1 00:00:00,000 --> 00:00:05,280 >> Good afternoon and welcome to the City of Denton's Planning and Zoning Commission 2 00:00:05,280 --> 00:00:11,360 meeting for Wednesday, March 20th, 2024. 3 00:00:11,360 --> 00:00:19,440 We are convening as the Capital Improvement Advisory Committee, sorry, CIAC, the PNZ serves 4 00:00:19,440 --> 00:00:20,440 as the CIAC. 5 00:00:20,440 --> 00:00:24,720 And with the quorum present, we'll call us to order at 5.01 p.m. 6 00:00:24,720 --> 00:00:33,640 We have one item on our agenda, and that is 1A, PZ24-040, receive a report, hold a discussion, 7 00:00:33,640 --> 00:00:39,840 give staff direction regarding the updates to roadway impact fees. 8 00:00:39,840 --> 00:00:40,840 Hello there. 9 00:00:40,840 --> 00:00:41,840 >> Good evening. 10 00:00:41,840 --> 00:00:49,680 I am Brett Bourgeois, the City Engineer here at the City of Denton, and we're here with 11 00:00:49,680 --> 00:00:55,200 Pete Kelly from Kimley-Horne Associates to present an update of the roadway impact fees. 12 00:00:55,200 --> 00:00:59,400 We have been to this body a couple of times a couple of years ago. 13 00:00:59,400 --> 00:01:04,960 We've no substantial, no changes to the technical aspects of the report. 14 00:01:04,960 --> 00:01:08,520 It's been, we took your recommendations previously to City Council. 15 00:01:08,520 --> 00:01:12,360 City Council debated back and forth on collection rates, we wanted to give you an update as 16 00:01:12,360 --> 00:01:16,800 to where the City Council fell in the collection rates and come back to this body to get your 17 00:01:16,800 --> 00:01:22,280 recommendations to go back to City Council and move this process forward as much as we 18 00:01:22,280 --> 00:01:23,360 can. 19 00:01:23,360 --> 00:01:27,440 So I would like to introduce Mr. Pete Kelly, he'll be the one walking through the presentation 20 00:01:27,440 --> 00:01:31,400 and answering any questions, and myself, any questions you guys may have. 21 00:01:31,400 --> 00:01:32,400 >> Thank you. 22 00:01:32,400 --> 00:01:33,400 >> Hi, Pete. 23 00:01:33,400 --> 00:01:40,600 >> Good evening, commissioners, I have the chance to present to most of you before on 24 00:01:40,600 --> 00:01:45,900 this project, and there's some new faces, and so hopefully we can get refreshed and 25 00:01:45,900 --> 00:01:51,880 caught up on some of the basics of what impact fee is, and also just review for you the results 26 00:01:51,880 --> 00:01:57,480 of the study and the collection rate options, like Brett said, that were discussed at council 27 00:01:57,480 --> 00:02:04,440 and the recommendations that they have to consider moving forward, and if you have any 28 00:02:04,440 --> 00:02:11,320 questions and want to stop me and clarify anything, I will do my best to provide an 29 00:02:11,320 --> 00:02:12,320 answer. 30 00:02:12,320 --> 00:02:18,080 To recap the role of the Capital Improvement Advisory Committee, it's threefold. 31 00:02:18,080 --> 00:02:23,160 It's to advise and assist the City Council in adopting the land use assumptions, which 32 00:02:23,160 --> 00:02:27,080 as we'll discuss in a minute is one of the components of the impact fee study. 33 00:02:27,080 --> 00:02:32,000 Number two, to review the capital improvements plan and file written comments on that, and 34 00:02:32,000 --> 00:02:37,200 also to file written comments on the, so just the study overall, which encompasses the land 35 00:02:37,200 --> 00:02:43,960 use assumptions, capital improvements plan, and the impact fee calculation itself. 36 00:02:43,960 --> 00:02:49,760 So the basics of an impact fee, they are a one-time fee that are assessed to new development, 37 00:02:49,760 --> 00:02:55,240 so they're not assessed to existing residents unless said residence is building a new development. 38 00:02:55,240 --> 00:03:00,160 They are not recurring fees to be paid annually or monthly over time. 39 00:03:00,160 --> 00:03:04,880 They're governed by Chapter 395 of the Texas Local Government Code, so there are specific 40 00:03:04,880 --> 00:03:10,920 requirements on how the program can be administered, which also requires an update to the study 41 00:03:10,920 --> 00:03:13,640 at least every five years. 42 00:03:13,640 --> 00:03:16,960 Why are impact fees implemented and used? 43 00:03:16,960 --> 00:03:21,160 One is the main reason is to provide an additional funding tool for roadways that cities can 44 00:03:21,160 --> 00:03:28,640 use to help as the impact and demand of new development hits the city network, and also 45 00:03:28,640 --> 00:03:33,820 to help provide for the orderly growth of the community. 46 00:03:33,820 --> 00:03:39,420 The five components of an impact fee study are, first, the service areas. 47 00:03:39,420 --> 00:03:43,960 We need to establish which areas fees can be collected and spent in. 48 00:03:43,960 --> 00:03:50,360 From there, we need to project out the land use assumptions and develop capital improvements 49 00:03:50,360 --> 00:03:56,700 plan and also establish the service units for standardized unit of measure and calculate 50 00:03:56,700 --> 00:03:58,600 the maximum fee in each service area. 51 00:03:58,600 --> 00:04:03,640 So I'll spend just a slide kind of explaining what each of those components are and how 52 00:04:03,640 --> 00:04:06,280 they're calculated. 53 00:04:06,280 --> 00:04:08,200 So we established the service areas. 54 00:04:08,200 --> 00:04:12,060 You can see here there's five service areas in the city of Denton, roughly bounded by 55 00:04:12,060 --> 00:04:19,600 major roadways for the most part, and that's A, B, C, D, and E. As you can see here, these 56 00:04:19,600 --> 00:04:23,980 are essentially the same as the service areas that were established in the initial roadway 57 00:04:23,980 --> 00:04:30,600 impact fee study in 2016 with some minor changes to bring in the annexations that have occurred 58 00:04:30,600 --> 00:04:31,600 since then. 59 00:04:31,600 --> 00:04:39,540 Also, you can see on the map the non-annexation areas. 60 00:04:39,540 --> 00:04:46,700 We use the info from the comprehensive plan mainly to project out growth for the next 61 00:04:46,700 --> 00:04:51,760 10 years, and that's put up on the slide here in four basic categories. 62 00:04:51,760 --> 00:04:55,860 We look at residential, which includes single and multi-family, and we look at basic, which 63 00:04:55,860 --> 00:05:01,480 includes industrial and agricultural service, which includes office and institutional and 64 00:05:01,480 --> 00:05:06,340 retail, which includes essentially everything else, shopping, dining, and entertainment. 65 00:05:06,340 --> 00:05:13,000 As you can see, we have a larger projection of residential growth in service area A and 66 00:05:13,000 --> 00:05:17,920 C are really our higher growth areas, with A being heavier towards residential and C 67 00:05:17,920 --> 00:05:24,240 being heavier towards commercial, specifically industrial, but we still have some growth 68 00:05:24,240 --> 00:05:30,240 in really throughout the city as well. 69 00:05:30,240 --> 00:05:34,180 The next component of impact fees is the capital improvements plan. 70 00:05:34,180 --> 00:05:37,480 The capital improvements plan is where we identify the infrastructure needed to serve 71 00:05:37,480 --> 00:05:42,120 that growth that we just projected, and that has to be, per chapter 395, has to be based 72 00:05:42,120 --> 00:05:43,940 on an adopted plan. 73 00:05:43,940 --> 00:05:50,600 That is based off of the mobility plan, which was recently updated in 2022. 74 00:05:50,600 --> 00:05:56,960 This is an example CIP capital improvements plan map for roadway impact fees. 75 00:05:56,960 --> 00:06:00,620 We have one of these for each of the service areas, this is just showing service area B 76 00:06:00,620 --> 00:06:06,040 as an example, to show that we have several different project types that are included 77 00:06:06,040 --> 00:06:08,980 on the roadway impact fee CIP. 78 00:06:08,980 --> 00:06:13,580 Those include, in the red dashed line, those are new roads on the mobility plan that have 79 00:06:13,580 --> 00:06:18,960 not yet been built, and then the blue roads that are roads that need to be widened to 80 00:06:18,960 --> 00:06:22,480 their full capacity. 81 00:06:22,480 --> 00:06:30,960 Just for reference, we have in black the other roads that are not impact fee eligible. 