1 00:00:00,000 --> 00:00:10,680 Good afternoon and welcome to the City of Denton Capital Improvement Advisory Committee 2 00:00:10,680 --> 00:00:13,760 meeting on Wednesday, June 25th. 3 00:00:13,760 --> 00:00:20,200 I will call this meeting to order with the quorum present at 4.01 p.m. 4 00:00:20,200 --> 00:00:36,280 Our only item on the agenda here is Item 1a, CIAC 25-008. 5 00:00:36,280 --> 00:00:41,800 And before you start your presentation, for those who are somewhat new to the commission 6 00:00:41,800 --> 00:00:48,040 and the role of P&Z in this role, please explain for us. 7 00:00:48,040 --> 00:00:51,720 Good evening, Chair and Planning, Zoning, Commissioners. 8 00:00:51,720 --> 00:00:54,360 I'm Keisha Siriano, Assistant Plaint Director. 9 00:00:54,360 --> 00:00:58,600 I'd just like to provide some guidance for the meeting today as many of you are new sitting 10 00:00:58,600 --> 00:01:01,320 at the CIAC in this role. 11 00:01:01,320 --> 00:01:05,320 And as Chair mentioned earlier, you see Jason here, so that is a requirement of the ordinance 12 00:01:05,320 --> 00:01:08,640 that we have someone representing from our ETJ. 13 00:01:08,640 --> 00:01:13,160 So now I'm going to quickly review the responsibilities of the CIAC. 14 00:01:13,160 --> 00:01:17,480 So the Advisory Committee serves in an advisory capacity to the City Council and is established 15 00:01:17,480 --> 00:01:23,160 to advise and assist the City Council in adopting land use to assumptions, review the Capital 16 00:01:23,160 --> 00:01:25,600 Improvements Plan and file written comments. 17 00:01:25,600 --> 00:01:29,860 And those written comments will be the minutes that are taken today, monitor and evaluate 18 00:01:29,860 --> 00:01:34,260 implementation of the Capital Improvements Plan, file semi-annual reports with respect 19 00:01:34,260 --> 00:01:39,140 to the progress of the Capital Improvements Plan, and report to City Council any perceived 20 00:01:39,140 --> 00:01:43,740 inequities in implementing the plan or imposing the impact fee. 21 00:01:43,740 --> 00:01:49,000 And lastly, advise City Council the need to update or revise the land use assumptions, 22 00:01:49,000 --> 00:01:51,720 Capital Improvements Plan and impact fee. 23 00:01:51,720 --> 00:01:54,480 And with that, I'll turn it over to Kyle. 24 00:01:54,480 --> 00:01:55,480 Good afternoon. 25 00:01:55,480 --> 00:02:00,400 I'm Kyle Pedigo, the Planning and Engineering Division Manager for Water Utilities. 26 00:02:00,400 --> 00:02:05,600 I'm here today to present our final Water and Wastewater Impact Fee Study and request 27 00:02:05,600 --> 00:02:14,280 approval to bring this to Council for adoption of the full proposed impact fees. 28 00:02:14,280 --> 00:02:18,120 So a previous version of this was presented to the Capital Improvement Advisory Committee 29 00:02:18,120 --> 00:02:20,320 in February of this year. 30 00:02:20,320 --> 00:02:24,340 Before bringing it to City Council, we found some language in both the Hunter and Cole 31 00:02:24,340 --> 00:02:30,220 operating agreements that needed to be addressed in the adopted study. 32 00:02:30,220 --> 00:02:34,400 We worked closely with both our consultant and other city departments to ensure that 33 00:02:34,400 --> 00:02:40,240 the requirements detailed in the Texas Local Government Code Section 395 and the Hunter 34 00:02:40,240 --> 00:02:43,080 and Cole operating agreements were met. 35 00:02:43,080 --> 00:02:48,000 Since the land use service units and Capital Improvement Plans were not altered, I'll 36 00:02:48,000 --> 00:02:53,000 briefly explain the process before moving on to the calculated impact fees and Hunter 37 00:02:53,000 --> 00:02:58,960 and Cole considerations. 38 00:02:58,960 --> 00:03:04,680 Our land use assumptions and population growth projections mirror the Denton 2040 Comprehensive 39 00:03:04,680 --> 00:03:11,720 Plan, showing a projected 8.1% growth in the zero to five-year time frame, which tapers 40 00:03:11,720 --> 00:03:21,680 off to 3.4% in the five to 10-year time frame. 41 00:03:21,680 --> 00:03:24,920 The service units are based on water meter sizing. 