,280 impact fees for the first time in 2021, and they do have eight service areas and quite a variation 103 00:10:29,280 --> 00:10:34,960 of their service areas. So what you're seeing is the average maximum fee is higher in some areas 104 00:10:34,960 --> 00:10:40,160 and lower in others, and they're collecting 50% of their max right now. That still results in a 105 00:10:40,160 --> 00:10:50,080 fairly low fee based on their growth and the infrastructure needed. Taking a look at Frisco, 106 00:10:50,080 --> 00:10:56,960 Frisco is a good example of you have certain parts of the city that are growing quickly still and 107 00:10:56,960 --> 00:11:05,920 other parts that are built out. So their most built out service area is the maximum fee is $2,700, 108 00:11:05,920 --> 00:11:14,400 just under $2,800, and they're collecting 70% in every service area for residential uses. So 109 00:11:14,400 --> 00:11:18,320 they're actually discounting residential uses, and they're collecting 100% for non-residential 110 00:11:18,320 --> 00:11:24,160 uses. Just wanted to point that out. So some cities do it differently where they discount 111 00:11:24,160 --> 00:11:30,240 residential or discount non-residential. But if you look at the service area that's growing 112 00:11:30,240 --> 00:11:35,200 right now that has a lot of infrastructure needs, that maximum fee is quite a bit higher. That's 113 00:11:35,200 --> 00:11:42,240 at $6,000 for a single family home, and they're again collecting 70% of that. So they don't have 114 00:11:42,240 --> 00:11:47,600 a flat rate across service areas like Denton currently does and like some other cities do. So 115 00:11:47,600 --> 00:11:53,440 that is another approach to consider, whether to maintain a flat rate or to maintain a percentage 116 00:11:53,440 --> 00:12:02,880 of the maximum fee in each service area. And going down to New Braunfels, that study is actually a 117 00:12:02,880 --> 00:12:09,840 couple years old. So the maximum fee is based off of 2020 costs, but at the time the plan was to 118 00:12:09,840 --> 00:12:17,040 escalate the collection rate over the next couple years. So the reason it says 2022 there is because 119 00:12:17,040 --> 00:12:23,360 the assessed rate was recently changed, but the study was done a couple years ago. And so they 120 00:12:23,360 --> 00:12:30,400 moved up to collecting 100% of their maximum fee in New Braunfels. And Flower Mound as well adopted 121 00:12:30,400 --> 00:12:39,680 100% of their maximum fee in 2021. And with Flower Mound, the town is also very, 122 00:12:39,680 --> 00:12:47,360 there's very different areas in Flower Mound. We have the west that's got a lot of growth happening, 123 00:12:47,360 --> 00:12:52,400 a lot of infrastructure needed, so the maximum fee is much higher there. Whereas on the east side 124 00:12:52,400 --> 00:12:59,040 of town and then their service area A, the maximum fee is lower. So that brings it to an average of 125 00:12:59,040 --> 00:13:06,480 12,000 single family home in Flower Mound. Again, just showing the same values we saw on the previous 126 00:13:06,480 --> 00:13:16,320 slide of the 20%, 50%, and 100% collection rate options for Denton. So we hope this is helpful to 127 00:13:16,320 --> 00:13:24,640 give some context in terms of what similar, some cities with similarities in geographic proximity 128 00:13:24,640 --> 00:13:36,720 are doing to help with that discussion. And it's also important to put that in the context of what 129 00:13:36,720 --> 00:13:42,800 are the other development fees that are being collected. We are aware that the whole package 130 00:13:42,800 --> 00:13:48,960 of development fees in Denton is higher than a lot of surrounding cities. And so this slide 131 00:13:48,960 --> 00:13:56,400 just gives you an idea. Again, at the 20%, 50%, and 30%, or excuse me, 100% would look like when 132 00:13:56,400 --> 00:14:06,400 you add in all the other development fees, around 21,000, 27,000, and 38,000 per single family home 133 00:14:06,400 --> 00:14:11,760 when you incorporate all the fees plus the potential roadway collection rates. 134 00:14:13,680 --> 00:14:18,240 And as a reminder, again, just going back to the collection rate slide, 135 00:14:18,240 --> 00:14:26,240 council can choose to set any percentage or any specific dollar amount they want as long as it's 136 00:14:26,240 --> 00:14:31,760 less than the maximum accessible fee. So there's definitely more options than just what's shown on 137 00:14:31,760 --> 00:14:45,040 this slide. And as Vicki mentioned, she will be coming back in January to discuss the holistic 138 00:14:45,040 --> 00:14:51,200 transportation funding approach and all the different tools that can be used. And so the main 139 00:14:51,200 --> 00:14:57,120 thing we want to focus on today is the fact that impact fees are one of those tools. And the main 140 00:14:57,120 --> 00:15:04,800 question to answer is with the impact fees, which are focused only on growth, is how much does the 141 00:15:04,800 --> 00:15:10,880 city of Denton want growth to pay for its impact towards the transportation infrastructure? And 142 00:15:10,880 --> 00:15:22,000 that's really the question we're looking at with impact fees. And as a reminder, the things that 143 00:15:22,000 --> 00:15:28,400 can be paid for by impact fees, because it is growth-oriented, it can pay for construction of 144 00:15:28,400 --> 00:15:34,000 capital improvements on the CIP, surveying and engineering fees, land acquisition costs, debt 145 00:15:34,000 --> 00:15:41,280 service of impact fee CIP projects, and the cost of updating the study itself. But any costs 146 00:15:41,280 --> 00:15:47,760 associated with roads that are not on the CIP or repair and maintenance of existing facilities or 147 00:15:47,760 --> 00:15:57,680 upgrades to serve existing development, those would not be impact fee eligible. And again, we'll be 148 00:15:57,680 --> 00:16:03,280 revising and working on this schedule, but we'll be coming back to Council at the earliest in late 149 00:16:03,280 --> 00:16:10,800 January to reconvene and get more feedback in terms of what direction you want to move forward with on 150 00:16:10,800 --> 00:16:19,440 the collection rate. In terms of the feedback and action we're looking for today, we want to look at 151 00:16:19,440 --> 00:16:27,680 it in terms of two separate topics, two separate items. One is on the study itself, in other words, 152 00:16:27,680 --> 00:16:32,400 the technical aspect of the roadway impact fee update, on whether there's any questions or 153 00:16:32,400 --> 00:16:37,600 concerns or comments about that, or if you're willing to recommend approval of the study. And 154 00:16:37,600 --> 00:16:44,800 then the second component is on the policy aspect of the roadway impact fee update, on if you have a 155 00:16:44,800 --> 00:16:51,120 recommendation to Council on what you'd like to see them collect or what uses you'd like to see 156 00:16:51,120 --> 