82 00:06:30,960 --> 00:06:35,640 The final component is calculating the maximum fee, and we really just put all those previous 83 00:06:35,640 --> 00:06:36,640 components together. 84 00:06:36,640 --> 00:06:38,920 We look at the growth over the next 10 years. 85 00:06:38,920 --> 00:06:43,040 I'm gonna move down to the bottom of the slide here. 86 00:06:43,040 --> 00:06:48,400 Just the basic formula is we look at the growth, which is on the bottom of that equation, and 87 00:06:48,400 --> 00:06:54,880 then we divide that by the cost of the infrastructure needed over the next 10 years. 88 00:06:54,880 --> 00:07:02,760 I should say we take out the cost to fix existing deficiencies and also the cost to widen roads 89 00:07:02,760 --> 00:07:09,360 past the 10 year horizon, so we're really just focused on the 10 year horizon that's 90 00:07:09,360 --> 00:07:12,360 governed by chapter 395. 91 00:07:12,360 --> 00:07:16,240 After you do that, there's a credit calculation step that occurs to look at the impact of 92 00:07:16,240 --> 00:07:24,840 ad valorem taxes after those developments come in, so we did that step as well. 93 00:07:24,840 --> 00:07:29,280 That is detailed out in table nine of the impact fee study, but it essentially comes 94 00:07:29,280 --> 00:07:32,000 down to this bottom line of the maximum fee. 95 00:07:32,000 --> 00:07:37,440 This is what you're seeing here is the maximum fee per vehicle mile, and so to understand 96 00:07:37,440 --> 00:07:42,560 what this means for different land uses, you would actually have to go to our table 10 97 00:07:42,560 --> 00:07:47,440 in this study, which shows how many vehicle miles are generated per development unit in 98 00:07:47,440 --> 00:07:59,200 a PNP car, but per vehicle mile, it ranges from $3,700 about to $5,200 per vehicle mile 99 00:07:59,200 --> 00:08:03,800 for the maximum fee. 100 00:08:03,800 --> 00:08:08,560 This table, we put this table together to show what that means for five different land 101 00:08:08,560 --> 00:08:14,960 use types and also compare that to the 2016 study and five different collection rates, 102 00:08:14,960 --> 00:08:17,080 so I'll walk through one step at a time. 103 00:08:17,080 --> 00:08:23,680 First, I'll start with the land uses that we picked to help put this into perspective 104 00:08:23,680 --> 00:08:28,000 of if I'm a developer coming in and I have to figure out what my impact fee is going 105 00:08:28,000 --> 00:08:29,000 to be. 106 00:08:29,000 --> 00:08:35,320 For a single family home, the 2016 maximum fee would actually be $9,800 for a single 107 00:08:35,320 --> 00:08:42,200 family home, about 20% of that is the collection rate that's been adopted since then at $2,000 108 00:08:42,200 --> 00:08:43,200 a home. 109 00:08:43,200 --> 00:08:52,480 Moving to a 250 unit apartment complex, the percentage is actually half that for all the 110 00:08:52,480 --> 00:08:58,080 non-residential, so that applies to shopping center, office building, and light industrial. 111 00:08:58,080 --> 00:09:02,360 Light industrial rate was actually capped at the warehousing unit, the warehousing rate 112 00:09:02,360 --> 00:09:09,440 in 2016, I should say all the industrial uses were capped at the warehousing rate. 113 00:09:09,440 --> 00:09:15,360 Moving to the 2022 maximum fees, so if you move all the way over to the right of this 114 00:09:15,360 --> 00:09:19,760 table, the right-hand column, that shows you the maximum fee for each of these land use 115 00:09:19,760 --> 00:09:20,760 types. 116 00:09:20,760 --> 00:09:28,420 So, for a single family home, the maximum fee on average throughout the city is $20,800 117 00:09:28,420 --> 00:09:35,280 about, and for a 250 unit apartment complex it would be $2.8 million, so I won't cover 118 00:09:35,280 --> 00:09:43,320 every dollar amount in this table, but the options that we showed council were 20%, 30%, 119 00:09:43,320 --> 00:09:51,760 40%, and 50% of the maximum fee, and what you don't necessarily see in here is that 120 00:09:51,760 --> 00:10:00,200 each of these columns also includes a discount for non-residential uses, so for the 20% column, 121 00:10:00,200 --> 00:10:06,760 the non-residential uses are actually at 10%, 30 and 15, 40 and 20, if that makes sense, 122 00:10:06,760 --> 00:10:13,240 so essentially what we're showing is the non-residential uses paying half the amount 123 00:10:13,240 --> 00:10:20,600 per vehicle mile that the residential uses would be paying, so this just provides a comparison 124 00:10:20,600 --> 00:10:28,860 of what all those uses would be, these different percentage rates. 125 00:10:28,860 --> 00:10:34,920 One of the requests was to look at, well, how much can we actually build at each of 126 00:10:34,920 --> 00:10:42,840 those collection rates, and so we are showing here 20% through 100%, this is just an example, 127 00:10:42,840 --> 00:10:47,160 so this is just Service Area A as an example, this isn't the whole city, and Service Area 128 00:10:47,160 --> 00:10:56,160 A, we calculated a cost of $203 million that is attributable to the 10-year growth, and 129 00:10:56,160 --> 00:11:00,880 of that amount, this slide just shows how much you could actually build with impact 130 00:11:00,880 --> 00:11:05,540 fees at the different collection rates, and I should point out that the 20% through the 131 00:11:05,540 --> 00:11:14,440 60% includes the 50% discount for non-residential, but the 100% bar is 100% for all uses, that's 132 00:11:14,440 --> 00:11:20,480 why there's kind of a bigger difference, bigger gap between 60 and 100, but as you 133 00:11:20,480 --> 00:11:24,800 can see, the further you go down, the more you're able to actually put towards building 134 00:11:24,800 --> 00:11:28,960 roadways to fill the need. 135 00:11:28,960 --> 00:11:37,140 It was also requested that we provide some data of comparison cities just to see what 136 00:11:37,140 --> 00:11:42,360 other cities are charging, and some of these cities share some commonality with Denton 137 00:11:42,360 --> 00:11:47,940 in that they are college towns, others are simply just geographically close to Denton 138 00:11:47,940 --> 00:11:52,080 and may not be that similar in other ways, so we have kind of a variety of comparison 139 00:11:52,080 --> 00:11:58,040 cities here to show you, but essentially what we're looking at for single-family home collection 140 00:11:58,040 --> 00:12:08,360 rates are a range from $1,280 per single-family home in Lubbock all the way up to $18,000 141 00:12:08,360 --> 00:12:13,440 a home in the west side of Flower Mound, now I want to point out that that's a fast-growing 142 00:12:13,440 --> 00:12:17,800 area of Flower Mound that doesn't have a lot of infrastructure yet, but if you compare 143 00:12:17,800 --> 00:12:21,800 that to the east side of Flower Mound that is mostly built out, has infrastructure and 144 00:12:21,800 --> 00:12:28,400 is not growing as fast, the fee is quite a bit lower, it's $3,000 a house, so just to 145 00:12:28,400 --> 00:12:36,800 compare to the different collection rate options in Denton, currently $2,000 a house is third 146 00:12:36,800 --> 00:12:44,160 from the lowest in this set of data and $12,000 a house gets you up to the higher end, so 147 00:12:44,160 --> 00:12:49,480 these collection rate options kind of cover the spectrum, if you will, of these comparison 148 00:12:49,480 --> 00:12:54,840 cities, and we also are showing what percentage of the max these cities are charging, some 149 00:12:54,840 --> 00:13:01,800 are charging up to 100, some are charging a much lower percentage, there's also quite 150 00:13:01,800 --> 00:13:06,160 a bit of variation in how large these cities are, how many service areas there are, and 151 00:13:06,160 --> 00:13:12,080 when the studies were conducted. 152 00:13:12,080 --> 00:13:18,800 So to recap the recommendation that Council discussed and put forth is they expressed 153 00:13:18,800 --> 00:13:26,240 support for adopting 20% of the maximum fee for residential uses and 10% of the maximum 154 00:13:26,240 --> 00:13:32,520 fee for non-residential uses with an annual meeting to determine what percentage increase 155 00:13:32,520 --> 00:13:39,720 to go from there, there wasn't support for a predetermined percentage escalation each 156 00:13:39,720 --> 00:13:49,640 year but there was support for some type of escalation each year. 157 00:13:49,640 --> 00:13:55,800 And the schedule is we have our meeting today and then on April 2nd the public hearing will 158 00:13:55,800 --> 00:14:06,680 be set for May 7th that the advertisement will go out April 5th and the main action 159 00:14:06,680 --> 00:14:14,640 that this body needs to do is to file written comments for Council that can range on anything 160 00:14:14,640 --> 00:14:22,640 from the study to the collection rate recommendations, so with that I'll turn it over to any questions 161 00:14:22,640 --> 00:14:26,960 you have on the study or the assumptions or the collection rate options if anything didn't 162 00:14:26,960 --> 00:14:31,080 make sense or we can clarify something for you. 163 00:14:31,080 --> 00:14:32,080 Commissioner Smith. 