WEBVTT 00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:05.280 >> Good afternoon and welcome to the City of Denton's Planning and Zoning Commission 00:00:05.280 --> 00:00:11.360 meeting for Wednesday, March 20th, 2024. 00:00:11.360 --> 00:00:19.440 We are convening as the Capital Improvement Advisory Committee, sorry, CIAC, the PNZ serves 00:00:19.440 --> 00:00:20.440 as the CIAC. 00:00:20.440 --> 00:00:24.720 And with the quorum present, we'll call us to order at 5.01 p.m. 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, 00:00:33.640 --> 00:00:39.840 give staff direction regarding the updates to roadway impact fees. 00:00:39.840 --> 00:00:40.840 Hello there. 00:00:40.840 --> 00:00:41.840 >> Good evening. 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 00:00:49.680 --> 00:00:55.200 Pete Kelly from Kimley-Horne Associates to present an update of the roadway impact fees. 00:00:55.200 --> 00:00:59.400 We have been to this body a couple of times a couple of years ago. 00:00:59.400 --> 00:01:04.960 We've no substantial, no changes to the technical aspects of the report. 00:01:04.960 --> 00:01:08.520 It's been, we took your recommendations previously to City Council. 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 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 00:01:16.800 --> 00:01:22.280 recommendations to go back to City Council and move this process forward as much as we 00:01:22.280 --> 00:01:23.360 can. 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 00:01:27.440 --> 00:01:31.400 and answering any questions, and myself, any questions you guys may have. 00:01:31.400 --> 00:01:32.400 >> Thank you. 00:01:32.400 --> 00:01:33.400 >> Hi, Pete. 00:01:33.400 --> 00:01:40.600 >> Good evening, commissioners, I have the chance to present to most of you before on 00:01:40.600 --> 00:01:45.900 this project, and there's some new faces, and so hopefully we can get refreshed and 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 00:01:51.880 --> 00:01:57.480 of the study and the collection rate options, like Brett said, that were discussed at council 00:01:57.480 --> 00:02:04.440 and the recommendations that they have to consider moving forward, and if you have any 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 00:02:11.320 --> 00:02:12.320 answer. 00:02:12.320 --> 00:02:18.080 To recap the role of the Capital Improvement Advisory Committee, it's threefold. 00:02:18.080 --> 00:02:23.160 It's to advise and assist the City Council in adopting the land use assumptions, which 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. 00:02:27.080 --> 00:02:32.000 Number two, to review the capital improvements plan and file written comments on that, and 00:02:32.000 --> 00:02:37.200 also to file written comments on the, so just the study overall, which encompasses the land 00:02:37.200 --> 00:02:43.960 use assumptions, capital improvements plan, and the impact fee calculation itself. 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, 00:02:49.760 --> 00:02:55.240 so they're not assessed to existing residents unless said residence is building a new development. 00:02:55.240 --> 00:03:00.160 They are not recurring fees to be paid annually or monthly over time. 00:03:00.160 --> 00:03:04.880 They're governed by Chapter 395 of the Texas Local Government Code, so there are specific 00:03:04.880 --> 00:03:10.920 requirements on how the program can be administered, which also requires an update to the study 00:03:10.920 --> 00:03:13.640 at least every five years. 00:03:13.640 --> 00:03:16.960 Why are impact fees implemented and used? 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 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 00:03:28.640 --> 00:03:33.820 to help provide for the orderly growth of the community. 00:03:33.820 --> 00:03:39.420 The five components of an impact fee study are, first, the service areas. 00:03:39.420 --> 00:03:43.960 We need to establish which areas fees can be collected and spent in. 00:03:43.960 --> 00:03:50.360 From there, we need to project out the land use assumptions and develop capital improvements 00:03:50.360 --> 00:03:56.700 plan and also establish the service units for standardized unit of measure and calculate 00:03:56.700 --> 00:03:58.600 the maximum fee in each service area. 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 00:04:03.640 --> 00:04:06.280 they're calculated. 00:04:06.280 --> 00:04:08.200 So we established the service areas. 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 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 00:04:19.600 --> 00:04:23.980 are essentially the same as the service areas that were established in the initial roadway 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 00:04:30.600 --> 00:04:31.600 since then. 00:04:31.600 --> 00:04:39.540 Also, you can see on the map the non-annexation areas. 00:04:39.540 --> 00:04:46.700 We use the info from the comprehensive plan mainly to project out growth for the next 00:04:46.700 --> 00:04:51.760 10 years, and that's put up on the slide here in four basic categories. 00:04:51.760 --> 00:04:55.860 We look at residential, which includes single and multi-family, and we look at basic, which 00:04:55.860 --> 00:05:01.480 includes industrial and agricultural service, which includes office and institutional and 00:05:01.480 --> 00:05:06.340 retail, which includes essentially everything else, shopping, dining, and entertainment. 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 00:05:13.000 --> 00:05:17.920 C are really our higher growth areas, with A being heavier towards residential and C 00:05:17.920 --> 00:05:24.240 being heavier towards commercial, specifically industrial, but we still have some growth 00:05:24.240 --> 00:05:30.240 in really throughout the city as well. 00:05:30.240 --> 00:05:34.180 The next component of impact fees is the capital improvements plan. 00:05:34.180 --> 00:05:37.480 The capital improvements plan is where we identify the infrastructure needed to serve 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 00:05:42.120 --> 00:05:43.940 on an adopted plan. 00:05:43.940 --> 00:05:50.600 That is based off of the mobility plan, which was recently updated in 2022. 00:05:50.600 --> 00:05:56.960 This is an example CIP capital improvements plan map for roadway impact fees. 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 00:06:00.620 --> 00:06:06.040 as an example, to show that we have several different project types that are included 00:06:06.040 --> 00:06:08.980 on the roadway impact fee CIP. 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 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 00:06:18.960 --> 00:06:22.480 their full capacity. 00:06:22.480 --> 00:06:30.960 Just for reference, we have in black the other roads that are not impact fee eligible. 00:06:30.960 --> 00:06:35.640 The final component is calculating the maximum fee, and we really just put all those previous 00:06:35.640 --> 00:06:36.640 components together. 