WEBVTT 00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:10.560 >> Good afternoon and welcome to this meeting of the Capital Improvement Advisory Committee. 00:00:10.560 --> 00:00:15.120 The Planning and Zoning Commission does serve as this committee. 00:00:15.120 --> 00:00:18.640 And with the quorum present, I will call the meeting to order at 4.01 PM. 00:00:18.640 --> 00:00:23.920 Our one item of business today is receive a report, hold a discussion, 00:00:23.920 --> 00:00:28.240 give staff direction regarding the update to the roadway impact fees. 00:00:28.240 --> 00:00:33.200 Becky, I will give it to you. >> Thank you so much for having us today. 00:00:33.200 --> 00:00:38.080 Myself along with Pete Kelly will be here to give you the presentation. 00:00:38.080 --> 00:00:41.760 I'm going to ask Pete to come up here in just a minute. 00:00:41.760 --> 00:00:46.160 I want to remind you, we gave you a copy of the study. 00:00:46.160 --> 00:00:49.280 Hopefully you saw it as exhibit three. I know it was a lengthy report. 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 00:00:56.240 --> 00:01:01.280 that's at the very end of the presentation is going to be updated. 00:01:01.280 --> 00:01:05.680 Some of those dates are going to move out just because of the council calendar 00:01:05.680 --> 00:01:11.520 and us meeting some of the statutory requirements of the 30 days with posting. 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 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 00:01:26.720 --> 00:01:32.480 part of the study and then of course some direction from you on percentages or other 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 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 00:01:46.480 --> 00:01:51.840 presentation January 24th. As you might know, last night was the last council meeting for the 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. 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. 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 00:02:52.480 --> 00:02:58.320 is to talk about the final maximum fee results and calculations. That report is completed. You 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 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 00:03:07.840 --> 00:03:15.040 different options. Talk about some comparison cities. I want to caveat this comparison city. 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 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 00:03:26.160 --> 00:03:30.720 comparison cities that were selected, some were based on the fact that they are college towns. 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 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 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 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 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 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 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. 00:04:07.920 --> 00:04:12.800 Transportation funding options is something that we want to discuss because impact fees 00:04:12.800 --> 00:04:18.320 are just one way of funding transportation from the development perspective of those fees being 00:04:18.320 --> 00:04:24.560 accounted for during the development process. You might be aware that there is a roadway funding 00:04:24.560 --> 00:04:29.760 strategy conversation that's ongoing through the finance department and our department, 00:04:29.760 --> 00:04:34.560 capital projects engineering department and also I also manage the street strategy and traffic 00:04:34.560 --> 00:04:39.680 department so it's kind of an ongoing conversation amongst of all those individuals talking about 00:04:39.680 --> 00:04:47.520 transportation funding options. There is a topic that will come up discussion of a possible roadway 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, 00:04:52.800 --> 00:04:57.600 understand this is kind of the cafeteria plan of different ways roadways can be funded 00:04:58.560 --> 00:05:02.960 and that overall roadway funding strategy is currently slated for the same council 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. 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 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 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 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 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, 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 00:05:39.040 --> 00:05:42.400 and move forward through the process. So Pete, come on up. 00:05:42.400 --> 00:05:54.000 All right, thank you Becky and good afternoon commissioners. So as Becky mentioned, we wanted 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. 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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. 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 00:08:12.240 --> 00:08:16.320 and we're currently collecting about 20% of that in the city. 00:08:16.320 --> 00:08:27.040 As Becky mentioned, the three collection rate options that we showed council consists of 20%, 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 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 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 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 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. 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. 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 00:09:24.320 --> 00:09:31.600 home. And as a reminder again, you currently have a discount on non-residential uses, 00:09:31.600 --> 00:09:35.840 so they're paying 25% less than residential uses per vehicle mile. 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, 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 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 00:09:56.400 --> 00:10:01.760 obviously definitely some characteristics that are different about some of these other cities. 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, 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 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 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 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 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 00:10:40.160 --> 00:10:50.080 fairly low fee based on their growth and the infrastructure needed. Taking a look at Frisco, 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 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, 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 00:11:14.400 --> 00:11:18.320 they're actually discounting residential uses, and they're collecting 100% for non-residential 00:11:18.320 --> 00:11:24.160 uses. Just wanted to point that out. So some cities do it differently where they discount 00:11:24.160 --> 00:11:30.240 residential or discount non-residential. But if you look at the service area that's growing 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 00:12:30.400 --> 00:12:39.680 100% of their maximum fee in 2021. And with Flower Mound, the town is also very, 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, 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 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 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 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 00:13:16.320 --> 00:13:24.640 give some context in terms of what similar, some cities with similarities in geographic proximity 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 00:13:36.720 --> 00:13:42.800 are the other development fees that are being collected. We are aware that the whole package 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 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 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 00:14:06.400 --> 00:14:11.760 when you incorporate all the fees plus the potential roadway collection rates. 