42 00:03:24,920 --> 00:03:29,880 The city's smallest water meter, which is the 5/8 by 3/4 inch meter, is adequate to 43 00:03:29,880 --> 00:03:32,240 serve a single-family home. 44 00:03:32,240 --> 00:03:38,320 In comparison, a retail development would likely require a two-inch water meter. 45 00:03:38,320 --> 00:03:43,080 The flow provided by the two-inch water meter is equivalent to eight times that of our smallest 46 00:03:43,080 --> 00:03:47,760 meter, so therefore that retail development would be responsible for eight times the base 47 00:03:47,760 --> 00:03:54,400 impact fee that we adopt. 48 00:03:54,400 --> 00:03:57,600 This is the Water Impact Fee Capital Improvement Plan. 49 00:03:57,600 --> 00:04:02,880 This mirrors the infrastructure that is proposed in the Water Master Plan that we plan to adopt 50 00:04:02,880 --> 00:04:04,920 in August of this year. 51 00:04:04,920 --> 00:04:09,440 The projects shown in blue represent existing infrastructure that still has capacity to 52 00:04:09,440 --> 00:04:11,160 serve this projected growth. 53 00:04:11,160 --> 00:04:17,900 Therefore, a portion of the installation cost is still recoverable through impact fees. 54 00:04:17,900 --> 00:04:23,040 The projects shown in red represent planned infrastructure, which would be 100% recoverable 55 00:04:23,040 --> 00:04:30,160 in our impact fee calculations. 56 00:04:30,160 --> 00:04:33,680 This is the Wastewater Impact Fee Capital Improvement Plan. 57 00:04:33,680 --> 00:04:39,620 This is based off of the 2023 Wastewater Master Plan, which was adopted in May of last year. 58 00:04:39,620 --> 00:04:44,000 This is similar to the previous slide, where all of the projects shown in green are existing 59 00:04:44,000 --> 00:04:49,400 infrastructure that still has capacity to serve, and therefore a portion of it is recoverable 60 00:04:49,400 --> 00:04:54,240 through the impact fee calculation, and everything shown in red is future infrastructure that 61 00:04:54,240 --> 00:05:01,040 is 100% recoverable. 62 00:05:01,040 --> 00:05:08,360 This impact fee will not alter the existing water service areas, which are shown in this 63 00:05:08,360 --> 00:05:09,360 map. 64 00:05:09,360 --> 00:05:13,520 So the service areas are 1A, which is the central downtown area, 1B, which is the ring 65 00:05:13,520 --> 00:05:24,160 around that area, and 2, which is focused on the west side of the Hickory Creek Basin. 66 00:05:24,160 --> 00:05:29,920 Wastewater impact fees currently have a single service area due to our single water reclamation 67 00:05:29,920 --> 00:05:40,360 plant, the Pecan Creek Water Reclamation Plant. 68 00:05:40,360 --> 00:05:45,360 The new Wastewater Capital Improvement Plan shows the necessity of two additional water 69 00:05:45,360 --> 00:05:52,600 reclamation plants to be constructed to accommodate the growth planned in the outlying areas. 70 00:05:52,600 --> 00:05:57,080 Since each facility lines an independent drainage basin, Water Utilities is recommending the 71 00:05:57,080 --> 00:06:01,800 division of the single wastewater service area into three separate wastewater service 72 00:06:01,800 --> 00:06:02,800 areas. 73 00:06:02,800 --> 00:06:08,040 This map is an overlay showing the drainage basins, the Clear Creek in blue to the north, 74 00:06:08,040 --> 00:06:12,840 the existing Pecan Creek through the center of town in red, and the Hickory Creek to the 75 00:06:12,840 --> 00:06:18,680 west in green. 76 00:06:18,680 --> 00:06:24,600 To calculate impact fees, the estimated recoverable cost of the Capital Improvement Plan is divided 77 00:06:24,600 --> 00:06:28,480 by the estimated number of units served. 78 00:06:28,480 --> 00:06:33,280 If separate service areas were not implemented, this chart demonstrates the maximum impact 79 00:06:33,280 --> 00:06:35,240 fees that would be eligible citywide. 80 00:06:35,240 --> 00:06:43,780 So for water, you have a $583 million Capital Improvement Plan divided by 52,774 service 81 00:06:43,780 --> 00:06:47,480 units for $11,046. 