00:06:36.640 --> 00:06:38.920 We look at the growth over the next 10 years. 00:06:38.920 --> 00:06:43.040 I'm gonna move down to the bottom of the slide here. 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 00:06:48.400 --> 00:06:54.880 then we divide that by the cost of the infrastructure needed over the next 10 years. 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 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 00:07:09.360 --> 00:07:12.360 governed by chapter 395. 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 00:07:16.240 --> 00:07:24.840 ad valorem taxes after those developments come in, so we did that step as well. 00:07:24.840 --> 00:07:29.280 That is detailed out in table nine of the impact fee study, but it essentially comes 00:07:29.280 --> 00:07:32.000 down to this bottom line of the maximum fee. 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 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 00:07:42.560 --> 00:07:47.440 in this study, which shows how many vehicle miles are generated per development unit in 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 00:07:59.200 --> 00:08:03.800 for the maximum fee. 00:08:03.800 --> 00:08:08.560 This table, we put this table together to show what that means for five different land 00:08:08.560 --> 00:08:14.960 use types and also compare that to the 2016 study and five different collection rates, 00:08:14.960 --> 00:08:17.080 so I'll walk through one step at a time. 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 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 00:08:28.000 --> 00:08:29.000 to be. 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 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 00:08:42.200 --> 00:08:43.200 a home. 00:08:43.200 --> 00:08:52.480 Moving to a 250 unit apartment complex, the percentage is actually half that for all the 00:08:52.480 --> 00:08:58.080 non-residential, so that applies to shopping center, office building, and light industrial. 00:08:58.080 --> 00:09:02.360 Light industrial rate was actually capped at the warehousing unit, the warehousing rate 00:09:02.360 --> 00:09:09.440 in 2016, I should say all the industrial uses were capped at the warehousing rate. 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 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 00:09:19.760 --> 00:09:20.760 types. 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 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 00:09:35.280 --> 00:09:43.320 every dollar amount in this table, but the options that we showed council were 20%, 30%, 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 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, 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, 00:10:06.760 --> 00:10:13.240 so essentially what we're showing is the non-residential uses paying half the amount 00:10:13.240 --> 00:10:20.600 per vehicle mile that the residential uses would be paying, so this just provides a comparison 00:10:20.600 --> 00:10:28.860 of what all those uses would be, these different percentage rates. 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 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, 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 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 00:10:56.160 --> 00:11:00.880 of that amount, this slide just shows how much you could actually build with impact 00:11:00.880 --> 00:11:05.540 fees at the different collection rates, and I should point out that the 20% through the 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 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 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 00:11:24.800 --> 00:11:28.960 roadways to fill the need. 00:11:28.960 --> 00:11:37.140 It was also requested that we provide some data of comparison cities just to see what 00:11:37.140 --> 00:11:42.360 other cities are charging, and some of these cities share some commonality with Denton 00:11:42.360 --> 00:11:47.940 in that they are college towns, others are simply just geographically close to Denton 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 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 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 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 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 00:12:17.800 --> 00:12:21.800 that to the east side of Flower Mound that is mostly built out, has infrastructure and 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 00:12:28.400 --> 00:12:36.800 compare to the different collection rate options in Denton, currently $2,000 a house is third 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 00:12:44.160 --> 00:12:49.480 these collection rate options kind of cover the spectrum, if you will, of these comparison 00:12:49.480 --> 00:12:54.840 cities, and we also are showing what percentage of the max these cities are charging, some 00:12:54.840 --> 00:13:01.800 are charging up to 100, some are charging a much lower percentage, there's also quite 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 00:13:06.160 --> 00:13:12.080 when the studies were conducted. 00:13:12.080 --> 00:13:18.800 So to recap the recommendation that Council discussed and put forth is they expressed 00:13:18.800 --> 00:13:26.240 support for adopting 20% of the maximum fee for residential uses and 10% of the maximum 00:13:26.240 --> 00:13:32.520 fee for non-residential uses with an annual meeting to determine what percentage increase 00:13:32.520 --> 00:13:39.720 to go from there, there wasn't support for a predetermined percentage escalation each 00:13:39.720 --> 00:13:49.640 year but there was support for some type of escalation each year. 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 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 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 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 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 00:14:26.960 --> 00:14:31.080 make sense or we can clarify something for you. 00:14:31.080 --> 00:14:32.080 Commissioner Smith. 00:14:32.080 --> 00:14:33.080 Thank you Chair. 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 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 00:14:43.040 --> 00:14:44.040 up there comparatively. 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 00:14:49.600 --> 00:14:57.680 for us to discuss around, why such a drastic difference between something like Lubbock which 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 00:15:04.200 --> 00:15:09.740 information you already gave gave answers to that right that Flower Mound West is growing 00:15:09.740 --> 00:15:10.740 so fast. 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 00:15:17.040 --> 00:15:23.600 speed of growth, lack of infrastructure and area it still seems like that's a massive 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. 