00:14:13.680 --> 00:14:18.240 And as a reminder, again, just going back to the collection rate slide, 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 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 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 00:14:45.040 --> 00:14:51.200 transportation funding approach and all the different tools that can be used. And so the main 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 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 00:15:04.800 --> 00:15:10.880 city of Denton want growth to pay for its impact towards the transportation infrastructure? And 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 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 00:15:28.400 --> 00:15:34.000 capital improvements on the CIP, surveying and engineering fees, land acquisition costs, debt 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 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 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 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 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 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 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, 00:16:27.680 --> 00:16:32.400 the technical aspect of the roadway impact fee update, on whether there's any questions or 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 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 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 00:16:51.120 --> 00:17:00.720 discounted potentially, so that they can take that feedback into consideration. With that, I'll ask 00:17:00.720 --> 00:17:09.760 if you have any questions. Commissioner Smith? Thank you, Chair. In your experience, how many other 00:17:09.760 --> 00:17:18.000 cities, how long have you been doing these types of consulting presentations and whatnot? Me or 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 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 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 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 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 00:17:42.480 --> 00:17:47.280 your expertise. More just wanting to know. Happy to answer. Because I'm specifically about 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 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, 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 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, 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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, 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 00:20:14.160 --> 00:20:20.960 you know for impact fees, 2000 across all when clearly each service area has different needs. 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? 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 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 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 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 00:20:52.400 --> 00:20:57.680 complexity increases the predictability and makes the administration easier on on staff. 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 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 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 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 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 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 00:21:35.440 --> 00:21:40.960 you mentioned how Frisco does its differences in the built-out area the more growth area. 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 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 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 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 00:22:05.040 --> 00:22:13.680 balanced in terms of infrastructure the ratio of infrastructure to growth. With the lowest service 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 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 00:22:27.360 --> 00:22:34.800 within a thousand dollars a vehicle mile so they're relatively balanced. Okay no other questions. 00:22:34.800 --> 00:22:41.920 Commissioner Villarreal. Thank you I apologize if you mentioned this at the beginning of your 00:22:41.920 --> 00:22:46.880 presentation but I was watching the council discussion on this last week two weeks ago 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 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 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? 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 00:23:11.840 --> 00:23:18.320 a couple of the recommendations our council member Watts was okay with 30 percent possibly 00:23:18.320 --> 00:23:23.760 with the next escalation in there a couple other council members I think supported somewhere between 00:23:23.760 --> 00:23:29.920 20 and 50 yeah so we we saw similarly that 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 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 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 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 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? 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 00:24:44.320 --> 00:24:50.240 repair and whatnot and improvement. Yeah again it depends on the decision that the developer 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 00:24:59.120 --> 00:25:04.800 in terms of how much of that cost is borne by the home buyer and by 00:25:04.800 --> 00:25:08.960 current citizens. Right got it thank you. 00:25:08.960 --> 00:25:14.400 Commissioner Perot. Thank you Chair. 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 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 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 00:25:33.280 --> 00:25:41.600 have any feedback about hearing what we had expressed? I don't recall them commenting on 00:25:41.600 --> 00:25:49.120 what what your comments were on what CIC had recommended or expressed before. Okay what was 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 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 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 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. 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 00:26:23.600 --> 00:26:30.800 breakdown because our comp plan splits out attached in two to four unit buildings separately but 00:26:30.800 --> 00:26:41.280 looking at the numbers it it looked like including or if you assume the ETJ 00:26:41.280 --> 00:26:47.920 numbers that you mentioned earlier were primarily single family then we would be ahead of linearity 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 00:26:54.000 --> 00:26:59.040 is my impression correct or is there something else going on in the numbers there? 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 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 00:27:15.280 --> 00:27:21.920 assume a certain amount of development in the ETJ. My answer is I would say yes 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 00:27:30.080 --> 00:27:35.440 projections based off of traffic analysis zones throughout the city and there's a certain number 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 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 00:27:49.600 --> 00:27:54.560 making sure our 10-year projections are accurate are accurate based off of new development data 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 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 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 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 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 00:28:26.240 --> 00:28:38.000 roadways I saw some roadways just not to pull anything particular out that currently are not 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 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 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 00:28:59.040 --> 00:29:07.920 cross-sectional guidance in our transportation criteria manual was not under the projected 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 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 00:29:22.880 --> 00:29:27.760 segments obviously those are included sure the second is widening segments I would assume those 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 00:29:34.640 --> 00:29:41.440 existing thoroughfares are are those in general included within the list of eligible roadway 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 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 00:29:52.640 --> 00:29:58.400 thoroughfare those are roads that were not included as impact fee eligible