WEBVTT 00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:10.680 Good afternoon and welcome to the City of Denton Capital Improvement Advisory Committee 00:00:10.680 --> 00:00:13.760 meeting on Wednesday, June 25th. 00:00:13.760 --> 00:00:20.200 I will call this meeting to order with the quorum present at 4.01 p.m. 00:00:20.200 --> 00:00:36.280 Our only item on the agenda here is Item 1a, CIAC 25-008. 00:00:36.280 --> 00:00:41.800 And before you start your presentation, for those who are somewhat new to the commission 00:00:41.800 --> 00:00:48.040 and the role of P&Z in this role, please explain for us. 00:00:48.040 --> 00:00:51.720 Good evening, Chair and Planning, Zoning, Commissioners. 00:00:51.720 --> 00:00:54.360 I'm Keisha Siriano, Assistant Plaint Director. 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 00:00:58.600 --> 00:01:01.320 at the CIAC in this role. 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 00:01:05.320 --> 00:01:08.640 that we have someone representing from our ETJ. 00:01:08.640 --> 00:01:13.160 So now I'm going to quickly review the responsibilities of the CIAC. 00:01:13.160 --> 00:01:17.480 So the Advisory Committee serves in an advisory capacity to the City Council and is established 00:01:17.480 --> 00:01:23.160 to advise and assist the City Council in adopting land use to assumptions, review the Capital 00:01:23.160 --> 00:01:25.600 Improvements Plan and file written comments. 00:01:25.600 --> 00:01:29.860 And those written comments will be the minutes that are taken today, monitor and evaluate 00:01:29.860 --> 00:01:34.260 implementation of the Capital Improvements Plan, file semi-annual reports with respect 00:01:34.260 --> 00:01:39.140 to the progress of the Capital Improvements Plan, and report to City Council any perceived 00:01:39.140 --> 00:01:43.740 inequities in implementing the plan or imposing the impact fee. 00:01:43.740 --> 00:01:49.000 And lastly, advise City Council the need to update or revise the land use assumptions, 00:01:49.000 --> 00:01:51.720 Capital Improvements Plan and impact fee. 00:01:51.720 --> 00:01:54.480 And with that, I'll turn it over to Kyle. 00:01:54.480 --> 00:01:55.480 Good afternoon. 00:01:55.480 --> 00:02:00.400 I'm Kyle Pedigo, the Planning and Engineering Division Manager for Water Utilities. 00:02:00.400 --> 00:02:05.600 I'm here today to present our final Water and Wastewater Impact Fee Study and request 00:02:05.600 --> 00:02:14.280 approval to bring this to Council for adoption of the full proposed impact fees. 00:02:14.280 --> 00:02:18.120 So a previous version of this was presented to the Capital Improvement Advisory Committee 00:02:18.120 --> 00:02:20.320 in February of this year. 00:02:20.320 --> 00:02:24.340 Before bringing it to City Council, we found some language in both the Hunter and Cole 00:02:24.340 --> 00:02:30.220 operating agreements that needed to be addressed in the adopted study. 00:02:30.220 --> 00:02:34.400 We worked closely with both our consultant and other city departments to ensure that 00:02:34.400 --> 00:02:40.240 the requirements detailed in the Texas Local Government Code Section 395 and the Hunter 00:02:40.240 --> 00:02:43.080 and Cole operating agreements were met. 00:02:43.080 --> 00:02:48.000 Since the land use service units and Capital Improvement Plans were not altered, I'll 00:02:48.000 --> 00:02:53.000 briefly explain the process before moving on to the calculated impact fees and Hunter 00:02:53.000 --> 00:02:58.960 and Cole considerations. 00:02:58.960 --> 00:03:04.680 Our land use assumptions and population growth projections mirror the Denton 2040 Comprehensive 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 00:03:11.720 --> 00:03:21.680 off to 3.4% in the five to 10-year time frame. 00:03:21.680 --> 00:03:24.920 The service units are based on water meter sizing. 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 00:03:29.880 --> 00:03:32.240 serve a single-family home. 00:03:32.240 --> 00:03:38.320 In comparison, a retail development would likely require a two-inch water meter. 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 00:03:43.080 --> 00:03:47.760 meter, so therefore that retail development would be responsible for eight times the base 00:03:47.760 --> 00:03:54.400 impact fee that we adopt. 00:03:54.400 --> 00:03:57.600 This is the Water Impact Fee Capital Improvement Plan. 