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 00:15:35.480 --> 00:15:38.200 much higher comparatively. 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 00:15:46.120 --> 00:15:52.080 mobility plan essentially on the CIP they've limited their CIP quite significantly just 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 00:15:59.960 --> 00:16:08.520 with a slightly smaller CIP and cost and also adopted 50% as opposed to 100% there. 00:16:08.520 --> 00:16:17.280 The other variable besides demand and growth is the trip lengths and the trip rates that 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 00:16:21.160 --> 00:16:28.760 of IT and some studies cities may strategically choose a shorter trip length so those are 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 00:16:34.360 --> 00:16:36.480 of different things besides demand and growth. 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 00:16:40.760 --> 00:16:44.720 outside of this they even go into calculating that fee that makes it. 00:16:44.720 --> 00:16:48.600 We can have a conversation around comparative nature because eventually what's going to 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 00:17:59.500 --> 00:18:06.800 University and Robeson Ranch Road has no city services they're without lacking city services 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 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 00:18:21.800 --> 00:18:28.560 calculation I mean might be different if you took that into consideration because there's 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 00:19:48.600 --> 00:19:53.600 fees charged over the last several years between residential and non-residential uses with 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 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 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 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 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 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 00:20:30.880 --> 00:20:41.120 we we did use the projected tax revenue method yeah and then for individual applications 00:20:41.120 --> 00:20:51.920 right and development permits do let me describe the situation because the jargon won't make 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 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 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 00:21:13.840 --> 00:21:25.000 chaining within the document as far as the lesser impact in trip length and that sort 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 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 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 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 00:21:48.040 --> 00:21:52.720 three different trip lengths that we're essentially looking at and you may span across service 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 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 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 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 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 00:22:22.020 --> 00:22:28.120 to go home is nine point seven nine miles based off of the national household travel 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 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 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 00:22:43.540 --> 00:22:48.120 so we actually taken three mile trip length into account there and then multiply that 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 00:22:54.640 --> 00:23:01.880 length factor take into account for that so so essentially the maximum trip length is 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 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 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 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 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 00:23:40.360 --> 00:23:47.040 impact fees and that sort of thing I think they split up their service areas differently 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 00:23:51.680 --> 00:23:58.160 some around the outskirts and I guess my question is obviously we're not considering service 00:23:58.160 --> 00:24:05.720 area boundaries now but there may be some future direction to future updates so does 00:24:05.720 --> 00:24:15.240 that geometric arrangement versus our current geometric arrangement yield different fees 00:24:15.240 --> 00:24:23.460 within different areas and encourage infill and that sort of thing yes so in the city 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 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 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 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 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 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 00:24:58.080 --> 00:25:03.380 areas in their last update that were added as no fee service areas as the infrastructure 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 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 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 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 00:25:31.280 --> 00:25:37.220 since this is we're considering a similar discount I guess or something else that would 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 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 00:25:58.960 --> 00:26:03.380 essentially the full length of the bar on this chart is the two hundred three million 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 00:26:09.160 --> 00:26:14.160 cost attributable to ten year growth so the cost attributable to build our growth is much 00:26:14.160 --> 00:26:19.420 higher or existing efficiencies would be higher so we take that and then we essentially we 00:26:19.420 --> 00:26:26.360 did these revenue projections at 20% through 100% and subtracted out those numbers and 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 00:26:31.040 --> 00:26:35.880 calculation which would be funded by ad valorem taxes and essentially it's just the delta 00:26:35.880 --> 00:26:39.920 that's left after you subtract out those two things the revenue projections and the ad 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 00:26:45.540 --> 00:26:50.440 other funding source to come up with probably that fair enough to build those roads okay 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 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 00:27:10.020 --> 00:27:14.960 fee of gradually increasing up to 80% I know that was our discussion back then obviously 00:27:14.960 --> 00:27:19.560 that didn't sit well with council because they I assume you went with that information 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 00:27:26.480 --> 00:27:32.560 couple work sessions with council since then there this this last time there is more of 00:27:32.560 --> 00:27:42.080 a refined