164 00:14:32,080 --> 00:14:33,080 Thank you Chair. 165 00:14:33,080 --> 00:14:38,320 Can you go back then, 20 and 10, so can you go back to that table of comparison to other 166 00:14:38,320 --> 00:14:43,040 cities for a quick second just to see if it's at 20 where that's going to basically weigh 167 00:14:43,040 --> 00:14:44,040 up there comparatively. 168 00:14:44,040 --> 00:14:49,600 Only quick question I had on this table, I think this would be a good one to keep up 169 00:14:49,600 --> 00:14:57,680 for us to discuss around, why such a drastic difference between something like Lubbock which 170 00:14:57,680 --> 00:15:04,200 is the lowest all the way to Flower Mound which is the highest and I know some of the 171 00:15:04,200 --> 00:15:09,740 information you already gave gave answers to that right that Flower Mound West is growing 172 00:15:09,740 --> 00:15:10,740 so fast. 173 00:15:10,740 --> 00:15:17,040 Lubbock on the other hand, I don't know about Lubbock so maybe it is maybe it isn't but 174 00:15:17,040 --> 00:15:23,600 speed of growth, lack of infrastructure and area it still seems like that's a massive 175 00:15:23,600 --> 00:15:30,920 I mean it's a what is that a 1700% increase difference between the two of them. 176 00:15:30,920 --> 00:15:35,480 There's got to be more variables than just demand and growth is the reason why it's so 177 00:15:35,480 --> 00:15:38,200 much higher comparatively. 178 00:15:38,200 --> 00:15:46,120 Yeah roadway cost is one of them and in Lubbock specifically they chose not to put all their 179 00:15:46,120 --> 00:15:52,080 mobility plan essentially on the CIP they've limited their CIP quite significantly just 180 00:15:52,080 --> 00:15:59,960 to targeted roadways and it was their first adoption and chose to wade in if you will 181 00:15:59,960 --> 00:16:08,520 with a slightly smaller CIP and cost and also adopted 50% as opposed to 100% there. 182 00:16:08,520 --> 00:16:17,280 The other variable besides demand and growth is the trip lengths and the trip rates that 183 00:16:17,280 --> 00:16:21,160 are used and so in some of these studies the trip rates may be based on an older edition 184 00:16:21,160 --> 00:16:28,760 of IT and some studies cities may strategically choose a shorter trip length so those are 185 00:16:28,760 --> 00:16:34,360 the two kind of variables when we're looking at projecting growth and so there's a lot 186 00:16:34,360 --> 00:16:36,480 of different things besides demand and growth. 187 00:16:36,480 --> 00:16:40,760 So kind of what it seems like is the comparative for the collective fee is really there's variables 188 00:16:40,760 --> 00:16:44,720 outside of this they even go into calculating that fee that makes it. 189 00:16:44,720 --> 00:16:48,600 We can have a conversation around comparative nature because eventually what's going to 190 00:16:48,600 --> 00:16:51,560 really be looked at is going to be what is the impact fee that's being leveraged against 191 00:16:51,560 --> 00:16:57,680 the developer there and I don't think anybody who's looking at Denton is having comparison 192 00:16:57,680 --> 00:17:02,200 between should I build in Denton or should I build in Lubbock I think that's not saying 193 00:17:02,200 --> 00:17:06,520 that we're that much better or we're that much worse is more of like you're just not 194 00:17:06,520 --> 00:17:09,120 having that conversation you're having like do I build in Denton or should I build in 195 00:17:09,120 --> 00:17:14,640 Flower Mound right and so I get that but there's so many variables it sounds like from your 196 00:17:14,640 --> 00:17:18,840 aspect that have really nothing to it's just more of like the calculations going into it 197 00:17:18,840 --> 00:17:24,200 that the comparative analysis of it well thank you for it and I think is important and should 198 00:17:24,200 --> 00:17:29,520 have some weight on it should have this overbearing weight of well we need to be in the same ballpark 199 00:17:29,520 --> 00:17:33,240 and range as these other people because there's the way they're getting the way they're doing 200 00:17:33,240 --> 00:17:36,240 their maths is different than we're doing a way that we're doing our maths essentially 201 00:17:36,240 --> 00:17:45,360 is what I heard in accordance with chapter 395 yes sure it's all right okay Commissioner 202 00:17:45,360 --> 00:17:52,840 Cole thank you chair you know you had this the Flower Mound West there but if you had 203 00:17:52,840 --> 00:17:59,500 something called Denton West there is everything west of 35 that's in the city limits between 204 00:17:59,500 --> 00:18:06,800 University and Robeson Ranch Road has no city services they're without lacking city services 205 00:18:06,800 --> 00:18:13,280 there's everybody's on like me on a septic tank well water redneck internet you know 206 00:18:13,280 --> 00:18:21,800 with the dish pointed at line of sight you know that's all you can do propane so that 207 00:18:21,800 --> 00:18:28,560 calculation I mean might be different if you took that into consideration because there's 208 00:18:28,560 --> 00:18:35,920 a vast area of the city that offers no services to anyone you know and another you know just 209 00:18:35,920 --> 00:18:44,920 to just impact fees are one of the things you know I saw a comment on a Denton centric 210 00:18:44,920 --> 00:18:53,900 Facebook page it's about Denton and they're asking why we can't you know land companies 211 00:18:53,900 --> 00:19:01,040 that pay X and above now all right according to that we're we're in line and pretty doing 212 00:19:01,040 --> 00:19:08,200 you know our impact fees are not out of whack but it is a calculation among many calculations 213 00:19:08,200 --> 00:19:14,440 if a company is going to put down a corporate headquarters or a corporate campus or what 214 00:19:14,440 --> 00:19:27,080 have you you know so just want to throw that in thank you thank you Jared sorry I moved 215 00:19:27,080 --> 00:19:34,200 a little faster than I should have a few questions I think and then I'll go later for a couple 216 00:19:34,200 --> 00:19:48,600 questions of staff the do you in doing the study did you look at what our split of impact 217 00:19:48,600 --> 00:19:53,600 fees charged over the last several years between residential and non-residential uses with 218 00:19:53,600 --> 00:20:01,360 the 50% discount do we help me understand is it a 90/10 split is a 50/50 split I'm 219 00:20:01,360 --> 00:20:06,320 just trying to understand what the magnitude is there I know one point we did look at revenue 220 00:20:06,320 --> 00:20:09,760 collected we don't have that table in this study out of so I don't have to top off top 221 00:20:09,760 --> 00:20:14,520 my head I don't know if staff if you know kind of building permit wise what the split 222 00:20:14,520 --> 00:20:21,760 is there so I don't have those those numbers off top my head and then to compute the maximum 223 00:20:21,760 --> 00:20:30,880 fee did did we use the projected tax revenue method within 395 or the 50% method good question 224 00:20:30,880 --> 00:20:41,120 we we did use the projected tax revenue method yeah and then for individual applications 225 00:20:41,120 --> 00:20:51,920 right and development permits do let me describe the situation because the jargon won't make 226 00:20:51,920 --> 00:20:58,720 much sense and I'll probably miss it up anyway when you have say a lot of housing in zone 227 00:20:58,720 --> 00:21:08,620 A and a lot of commercial in zone C and then somebody comes in for a permit to build commercial 228 00:21:08,620 --> 00:21:13,840 in zone B that's halfway in between the two right I believe it's referred to as trip 229 00:21:13,840 --> 00:21:25,000 chaining within the document as far as the lesser impact in trip length and that sort 230 00:21:25,000 --> 00:21:33,000 of thing based on location of the development