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 00:04:02.880 --> 00:04:04.920 in August of this year. 00:04:04.920 --> 00:04:09.440 The projects shown in blue represent existing infrastructure that still has capacity to 00:04:09.440 --> 00:04:11.160 serve this projected growth. 00:04:11.160 --> 00:04:17.900 Therefore, a portion of the installation cost is still recoverable through impact fees. 00:04:17.900 --> 00:04:23.040 The projects shown in red represent planned infrastructure, which would be 100% recoverable 00:04:23.040 --> 00:04:30.160 in our impact fee calculations. 00:04:30.160 --> 00:04:33.680 This is the Wastewater Impact Fee Capital Improvement Plan. 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. 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 00:04:44.000 --> 00:04:49.400 infrastructure that still has capacity to serve, and therefore a portion of it is recoverable 00:04:49.400 --> 00:04:54.240 through the impact fee calculation, and everything shown in red is future infrastructure that 00:04:54.240 --> 00:05:01.040 is 100% recoverable. 00:05:01.040 --> 00:05:08.360 This impact fee will not alter the existing water service areas, which are shown in this 00:05:08.360 --> 00:05:09.360 map. 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 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. 00:05:24.160 --> 00:05:29.920 Wastewater impact fees currently have a single service area due to our single water reclamation 00:05:29.920 --> 00:05:40.360 plant, the Pecan Creek Water Reclamation Plant. 00:05:40.360 --> 00:05:45.360 The new Wastewater Capital Improvement Plan shows the necessity of two additional water 00:05:45.360 --> 00:05:52.600 reclamation plants to be constructed to accommodate the growth planned in the outlying areas. 00:05:52.600 --> 00:05:57.080 Since each facility lines an independent drainage basin, Water Utilities is recommending the 00:05:57.080 --> 00:06:01.800 division of the single wastewater service area into three separate wastewater service 00:06:01.800 --> 00:06:02.800 areas. 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, 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 00:06:12.840 --> 00:06:18.680 west in green. 00:06:18.680 --> 00:06:24.600 To calculate impact fees, the estimated recoverable cost of the Capital Improvement Plan is divided 00:06:24.600 --> 00:06:28.480 by the estimated number of units served. 00:06:28.480 --> 00:06:33.280 If separate service areas were not implemented, this chart demonstrates the maximum impact 00:06:33.280 --> 00:06:35.240 fees that would be eligible citywide. 00:06:35.240 --> 00:06:43.780 So for water, you have a $583 million Capital Improvement Plan divided by 52,774 service 00:06:43.780 --> 00:06:47.480 units for $11,046. 00:06:47.480 --> 00:06:55.160 And for wastewater, you have the $707 million Capital Improvement Plan divided by a similar 00:06:55.160 --> 00:07:06.600 number of service units for a $13,526 estimated fee. 00:07:06.600 --> 00:07:10.840 Based on the existing water service areas and the proposed wastewater service areas, 00:07:10.840 --> 00:07:14.900 this chart shows the proposed maximum impact fees per service area. 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 00:07:21.080 --> 00:07:28.640 $3,569 to $1,820 because that area is mostly built out. 00:07:28.640 --> 00:07:36.240 For service area 1B, it would be an increase from $5,352 to $10,745. 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. 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 00:07:53.480 --> 00:07:56.920 accessible fee as $4,716. 00:07:56.920 --> 00:08:02.440 Due to the treatment plant construction as the economic driver behind these fees, the 00:08:02.440 --> 00:08:07.440 Pecan Creek, Hickory Creek, and Clear Creek basins would all see an increase. 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. 00:08:18.280 --> 00:08:23.080 These are very slightly different from what was presented in February. 00:08:23.080 --> 00:08:28.640 We found a calculation, we made some adjustments to the calculations. 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 00:08:34.880 --> 00:08:41.280 roughly $80 per service unit. 00:08:41.280 --> 00:08:45.680 For the Hunter and Coal Ranch considerations, so the City of Denton has existing operating 00:08:45.680 --> 00:08:50.720 agreements with both the Hunter Ranch District and the Coal Ranch District, with the ordinance 00:08:50.720 --> 00:08:55.480 numbers listed there, which stipulate certain calculations to be included with the water 00:08:55.480 --> 00:08:58.120 and wastewater impact fee study. 