82 00:06:47,480 --> 00:06:55,160 And for wastewater, you have the $707 million Capital Improvement Plan divided by a similar 83 00:06:55,160 --> 00:07:06,600 number of service units for a $13,526 estimated fee. 84 00:07:06,600 --> 00:07:10,840 Based on the existing water service areas and the proposed wastewater service areas, 85 00:07:10,840 --> 00:07:14,900 this chart shows the proposed maximum impact fees per service area. 86 00:07:14,900 --> 00:07:21,080 So for service area 1A for water, it would be a decrease of the existing impact fee of 87 00:07:21,080 --> 00:07:28,640 $3,569 to $1,820 because that area is mostly built out. 88 00:07:28,640 --> 00:07:36,240 For service area 1B, it would be an increase from $5,352 to $10,745. 89 00:07:36,240 --> 00:07:45,480 For service area 2 of water, it would be an increase from $7,638 to $12,139. 90 00:07:45,480 --> 00:07:53,480 For wastewater, since we have a current service area as a single unit, we have our current 91 00:07:53,480 --> 00:07:56,920 accessible fee as $4,716. 92 00:07:56,920 --> 00:08:02,440 Due to the treatment plant construction as the economic driver behind these fees, the 93 00:08:02,440 --> 00:08:07,440 Pecan Creek, Hickory Creek, and Clear Creek basins would all see an increase. 94 00:08:07,440 --> 00:08:18,280 Pecan Creek would increase to $11,615, Hickory Creek to $12,791, and Clear Creek to $17,916. 95 00:08:18,280 --> 00:08:23,080 These are very slightly different from what was presented in February. 96 00:08:23,080 --> 00:08:28,640 We found a calculation, we made some adjustments to the calculations. 97 00:08:28,640 --> 00:08:34,880 So the Hickory Creek saw a reduction of roughly $1,500 and Clear Creek saw an increase of 98 00:08:34,880 --> 00:08:41,280 roughly $80 per service unit. 99 00:08:41,280 --> 00:08:45,680 For the Hunter and Coal Ranch considerations, so the City of Denton has existing operating 100 00:08:45,680 --> 00:08:50,720 agreements with both the Hunter Ranch District and the Coal Ranch District, with the ordinance 101 00:08:50,720 --> 00:08:55,480 numbers listed there, which stipulate certain calculations to be included with the water 102 00:08:55,480 --> 00:08:58,120 and wastewater impact fee study. 103 00:08:58,120 --> 00:09:04,640 The included appendix in the final study details the impact fee eligible projects considered 104 00:09:04,640 --> 00:09:09,640 city off-sites and calculations regarding the impact fee of both the Hunter Ranch and 105 00:09:09,640 --> 00:09:11,980 the Coal Ranch developments. 106 00:09:11,980 --> 00:09:16,640 So according to the operating agreements, both Hunter and Coal Ranch are going to contribute 107 00:09:16,640 --> 00:09:24,120 an additional six cent contract tax in excess of their impact fees toward certain infrastructure 108 00:09:24,120 --> 00:09:28,040 on the capital improvement plan, which we list as the city off-sites. 109 00:09:28,040 --> 00:09:32,800 The appendix is the agreed upon mechanism to track that collection and expenditure of 110 00:09:32,800 --> 00:09:41,460 Hunter and Coal's contributions for their proportionate share of the city off-sites. 111 00:09:41,460 --> 00:09:46,080 Staff recommends full adoption of the proposed maximum assessable impact fees for each service 112 00:09:46,080 --> 00:09:49,480 area. 113 00:09:49,480 --> 00:09:56,560 For next steps, we published the notice for public hearing on June 21st. 114 00:09:56,560 --> 00:10:00,160 Today we're meeting with the Capital Improvement Advisory Committee. 115 00:10:00,160 --> 00:10:06,320 On July 15th, we're set up for a work session with City Council to set the public hearing 116 00:10:06,320 --> 00:10:12,280 meeting date and to review the impact fee study. 117 00:10:12,280 --> 00:10:18,680 On July 22nd, we have the public hearing meeting set up with City Council. 118 00:10:18,680 --> 00:10:25,200 On August 5th, we have the City Council Ordinance Update Meeting, and then we would follow up, 119 00:10:25,200 --> 00:10:33,400 once it's adopted, with a Public Utilities Board memo update on September 22nd. 120 00:10:33,400 --> 00:10:34,400 Any questions? 