yeah is that factored into these or is that 231 00:21:33,000 --> 00:21:38,280 not a factor and how does that work out I think if I understand your question right 232 00:21:38,280 --> 00:21:44,440 you may have someone drive from work to the gas station or maybe to school to pick up 233 00:21:44,440 --> 00:21:48,040 the kids and then and then go home so we have three different uses right and so we have 234 00:21:48,040 --> 00:21:52,720 three different trip lengths that we're essentially looking at and you may span across service 235 00:21:52,720 --> 00:21:58,680 area A service area B in that case so in in the study there's what's called the the love 236 00:21:58,680 --> 00:22:04,080 met table or the land use vehicle mile equivalency table where we where we show here's the trip 237 00:22:04,080 --> 00:22:08,920 rate and here's a trip length and we multiply those together to get our vehicle miles per 238 00:22:08,920 --> 00:22:15,640 development unit in there we take into account that the maximum size of a service area is 239 00:22:15,640 --> 00:22:22,020 six miles by chapter 395 so the data we look at for example single-family home so a trip 240 00:22:22,020 --> 00:22:28,120 to go home is nine point seven nine miles based off of the national household travel 241 00:22:28,120 --> 00:22:34,200 survey but service area size is six miles so we limit that to six miles and then from 242 00:22:34,200 --> 00:22:39,680 there we say there's actually I'm stepping away from the mic from there there's actually 243 00:22:39,680 --> 00:22:43,540 two uses there so we cut it in half for the we call it an origin destination reduction 244 00:22:43,540 --> 00:22:48,120 so we actually taken three mile trip length into account there and then multiply that 245 00:22:48,120 --> 00:22:54,640 by the the trip length so so there's the multiple use and also the within service area trip 246 00:22:54,640 --> 00:23:01,880 length factor take into account for that so so essentially the maximum trip length is 247 00:23:01,880 --> 00:23:09,200 set at three miles because by statute we can't have an area that's larger than six and by 248 00:23:09,200 --> 00:23:14,240 nature of how they're split up between service areas you could sort of say that there's some 249 00:23:14,240 --> 00:23:20,360 trip chaining there but it's not a direct input to the calculation of the the trip length 250 00:23:20,360 --> 00:23:31,200 right and the cost yes yeah okay and then lastly I know and I'm not sure how they landed 251 00:23:31,200 --> 00:23:40,360 but I know at the time when this came before us Fort Worth was also considering roadway 252 00:23:40,360 --> 00:23:47,040 impact fees and that sort of thing I think they split up their service areas differently 253 00:23:47,040 --> 00:23:51,680 than we did could you describe kind of how that was it was some in the center and then 254 00:23:51,680 --> 00:23:58,160 some around the outskirts and I guess my question is obviously we're not considering service 255 00:23:58,160 --> 00:24:05,720 area boundaries now but there may be some future direction to future updates so does 256 00:24:05,720 --> 00:24:15,240 that geometric arrangement versus our current geometric arrangement yield different fees 257 00:24:15,240 --> 00:24:23,460 within different areas and encourage infill and that sort of thing yes so in the city 258 00:24:23,460 --> 00:24:33,480 of Fort Worth most of the area inside of inside of the loop is now no fee service areas predominantly 259 00:24:33,480 --> 00:24:38,640 what's going on there is the infrastructure is built out and most of the development not 260 00:24:38,640 --> 00:24:43,800 all but most of the development is is infill development and so there's no there's nothing 261 00:24:43,800 --> 00:24:49,160 in chapter 395 that says you have to change it to no fee service area but they chose we're 262 00:24:49,160 --> 00:24:53,440 gonna make that a no fee service area but it but still show it as a service here in 263 00:24:53,440 --> 00:24:58,080 our study it's just not going to be fee charged there and there were two additional service 264 00:24:58,080 --> 00:25:03,380 areas in their last update that were added as no fee service areas as the infrastructure 265 00:25:03,380 --> 00:25:09,920 is almost built out and growth is slowing down so that was that decision was made slowing 266 00:25:09,920 --> 00:25:15,560 down in the core at least yes yeah one of them is outside the core that they chose to 267 00:25:15,560 --> 00:25:25,360 designate as no fee okay most of them are in the core all right and I guess if staff 268 00:25:25,360 --> 00:25:31,280 has an answer on sort of the split of the fee revenue between residential and non-residential 269 00:25:31,280 --> 00:25:37,220 since this is we're considering a similar discount I guess or something else that would 270 00:25:37,220 --> 00:25:50,680 help me and that's all Mr. Thacker thank you chair how are the how are these bond totals 271 00:25:50,680 --> 00:25:58,960 assumed and where where did that calculation come from on this slide mm-hmm yeah so we 272 00:25:58,960 --> 00:26:03,380 essentially the full length of the bar on this chart is the two hundred three million 273 00:26:03,380 --> 00:26:09,160 dollars which is in table nine we essentially go through a few steps to calculate the the 274 00:26:09,160 --> 00:26:14,160 cost attributable to ten year growth so the cost attributable to build our growth is much 275 00:26:14,160 --> 00:26:19,420 higher or existing efficiencies would be higher so we take that and then we essentially we 276 00:26:19,420 --> 00:26:26,360 did these revenue projections at 20% through 100% and subtracted out those numbers and 277 00:26:26,360 --> 00:26:31,040 then subtracted out the the twelve point three million dollars which is part of the the credit 278 00:26:31,040 --> 00:26:35,880 calculation which would be funded by ad valorem taxes and essentially it's just the delta 279 00:26:35,880 --> 00:26:39,920 that's left after you subtract out those two things the revenue projections and the ad 280 00:26:39,920 --> 00:26:45,540 form taxes okay so we're just saying the red bar we'd have to find some other way to some 281 00:26:45,540 --> 00:26:50,440 other funding source to come up with probably that fair enough to build those roads okay 282 00:26:50,440 --> 00:26:59,440 thank you mm-hmm who else okay I know the last time we we met on this I think everybody's 283 00:26:59,440 --> 00:27:10,020 got the minutes in front of us we had said we wanted to move to 50% with a maximum allowable 284 00:27:10,020 --> 00:27:14,960 fee of gradually increasing up to 80% I know that was our discussion back then obviously 285 00:27:14,960 --> 00:27:19,560 that didn't sit well with council because they I assume you went with that information 286 00:27:19,560 --> 00:27:26,480 to council and then they came back with 20% is that correct yeah there there've been a 287 00:27:26,480 --> 00:27:32,560 couple work sessions with council since then there this this last time there is more of 288 00:27:32,560 --> 00:27:42,080 a refined recommendation the previous time we didn't have a consensus commissioner cool 289 00:27:42,080 --> 00:27:47,640 thank you chair so what is the majority of you on council in your opinion I mean it's 290 00:27:47,640 --> 00:27:56,640 look says 20% so is I mean because that that's important for us knowing which direction the 291 00:27:56,640 --> 00:28:02,720 majority of council wants to go they they agreed together to make this their recommendation 292 00:28:02,720 --> 00:28:21,440 okay and 20 is kind of the wheelhouse so to speak yeah okay so if you look at this column 293 00:28:21,440 --> 00:28:26,520 right here that's the 20% that's what and this includes ten ten percent for non-residential 294 00:28:26,520 --> 00:28:38,520 so it'd be effective 100% increase for single family right because we're sitting at two 295 00:28:38,520 --> 00:28:43,380 thousand right now right yeah just so it'd be maintaining the same percentage but with 296 00:28:43,380 --> 00:28:49,960 2022 costs if you will right yeah of course that was how long ago that we were collecting 297 00:28:49,960 --> 00:29:02,960 that were way but we're way behind so I guess what we're what you're looking for is further 298 00:29:02,960 --> 00:29:07,920 opinion than our original discussion I'm trying to understand exactly what what you would 299 00:29:07,920 --> 00:29:12,440 like further from us