00:17:00,720 discounted potentially, so that they can take that feedback into consideration. With that, I'll ask 157 00:17:00,720 --> 00:17:09,760 if you have any questions. Commissioner Smith? Thank you, Chair. In your experience, how many other 158 00:17:09,760 --> 00:17:18,000 cities, how long have you been doing these types of consulting presentations and whatnot? Me or 159 00:17:18,000 --> 00:17:22,800 Kim Lee Horne? I guess you, because I'm going to ask about your personal experience about a jump that 160 00:17:22,800 --> 00:17:27,200 I saw within there that I didn't see the first time I was. I've missed one CIAC meeting, so there 161 00:17:27,200 --> 00:17:31,920 might have been a conversation between there that I might have missed, but you personally? Yeah, I've 162 00:17:31,920 --> 00:17:36,800 been with Kim Lee Horne for nine years, been working on impact fees since day one, and been 163 00:17:36,800 --> 00:17:42,480 presenting and working on impact fees as a licensed engineer since 2016. Cool. I'm not questioning 164 00:17:42,480 --> 00:17:47,280 your expertise. More just wanting to know. Happy to answer. Because I'm specifically about 165 00:17:47,280 --> 00:17:54,640 Service Area B within the city. Sure. I mean, that difference between the 2016 and now, it jumped 166 00:17:54,640 --> 00:18:03,120 200% from maximum fee being $6,000, maximum fee being $18,000. How often do you see Service Area, 167 00:18:03,120 --> 00:18:09,040 I get understanding Service Area is increasing and over time it's cost of development and then 168 00:18:09,040 --> 00:18:14,640 growth in a certain area, but how often do you see that big of a jump just between five years, 169 00:18:14,640 --> 00:18:22,560 six years? Yeah, that's a good question. We're seeing certainly much bigger jumps in the studies 170 00:18:22,560 --> 00:18:29,600 we've been doing this year than we have in my whole time doing impact fees, and that's directly 171 00:18:29,600 --> 00:18:39,040 related to a steep increase in construction costs that we've seen just in the past three years 172 00:18:39,040 --> 00:18:46,800 that's been faster than I've seen before that. And one of the things, one of the big things we 173 00:18:46,800 --> 00:18:54,000 we've looked at again is the cost of drainage improvements, bridges going over creeks and things 174 00:18:54,000 --> 00:18:59,920 like that. We think based on our analysis that those costs were likely underestimated in the 2016 175 00:18:59,920 --> 00:19:06,400 study and that we made a focus on getting those costs right, as close to right as we can for this 176 00:19:06,400 --> 00:19:14,560 study, but we certainly see the jump there. We definitely want to, we looked at it in terms of 177 00:19:14,560 --> 00:19:19,280 we looked at it in terms of how can we be as accurate as possible with our construction costs 178 00:19:19,280 --> 00:19:26,640 for 2022, and then we worked with city staff and looked at recent construction projects to make 179 00:19:26,640 --> 00:19:33,120 sure our unit prices were reasonable and in line with what they're seeing, and so as we did that, 180 00:19:33,120 --> 00:19:38,480 but also making sure that we don't go too conservative that if prices jump again in 181 00:19:38,480 --> 00:19:43,360 the next two three years that the impact fee program is going to suddenly fall behind because 182 00:19:43,360 --> 00:19:53,200 those prices have increased. Okay thanks. In your opinion as a consultant as well, why do you see 183 00:19:53,200 --> 00:19:58,720 cities go with a static pricing when it comes to their enforceable fee whenever you see different 184 00:19:58,720 --> 00:20:02,560 service areas that have different needs and you just brought up, we talked about service area B 185 00:20:02,560 --> 00:20:08,160 specifically, having more accurate pricing I think in your words and what you answer to, but why does 186 00:20:08,160 --> 00:20:14,160 the city go in and say okay well we're just gonna effectively enforce underneath our 2016 update for 187 00:20:14,160 --> 00:20:20,960 you know for impact fees, 2000 across all when clearly each service area has different needs. 188 00:20:20,960 --> 00:20:27,040 Why do cities go and do it statically rather than doing it dynamically and doing it by service area? 189 00:20:27,040 --> 00:20:33,760 Yeah that's a good question. There's a number of reasons. I the most common reason is to 190 00:20:35,040 --> 00:20:41,600 for to lessen the administration of the program, the to make it easier for not only on the city 191 00:20:41,600 --> 00:20:47,280 side to administer the program but also on the development side to a greater degree of predictability 192 00:20:47,280 --> 00:20:52,400 if I know wherever I go in the city this is going to be the rate I pay so it just lowers the 193 00:20:52,400 --> 00:20:57,680 complexity increases the predictability and makes the administration easier on on staff. 194 00:20:59,520 --> 00:21:06,320 So even going with a graded 20% graded 50% or 100% the recommendations are kind of put forth in that 195 00:21:06,320 --> 00:21:12,720 and that impact fee analysis you did I mean essentially that those are those are even then 196 00:21:12,720 --> 00:21:20,000 are just still guidelines not really decisions there that if if the desire is to be efficient 197 00:21:20,000 --> 00:21:24,560 for administration for development then even then it's like well we're just gonna enforce something 198 00:21:24,560 --> 00:21:30,320 that we think 50 50 percent's the best then we're just gonna say 10,000 flat for example right so 199 00:21:30,320 --> 00:21:35,440 they're really just kind of even more guidelines to give us clarity within that. On that point 200 00:21:35,440 --> 00:21:40,960 you mentioned how Frisco does its differences in the built-out area the more growth area. 201 00:21:40,960 --> 00:21:48,720 As a consultant where do you see Denton falling into that type of model? I know it's a discussion 202 00:21:48,720 --> 00:21:53,680 that we had as an advisory committee at one point in time was there really certain service areas 203 00:21:53,680 --> 00:21:59,120 that need more attention and some that don't so from your consulting standpoint how do you see 204 00:21:59,120 --> 00:22:05,040 Denton fitting into that model if at all? Yeah the service areas we have for Denton are much more 205 00:22:05,040 --> 00:22:13,680 balanced in terms of infrastructure the ratio of infrastructure to growth. With the lowest service 206 00:22:13,680 --> 00:22:20,560 area being service area E which encompasses most of the downtown area so there's more built-out 207 00:22:20,560 --> 00:22:27,360 infrastructure and less growth so that's the lowest fee service area but most of the service areas are 208 00:22:27,360 --> 00:22:34,800 within a thousand dollars a vehicle mile so they're relatively balanced. Okay no other questions. 