121 00:10:34,400 --> 00:10:37,400 - Thank you, Kyle. 122 00:10:37,400 --> 00:10:41,920 Let the record show that Commissioner Riggs is now present. 123 00:10:41,920 --> 00:10:42,920 Questions? 124 00:10:42,920 --> 00:10:45,920 Commissioner McTuffin. 125 00:10:45,920 --> 00:10:54,160 - I couldn't repeat any of this out loud, but I understand everything, Kyle. 126 00:10:54,160 --> 00:10:56,240 It's very well done. 127 00:10:56,240 --> 00:11:02,880 May I ask if this is the maximum impact fee that we can charge legally? 128 00:11:02,880 --> 00:11:03,880 - Yes. 129 00:11:03,880 --> 00:11:10,400 So, due to the calculations, once we assembled the capital improvement plan and estimated 130 00:11:10,400 --> 00:11:13,800 the service units, this is the maximum that we can charge. 131 00:11:13,800 --> 00:11:14,800 - Okay. 132 00:11:14,800 --> 00:11:15,800 Thank you. 133 00:11:15,800 --> 00:11:20,840 And then I just had another comment on the criticality of this, I appreciate this, only 134 00:11:20,840 --> 00:11:27,240 because of every day we have to have our water, and then we have to dispose of our wastewater, 135 00:11:27,240 --> 00:11:32,760 so I realize, I think we all realize the criticality of this, so well done. 136 00:11:32,760 --> 00:11:33,760 Thank you. 137 00:11:33,760 --> 00:11:34,760 - Thank you. 138 00:11:34,760 --> 00:11:38,280 - I had a question, Kyle. 139 00:11:38,280 --> 00:11:44,400 If you could go back to the slide with the map of the wastewater projects, please? 140 00:11:44,400 --> 00:11:45,400 - Yep. 141 00:11:45,400 --> 00:11:46,600 - This one? 142 00:11:46,600 --> 00:11:47,600 With the service areas? 143 00:11:47,600 --> 00:11:48,600 - Yes. 144 00:11:48,600 --> 00:11:49,600 Thank you. 145 00:11:49,600 --> 00:11:56,240 - It's wonderfully all white anyway on the screen, but I think we get the idea from the 146 00:11:56,240 --> 00:11:58,280 back up. 147 00:11:58,280 --> 00:12:06,160 I guess when I look at this, the majority of the projects in the Pecan Creek section, 148 00:12:06,160 --> 00:12:16,160 right, seem to be out in the mostly undeveloped low residential future land map area east 149 00:12:16,160 --> 00:12:17,640 of Mayhill Road. 150 00:12:17,640 --> 00:12:18,920 Is that accurate? 151 00:12:18,920 --> 00:12:22,120 - That's correct for the conveyance. 152 00:12:22,120 --> 00:12:24,960 - Okay. 153 00:12:24,960 --> 00:12:30,840 It seems like that wastewater impact fee went up dramatically. 154 00:12:30,840 --> 00:12:35,960 I know maybe three or four years ago when the CIAC was considering some roadway impact 155 00:12:35,960 --> 00:12:45,880 fees, there was talk about some infill overlays or something to handle, even though it's in 156 00:12:45,880 --> 00:12:49,520 the same drainage basin, right? 157 00:12:49,520 --> 00:12:53,800 Most of the projects that it looks like we're building are for future buildout, not for 158 00:12:53,800 --> 00:13:01,080 areas that already have the infrastructure, as you said, on the water side of the zone 159 00:13:01,080 --> 00:13:02,080 1A. 160 00:13:02,080 --> 00:13:09,840 I guess I'm just wondering, are we expecting some follow-ups in the future to offset or 161 00:13:09,840 --> 00:13:17,840 handle the increased wastewater impact fee in the core where we already have infrastructure 162 00:13:17,840 --> 00:13:21,320 so that we don't dissuade reinvestment in the core? 163 00:13:21,320 --> 00:13:25,680 - The primary cost driver for that increase within the Pecan Creek Basin, which is the 164 00:13:25,680 --> 00:13:30,520 core of the city, is not the conveyance shown here, the red lines. 165 00:13:30,520 --> 00:13:35,720 It's the reconstruction of the Pecan Creek water reclamation plant. 166 00:13:35,720 --> 00:13:41,680 That plant is near on 50 years old and near the end of its useful life cycle, and we're 167 00:13:41,680 --> 00:13:48,120 currently performing a CMAR, a construction manager at risk project, to rebuild and expand 168 00:13:48,120 --> 00:13:53,080 that plant. 169 00:13:53,080 --> 00:13:57,400 That's the cost driver for that increase. 