projects okay and that 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 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 00:30:10.000 --> 00:30:14.640 development agreement that developers fully going to be building those roads that those be those 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 00:30:20.640 --> 00:30:23.840 thank you thank you madam chair yeah i'll just carry us on your 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 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 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 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 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 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 00:31:07.200 --> 00:31:11.760 that ford does their program and the the initial recommendation was to start out three thousand 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 00:31:17.760 --> 00:31:24.400 the fort worth market and that that changed shortly before adoption to being two thousand 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 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 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 00:31:40.480 --> 00:31:48.480 that's uh one of the conversations that was had all right thank you commissioner smith 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 00:33:25.760 --> 00:33:30.640 residential properties right they're not existing we're not not directly impacting by making this 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 00:33:36.240 --> 00:33:41.600 that's something important to remember about impact fees that impact fees in my opinion are 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 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 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 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 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 00:34:08.880 --> 00:34:13.920 citizens obviously but two really protecting them because eventually as commissioner villarreal said 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 00:34:56.560 --> 00:35:01.280 and i think to be able to make those adjustments to projects because single family residential 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 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 00:35:10.480 --> 00:35:16.320 adjust secondly on that recommendation of city council it wasn't really mentioned here other than 00:35:16.320 --> 00:35:21.360 the briefly saying there's a 25 discount on commercial developments i would like to see 00:35:21.360 --> 00:35:29.680 in service areas a c and d specifically a heavier discount towards commercial developments those 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 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 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 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 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 00:35:59.360 --> 00:36:04.560 even higher for commercial developments to encourage commercial developments in maybe areas of the city 00:36:04.560 --> 00:36:10.480 that would possibly create less impact to our roadways because citizens aren't having to drive 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 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 00:36:19.760 --> 00:36:25.840 three years my recommendation and then encouraging a heavier commercial discount for impact fees 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 00:36:35.600 --> 00:36:40.480 chair smith's idea about increasing the discount for commercial development i am a bit more 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 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 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 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 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 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 00:37:27.120 --> 00:37:33.600 to the nominal dollar amount adjusted by some cpu or or other inflation metric between those 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 00:38:55.840 --> 00:39:03.760 paying taxes to subsidize new residents granite countertops so thank you thank you 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 00:40:11.120 --> 00:40:20.480 have to your potential to capture sales tax essentially how much development uh can you can 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 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 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 00:40:38.720 --> 00:40:44.000 we look at the transportation funding options we'll have the roadway funding strategy conversation 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 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 00:40:55.360 --> 00:41:02.160 improvement projects currently to date are being funded using bond programs um versus you know how 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 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 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 00:41:18.640 --> 00:41:26.640 that commissioner pruitt asked specifically um so the comparison cities and i guess commissioner 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 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 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 00:41:47.760 --> 00:41:52.720 in construction and construction materials so that's one of the things that's made it 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 00:43:35.760 --> 00:43:40.240 average of 20 20 000 per single family residential across the across the board 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 00:45:20.080 --> 00:45:27.200 maybe the conversation should go 50 you know a nice down the middle 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 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 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 00:45:51.520 --> 00:45:59.120 current construction cost right um so you know going from two thousand dollars in 2016 to 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 00:46:51.200 --> 00:46:59.200 i just don't understand how um there's a tacit assumption that um 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 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 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 00:47:21.440 --> 00:47:28.240 increasing amount i know there there may be psychological limitations to uh how high that 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 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 00:47:40.000 --> 00:47:48.240 five years from now so thank you commissioner villarreal i do hear commissioner cole's point 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 00:48:33.680 --> 00:48:39.920 have concurrence or feedback on the land use assumptions um we use the land use assumptions 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 00:48:45.920 --> 00:48:53.360 develop the overall impact fee study and then we will also want your understanding and concurrence 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 00:49:54.880 --> 00:50:04.720 the the roadways that are included is whether staff thought through uh certain roadways that were 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 00:52:26.560 --> 00:52:31.920 up in the process of identifying the roadways that would be included yes multiple individuals 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 00:55:10.720 --> 00:55:18.160 within our written remarks to include a suggestion that at least council be consulted about the 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 00:56:13.360 --> 00:56:18.160 we can make the decision to make those updates sooner if development changes growth changes and 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 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 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 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 00:56:45.520 --> 00:56:51.200 commercial development discounts and and whatnot with as it relates to impact fees correct 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 00:57:39.840 --> 00:57:47.440 committee in this regard okay with that i will close our capital improvement advisory committee 00:57:47.440 --> 00:57:53.120 meeting at 458 p.m.