so that we can get everybody channel yeah I think what we're looking for 300 00:29:12,440 --> 00:29:16,760 at this point is is another set of written responses to go back to council so we can 301 00:29:16,760 --> 00:29:22,520 go forward with setting the public hearing date on April 2nd so I believe something to 302 00:29:22,520 --> 00:29:26,640 similar to what you have with the meeting minutes and what your group consensus recommendations 303 00:29:26,640 --> 00:29:30,720 is going forward it can be the same recommendation you had because we'll present that to council 304 00:29:30,720 --> 00:29:35,440 and they'll take that under advisement but this is the the consensus we got from the 305 00:29:35,440 --> 00:29:41,480 last time was a hundred percent consensus but it was a the majority 20% with the yearly 306 00:29:41,480 --> 00:29:45,560 reevaluation of the fee rate right and I guess our commission looks a little bit I think 307 00:29:45,560 --> 00:29:52,200 we've got two new peoples two different people than from our original consensus Commissioner 308 00:29:52,200 --> 00:29:56,640 Smith thank you just to clarify apartment complexes is classified as residential use 309 00:29:56,640 --> 00:30:07,600 here correct that's correct yes wanted to make sure Commissioner Perot thank you chair 310 00:30:07,600 --> 00:30:16,760 so does staff have any recollection or information as far as where the 50 percent discount for 311 00:30:16,760 --> 00:30:23,520 non-residential uses came from when this was originally adopted in 2016 time frame I'm 312 00:30:23,520 --> 00:30:30,400 sorry I didn't hear the question is there any information about why the 50 percent discount 313 00:30:30,400 --> 00:30:37,440 for non-residential uses was applied when when first passed in 2016 I do not have and 314 00:30:37,440 --> 00:30:41,400 I can kind of speak to a little bit of the 20 I'm sorry if you know I was gonna say 315 00:30:41,400 --> 00:30:46,400 I we don't I don't know off the top of my head I can go back and look at the notes the 316 00:30:46,400 --> 00:30:52,480 meeting minutes when we pulled the meeting minutes from the 2016 adoption they actually 317 00:30:52,480 --> 00:30:57,240 started the roadway impact fee in 2011 it wasn't adopted until 2016 so about five years 318 00:30:57,240 --> 00:31:02,000 in negotiation and debate as to how to set the fee so we can go back and look over that 319 00:31:02,000 --> 00:31:06,240 and see how they came to that decision but it was a lengthy process to get to where they 320 00:31:06,240 --> 00:31:15,280 got to in 2016 I want to add one other piece as far as to the kind of going to that what 321 00:31:15,280 --> 00:31:20,360 what you were here I'm sorry Scott McDonald director of development services so kind of 322 00:31:20,360 --> 00:31:24,960 going back to what it is that that we're looking for out of this today is is similar to what 323 00:31:24,960 --> 00:31:29,600 you had witnessed previously what you had done previously short of the fact that when 324 00:31:29,600 --> 00:31:34,820 we were visiting with various stakeholders so working through I have a very good relationship 325 00:31:34,820 --> 00:31:40,840 with the Home Builders Association they they of course had a great deal of pushback with 326 00:31:40,840 --> 00:31:47,080 the 50% and what those economic impacts may be to our community and so we were looking 327 00:31:47,080 --> 00:31:52,100 at this kind of where it is how we ended up with counsel that the 20% and 10% is that 328 00:31:52,100 --> 00:31:57,680 it was an equitable means for us that we recognize this is not going to cover the costs of what 329 00:31:57,680 --> 00:32:03,160 we need to do going forward but it is a step better than where we're at today ultimately 330 00:32:03,160 --> 00:32:08,360 we need to do this because we're past that window and just looking to get you know again 331 00:32:08,360 --> 00:32:12,800 that support and to move forward so we have something in place that we can at least start 332 00:32:12,800 --> 00:32:17,920 recouping some of those dollars and that 20% that as far as some of the staff we were we 333 00:32:17,920 --> 00:32:22,120 were comfortable with that and again kind of dealing with our outside stakeholders if 334 00:32:22,120 --> 00:32:29,120 that helps. 335 00:32:29,120 --> 00:32:34,680 Just to give my input here I think my opinion hasn't necessarily changed but I think that 336 00:32:34,680 --> 00:32:41,560 as as a committee going forward and being able to suggest something that doesn't just 337 00:32:41,560 --> 00:32:45,340 at least get thrown into the wind that we can find some sort of compromise within here 338 00:32:45,340 --> 00:32:51,040 I think the idea of having a separation of service areas a lot like how Flower Mound 339 00:32:51,040 --> 00:32:56,880 and Fort Worth have done that makes a lot of sense that A and C are our service areas 340 00:32:56,880 --> 00:33:02,200 that have the most amount of growth coming I think that if we could get to something 341 00:33:02,200 --> 00:33:06,240 that could be a recommendation for council to consider having different service areas 342 00:33:06,240 --> 00:33:10,680 to be able to treat the impact fees differently that'd be great problem with that recommendation 343 00:33:10,680 --> 00:33:15,720 is we're going to have to go back to the drawing board and so that's not it's not really on 344 00:33:15,720 --> 00:33:19,160 the table it's not really feasible within there and so that could be a recommendation 345 00:33:19,160 --> 00:33:24,040 I assume for our future five-year conversations so I think that's I think it's a good one 346 00:33:24,040 --> 00:33:27,640 I think it's I think it's about as about as good as we're going to be able to to to be 347 00:33:27,640 --> 00:33:32,680 able to make some sort of recommendation of there and saying I'm not gonna sit here and 348 00:33:32,680 --> 00:33:36,740 say 20 and 10 and you know I'll agree with the annual evaluation determined percentage 349 00:33:36,740 --> 00:33:42,840 increases but then I'd add on a audit didn't upon there and say every a five-year review 350 00:33:42,840 --> 00:33:50,560 of the impact fees would be only the recommendation I would include is my idea and I think I mean 351 00:33:50,560 --> 00:33:57,040 I think the issue with the twenty percent in my opinion is it's we're already behind 352 00:33:57,040 --> 00:34:04,660 you know from what we've been collecting and everything's gone up and yeah it's a hundred 353 00:34:04,660 --> 00:34:12,200 percent increase but you know what do we hear time and time again from everybody is infrastructure 354 00:34:12,200 --> 00:34:15,840 infrastructure we're building all these new houses we don't have the roads we don't have 355 00:34:15,840 --> 00:34:19,620 you know how many people stand in front of us and that's what their biggest complaint 356 00:34:19,620 --> 00:34:24,120 is and I know it's difficult how do how do we get that infrastructure right how do we 357 00:34:24,120 --> 00:34:31,600 do this this is one tool of many in our toolkit but I think it's one tool that right now we're 358 00:34:31,600 --> 00:34:38,920 really not using to our advantage as a city I think I think you know 2016 is a long time 359 00:34:38,920 --> 00:34:43,960 ago we've been collecting two thousand dollars it's just crazy for the growth that we've 360 00:34:43,960 --> 00:34:50,500 seen and for what we need in this town for infrastructure I mean I just think we're way 361 00:34:50,500 --> 00:34:58,900 behind and I do think it's it's just really low so I I mean our discussion back a year 362 00:34:58,900 --> 00:35:05,320 ago is I mean just kind of still where I am though I guess I might could come down as 363 00:35:05,320 --> 00:35:09,200 far as a recommendation a little bit on the fifty percent but I think twenty percent's 364 00:35:09,200 --> 00:35:14,640 too low and again obviously City Council in the end is going to have the the the say in 365 00:35:14,640 --> 00:35:21,120 the end but you're here for our input so that's that's what I'm giving Commissioner Smith 366 00:35:21,120 --> 00:35:26,560 and then Scott you want to say something okay just throw in there I know Jordan also had 367 00:35:26,560 --> 00:35:33,280 his his hand up too but going back to this conversation we had you know 15 months ago 368 00:35:33,280 --> 00:35:37,200 at that time I kind of got a little bit overruled by the rest of the committee on it I had