209 00:22:34,800 --> 00:22:41,920 Commissioner Villarreal. Thank you I apologize if you mentioned this at the beginning of your 210 00:22:41,920 --> 00:22:46,880 presentation but I was watching the council discussion on this last week two weeks ago 211 00:22:47,760 --> 00:22:52,400 and I was trying to figure out where they were landing in terms of roughly which option they 212 00:22:52,400 --> 00:22:57,040 were going towards and just from my recollection it seemed that two were for option one two were 213 00:22:57,040 --> 00:23:02,240 for option two and two for option three is that roughly what you got from that meeting as well? 214 00:23:02,240 --> 00:23:10,880 Yeah I heard 75 80 percent so that wasn't an option that we presented was that was 215 00:23:11,840 --> 00:23:18,320 a couple of the recommendations our council member Watts was okay with 30 percent possibly 216 00:23:18,320 --> 00:23:23,760 with the next escalation in there a couple other council members I think supported somewhere between 217 00:23:23,760 --> 00:23:29,920 20 and 50 yeah so we we saw similarly that 218 00:23:29,920 --> 00:23:39,360 averages about 50 percent in terms of recommendations 40 50 percent. Got it yeah and I know there was 219 00:23:39,360 --> 00:23:45,360 concern from some council members about if we increase the fee somewhere closer to 75 to 100 220 00:23:45,360 --> 00:23:51,760 percent that the majority of that fee would be pushed onto the home buyer from your experience 221 00:23:51,760 --> 00:23:57,040 and your expertise do you believe that could be the case if we increase the fee towards that 100 222 00:23:57,040 --> 00:24:02,240 percent mark that nearly 100 percent of that fee cost would be pushed onto the home buyer? 223 00:24:05,040 --> 00:24:10,320 I would say not not being a home builder that that's what I sort of hear often from the home 224 00:24:10,320 --> 00:24:17,840 builders I couldn't say that I'm certain that that's what's going to happen I certainly have 225 00:24:17,840 --> 00:24:21,840 been told that that's what it that's what happens regardless of where the fee is set so I don't think 226 00:24:21,840 --> 00:24:26,320 that from what I've heard that where you set the fee is going to change whether or not the cost 227 00:24:26,320 --> 00:24:31,440 gets passed the home buyer or not but that's what I've been told is that it typically does get passed 228 00:24:31,440 --> 00:24:37,040 on to the home buyer. Right and no matter if we increase the fee or increase taxes it's still 229 00:24:37,040 --> 00:24:44,320 gonna somehow go back to the home buyer eventually right the the cost for road repair and drainage 230 00:24:44,320 --> 00:24:50,240 repair and whatnot and improvement. Yeah again it depends on the decision that the developer 231 00:24:50,240 --> 00:24:56,880 and the home builder makes ultimately on that but yes that is a consideration to to keep in mind 232 00:24:59,120 --> 00:25:04,800 in terms of how much of that cost is borne by the home buyer and by 233 00:25:04,800 --> 00:25:08,960 current citizens. Right got it thank you. 234 00:25:08,960 --> 00:25:14,400 Commissioner Perot. Thank you Chair. 235 00:25:14,400 --> 00:25:20,880 So first to follow up on that and then I'll go back to just a couple of technical questions 236 00:25:20,880 --> 00:25:28,160 in the report do you recall when I guess at the last council work session when the staff report 237 00:25:28,160 --> 00:25:33,280 brought back the consensus of our cake committee from last time what their reaction was did they 238 00:25:33,280 --> 00:25:41,600 have any feedback about hearing what we had expressed? I don't recall them commenting on 239 00:25:41,600 --> 00:25:49,120 what what your comments were on what CIC had recommended or expressed before. Okay what was 240 00:25:49,120 --> 00:25:56,400 our consensus shared to them in the meeting? It wasn't shared in the meeting it may have been 241 00:25:56,400 --> 00:26:00,720 shared I can ask that staff if it's been shared outside the meeting. Thank you just a couple of 242 00:26:00,720 --> 00:26:10,960 quick questions on the on the report. Sorry okay first I think we had some discussions at the last 243 00:26:10,960 --> 00:26:17,040 cake meeting about how many units and some of those were in the ETJ and some of them were internal. 244 00:26:17,040 --> 00:26:23,600 Seeing the breakdown in single family and multi-family it's a little bit of a different 245 00:26:23,600 --> 00:26:30,800 breakdown because our comp plan splits out attached in two to four unit buildings separately but 246 00:26:30,800 --> 00:26:41,280 looking at the numbers it it looked like including or if you assume the ETJ 247 00:26:41,280 --> 00:26:47,920 numbers that you mentioned earlier were primarily single family then we would be ahead of linearity 248 00:26:47,920 --> 00:26:54,000 on growth of single family over the next 10 years and behind linearity and multi-family it is 249 00:26:54,000 --> 00:26:59,040 is my impression correct or is there something else going on in the numbers there? 250 00:26:59,040 --> 00:27:07,680 So if I if I understand your your question correctly is does the mix of single family 251 00:27:07,680 --> 00:27:14,400 versus multi-family in the impact feed does it match what's shown in the comp plan? Right once you 252 00:27:15,280 --> 00:27:21,920 assume a certain amount of development in the ETJ. My answer is I would say yes 253 00:27:21,920 --> 00:27:30,080 to that question we we took the data directly from the the comp plan so the comp plan did its 254 00:27:30,080 --> 00:27:35,440 projections based off of traffic analysis zones throughout the city and there's a certain number 255 00:27:35,440 --> 00:27:43,200 of households within each traffic analysis zone and by year so we took that that data by year and 256 00:27:43,200 --> 00:27:49,600 then we we met with planning staff to look at what kind of adjustments need to be made in terms of 257 00:27:49,600 --> 00:27:54,560 making sure our 10-year projections are accurate are accurate based off of new development data 258 00:27:54,560 --> 00:28:02,720 that we that we have most recently and so there there could be some minor discrepancies in terms 259 00:28:02,720 --> 00:28:08,480 of how much single family how much multi-family but we do expect that most likely in the ETJ it's 260 00:28:08,480 --> 00:28:12,400 going to be more heavily single family and within the city limits it's going to be more heavily 261 00:28:12,400 --> 00:28:19,120 multi-family and that and we believe the numbers are reflected that way in the impact feed okay 262 00:28:19,120 --> 00:28:26,240 these assumptions thank you and then as I look through the the tables and the maps of the included 263 00:28:26,240 --> 00:28:38,000 roadways I saw some roadways just not to pull anything particular out that currently are not 264 00:28:38,000 --> 00:28:44,720 built to the cross-section that we normally do for some of the collector roadways and that sort of 265 00:28:44,720 --> 00:28:51,600 thing and then when I delve into the details the the traffic analysis on those segments