170 00:13:57,400 --> 00:14:01,960 It is an increase in that area, but it is also lower than the outlying areas because 171 00:14:01,960 --> 00:14:07,680 there's not nearly as much conveyance to construct, if that answers your question. 172 00:14:07,680 --> 00:14:11,160 - Yeah, I think that helps. 173 00:14:11,160 --> 00:14:18,600 That begs other questions about why we have an aging plant and no revenue to replace it 174 00:14:18,600 --> 00:14:25,120 without growing more, but I'll leave that be. 175 00:14:25,120 --> 00:14:26,120 Any other questions? 176 00:14:26,120 --> 00:14:27,120 Commissioner Riggs? 177 00:14:27,120 --> 00:14:34,760 - Yeah, I would say that this is a pretty common fee assessed by communities to essentially 178 00:14:34,760 --> 00:14:39,600 fund that future infrastructure, and the idea is that you would want this infrastructure 179 00:14:39,600 --> 00:14:46,240 in place before the development comes, so that way, development can actually happen. 180 00:14:46,240 --> 00:14:51,040 But most of this, whenever we're looking at the land use, we're kind of assuming that 181 00:14:51,040 --> 00:14:56,080 this is going to be assessed on basically the vacant properties, undeveloped properties. 182 00:14:56,080 --> 00:14:57,080 - Correct. 183 00:14:57,080 --> 00:14:58,080 - Okay. 184 00:14:58,080 --> 00:14:59,080 Well done. 185 00:14:59,080 --> 00:15:00,080 - Thank you. 186 00:15:00,080 --> 00:15:01,080 - Any other questions? 187 00:15:01,080 --> 00:15:16,080 I'm seeing none, so they do need direction from us on the amount. 188 00:15:16,080 --> 00:15:20,680 I think the first time this came through, I guess specifically, any questions about the 189 00:15:20,680 --> 00:15:29,880 Hunter Cole that's a new appendix, new confusion, a little bit, new accounting. 190 00:15:29,880 --> 00:15:37,640 Okay, so you do need direction from us on what fee to recommend, and Steph is recommending 191 00:15:37,640 --> 00:15:41,600 the full calculated fee, correct? 192 00:15:41,600 --> 00:15:42,600 - Correct. 193 00:15:42,600 --> 00:15:44,680 So we're recommending the fees shown on this slide. 194 00:15:44,680 --> 00:15:45,680 - Okay. 195 00:15:45,680 --> 00:15:46,680 So, Commissioner Riggs? 196 00:15:46,680 --> 00:15:53,320 - So I don't know if it was in your presentation, I apologize for being late, but do you have 197 00:15:53,320 --> 00:16:00,280 maybe some comparisons of what an impact fee might be to a development of a different type, 198 00:16:00,280 --> 00:16:05,480 say like fast food restaurant versus residential or something of that nature? 199 00:16:05,480 --> 00:16:06,960 We can get an idea. 200 00:16:06,960 --> 00:16:07,960 - Yes. 201 00:16:07,960 --> 00:16:14,120 So the service unit where the impact fees are calculated off of is the size of the water 202 00:16:14,120 --> 00:16:15,920 meter installed for the establishment. 203 00:16:15,920 --> 00:16:21,780 So our base water meter size for our single family, that was enough to serve a single 204 00:16:21,780 --> 00:16:28,520 family home is our 5/8 by 3/4, which is the base impact fee that we're adopting. 205 00:16:28,520 --> 00:16:38,400 For a large retail development of a big box store, mall type area, they would likely require 206 00:16:38,400 --> 00:16:39,760 a two inch meter. 207 00:16:39,760 --> 00:16:43,880 So we take and we compare the flow of that two inch meter to our base unit. 208 00:16:43,880 --> 00:16:47,900 So that two inch meter can handle eight times the flow of our base unit. 209 00:16:47,900 --> 00:16:54,760 So then that development would be responsible for eight times our base impact fee. 210 00:16:54,760 --> 00:17:02,400 Then the two inch, I mean for a smaller development, we have, there's graduated meter sizing up 211 00:17:02,400 --> 00:17:05,620 to that level. 212 00:17:05,620 --> 00:17:10,080 - So a big box development, would that be like a Home Depot, Costco, something like that? 213 00:17:10,080 --> 00:17:18,140 - Yeah, like a Home Depot and surrounding area. 214 00:17:18,140 --> 00:17:19,480 Commissioner Dyer. 215 00:17:19,480 --> 00:17:27,160 - Would you mind going back to the fee structure with the different, yes. 216 00:17:27,160 --> 00:17:31,960 I'm sure you said this and just, you know, trying to process all this information. 