suggested 369 00:35:37,200 --> 00:35:42,480 originally 20% with a transition to 50% and so I'll throw that recommendation back out 370 00:35:42,480 --> 00:35:48,680 there since our original 50 to 80 kind of got kicked in the butt so I'll say butt on 371 00:35:48,680 --> 00:35:54,760 public TV I don't care and I just wanted to answer Commissioner Smith's comments of earlier 372 00:35:54,760 --> 00:35:59,560 and I think that there's a piece in this that there's great value and in the very comments 373 00:35:59,560 --> 00:36:04,840 that you are making Madam Chair on this slide you'll also see an annual evaluation to determine 374 00:36:04,840 --> 00:36:10,960 the percentage increases so we'll be going back to council so I think truly if we can 375 00:36:10,960 --> 00:36:16,040 get this over the finish line so we can kind of take the next steps and even to evaluate 376 00:36:16,040 --> 00:36:21,480 if we have other thoughts or ideas that go forward as far as what those service areas 377 00:36:21,480 --> 00:36:26,200 look like and some other recommendations we can kind of work through that so I think it's 378 00:36:26,200 --> 00:36:30,440 one step at a time and we shouldn't be looking at this because we're almost close to a decade 379 00:36:30,440 --> 00:36:35,700 I look at this in a different way so maybe that first step again if we know where we 380 00:36:35,700 --> 00:36:40,320 have concurrence and buy-in and then we can come back to this body within another year 381 00:36:40,320 --> 00:36:45,680 and say okay hey what are some ideas going forward we can engage Pete to put him to work 382 00:36:45,680 --> 00:36:50,320 on some other tasks but maybe even thinking of this differently we were just trying to 383 00:36:50,320 --> 00:36:55,160 carry forward something that had expired and I think that this again is just one step in 384 00:36:55,160 --> 00:37:00,640 the process and then we can probably be a little bit more progressive going forward. 385 00:37:00,640 --> 00:37:01,640 Thank you. 386 00:37:01,640 --> 00:37:03,960 Commissioner Villarreal. 387 00:37:03,960 --> 00:37:10,760 Well with that in mind I'm still in favor of our prior suggestion but I could get to 388 00:37:10,760 --> 00:37:18,360 the point where I'm in agreement with Vice Chair Smith's second proposal which is a recommendation 389 00:37:18,360 --> 00:37:23,680 for 20 percent with the gradual increase to at least 50 percent I think we should at least 390 00:37:23,680 --> 00:37:29,880 make our voice heard that we support a gradual increase in the future we're not in favor 391 00:37:29,880 --> 00:37:35,240 of stagnation here and at the very least I would support that yeah. 392 00:37:35,240 --> 00:37:37,200 Thank you. 393 00:37:37,200 --> 00:37:40,200 Commissioner Pruitt. 394 00:37:40,200 --> 00:37:46,800 Thank you Chair yeah so I just want to echo Tim's comment on the service areas in the 395 00:37:46,800 --> 00:37:56,000 future oddly this is probably my biggest request is that in the future when we come to impact 396 00:37:56,000 --> 00:38:03,800 fee discussions we start calling what it is and that is I mean it's a fee as seen by the 397 00:38:03,800 --> 00:38:11,200 developer it's a subsidy as seen by existing city taxpayers so I would prefer for us instead 398 00:38:11,200 --> 00:38:20,880 of talking about a 20 to 50 percent fee that we talk about a 50 to 80 percent subsidy. 399 00:38:20,880 --> 00:38:26,520 My recommendation I understand the desire to come to some terms council's going to do what 400 00:38:26,520 --> 00:38:34,480 they want to do anyway I'm sitting here very close to what Commissioner Ellis is describing 401 00:38:34,480 --> 00:38:42,960 that we have been behind we've been ignoring how much roadways cost for decades and we're 402 00:38:42,960 --> 00:38:46,960 about to get into a couple decades where we're going to take on potentially over a billion 403 00:38:46,960 --> 00:38:54,520 dollars in city debt to fix that right and every penny helps so so I'm going to stick 404 00:38:54,520 --> 00:39:02,160 with the the prior recommendation of 50 to 80 percent I I would say potentially as one 405 00:39:02,160 --> 00:39:07,000 suggestion that might get adopted if nobody knows why we're discounting non-residential 406 00:39:07,000 --> 00:39:17,800 let's stop discounting it that will help a little bit the and then a couple other things 407 00:39:17,800 --> 00:39:26,240 I I would like the written remarks to include the original direction from 2016 to use impact 408 00:39:26,240 --> 00:39:34,960 fees to incentivize infill and then I would like I would be open anyway given the update 409 00:39:34,960 --> 00:39:41,840 that we had from the comprehensive plan development goals last summer I recall that there were 410 00:39:41,840 --> 00:39:50,560 almost zero applications for duplexes or triplexes or fourplexes and adus and since our comprehensive 411 00:39:50,560 --> 00:39:58,840 plan describes a need for a variety of housing types I guess a question to legal would with 412 00:39:58,840 --> 00:40:05,320 those land uses because they're called out in the land use table in our code be considered 413 00:40:05,320 --> 00:40:12,480 different enough that we could set a a discount for those land uses independent of single 414 00:40:12,480 --> 00:40:20,720 family detached homes okay well I would just give direction that if they could we would 415 00:40:20,720 --> 00:40:24,880 apply a discount for those types of housing units that our comprehensive plan is asking 416 00:40:24,880 --> 00:40:29,720 for more of and we haven't seen any of them this is a tool that we could use to to try 417 00:40:29,720 --> 00:40:34,880 to spur that and see where the where the dividing line is when we start to see some more of 418 00:40:34,880 --> 00:40:42,720 that development thank you thank you commissioner Cole thank you chair so when we talked about 419 00:40:42,720 --> 00:40:49,160 this last I took the consensus position I yeah I was okay so where is council on this 420 00:40:49,160 --> 00:40:58,960 because in the end that's where it's gonna be and if that's councils want then and that's 421 00:40:58,960 --> 00:41:08,520 what it's gonna be tonight you know because like I said before you know we're in a competition 422 00:41:08,520 --> 00:41:13,880 with every under like municipality I mean you can't compare the core of Fort Worth Texas 423 00:41:13,880 --> 00:41:21,840 to the core of Denton Texas apples and oranges we are in a running competition for a lot 424 00:41:21,840 --> 00:41:27,960 of things with a lot of other municipalities that are very similar to us and I don't want 425 00:41:27,960 --> 00:41:39,360 us to be out of step you know I if that's where the consensus is you know I'm a pragmatic 426 00:41:39,360 --> 00:41:47,280 consensus builder at that's where I'm okay with is right there and because that's kind 427 00:41:47,280 --> 00:42:07,560 of where it's gonna we know what's gonna be so I think would be a little bit more progressive 428 00:42:07,560 --> 00:42:10,920 I think with where we're going from 20 to 50 I mean they're saying they're doing an 429 00:42:10,920 --> 00:42:15,280 annual evaluation to determine percentage increases but I can guarantee every time we 430 00:42:15,280 --> 00:42:19,940 come together to do an annual evaluation we're gonna need more money like period end of story 431 00:42:19,940 --> 00:42:26,280 so I mean I do I do like Tim's numbers of 20 20 percent to 50 percent but I do think 432 00:42:26,280 --> 00:42:31,680 maybe we should consider just a little more because again you're gonna come back to the 433 00:42:31,680 --> 00:42:39,360 same decision I think eventually go ahead Scott one other piece that may help to answer 434 00:42:39,360 --> 00:42:44,360 and I've got staff looking to see if we can find something to to Commissioner Pruitt's 435 00:42:44,360 --> 00:42:49,440 question on the 10% but I will sell you tell you that that's a very significant number 436 00:42:49,440 --> 00:42:55,600 when you start talking about commercial collection because of the value of those projects so 437 00:42:55,600 --> 00:43:00,640 another component to this there's two pieces that I want to make sure that I articulate 438 00:43:00,640 --> 00:43:06,880 this doesn't fall deaf on council's ears the fact that they're dealing with a multitude 439 00:43:06,880 --> 00:43:14,240 of fees and fee increases and will be coming back before council with water and wastewater 440 