sometimes 266 00:28:51,600 --> 00:28:59,040 said that there was zero percent or the capacity that they had even though they were under the 267 00:28:59,040 --> 00:29:07,920 cross-sectional guidance in our transportation criteria manual was not under the projected 268 00:29:07,920 --> 00:29:15,200 need over the 10-year period so sorry if I'm using too many words this is where I should have said 269 00:29:15,200 --> 00:29:22,880 so started is that there's three different colors used in the key of those of these maps one is new 270 00:29:22,880 --> 00:29:27,760 segments obviously those are included sure the second is widening segments I would assume those 271 00:29:27,760 --> 00:29:34,640 are generally included and then the third is other thoroughfares right and and so some of those other 272 00:29:34,640 --> 00:29:41,440 existing thoroughfares are are those in general included within the list of eligible roadway 273 00:29:41,440 --> 00:29:46,800 segments or not included or is it some of which and some of some and some of the other and how's that 274 00:29:46,800 --> 00:29:52,640 determined that's a good question so if it's a if the black line on the maps if it's an other 275 00:29:52,640 --> 00:29:58,400 thoroughfare those are roads that were not included as impact fee eligible projects okay and that 276 00:29:58,400 --> 00:30:02,640 that's a combination of either they've they've been fully built out and there's no current debt 277 00:30:02,640 --> 00:30:10,000 service on that roadway or if it's a text out roadway or if it's a roadway that's in a existing 278 00:30:10,000 --> 00:30:14,640 development agreement that developers fully going to be building those roads that those be those 279 00:30:14,640 --> 00:30:20,640 show up as black roads okay yeah all right thank you that's it right now okay commissioner mcday 280 00:30:20,640 --> 00:30:23,840 thank you thank you madam chair yeah i'll just carry us on your 281 00:30:26,240 --> 00:30:33,360 city comparison as the city didn't ever model itself after in your studies have they ever modeled 282 00:30:33,360 --> 00:30:39,600 themselves after other cities or they just pretty much want to see what's you know why i know they 283 00:30:39,600 --> 00:30:42,960 want to see what everything is like and then just bring it back to the to the city i mean have they 284 00:30:42,960 --> 00:30:47,840 ever just say okay i like this plan you know let's let's go with it or i don't know how long you've 285 00:30:47,840 --> 00:30:55,840 been here so i don't know yeah i was involved in the 2016 uh update or the the first study i should 286 00:30:55,840 --> 00:31:07,200 say in denton and one of the conversations then was to draw some some inspiration from the way 287 00:31:07,200 --> 00:31:11,760 that ford does their program and the the initial recommendation was to start out three thousand 288 00:31:11,760 --> 00:31:17,760 dollars a house which is what they were collecting at the time to be similar or in competition with 289 00:31:17,760 --> 00:31:24,400 the fort worth market and that that changed shortly before adoption to being two thousand 290 00:31:24,400 --> 00:31:29,680 dollars a house uh so that that was one of the initial comparisons with how to develop a roadway 291 00:31:29,680 --> 00:31:35,360 impact fee in the same uh in the same vein the conversation of having a flat fee across the 292 00:31:35,360 --> 00:31:40,480 service areas which at the time they've since moved away from that with their their latest update but 293 00:31:40,480 --> 00:31:48,480 that's uh one of the conversations that was had all right thank you commissioner smith 294 00:31:52,640 --> 00:31:59,920 yeah and uh thank you uh becky yeah and i will just mention as well that uh like i said fort worth 295 00:31:59,920 --> 00:32:07,760 just went to a percent of the maximum in each service area and they've gone up to 50 percent 296 00:32:07,760 --> 00:32:13,760 of the maximum rate in their any service areas with an escalation up to 65 over the next three 297 00:32:13,760 --> 00:32:18,240 years uh that's a residential for non-residential they're going to stay at 40 percent of their 298 00:32:18,240 --> 00:32:25,200 maximum each of the service areas and they also by the way saw a big jump in infrastructure costs as 299 00:32:25,200 --> 00:32:33,120 well um how is that escalation measure do you know they're they're just choosing to go five 300 00:32:33,120 --> 00:32:38,960 percent a year so each year on i see june 1st each year it's going to raise five percent for 301 00:32:38,960 --> 00:32:46,240 the residential uses understand commissioner thank you um i know you're looking for one approval of 302 00:32:46,240 --> 00:32:53,040 the study which i think we'll probably have to take an official vote for correct i know you're 303 00:32:53,040 --> 00:32:57,120 looking for two things today there's an approval approval study and then a recommendation for us 304 00:32:57,120 --> 00:33:01,680 to make two on the real impact impact fee to city council correct so yes well i guess we'll come 305 00:33:01,680 --> 00:33:07,840 back to the approval of the study piece when it comes to being more uh formal um my input just on 306 00:33:07,840 --> 00:33:13,120 what i'd like to see it as a recommendation to city council on this i like the idea of going to 307 00:33:13,120 --> 00:33:18,800 30 percent with a scaling over the next three years to 50 i think that makes the most amount of sense 308 00:33:18,800 --> 00:33:25,760 the uh i think just want to make this point that these are these are hypothetical single family 309 00:33:25,760 --> 00:33:30,640 residential properties right they're not existing we're not not directly impacting by making this 310 00:33:30,640 --> 00:33:36,240 change any current citizens and so really it is a change that's made to future citizens i think 311 00:33:36,240 --> 00:33:41,600 that's something important to remember about impact fees that impact fees in my opinion are 312 00:33:41,600 --> 00:33:48,880 probably one of the greatest ways we control growth um i've had a very large you know uh amount of 313 00:33:48,880 --> 00:33:53,360 single family residential properties that have come into the city uh since my time on p and z 314 00:33:53,360 --> 00:33:59,040 which are great excited to see the growth i think we also need to start taking our foot off the gas 315 00:33:59,040 --> 00:34:03,120 pedal uh just where we are economically with interest rates rising and so i think that this 316 00:34:03,120 --> 00:34:08,880 would help slow that down um and would be the best way of not only one not impacting current 317 00:34:08,880 --> 00:34:13,920 citizens obviously but two really protecting them because eventually as commissioner villarreal said 318 00:34:13,920 --> 00:34:19,440 that if we don't raise it that eventually current citizens are going to have to pay for impact fees 319 00:34:19,440 --> 00:34:24,800 by just having their taxes raised or having to be you know on the hook