recommendation the previous time we didn't have a consensus commissioner cool 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 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 00:27:56.640 --> 00:28:02.720 majority of council wants to go they they agreed together to make this their recommendation 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 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 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 00:28:38.520 --> 00:28:43.380 thousand right now right yeah just so it'd be maintaining the same percentage but with 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 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 00:29:02.960 --> 00:29:07.920 opinion than our original discussion I'm trying to understand exactly what what you would 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 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 00:29:16.760 --> 00:29:22.520 go forward with setting the public hearing date on April 2nd so I believe something to 00:29:22.520 --> 00:29:26.640 similar to what you have with the meeting minutes and what your group consensus recommendations 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 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 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 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 00:29:45.560 --> 00:29:52.200 we've got two new peoples two different people than from our original consensus Commissioner 00:29:52.200 --> 00:29:56.640 Smith thank you just to clarify apartment complexes is classified as residential use 00:29:56.640 --> 00:30:07.600 here correct that's correct yes wanted to make sure Commissioner Perot thank you chair 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 00:30:16.760 --> 00:30:23.520 non-residential uses came from when this was originally adopted in 2016 time frame I'm 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 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 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 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 00:30:46.400 --> 00:30:52.480 meeting minutes when we pulled the meeting minutes from the 2016 adoption they actually 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 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 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 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 00:31:15.280 --> 00:31:20.360 what you were here I'm sorry Scott McDonald director of development services so kind of 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 00:31:24.960 --> 00:31:29.600 you had witnessed previously what you had done previously short of the fact that when 00:31:29.600 --> 00:31:34.820 we were visiting with various stakeholders so working through I have a very good relationship 00:31:34.820 --> 00:31:40.840 with the Home Builders Association they they of course had a great deal of pushback with 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 00:32:17.920 --> 00:32:22.120 were comfortable with that and again kind of dealing with our outside stakeholders if 00:32:22.120 --> 00:32:29.120 that helps. 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 00:32:34.680 --> 00:32:41.560 as as a committee going forward and being able to suggest something that doesn't just 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 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 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 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 00:33:02.200 --> 00:33:06.240 that could be a recommendation for council to consider having different service areas 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 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 00:33:15.720 --> 00:33:19.160 the table it's not really feasible within there and so that could be a recommendation 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 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 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 00:33:32.680 --> 00:33:36.740 say 20 and 10 and you know I'll agree with the annual evaluation determined percentage 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 00:35:37.200 --> 00:35:42.480 originally 20% with a transition to 50% and so I'll throw that recommendation back out 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 00:36:45.680 --> 00:36:50.320 on some other tasks but maybe even thinking of this differently we were just trying to 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 00:36:55.160 --> 00:37:00.640 the process and then we can probably be a little bit more progressive going forward. 00:37:00.640 --> 00:37:01.640 Thank you. 00:37:01.640 --> 00:37:03.960 Commissioner Villarreal. 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 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 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 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 00:37:29.880 --> 00:37:35.240 of stagnation here and at the very least I would support that yeah. 00:37:35.240 --> 00:37:37.200 Thank you. 00:37:37.200 --> 00:37:40.200 Commissioner Pruitt. 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 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 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 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 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. 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 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 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 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 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 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 00:39:02.160 --> 00:39:07.000 suggestion that might get adopted if nobody knows why we're discounting non-residential 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 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 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 00:39:34.960 --> 00:39:41.840 that we had from the comprehensive plan development goals last summer I recall that there were 00:39:41.840 --> 00:39:50.560 almost zero applications for duplexes or triplexes or fourplexes and adus and since our comprehensive 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 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 00:40:05.320 --> 00:40:12.480 different enough that we could set a a discount for those land uses independent of single 00:40:12.480 --> 00:40:20.720 family detached homes okay well I would just give direction that if they could we would 00:40:20.720 --> 00:40:24.880 apply a discount for those types of housing units that our comprehensive plan is asking 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 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 00:40:34.880 --> 00:40:42.720 that development thank you thank you commissioner Cole thank you chair so when we talked about 