00:08:58.120 --> 00:09:04.640 The included appendix in the final study details the impact fee eligible projects considered 00:09:04.640 --> 00:09:09.640 city off-sites and calculations regarding the impact fee of both the Hunter Ranch and 00:09:09.640 --> 00:09:11.980 the Coal Ranch developments. 00:09:11.980 --> 00:09:16.640 So according to the operating agreements, both Hunter and Coal Ranch are going to contribute 00:09:16.640 --> 00:09:24.120 an additional six cent contract tax in excess of their impact fees toward certain infrastructure 00:09:24.120 --> 00:09:28.040 on the capital improvement plan, which we list as the city off-sites. 00:09:28.040 --> 00:09:32.800 The appendix is the agreed upon mechanism to track that collection and expenditure of 00:09:32.800 --> 00:09:41.460 Hunter and Coal's contributions for their proportionate share of the city off-sites. 00:09:41.460 --> 00:09:46.080 Staff recommends full adoption of the proposed maximum assessable impact fees for each service 00:09:46.080 --> 00:09:49.480 area. 00:09:49.480 --> 00:09:56.560 For next steps, we published the notice for public hearing on June 21st. 00:09:56.560 --> 00:10:00.160 Today we're meeting with the Capital Improvement Advisory Committee. 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 00:10:06.320 --> 00:10:12.280 meeting date and to review the impact fee study. 00:10:12.280 --> 00:10:18.680 On July 22nd, we have the public hearing meeting set up with City Council. 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, 00:10:25.200 --> 00:10:33.400 once it's adopted, with a Public Utilities Board memo update on September 22nd. 00:10:33.400 --> 00:10:34.400 Any questions? 00:10:34.400 --> 00:10:37.400 - Thank you, Kyle. 00:10:37.400 --> 00:10:41.920 Let the record show that Commissioner Riggs is now present. 00:10:41.920 --> 00:10:42.920 Questions? 00:10:42.920 --> 00:10:45.920 Commissioner McTuffin. 00:10:45.920 --> 00:10:54.160 - I couldn't repeat any of this out loud, but I understand everything, Kyle. 00:10:54.160 --> 00:10:56.240 It's very well done. 00:10:56.240 --> 00:11:02.880 May I ask if this is the maximum impact fee that we can charge legally? 00:11:02.880 --> 00:11:03.880 - Yes. 00:11:03.880 --> 00:11:10.400 So, due to the calculations, once we assembled the capital improvement plan and estimated 00:11:10.400 --> 00:11:13.800 the service units, this is the maximum that we can charge. 00:11:13.800 --> 00:11:14.800 - Okay. 00:11:14.800 --> 00:11:15.800 Thank you. 00:11:15.800 --> 00:11:20.840 And then I just had another comment on the criticality of this, I appreciate this, only 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, 00:11:27.240 --> 00:11:32.760 so I realize, I think we all realize the criticality of this, so well done. 00:11:32.760 --> 00:11:33.760 Thank you. 00:11:33.760 --> 00:11:34.760 - Thank you. 00:11:34.760 --> 00:11:38.280 - I had a question, Kyle. 00:11:38.280 --> 00:11:44.400 If you could go back to the slide with the map of the wastewater projects, please? 00:11:44.400 --> 00:11:45.400 - Yep. 00:11:45.400 --> 00:11:46.600 - This one? 00:11:46.600 --> 00:11:47.600 With the service areas? 00:11:47.600 --> 00:11:48.600 - Yes. 00:11:48.600 --> 00:11:49.600 Thank you. 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 00:11:56.240 --> 00:11:58.280 back up. 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, 00:12:06.160 --> 00:12:16.160 right, seem to be out in the mostly undeveloped low residential future land map area east 00:12:16.160 --> 00:12:17.640 of Mayhill Road. 00:12:17.640 --> 00:12:18.920 Is that accurate? 00:12:18.920 --> 00:12:22.120 - That's correct for the conveyance. 00:12:22.120 --> 00:12:24.960 - Okay. 00:12:24.960 --> 00:12:30.840 It seems like that wastewater impact fee went up dramatically. 00:12:30.840 --> 00:12:35.960 I know maybe three or four years ago when the CIAC was considering some roadway impact 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 00:12:45.880 --> 00:12:49.520 the same drainage basin, right? 