217 00:17:31,960 --> 00:17:38,680 On the wastewater side of things, why is Clear Creek so much higher than the other two? 218 00:17:38,680 --> 00:17:42,960 - So if this map should give a good comparison. 219 00:17:42,960 --> 00:17:48,720 So if you see on Pecan Creek with the green is the lowest, the green is all of our existing 220 00:17:48,720 --> 00:17:52,920 infrastructure that's already built out, that only has a portion that's recoverable and 221 00:17:52,920 --> 00:17:55,160 the red is the new infrastructure. 222 00:17:55,160 --> 00:18:00,380 And Hickory Creek is lower than Clear because we already have some infrastructure out there. 223 00:18:00,380 --> 00:18:04,280 With Clear Creek, we have almost no infrastructure up in that area. 224 00:18:04,280 --> 00:18:10,120 So it would be a completely independent plant, water reclamation plant, plus all of the conveyance 225 00:18:10,120 --> 00:18:11,120 upstream of that. 226 00:18:11,120 --> 00:18:12,120 - Okay. 227 00:18:12,120 --> 00:18:13,120 You're going from scratch. 228 00:18:13,120 --> 00:18:14,120 - Going from scratch. 229 00:18:14,120 --> 00:18:18,560 And then it's also compared on the number of service units. 230 00:18:18,560 --> 00:18:24,960 So I know that there's a higher density out in Hickory Creek per acre of housing than 231 00:18:24,960 --> 00:18:27,360 would probably be installed in the Clear Creek Basin. 232 00:18:27,360 --> 00:18:33,640 - And have you guys calculated how long you think it's gonna take to have the funds to 233 00:18:33,640 --> 00:18:40,080 be able to build these like, I mean, will there come a time where in those zones and 234 00:18:40,080 --> 00:18:45,640 those areas of development, where you'll be able to lower the costs to the developers 235 00:18:45,640 --> 00:18:46,640 to the fees? 236 00:18:46,640 --> 00:18:48,720 Like, do we look at this again in five years? 237 00:18:48,720 --> 00:18:50,040 Like what's the cycle? 238 00:18:50,040 --> 00:18:51,040 - Potentially. 239 00:18:51,040 --> 00:18:54,400 So this is a five year process where we recalculate and update. 240 00:18:54,400 --> 00:18:57,740 And what we do is we take and we examine a 10 year window. 241 00:18:57,740 --> 00:19:03,360 So these fees are based off of the infrastructure we expect to be built within 10 years. 242 00:19:03,360 --> 00:19:07,240 - So that population that you were showing us, the five year and then the 10 year projections. 243 00:19:07,240 --> 00:19:08,240 - Correct. 244 00:19:08,240 --> 00:19:12,280 So then we come back in five years and then we redo it for the next 10 year window, redo 245 00:19:12,280 --> 00:19:13,280 our calculations. 246 00:19:13,280 --> 00:19:14,280 - Okay. 247 00:19:14,280 --> 00:19:15,280 Thank you. 248 00:19:15,280 --> 00:19:16,280 - Yes. 249 00:19:16,280 --> 00:19:20,880 - I'd like to just touch on a couple of things. 250 00:19:20,880 --> 00:19:25,960 One thing you said, something when you were comparing the Hickory Creek to the Clear Creek 251 00:19:25,960 --> 00:19:33,160 Basin, that the future land use in the Hickory Creek is a little bit higher. 252 00:19:33,160 --> 00:19:35,040 It's per acre, I guess. 253 00:19:35,040 --> 00:19:40,160 And that would have the effect of lowering the capital cost per unit, essentially? 254 00:19:40,160 --> 00:19:41,160 - Correct. 255 00:19:41,160 --> 00:19:42,160 For the conveyance. 256 00:19:42,160 --> 00:19:49,280 So because that area is a little further along in development, we know of developments that 257 00:19:49,280 --> 00:19:53,680 we could calculate the density per acre and by increasing the number of units that are 258 00:19:53,680 --> 00:19:57,160 served off of infrastructure, that lowers the price somewhat. 259 00:19:57,160 --> 00:19:58,160 - Okay. 260 00:19:58,160 --> 00:20:06,480 And I guess just to touch on my earlier point of the increased fee in the section where 261 00:20:06,480 --> 00:20:12,040 we already have some conveyance, but we have an aging reclamation plant. 