as the ad valorem taxpayers 320 00:34:24,800 --> 00:34:30,640 for a bond that gets issued out to cover for cost of of roadways so for me it's it's really not it's 321 00:34:30,640 --> 00:34:36,880 inconsequential to whether that cost gets eaten by the developer or gets eaten by the home buyer of 322 00:34:36,880 --> 00:34:43,840 those new ones because these are all hypothetical and um if the home buyer is going to pay for it 323 00:34:43,840 --> 00:34:47,120 honestly at the end of the day the developer the builder is going to be a business owner and they're 324 00:34:47,120 --> 00:34:52,400 going to look at it and say doesn't make sense financially for us to even develop if this is the 325 00:34:52,400 --> 00:34:56,560 impact that has been stated so the graded gives time for our development community to catch up 326 00:34:56,560 --> 00:35:01,280 and i think to be able to make those adjustments to projects because single family residential 327 00:35:01,280 --> 00:35:06,800 property developments don't happen overnight they're not decisions that are made in a quarter or in a 328 00:35:06,800 --> 00:35:10,480 year they're taking a lot of time into it so i think the grading makes a lot of sense to let them 329 00:35:10,480 --> 00:35:16,320 adjust secondly on that recommendation of city council it wasn't really mentioned here other than 330 00:35:16,320 --> 00:35:21,360 the briefly saying there's a 25 discount on commercial developments i would like to see 331 00:35:21,360 --> 00:35:29,680 in service areas a c and d specifically a heavier discount towards commercial developments those 332 00:35:29,680 --> 00:35:35,680 areas and maybe a is thrown out because it's so industrial but those areas are areas that we have 333 00:35:35,680 --> 00:35:39,680 a lot of residential growth coming just based off last past projects seen the last five and a half 334 00:35:39,680 --> 00:35:48,560 years and are areas that solely but surely we as a commission the city council have essentially 335 00:35:48,560 --> 00:35:54,640 encouraged food deserts or lack of mixed use or blended use of commercial and residential uses and 336 00:35:54,640 --> 00:35:59,360 so i think this would even be if this is part of the conversation of encouraging a discount to be 337 00:35:59,360 --> 00:36:04,560 even higher for commercial developments to encourage commercial developments in maybe areas of the city 338 00:36:04,560 --> 00:36:10,480 that would possibly create less impact to our roadways because citizens aren't having to drive 339 00:36:10,480 --> 00:36:14,800 across town to be able to get to commercial services they need so those are my two points 340 00:36:14,800 --> 00:36:19,760 i'll sum them up rather than doing my soliloquy i'll go over again graded 30 to 50 over the next 341 00:36:19,760 --> 00:36:25,840 three years my recommendation and then encouraging a heavier commercial discount for impact fees 342 00:36:25,840 --> 00:36:35,600 and the service areas a c and d thank you commissioner villarreal so i like the vice 343 00:36:35,600 --> 00:36:40,480 chair smith's idea about increasing the discount for commercial development i am a bit more 344 00:36:40,480 --> 00:36:48,960 aggressive in terms of impact fees i know i said at the last ciac meeting roughly 100 maybe 75 to 80 345 00:36:48,960 --> 00:36:55,120 to match what mayor pro tem beck and councilman davis proposed so i'd be somewhere around that 75 346 00:36:55,120 --> 00:37:04,080 to 80 percent of the maximum fee thank you commissioner prove it thank you chair i'm 347 00:37:04,080 --> 00:37:11,360 in a similar vein as commissioner of real real i also like the idea of the you know increasing 348 00:37:11,360 --> 00:37:20,720 fee just to keep up with times let me understand the the maximum that can be charged until another 349 00:37:20,720 --> 00:37:27,120 study is done is it limited by the nominal dollar amount computed by the study or is it limited 350 00:37:27,120 --> 00:37:33,600 to the nominal dollar amount adjusted by some cpu or or other inflation metric between those 351 00:37:33,600 --> 00:37:41,600 two times it's it's set by the study itself so the nominal okay so so i would just say that 352 00:37:41,600 --> 00:37:49,120 who knows what happens in five years but we're in an inflationary time to to set something that 353 00:37:49,120 --> 00:37:56,560 does not have an automatically increasing value on it or percentage is to guarantee that the value 354 00:37:56,560 --> 00:38:05,280 of that impact fee goes down over time until the next study is made so i i would be melding the two 355 00:38:05,280 --> 00:38:13,920 and and i would really like to see starting above 50 and going as close to 100 as we can 356 00:38:13,920 --> 00:38:22,080 and the reasoning for that is i think in the last ciac meeting we had um um scott mcdonald shared 357 00:38:22,080 --> 00:38:28,960 that you know when you have communities that an impact fee jumps really the immediate change there 358 00:38:28,960 --> 00:38:34,720 is that maybe the builders will start putting less amenities in those homes and that sort of thing 359 00:38:34,720 --> 00:38:43,840 i look at this as not an impact fee to the new home buyer but rather a discussion of how much 360 00:38:43,840 --> 00:38:48,720 subsidy the existing taxpayers are going to pay for the roads that those new home buyers are going 361 00:38:48,720 --> 00:38:55,840 to be going to be needing essentially um and and i don't think our existing taxpayers should be 362 00:38:55,840 --> 00:39:03,760 paying taxes to subsidize new residents granite countertops so thank you thank you 363 00:39:03,760 --> 00:39:11,920 um becky i have a question um you mentioned that you're giving up that council asked you for i 364 00:39:11,920 --> 00:39:17,440 guess more information more data that's going to be part of your presentation on 24th right so what 365 00:39:17,440 --> 00:39:24,480 what new data are you collecting for them the really or is it just numbers the only things that 366 00:39:24,480 --> 00:39:29,040 are really different they had a few questions that they'd like for us to answer um we've been 367 00:39:29,040 --> 00:39:36,720 working through those they also asked us to look at 30 40 and 50 the options we presented today are 368 00:39:36,720 --> 00:39:42,800 20 50 100 so they'd like to just see some of those variations like just see the numbers you mean 369 00:39:42,800 --> 00:39:48,320 that's correct just see that the math worked out okay that's correct okay what else am i missing 370 00:39:48,320 --> 00:39:55,280 there were a couple of other things they talked to us about um really the fee was the main trigger 371 00:39:55,280 --> 00:40:02,800 item yeah um there was some discussion about if you raise the fee a certain percentage what does 372 00:40:02,800 --> 00:40:11,120 that do to the tax rate we have to charge in order to keep up the roads um also what impact does that 373 00:40:11,120 --> 00:40:20,480 have to your potential to capture sales