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 00:12:53.800 --> 00:13:01.080 areas that already have the infrastructure, as you said, on the water side of the zone 00:13:01.080 --> 00:13:02.080 1A. 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 00:13:09.840 --> 00:13:17.840 handle the increased wastewater impact fee in the core where we already have infrastructure 00:13:17.840 --> 00:13:21.320 so that we don't dissuade reinvestment in the core? 00:13:21.320 --> 00:13:25.680 - The primary cost driver for that increase within the Pecan Creek Basin, which is the 00:13:25.680 --> 00:13:30.520 core of the city, is not the conveyance shown here, the red lines. 00:13:30.520 --> 00:13:35.720 It's the reconstruction of the Pecan Creek water reclamation plant. 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 00:13:41.680 --> 00:13:48.120 currently performing a CMAR, a construction manager at risk project, to rebuild and expand 00:13:48.120 --> 00:13:53.080 that plant. 00:13:53.080 --> 00:13:57.400 That's the cost driver for that increase. 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 00:14:01.960 --> 00:14:07.680 there's not nearly as much conveyance to construct, if that answers your question. 00:14:07.680 --> 00:14:11.160 - Yeah, I think that helps. 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 00:14:18.600 --> 00:14:25.120 without growing more, but I'll leave that be. 00:14:25.120 --> 00:14:26.120 Any other questions? 00:14:26.120 --> 00:14:27.120 Commissioner Riggs? 00:14:27.120 --> 00:14:34.760 - Yeah, I would say that this is a pretty common fee assessed by communities to essentially 00:14:34.760 --> 00:14:39.600 fund that future infrastructure, and the idea is that you would want this infrastructure 00:14:39.600 --> 00:14:46.240 in place before the development comes, so that way, development can actually happen. 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 00:14:51.040 --> 00:14:56.080 this is going to be assessed on basically the vacant properties, undeveloped properties. 00:14:56.080 --> 00:14:57.080 - Correct. 00:14:57.080 --> 00:14:58.080 - Okay. 00:14:58.080 --> 00:14:59.080 Well done. 00:14:59.080 --> 00:15:00.080 - Thank you. 00:15:00.080 --> 00:15:01.080 - Any other questions? 00:15:01.080 --> 00:15:16.080 I'm seeing none, so they do need direction from us on the amount. 00:15:16.080 --> 00:15:20.680 I think the first time this came through, I guess specifically, any questions about the 00:15:20.680 --> 00:15:29.880 Hunter Cole that's a new appendix, new confusion, a little bit, new accounting. 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 00:15:37.640 --> 00:15:41.600 the full calculated fee, correct? 00:15:41.600 --> 00:15:42.600 - Correct. 00:15:42.600 --> 00:15:44.680 So we're recommending the fees shown on this slide. 00:15:44.680 --> 00:15:45.680 - Okay. 00:15:45.680 --> 00:15:46.680 So, Commissioner Riggs? 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 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, 00:16:00.280 --> 00:16:05.480 say like fast food restaurant versus residential or something of that nature? 00:16:05.480 --> 00:16:06.960 We can get an idea. 00:16:06.960 --> 00:16:07.960 - Yes. 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 00:16:14.120 --> 00:16:15.920 meter installed for the establishment. 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 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. 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 00:16:38.400 --> 00:16:39.760 a two inch meter. 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. 00:16:43.880 --> 00:16:47.900 So that two inch meter can handle eight times the flow of our base unit. 00:16:47.900 --> 00:16:54.760 So then that development would be responsible for eight times our base impact fee. 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 00:17:02.400 --> 00:17:05.620 to that level. 00:17:05.620 --> 00:17:10.080 - So a big box development, would that be like a Home Depot, Costco, something like that? 00:17:10.080 --> 00:17:18.140 - Yeah, like a Home Depot and surrounding area. 00:17:18.140 --> 00:17:19.480 Commissioner Dyer. 00:17:19.480 --> 00:17:27.160 - Would you mind going back to the fee structure with the different, yes. 00:17:27.160 --> 00:17:31.960 I'm sure you said this and just, you know, trying to process all this information. 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? 