262 00:20:12,040 --> 00:20:19,640 I'm pretty sure, gosh, more than 10 years ago now, the water department was moving toward 263 00:20:19,640 --> 00:20:28,040 100% replacement schedule of capital infrastructure on revenue instead of depending on bond money. 264 00:20:28,040 --> 00:20:34,080 Not for expansion of the system, obviously, but just for replacement, right? 265 00:20:34,080 --> 00:20:37,480 Is that something we're looking at for the wastewater side of things? 266 00:20:37,480 --> 00:20:41,200 I know there is a wastewater charge on the utility bill, right? 267 00:20:41,200 --> 00:20:47,140 - Well, part of what these impact fees do is they reduce the amount of bond money. 268 00:20:47,140 --> 00:20:53,840 By collecting the impact fee and having, letting development help pay for this infrastructure, 269 00:20:53,840 --> 00:20:59,800 it reduces that amount of bond money that needs to be spent to replace the same infrastructure 270 00:20:59,800 --> 00:21:01,320 that's aging. 271 00:21:01,320 --> 00:21:09,960 - Okay, so then if we move forward with this and we get enough development to pay for replacing 272 00:21:09,960 --> 00:21:19,840 the aging concrete water reclamation plant, then in 2080 when the new one is getting old, 273 00:21:19,840 --> 00:21:23,680 we'll need additional development in order to be able to replace it and serve our existing 274 00:21:23,680 --> 00:21:24,680 citizens? 275 00:21:24,680 --> 00:21:30,880 - No, and Steven might be able to speak more towards our future plans or what we had in 276 00:21:30,880 --> 00:21:38,360 the past with the revenue planning. 277 00:21:38,360 --> 00:21:41,720 - Steven Gage, General Manager, Water Utilities and Street Operations. 278 00:21:41,720 --> 00:21:48,560 Yes, we're absolutely moving towards a fully revenue funded scenario. 279 00:21:48,560 --> 00:21:57,600 This is, the best way to put it is the previous leadership had all of the great intentions 280 00:21:57,600 --> 00:22:03,320 of doing this the right way, but didn't execute as well, right? 281 00:22:03,320 --> 00:22:06,800 And so we're coming back and we're doing the assessments and we're saying let's take 282 00:22:06,800 --> 00:22:14,920 our time, let's build this infrastructure well, let's put in place asset management 283 00:22:14,920 --> 00:22:19,320 programs so we can actually maintain it, so we can meet and/or exceed the useful life 284 00:22:19,320 --> 00:22:26,000 of the assets, and let's diversify our financial portfolio so we're not just relying on debt. 285 00:22:26,000 --> 00:22:30,300 And when we do rely on debt, it's not just issuing bonds, we're actually leveraging 286 00:22:30,300 --> 00:22:35,880 programs like the Bureau of Reclamation has a lot of bond or actually grant funding that's 287 00:22:35,880 --> 00:22:40,580 available that we can pursue to help offset the cost of this, and so we're working with 288 00:22:40,580 --> 00:22:45,800 our grants department to identify those opportunities and pursue them. 289 00:22:45,800 --> 00:22:51,640 We're also working with WIFIA, which is Water Infrastructure Innovation and Funding Act. 290 00:22:51,640 --> 00:22:56,640 That's a federal program that allows us to utilize the federal government's bond rating, 291 00:22:56,640 --> 00:23:01,720 which saves us in debt, so even though we're issuing debt, we're saving basically two basis 292 00:23:01,720 --> 00:23:07,000 points off of the money that we're borrowing, so to put it in perspective, we did this very 293 00:23:07,000 --> 00:23:11,840 similar thing to up at Ray Roberts when we did it, we're doing the expansion, and we 294 00:23:11,840 --> 00:23:17,020 borrowed $195 million from the Texas Water Development Board, well by borrowing that 295 00:23:17,020 --> 00:23:22,480 money from them and leveraging their debt or their credit rating, that project actually 296 00:23:22,480 --> 00:23:29,080 saved the city about $48 million in long-term debt services, so those are the things that 297 00:23:29,080 --> 00:23:30,080 we're doing. 