tax essentially how much development uh can you can 374 00:40:20,480 --> 00:40:26,640 you keep up commercial development coming in if you raise the rate and keep commercial uh tax 375 00:40:26,640 --> 00:40:32,880 revenue coming in those are a couple of the the requests to present okay i was just trying to 376 00:40:32,880 --> 00:40:38,720 understand exactly um what they want to see and part of the conversation that someday you know as 377 00:40:38,720 --> 00:40:44,000 we look at the transportation funding options we'll have the roadway funding strategy conversation 378 00:40:44,000 --> 00:40:49,520 where roadway user fee could be one of those conversation pieces and you know that's why we 379 00:40:49,520 --> 00:40:55,360 wanted today to present the chart that shows here's city ways to to fund you know major roadway 380 00:40:55,360 --> 00:41:02,160 improvement projects currently to date are being funded using bond programs um versus you know how 381 00:41:02,160 --> 00:41:09,760 the development community um you know is using but impact fees is a way and a tool that's used you 382 00:41:09,760 --> 00:41:14,640 know you can see throughout the state you know i think the other thing we've learned and one of the 383 00:41:14,640 --> 00:41:18,640 things we want to make sure we share with council next time and it's kind of to some of the questions 384 00:41:18,640 --> 00:41:26,640 that commissioner pruitt asked specifically um so the comparison cities and i guess commissioner 385 00:41:26,640 --> 00:41:32,000 mcdade also sir but some of the comparison cities have not done their updates in a year or two 386 00:41:32,000 --> 00:41:40,160 and even the differences we've seen in construction costs from 2020 to 2021 now using 2022 numbers it's 387 00:41:40,160 --> 00:41:46,160 substantially increased we've seen you know any anywhere in the upwards of 30 to 40 percent increase 388 00:41:47,760 --> 00:41:52,720 in construction and construction materials so that's one of the things that's made it 389 00:41:52,720 --> 00:41:58,160 difficult to make the comparison because it is not an apples to apples comparison no never is 390 00:41:58,160 --> 00:42:06,560 um yeah i think the consensus obviously is that we need to collect more than we're collecting um 391 00:42:06,560 --> 00:42:13,040 commissioner smith i guess what i would just say with yours i don't the going 20 is just not 392 00:42:13,040 --> 00:42:20,880 enough and it hasn't been enough and we're behind for sure throughout the city um raising it to 30 393 00:42:20,880 --> 00:42:26,400 i don't think it's going to do anything i mean not much um i think i do think we have to be a 394 00:42:26,400 --> 00:42:34,480 little bit more aggressive than that to me to to have um the proper impact of the impact fee 395 00:42:36,240 --> 00:42:43,840 so um i i'd probably want to see something like starting at 50 and then with some kind of escalation 396 00:42:43,840 --> 00:42:50,480 over over some time um getting to 100 i don't even know if that's a i don't know if that's a 397 00:42:50,480 --> 00:42:58,880 doable thing just yet um if ever um here especially with all the growth that we have 398 00:42:58,880 --> 00:43:05,520 i feel like 100 collection fee would happen when we've got more build out than we have 399 00:43:05,520 --> 00:43:11,440 um but i'll give the floor back to you commissioner smith thank you no i think to 400 00:43:11,440 --> 00:43:16,480 commissioner prude about the point of you know does that does that increase in the fee even what 401 00:43:16,480 --> 00:43:20,880 but you know um scott mcdonald said is that does that ruin amenities or those kinds of things for 402 00:43:20,880 --> 00:43:25,840 those new homes i think that's why the 30 to 50 percent that i recommended i know this is not 403 00:43:25,840 --> 00:43:29,920 not battling for a vote here or making recommendations but i didn't give i don't 404 00:43:29,920 --> 00:43:35,120 think maybe the full thought process behind why i said 30 to 15 even going to 30 percent on a 405 00:43:35,760 --> 00:43:40,240 average of 20 20 000 per single family residential across the across the board 406 00:43:40,240 --> 00:43:46,800 that's still a 200 increase to where our current impact fee is um for those developers and it to 407 00:43:46,800 --> 00:43:53,120 me like a thought to commissioner prude's point and that's a more gradual rather than throwing 408 00:43:53,120 --> 00:43:56,960 them in the deep end or throwing them somewhere in the three foot section of the pool uh and 409 00:43:56,960 --> 00:44:01,200 letting them uh letting them let them figure out how that is going to go and then graduating to 50 410 00:44:01,920 --> 00:44:07,520 to commissioner villarreal and to prude's points of saying over 50 percent and even to you chair 411 00:44:07,520 --> 00:44:13,440 of saying over 50 i think at the end of the day the 50 percent is obviously a percentage and 412 00:44:13,440 --> 00:44:19,680 there's dollar amounts to come from that but 50 as a principle speaks to the fact that this is a 413 00:44:19,680 --> 00:44:25,280 partnership and we recognize the developers without them bringing projects to the city we don't have 414 00:44:25,280 --> 00:44:31,520 sales tax revenue and ad valorem tax revenue that we can get i think that number speaks more to a 415 00:44:31,520 --> 00:44:36,560 a true partnership type of mindset in the city versus us coming in saying hey we need you to pay 416 00:44:36,560 --> 00:44:42,080 85 or 90 percent of this and thanks for thanks for your business now we're charging you the 417 00:44:42,080 --> 00:44:47,680 full premium for that it it seems like it's more of an attitude of um we're kicking you in the shin 418 00:44:47,680 --> 00:44:52,480 for bringing us something nice and so um that's that that's a piece that i think gets included 419 00:44:52,480 --> 00:45:03,840 earlier but yep thank you anybody else um so i guess one commissioner cole hang on a sec 420 00:45:03,840 --> 00:45:12,240 um it sounds like thank you chair it sounds like um the council was two two and two so i mean that 421 00:45:12,240 --> 00:45:17,440 means there's four that aren't going to go for the hundred percent sounds like so 422 00:45:20,080 --> 00:45:27,200 maybe the conversation should go 50 you know a nice down the middle 423 00:45:27,200 --> 00:45:35,040 you know i don't think you can go wrong that way well yeah i think i think it'd be difficult to 424 00:45:35,040 --> 00:45:43,600 uh go from 20 to 100 personally um and i just want to mention the 20 percent that i know 425 00:45:43,600 --> 00:45:51,520 i'm just reiterating but i know uh pete said this earlier 20 is just really the basic to get us to 426 00:45:51,520 --> 00:45:59,120 current construction cost right um so you know going from two thousand dollars in 2016 to 427 00:45:59,120 --> 00:46:05,520 forty two hundred dollars in 2022 you know that's that's really just the cost escalation that we've 428 00:46:05,520 --> 00:46:12,160 