00:17:38.680 --> 00:17:42.960 - So if this map should give a good comparison. 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 00:17:48.720 --> 00:17:52.920 infrastructure that's already built out, that only has a portion that's recoverable and 00:17:52.920 --> 00:17:55.160 the red is the new infrastructure. 00:17:55.160 --> 00:18:00.380 And Hickory Creek is lower than Clear because we already have some infrastructure out there. 00:18:00.380 --> 00:18:04.280 With Clear Creek, we have almost no infrastructure up in that area. 00:18:04.280 --> 00:18:10.120 So it would be a completely independent plant, water reclamation plant, plus all of the conveyance 00:18:10.120 --> 00:18:11.120 upstream of that. 00:18:11.120 --> 00:18:12.120 - Okay. 00:18:12.120 --> 00:18:13.120 You're going from scratch. 00:18:13.120 --> 00:18:14.120 - Going from scratch. 00:18:14.120 --> 00:18:18.560 And then it's also compared on the number of service units. 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 00:18:24.960 --> 00:18:27.360 would probably be installed in the Clear Creek Basin. 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 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 00:18:40.080 --> 00:18:45.640 those areas of development, where you'll be able to lower the costs to the developers 00:18:45.640 --> 00:18:46.640 to the fees? 00:18:46.640 --> 00:18:48.720 Like, do we look at this again in five years? 00:18:48.720 --> 00:18:50.040 Like what's the cycle? 00:18:50.040 --> 00:18:51.040 - Potentially. 00:18:51.040 --> 00:18:54.400 So this is a five year process where we recalculate and update. 00:18:54.400 --> 00:18:57.740 And what we do is we take and we examine a 10 year window. 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. 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. 00:19:07.240 --> 00:19:08.240 - Correct. 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 00:19:12.280 --> 00:19:13.280 our calculations. 00:19:13.280 --> 00:19:14.280 - Okay. 00:19:14.280 --> 00:19:15.280 Thank you. 00:19:15.280 --> 00:19:16.280 - Yes. 00:19:16.280 --> 00:19:20.880 - I'd like to just touch on a couple of things. 00:19:20.880 --> 00:19:25.960 One thing you said, something when you were comparing the Hickory Creek to the Clear Creek 00:19:25.960 --> 00:19:33.160 Basin, that the future land use in the Hickory Creek is a little bit higher. 00:19:33.160 --> 00:19:35.040 It's per acre, I guess. 00:19:35.040 --> 00:19:40.160 And that would have the effect of lowering the capital cost per unit, essentially? 00:19:40.160 --> 00:19:41.160 - Correct. 00:19:41.160 --> 00:19:42.160 For the conveyance. 00:19:42.160 --> 00:19:49.280 So because that area is a little further along in development, we know of developments that 00:19:49.280 --> 00:19:53.680 we could calculate the density per acre and by increasing the number of units that are 00:19:53.680 --> 00:19:57.160 served off of infrastructure, that lowers the price somewhat. 00:19:57.160 --> 00:19:58.160 - Okay. 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 00:20:06.480 --> 00:20:12.040 we already have some conveyance, but we have an aging reclamation plant. 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 00:20:19.640 --> 00:20:28.040 100% replacement schedule of capital infrastructure on revenue instead of depending on bond money. 00:20:28.040 --> 00:20:34.080 Not for expansion of the system, obviously, but just for replacement, right? 00:20:34.080 --> 00:20:37.480 Is that something we're looking at for the wastewater side of things? 00:20:37.480 --> 00:20:41.200 I know there is a wastewater charge on the utility bill, right? 00:20:41.200 --> 00:20:47.140 - Well, part of what these impact fees do is they reduce the amount of bond money. 00:20:47.140 --> 00:20:53.840 By collecting the impact fee and having, letting development help pay for this infrastructure, 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 00:20:59.800 --> 00:21:01.320 that's aging. 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 00:21:09.960 --> 00:21:19.840 the aging concrete water reclamation plant, then in 2080 when the new one is getting old, 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 00:21:23.680 --> 00:21:24.680 citizens? 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 00:21:30.880 --> 00:21:38.360 the past with the revenue planning. 