298 00:23:30,080 --> 00:23:33,940 It's gonna take us a little while to turn that ship back around, but that's definitely 299 00:23:33,940 --> 00:23:39,360 the direction that we're going, and you'll also see that we're doing rate and fee studies 300 00:23:39,360 --> 00:23:43,820 because we've been undercharging for the services that we've been delivering for years, and 301 00:23:43,820 --> 00:23:49,000 so we're trying to level set there as well, so it's not about making money, it's about 302 00:23:49,000 --> 00:23:54,480 recovering the cost associated with the services that we're delivering, and once we reach that 303 00:23:54,480 --> 00:24:01,040 point where we're receiving those revenues, then we can revenue fund all this great investment 304 00:24:01,040 --> 00:24:04,180 in infrastructure, and hopefully that answered your question, sir. 305 00:24:04,180 --> 00:24:09,960 Yeah, it does, thank you, I understand it takes a long time to move, if there's anything 306 00:24:09,960 --> 00:24:17,200 that we as a body can do to ensure that the best laid plans get moved through to fruition, 307 00:24:17,200 --> 00:24:18,200 please let us know. 308 00:24:18,200 --> 00:24:19,200 Absolutely, thank you. 309 00:24:19,200 --> 00:24:20,200 Thank you. 310 00:24:20,200 --> 00:24:26,280 So, any other questions, I don't know how everybody's thinking, you know, the first 311 00:24:26,280 --> 00:24:32,720 time this came through, we did recommend the 100% fee collection as recommended by staff, 312 00:24:32,720 --> 00:24:39,360 does anybody else have any other thoughts, different direction beyond that, or just general 313 00:24:39,360 --> 00:24:40,360 comments? 314 00:24:40,360 --> 00:24:47,280 So, I personally think that, obviously from my break, investing in your infrastructure 315 00:24:47,280 --> 00:24:53,320 is super important, and the more funding sources that we can find keeps rates lower, you know, 316 00:24:53,320 --> 00:24:57,720 so if this were all revenue funded, then the rates would be through the roof, and so I 317 00:24:57,720 --> 00:25:02,520 really like what Stephen had to say about looking at WIFIA and all the grant packages, 318 00:25:02,520 --> 00:25:09,080 but, you know, when we don't do 100%, then that means it's not 100% funded, so we have 319 00:25:09,080 --> 00:25:14,680 to figure out how to fund that by other means, so I think it should go up 100%. 320 00:25:14,680 --> 00:25:19,640 Okay, anyone else, Commissioner MacDuff? 321 00:25:19,640 --> 00:25:21,240 Are you ready for a recommendation? 322 00:25:21,240 --> 00:25:22,240 Sure. 323 00:25:22,240 --> 00:25:29,880 I'd like to move approval to accept this report and to approve the 100% funding for the impact 324 00:25:29,880 --> 00:25:30,880 fee. 325 00:25:30,880 --> 00:25:31,880 Okay. 326 00:25:31,880 --> 00:25:32,880 Is there a second? 327 00:25:32,880 --> 00:25:33,880 I'll second. 328 00:25:33,880 --> 00:25:34,880 Thank you. 329 00:25:34,880 --> 00:25:39,800 Commissioner Riggs, any other comments or questions? 330 00:25:39,800 --> 00:25:43,520 Okay. 331 00:25:43,520 --> 00:25:46,000 We are posted for a vote on this, right? 332 00:25:46,000 --> 00:25:51,800 Yeah, so, we'll take a voice vote, and just go down the line, so Commissioner MacDuff, 333 00:25:51,800 --> 00:25:52,800 I'll say you. 334 00:25:52,800 --> 00:25:53,800 Aye. 335 00:25:53,800 --> 00:25:54,800 Commissioner Riggs. 336 00:25:54,800 --> 00:25:55,800 Aye. 337 00:25:55,800 --> 00:25:56,800 Commissioner McDade. 338 00:25:56,800 --> 00:25:57,800 Aye. 339 00:25:57,800 --> 00:25:58,800 Commissioner Dyer. 340 00:25:58,800 --> 00:25:59,800 Aye. 341 00:25:59,800 --> 00:26:00,800 Commissioner Kalaszczuk. 342 00:26:00,800 --> 00:26:01,800 Aye. 343 00:26:01,800 --> 00:26:06,840 And the Chair is an aye, so that passes 6-0. 344 00:26:06,840 --> 00:26:07,840 Thank you very much. 345 00:26:07,840 --> 00:26:09,680 Thank you. 346 00:26:09,680 --> 00:26:15,840 And that will bring us to a close of our Capital Improvement Advisory Committee meeting. 347 00:26:15,840 --> 00:26:22,240 Thank you, and we will reconvene as the Planning and Zoning Commission at 5 p.m. for the work 348 00:26:22,240 --> 00:26:22,640 session.