00:43:14,240 --> 00:43:18,180 fee increases that I think are going to be quite significant I don't know how many people 441 00:43:18,180 --> 00:43:26,480 are aware last night they raised fees on electric you know by 20% so we're we're talking about 442 00:43:26,480 --> 00:43:33,560 one component within the entirety of this municipal complex they're balancing that with 443 00:43:33,560 --> 00:43:38,560 the other fee increases that we're also carrying forward and one slide that you saw that that 444 00:43:38,560 --> 00:43:44,440 fee increases to the right or wrong absolutely that's not that's not an impact fee that we're 445 00:43:44,440 --> 00:43:48,840 talking about but but again it's they're looking at all of the fees that impact our residents 446 00:43:48,840 --> 00:43:56,840 and our business owners and so within that that this is one piece of the pie where our 447 00:43:56,840 --> 00:44:01,640 fees we've we've went to a to a you know a cost recovery model and development services 448 00:44:01,640 --> 00:44:07,920 we are we are probably one of the highest in the metroplex at cost recovery on our fees 449 00:44:07,920 --> 00:44:14,160 and when we look at we're going to do water wastewater our roadway impact fees our park 450 00:44:14,160 --> 00:44:20,640 impact fees and and when we look at the totality of that we we have to balance that with what 451 00:44:20,640 --> 00:44:25,720 it is that we are as an economic vehicle as well so that commercial piece of that that 452 00:44:25,720 --> 00:44:30,960 discount is reflective of what it is that our professional staff is saying as it relates 453 00:44:30,960 --> 00:44:36,160 to how that is going to impact our economic development to the future so when we look 454 00:44:36,160 --> 00:44:40,640 about those taxable dollars at sales tax revenue that comes in all of these things are factors 455 00:44:40,640 --> 00:44:46,080 into that so it's not a matter of discounting or subsidizing development in some ways it 456 00:44:46,080 --> 00:44:51,840 might be subsidizing development for the benefit of the city long-term economically it it is 457 00:44:51,840 --> 00:44:57,200 it is not in a vacuum that this is being looked at or being discounted so I can't give you 458 00:44:57,200 --> 00:45:01,320 the hard numbers but I can give you kind of more of the narrative of what's occurring 459 00:45:01,320 --> 00:45:07,160 beyond this one piece so I just want to make sure that I'm clear and and and that council 460 00:45:07,160 --> 00:45:12,920 is looking in a in a in a very complete way they're not looking at this and and really 461 00:45:12,920 --> 00:45:16,800 a vacuum or discounting what it is that you're providing it's just trying to answer the big 462 00:45:16,800 --> 00:45:24,880 picture thank you when is this going to council again so we have it on we have it on the agenda 463 00:45:24,880 --> 00:45:29,080 this presentation shows it as a consent agenda item but it's been moved to an individual 464 00:45:29,080 --> 00:45:35,920 consideration to set the public hearing on April 2nd so I'll just be a resolution to 465 00:45:35,920 --> 00:45:40,360 set the date for the public hearing and we're forecasting or projecting the date to be May 466 00:45:40,360 --> 00:45:48,120 7th for the public hearing and propose adoption gotcha okay okay okay so I mean basically 467 00:45:48,120 --> 00:45:53,880 what we need to do is as a group has come to a consensus to to be able to finish off 468 00:45:53,880 --> 00:46:01,200 this meeting so that they know what to go talk about with council so I don't know that 469 00:46:01,200 --> 00:46:09,760 we have a majority consensus at this point I know three spoke to the 20% to annual increase 470 00:46:09,760 --> 00:46:14,440 of I don't know if you said annual I don't want to put words in your mouth but to a gradual 471 00:46:14,440 --> 00:46:19,680 increase I believe gradual yeah yeah and and to Commissioner Thaggard's point just one 472 00:46:19,680 --> 00:46:26,200 thing to consider is you know with every year that goes by and we try to get that 10% what 473 00:46:26,200 --> 00:46:31,660 you know what is everything else costing as we're and and we're never like we're staying 474 00:46:31,660 --> 00:46:41,320 behind you know and this tool it doesn't do anything effectively I mean I'm sorry but 475 00:46:41,320 --> 00:46:45,720 you're collecting two thousand dollars it's not doing anything I mean okay it's doing 476 00:46:45,720 --> 00:46:52,040 something you're collecting some money but literally it's not having an impact which 477 00:46:52,040 --> 00:46:57,820 you know the development is having an impact but this fee is not having an impact certainly 478 00:46:57,820 --> 00:47:06,040 not right now and we're at eight eight years now since it's been even talked about so I 479 00:47:06,040 --> 00:47:12,160 mean if we're going to start low and recommend that low which it's hard for me to get on 480 00:47:12,160 --> 00:47:17,200 board with at the moment but we've got to at least we've got to say that we're going 481 00:47:17,200 --> 00:47:20,720 to do this every year and with every year that we're going to have an increase because 482 00:47:20,720 --> 00:47:27,760 it's I mean it's crazy we're just never going to we're never going to reap the benefit of 483 00:47:27,760 --> 00:47:34,720 what this should be and and yes we probably we not even probably we do need to look at 484 00:47:34,720 --> 00:47:40,320 areas I mean that has and I don't know I don't know how it how it reads when we can look 485 00:47:40,320 --> 00:47:46,320 at that do we have to wait the five years to look at that no you can update the study 486 00:47:46,320 --> 00:47:51,840 any time okay just required at least I know it's just a lot of work and a lot of discussion 487 00:47:51,840 --> 00:47:56,800 to do that but I think that's really important you can see by that comparative study of different 488 00:47:56,800 --> 00:48:01,440 cities even though of course it's not all apples to apples but you can see when you 489 00:48:01,440 --> 00:48:05,880 look at those numbers well yeah they're they're only collecting that because basically their 490 00:48:05,880 --> 00:48:09,920 entire infrastructure is built out of course they don't have to do that and of course you 491 00:48:09,920 --> 00:48:14,000 know they you can divide Flower Mound like that because yeah that other part of Flower 492 00:48:14,000 --> 00:48:19,920 Mound they way collected their impact fees a whole long time ago on that that built outside 493 00:48:19,920 --> 00:48:25,720 and then the new part is is in dire need of of build out because they can't finish it 494 00:48:25,720 --> 00:48:31,360 doesn't have any infrastructure right now it's kind of like our 35w issue so anyway 495 00:48:31,360 --> 00:48:37,200 it's just those are my thoughts for I know it it's difficult to jump from where we are 496 00:48:37,200 --> 00:48:42,360 to that fifty percent number I get that and I get the pushback that I'm sure that if Scott's 497 00:48:42,360 --> 00:48:47,320 talking to his builder meeting some I have no doubt that he's getting a tremendous pushback 498 00:48:47,320 --> 00:48:50,920 from that. 499 00:48:50,920 --> 00:49:08,120 So sure no Tim talked about a fifty percent a maximum fifty percent yes that's correct 500 00:49:08,120 --> 00:49:14,840 which is what Commissioner Villarreal said and what Commissioner Cole has said go ahead 501 00:49:14,840 --> 00:49:20,160 Commissioner Villarreal sorry I just want to clarify I'm more in line with what you're 502 00:49:20,160 --> 00:49:25,760 saying chair I'm just I could see myself getting to 20 to 50 if that's the consensus it doesn't 503 00:49:25,760 --> 00:49:30,200 sound like it is currently so I'm not really well I mean that's what I'm trying to do I'd 504 00:49:30,200 --> 00:49:33,700 like to get to consensus because that's really what we're here to do and they've got to get 505 00:49:33,700 --> 00:49:43,120 this presented over 50 day let's do it then I'm gonna go through that so I know Commissioner 506 00:49:43,120 --> 00:49:48,440 Pruitt has stated that Commissioner Smith has just stated that Commissioner Perron I 507 00:49:48,440 --> 00:49:54,680 know this is all new to you and I don't know if you have any thoughts to share with where 508 00:49:54,680 --> 00:50:00,720 you know if you would like to be in agreement with just what we've had said or you are welcome 509 00:50:00,720 --> 00:50:08,680 to weigh