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 00:42:10.920 --> 00:42:15.280 annual evaluation to determine percentage increases but I can guarantee every time we 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 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 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 00:42:31.680 --> 00:42:39.360 same decision I think eventually go ahead Scott one other piece that may help to answer 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 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 00:42:49.440 --> 00:42:55.600 when you start talking about commercial collection because of the value of those projects so 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 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 00:43:06.880 --> 00:43:14.240 of fees and fee increases and will be coming back before council with water and wastewater 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 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 00:43:26.480 --> 00:43:33.560 one component within the entirety of this municipal complex they're balancing that with 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 00:44:25.720 --> 00:44:30.960 discount is reflective of what it is that our professional staff is saying as it relates 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 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 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 00:44:46.080 --> 00:44:51.840 might be subsidizing development for the benefit of the city long-term economically it it is 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 00:45:40.360 --> 00:45:48.120 7th for the public hearing and propose adoption gotcha okay okay okay so I mean basically 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 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 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 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 00:46:14.440 --> 00:46:19.680 increase I believe gradual yeah yeah and and to Commissioner Thaggard's point just one 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 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 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 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 00:46:45.720 --> 00:46:52.040 something you're collecting some money but literally it's not having an impact which 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 00:48:01.440 --> 00:48:05.880 look at those numbers well yeah they're they're only collecting that because basically their 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 00:48:09.920 --> 00:48:14.000 know they you can divide Flower Mound like that because yeah that other part of Flower 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 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 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 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 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 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 00:48:47.320 --> 00:48:50.920 from that. 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 00:49:08.120 --> 00:49:14.840 which is what Commissioner Villarreal said and what Commissioner Cole has said go ahead 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 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 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 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 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 00:49:43.120 --> 00:49:48.440 Pruitt has stated that Commissioner Smith has just stated that Commissioner Perron I 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 00:51:00.360 --> 00:51:06.000 calculated I believe there's a different trip length assumption for different residential 00:51:06.000 --> 00:51:16.760 uses and therefore the single-family home fee per family if you will would be higher 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 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 00:51:29.360 --> 00:51:37.000 to me like the residential component of these is already graduated from an equity lens and 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 00:51:43.800 --> 00:51:48.000 between single-family and multi-family is yes multi-family has a lower trip rate per 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 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 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 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 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 00:52:20.440 --> 00:52:27.160 city gets fiscally ahead by subsidizing development that we know is fiscally negative so that 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 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 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 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 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 00:52:53.640 --> 00:52:59.200 people end up back in our chambers complaining about it later or we have developers that 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 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 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 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 00:53:29.000 --> 00:53:43.680 you've jumped commissioner Cole is that 20 okay so and commissioner Perjuan was at 20 00:53:43.680 --> 00:53:48.840 so we've got a consensus to stay with our original recommendation obviously that's what 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 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 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 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 00:54:09.760 --> 00:54:14.800 your recommendation forward be written and we'll include in the presentation and let 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 00:55:08.960 --> 00:55:15.080 impact fees associated with the development of a building it's gonna be the increase in 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 00:55:57.320 --> 00:56:03.320 renters home buyers those kinds of things moving forward and the residential side right 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 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 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 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 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 00:56:28.440 --> 00:56:33.560 you with the recommendation discussed with council that we talked about looking at those 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 00:56:37.300 --> 00:56:43.360 in our written yeah we'll make sure council gets that recommendation yeah excellent okay 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 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 00:56:59.240 --> 00:57:01.720 to grab dinner and then we'll come back for our work session PNC.