seen so um i just wanted to make sure i pointed that out sure thank you commissioner perot thank 429 00:46:12,160 --> 00:46:18,480 you chair yeah i guess i just just tack on a couple things and that is that obviously the way it goes 430 00:46:18,480 --> 00:46:26,480 is the way it's going to go um right now it's not so much that we've got development community in a 431 00:46:26,480 --> 00:46:30,880 two-foot pool and we're going to take them to a three-foot pool it's that we've got development 432 00:46:30,880 --> 00:46:38,240 community there and then we have the the rest of the citizens in the seven-foot deep end right and 433 00:46:38,240 --> 00:46:46,000 we're talking about okay who are we going to let drown first right a lot of these developments if 434 00:46:46,000 --> 00:46:51,200 they don't come in we don't have to build the roads so it's lower cost to the city i mean i 435 00:46:51,200 --> 00:46:59,200 i just don't understand how um there's a tacit assumption that um 436 00:46:59,200 --> 00:47:07,120 existing residents should always pay some portion whatever that is whether it's the 80 percent that 437 00:47:07,120 --> 00:47:13,520 it is now which is really more like 90 with inflation or whether it's 50 or 10 or whatever 438 00:47:13,520 --> 00:47:21,440 of the cost to serve new growth i just don't understand um and and then lastly as far as the 439 00:47:21,440 --> 00:47:28,240 increasing amount i know there there may be psychological limitations to uh how high that 440 00:47:28,240 --> 00:47:34,560 can go i would just point out that if you're talking about going to 90 or something five years 441 00:47:34,560 --> 00:47:40,000 from now that won't be 90 percent of the cost at five years from now that might be 50 of the cost 442 00:47:40,000 --> 00:47:48,240 five years from now so thank you commissioner villarreal i do hear commissioner cole's point 443 00:47:48,240 --> 00:47:54,400 and as we're trying to reach consensus i'd be in favor of starting at 50 and graduating eventually 444 00:47:54,400 --> 00:47:59,600 to 80 i'm sure commissioner pruett would somewhat agree with that as well if we're trying to reach 445 00:47:59,600 --> 00:48:07,520 somewhere in the middle here so yeah i mean it's a difficult discussion um to reach consensus on as 446 00:48:07,520 --> 00:48:12,480 we can as we've been discussing this now how many meetings and um and council's asking you for even 447 00:48:12,480 --> 00:48:18,800 more information than the hundred pages we have in front of us so um so as far as what you need from 448 00:48:18,800 --> 00:48:27,680 us today um so i believe your recommendation you know across the board kind of from the different 449 00:48:27,680 --> 00:48:33,680 fees i've been taking notes okay um so i have that level of information we also would like to 450 00:48:33,680 --> 00:48:39,920 have concurrence or feedback on the land use assumptions um we use the land use assumptions 451 00:48:39,920 --> 00:48:45,920 that were a part of the 2040 comprehensive plan um that's what pete and team used to 452 00:48:45,920 --> 00:48:53,360 develop the overall impact fee study and then we will also want your understanding and concurrence 453 00:48:53,360 --> 00:48:59,360 with the capital improvement plan that's a part of the overall study so there's really three things 454 00:48:59,360 --> 00:49:03,200 that we're kind of wanting to see if you have any feedback for us on or if you're in alignment with 455 00:49:03,200 --> 00:49:09,680 so i believe as far as percentages we understand kind of where you all stand um but i think those 456 00:49:09,680 --> 00:49:13,920 are the other two pieces that we'd like to hear some feedback on okay good commissioner smith 457 00:49:18,480 --> 00:49:24,160 i think the uh i think the land use assumptions are spot on and i think that's i just keep the 458 00:49:24,160 --> 00:49:29,760 feedback good job there um and then the um the impact study that you guys did was great and i 459 00:49:29,760 --> 00:49:36,880 think that's perfectly fine there commissioner prudet yeah i think it's it's really encouraging 460 00:49:36,880 --> 00:49:41,760 to see how um the investment that we made in the comprehensive plan and the traffic study 461 00:49:41,760 --> 00:49:48,160 mobility plan is now being used carried forward for these types of studies and in the past it's 462 00:49:48,160 --> 00:49:54,880 been a little bit more hodgepodge so this i completely support that uh my only comment on the 463 00:49:54,880 --> 00:50:04,720 the the roadways that are included is whether staff thought through uh certain roadways that were 464 00:50:04,720 --> 00:50:10,160 not built up to the standards so just as means of one example but i'm sure there's a few more that 465 00:50:10,160 --> 00:50:19,600 might make sense to look at um up north on hercules there's that section kind of east of 77 well it's 466 00:50:19,600 --> 00:50:27,680 not 77 there but east of locust street 21 something it changes numbers thank you um between there and 467 00:50:27,680 --> 00:50:34,320 river pass where there's a there's like a narrow bridge that widens down that sort of thing um i 468 00:50:34,320 --> 00:50:42,080 just didn't know if if those were not included because it gets too complex and it's not worth 469 00:50:42,080 --> 00:50:48,560 penciling out a project um or if if it would make sense to include some of the 470 00:50:48,560 --> 00:50:54,320 the smaller collectors um in case there was a project that came through especially i'm thinking 471 00:50:54,320 --> 00:51:01,920 the ones um that that might coincide with some of the more major bike routes that are established 472 00:51:01,920 --> 00:51:08,240 in in that mobility plan um just to be able to have more flexibility on the funding sources 473 00:51:08,240 --> 00:51:31,360 so if i if i understand the the question correctly there's some collectors that are not built out 474 00:51:31,360 --> 00:51:35,440 to their ultimate configuration and they're shown you're talking about the they're shown as 475 00:51:35,440 --> 00:51:42,400 black roads on the map that are they're not colluded included yeah i saw a couple i didn't 476 00:51:42,400 --> 00:51:48,560 go through every single one yeah there are some where it is a decision to be made um 477 00:51:48,560 --> 00:51:57,440 whether that's that's that's in the plan uh coming up soon uh or whether there's really that much 478 00:51:57,440 --> 00:52:01,280 capacity to be added or if there's right away challenges there so there's a lot of different 479 00:52:01,280 --> 00:52:06,480 specific situations we ran into when we were looking at that uh but for the most part we 480 00:52:06,480 --> 00:52:11,920 tried to include try to be on uh have a bias to include as many roads as possible so there's 481 00:52:11,920 --> 00:52:17,360 flexibility built into the program yeah i mean if staff has already gone through and and made a 482 00:52:17,360 --> 00:52:21,120 determination based on the things i'm talking