in if you would like it's just a touch yeah there you go thank you I think 510 00:50:08,680 --> 00:50:14,160 that there's a lot of things to consider I definitely understand the need for the percentage 511 00:50:14,160 --> 00:50:18,400 increase but also in the sense of equity what's the impact to our residents as well and so 512 00:50:18,400 --> 00:50:25,680 keeping that I guess for the forefront for me just for consideration I think of the discussion 513 00:50:25,680 --> 00:50:31,880 that I heard today I'm the most in favor of the proposal for the 20 percent to the gradual 514 00:50:31,880 --> 00:50:37,680 50 percent increase but no this has been good to learn and good to listen to so but that's 515 00:50:37,680 --> 00:50:45,040 where my thoughts are right now Commissioner Pruitt and then I will come back to this side 516 00:50:45,040 --> 00:50:53,120 yeah just a question that may help I know I'm making broad generalizations I hate to 517 00:50:53,120 --> 00:51:00,360 do this but in the interest of time I'm going to do it the way these impact fees are are 518 00:51:00,360 --> 00:51:06,000 calculated I believe there's a different trip length assumption for different residential 519 00:51:06,000 --> 00:51:16,760 uses and therefore the single-family home fee per family if you will would be higher 520 00:51:16,760 --> 00:51:23,880 than that of a family that might be in a multi-family home that that might have a lower cost of living 521 00:51:23,880 --> 00:51:29,360 is that an accurate statement I'm just trying to yeah because equity was mentioned it seems 522 00:51:29,360 --> 00:51:37,000 to me like the residential component of these is already graduated from an equity lens and 523 00:51:37,000 --> 00:51:43,800 I just want to understand if that's a reasonable view of the facts so the answer to the difference 524 00:51:43,800 --> 00:51:48,000 between single-family and multi-family is yes multi-family has a lower trip rate per 525 00:51:48,000 --> 00:51:56,600 unit it's a little more than half that of single-family so the fee per apartment unit 526 00:51:56,600 --> 00:52:01,520 will be high lower now keep in mind that it's going to be the developer of the single-family 527 00:52:01,520 --> 00:52:08,640 complex it's going to pay for 200 400 600 units at a time which will likely get passed 528 00:52:08,640 --> 00:52:14,680 on into the rent of those who are living there but yes there's a difference okay thank you 529 00:52:14,680 --> 00:52:20,440 yeah and I I appreciate all the comments I'm still at 50 to 80 I just I don't see how the 530 00:52:20,440 --> 00:52:27,160 city gets fiscally ahead by subsidizing development that we know is fiscally negative so that 531 00:52:27,160 --> 00:52:33,360 we can get more in the hole thank you thank you commissioner Thacker thank you chair I 532 00:52:33,360 --> 00:52:41,000 just just for the record I if I think if we do not consider something like 50 to 80 then 533 00:52:41,000 --> 00:52:45,400 I'm all we're doing is borrowing trouble because down the road the development is going to 534 00:52:45,400 --> 00:52:49,560 come whether we like it or not so eventually what's going to happen is is that we've got 535 00:52:49,560 --> 00:52:53,640 all of this development and we don't have the infrastructure to support it so then those 536 00:52:53,640 --> 00:52:59,200 people end up back in our chambers complaining about it later or we have developers that 537 00:52:59,200 --> 00:53:04,320 are getting it you know directly from their renters or whomever else so I just want everybody 538 00:53:04,320 --> 00:53:10,400 to think about that again they're going to build anyway if we want to support it we can 539 00:53:10,400 --> 00:53:14,120 support it if we don't want to support it we're going to hear it later just for the 540 00:53:14,120 --> 00:53:29,000 record so you are at a 50 to 80 okay commissioner Villarreal you are you're doing 50 to 80 Tim 541 00:53:29,000 --> 00:53:43,680 you've jumped commissioner Cole is that 20 okay so and commissioner Perjuan was at 20 542 00:53:43,680 --> 00:53:48,840 so we've got a consensus to stay with our original recommendation obviously that's what 543 00:53:48,840 --> 00:53:55,680 it is to council and in the end they're going to go forward with I assume with what it is 544 00:53:55,680 --> 00:54:01,320 that they will go forward with council is almost as much divided as this body is in 545 00:54:01,320 --> 00:54:05,160 terms of determining the rates and as Scott mentioned there's a lot of other factors are 546 00:54:05,160 --> 00:54:09,760 considering with other impact fee at the same time and other impacts as well so we'll bring 547 00:54:09,760 --> 00:54:14,800 your recommendation forward be written and we'll include in the presentation and let 548 00:54:14,800 --> 00:54:19,440 them discuss it and decide what collection rate they'd like to go with yeah I know it's 549 00:54:19,440 --> 00:54:24,200 a difficult it's difficult all the way around I think what makes it even more difficult 550 00:54:24,200 --> 00:54:31,480 is when we get this far behind excuse me on on discussing it and and increasing it a long 551 00:54:31,480 --> 00:54:36,320 time ago like we should have so that should be a note that that we cannot let this happen 552 00:54:36,320 --> 00:54:42,640 again and to where we are eight years lapse and and all of that development that has happened 553 00:54:42,640 --> 00:54:47,200 to end this is where you know this is where we get to Commissioner Smith I know we got 554 00:54:47,200 --> 00:54:55,680 to get to work session for PNC another commission I serve on you guys should join sometime the 555 00:54:55,680 --> 00:55:01,160 let's ultimately call it what it is we have that that bar graph of 203 million no matter 556 00:55:01,160 --> 00:55:08,960 what the dollars for the impact is going to be passed on to the end user right if it's 557 00:55:08,960 --> 00:55:15,080 impact fees associated with the development of a building it's gonna be the increase in 558 00:55:15,080 --> 00:55:19,360 price or increase in rent it's gonna be passed on that way if it's about if it's debt that's 559 00:55:19,360 --> 00:55:23,840 being used we're using debentures and bonds it's gonna be interest costs can be paid back 560 00:55:23,840 --> 00:55:31,480 via either ad valorem taxes or to be paid back via revenue generated from the you know 561 00:55:31,480 --> 00:55:35,200 from the city and then lastly it's gonna be paid for by ad valorem taxes so no matter 562 00:55:35,200 --> 00:55:40,040 what it's gonna get paid so really I think the 50 to 80 whatever it is yes still in consensus 563 00:55:40,040 --> 00:55:45,960 for that but I think my point that I'm trying to really make is that it's really about how 564 00:55:45,960 --> 00:55:51,680 do we want the end user to be impacted by this and there is definitely an argument to 565 00:55:51,680 --> 00:55:57,320 be made that 50 to 80 or higher impact could mean we we worsen or we make it harder for 566 00:55:57,320 --> 00:56:03,320 renters home buyers those kinds of things moving forward and the residential side right 567 00:56:03,320 --> 00:56:08,000 but ultimately they're gonna be paying for it no matter what so really impact fees should 568 00:56:08,000 --> 00:56:14,020 be about how do we encourage or discourage development and so it's added that last piece 569 00:56:14,020 --> 00:56:18,680 of we need to talk about zones in the future that's really where my mindset is coming from 570 00:56:18,680 --> 00:56:22,800 is this is about encouraging this and discouraging development it's not about who's paying because 571 00:56:22,800 --> 00:56:28,440 ultimately end user is gonna pay right no matter how you chop it up and in the end can 572 00:56:28,440 --> 00:56:33,560 you with the recommendation discussed with council that we talked about looking at those 573 00:56:33,560 --> 00:56:37,300 areas again in the future if that could be part of the recommendation we'll have that 574 00:56:37,300 --> 00:56:43,360 in our written yeah we'll make sure council gets that recommendation yeah excellent okay 575 00:56:43,360 --> 00:56:50,160 anything else for CIC okay and do you need anything else from us appreciate all the information 576 00:56:50,160 --> 00:56:59,240 thank you very much I will go ahead and adjourn the CIC meeting at 558 p.m. take a short break 577 00:56:59,240 --> 00:57:01,720 to grab dinner and then we'll come back for our work session PNC.