about about those segments there's no need to 483 00:52:21,120 --> 00:52:26,560 to go back and rehash it i was just wondering whether those types of thought processes had come 484 00:52:26,560 --> 00:52:31,920 up in the process of identifying the roadways that would be included yes multiple individuals 485 00:52:31,920 --> 00:52:36,800 reviewed each map of the service area we actually went back and forth several times as to even 486 00:52:36,800 --> 00:52:44,000 how to show it where it made sense um the beginning stages of those maps had different criteria than 487 00:52:44,000 --> 00:52:50,160 what it is currently shown and the legend was actually a little bit more explicit um we decided 488 00:52:50,160 --> 00:52:56,400 to move in that fashion because keep in mind the cip map specifically for the roadway impact fee 489 00:52:56,400 --> 00:53:01,840 is based on projects that are anticipated over the next 10 years and being that hercules for 490 00:53:01,840 --> 00:53:08,240 example was just improved we don't anticipate a capital project in that area over the next 10 491 00:53:08,240 --> 00:53:13,520 years okay that helps yeah no that does thank you for that additional information i mean with that i 492 00:53:13,520 --> 00:53:19,840 i totally support the the um the report i think it was very thorough and uh i certainly learned 493 00:53:19,840 --> 00:53:29,520 a few things it's reading through it so thank you agreed commissioner cole thank you chair 494 00:53:29,520 --> 00:53:34,960 great work guys thank you so much for your hard work i mean you spoil us to death all of you so 495 00:53:34,960 --> 00:53:45,280 thank you does that does that help is that uh absolutely okay good i believe based on 496 00:53:45,280 --> 00:53:49,520 you know what we're needing is just understanding that you're in concurrence with the study the 497 00:53:49,520 --> 00:53:54,160 document we've received the feedback on the percentages um we will be like i said making 498 00:53:54,160 --> 00:53:59,680 that council presentation um and we'll use the feedback in minutes from this meeting as the 499 00:53:59,680 --> 00:54:03,680 representation of the cia that's exactly what i was just going to ask you next do you need anything 500 00:54:03,680 --> 00:54:08,640 else because i know you need to yeah meet the state law requirements so will that serve then 501 00:54:08,640 --> 00:54:14,560 as in writing i believe is what you need it yes we're working to have this as be be the minutes be 502 00:54:14,560 --> 00:54:19,440 okay in writing portion for the state law component so okay um i want to thank you all i know this is 503 00:54:19,440 --> 00:54:24,320 extra time out of your day like i said to be here um early and i know you've had to do this now on 504 00:54:24,320 --> 00:54:30,000 three different occasions it's very important that we receive your feedback you're the the board and 505 00:54:30,000 --> 00:54:36,400 body committee that receives all of the developments that come through the process to begin with and so 506 00:54:36,400 --> 00:54:40,640 it's very important that we receive your feedback so thank you so much for taking this extra time 507 00:54:40,640 --> 00:54:45,520 pete and i have really enjoyed working with all of you and it's been a learning experience for all 508 00:54:45,520 --> 00:54:50,480 of us so uh commissioner prude it's been something we've all learned through the process so i believe 509 00:54:50,480 --> 00:54:56,880 commissioner prude has uh something more thank you chair just thank you for all that really um and 510 00:54:56,880 --> 00:55:03,840 last point i would have i know there's going to be over ongoing conversations about um um infill 511 00:55:03,840 --> 00:55:10,720 overlays and and what sort of things because that kind of came up in both bodies um i would advocate 512 00:55:10,720 --> 00:55:18,160 within our written remarks to include a suggestion that at least council be consulted about the 513 00:55:18,160 --> 00:55:27,520 strategy of drawing uh the um sectors at the next impact fee update um just because i feel like 514 00:55:27,520 --> 00:55:33,040 that's something that some of the council members were surprised they weren't um consulted on before 515 00:55:33,040 --> 00:55:37,440 and and it was just kind of a carryover from previous if that makes sense so when you say 516 00:55:37,440 --> 00:55:44,160 sectors are you mentioning service areas thank you i couldn't think of the specific term the a3d 517 00:55:44,160 --> 00:55:49,520 okay no problem sectors i think of roadways so i was wanting to make sure that i'm not wanting to 518 00:55:49,520 --> 00:55:55,760 help them help me draw on the map every single roadway but sure you know i think um as the next 519 00:55:55,760 --> 00:56:00,160 round of an impact fee update comes forward and keep in mind this is something that has to be done 520 00:56:00,160 --> 00:56:07,040 at a bare minimum every five years um this was simply just an update but as the time frame comes 521 00:56:07,040 --> 00:56:13,360 forward to make the next round of updates um and it like i said it's at a bare minimum five years 522 00:56:13,360 --> 00:56:18,160 we can make the decision to make those updates sooner if development changes growth changes and 523 00:56:18,160 --> 00:56:24,000 we feel like it's a need or even for that matter the economy changes right um and the city makes 524 00:56:24,000 --> 00:56:29,200 that decision so at such time we definitely can evaluate service areas it has been a question 525 00:56:29,200 --> 00:56:38,240 that's been brought up and so i appreciate that no problem i think um one one more thing to to make 526 00:56:38,240 --> 00:56:45,520 sure um that is understood i think it's the consensus of this body to have the um uh the 527 00:56:45,520 --> 00:56:51,200 commercial development discounts and and whatnot with as it relates to impact fees correct 528 00:56:54,000 --> 00:57:00,560 it's my understanding we heard that about service area a c and d um in areas where wanting to make 529 00:57:00,560 --> 00:57:05,920 sure that there is a commercial discount greater than 25 percent to allow for yeah just a little 530 00:57:05,920 --> 00:57:11,280 more incentive correct i did understand yes thank you very excellent i want to make sure that got 531 00:57:11,280 --> 00:57:18,000 taken forward okay thank you commissioner you're set okay good no no worries i just wanted to make 532 00:57:18,000 --> 00:57:26,000 sure okay thank you very much for a great discussion super hard work um and good luck going 533 00:57:26,000 --> 00:57:34,000 forward we'll be watching thank you okay thank you okay um i've got concluding items on this 534 00:57:34,000 --> 00:57:39,840 agenda is there anything else to add concluding items from the commission or i should say the 535 00:57:39,840 --> 00:57:47,440 committee in this regard okay with that i will close our capital improvement advisory committee 536 00:57:47,440 --> 00:57:53,120 meeting at 458 p.m.