00:21:38.360 --> 00:21:41.720 - Steven Gage, General Manager, Water Utilities and Street Operations. 00:21:41.720 --> 00:21:48.560 Yes, we're absolutely moving towards a fully revenue funded scenario. 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 00:21:57.600 --> 00:22:03.320 of doing this the right way, but didn't execute as well, right? 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 00:22:06.800 --> 00:22:14.920 our time, let's build this infrastructure well, let's put in place asset management 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 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. 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 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 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 00:22:40.580 --> 00:22:45.800 our grants department to identify those opportunities and pursue them. 00:22:45.800 --> 00:22:51.640 We're also working with WIFIA, which is Water Infrastructure Innovation and Funding Act. 00:22:51.640 --> 00:22:56.640 That's a federal program that allows us to utilize the federal government's bond rating, 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 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 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 00:23:11.840 --> 00:23:17.020 borrowed $195 million from the Texas Water Development Board, well by borrowing that 00:23:17.020 --> 00:23:22.480 money from them and leveraging their debt or their credit rating, that project actually 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 00:23:29.080 --> 00:23:30.080 we're doing. 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 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 00:23:39.360 --> 00:23:43.820 because we've been undercharging for the services that we've been delivering for years, and 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 00:23:49.000 --> 00:23:54.480 recovering the cost associated with the services that we're delivering, and once we reach that 00:23:54.480 --> 00:24:01.040 point where we're receiving those revenues, then we can revenue fund all this great investment 00:24:01.040 --> 00:24:04.180 in infrastructure, and hopefully that answered your question, sir. 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 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, 00:24:17.200 --> 00:24:18.200 please let us know. 00:24:18.200 --> 00:24:19.200 Absolutely, thank you. 00:24:19.200 --> 00:24:20.200 Thank you. 00:24:20.200 --> 00:24:26.280 So, any other questions, I don't know how everybody's thinking, you know, the first 00:24:26.280 --> 00:24:32.720 time this came through, we did recommend the 100% fee collection as recommended by staff, 00:24:32.720 --> 00:24:39.360 does anybody else have any other thoughts, different direction beyond that, or just general 00:24:39.360 --> 00:24:40.360 comments? 00:24:40.360 --> 00:24:47.280 So, I personally think that, obviously from my break, investing in your infrastructure 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, 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 00:24:57.720 --> 00:25:02.520 really like what Stephen had to say about looking at WIFIA and all the grant packages, 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 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%. 00:25:14.680 --> 00:25:19.640 Okay, anyone else, Commissioner MacDuff? 00:25:19.640 --> 00:25:21.240 Are you ready for a recommendation? 00:25:21.240 --> 00:25:22.240 Sure. 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 00:25:29.880 --> 00:25:30.880 fee. 00:25:30.880 --> 00:25:31.880 Okay. 00:25:31.880 --> 00:25:32.880 Is there a second? 00:25:32.880 --> 00:25:33.880 I'll second. 00:25:33.880 --> 00:25:34.880 Thank you. 00:25:34.880 --> 00:25:39.800 Commissioner Riggs, any other comments or questions? 00:25:39.800 --> 00:25:43.520 Okay. 00:25:43.520 --> 00:25:46.000 We are posted for a vote on this, right? 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, 00:25:51.800 --> 00:25:52.800 I'll say you. 00:25:52.800 --> 00:25:53.800 Aye. 00:25:53.800 --> 00:25:54.800 Commissioner Riggs. 00:25:54.800 --> 00:25:55.800 Aye. 00:25:55.800 --> 00:25:56.800 Commissioner McDade. 00:25:56.800 --> 00:25:57.800 Aye. 00:25:57.800 --> 00:25:58.800 Commissioner Dyer. 00:25:58.800 --> 00:25:59.800 Aye. 00:25:59.800 --> 00:26:00.800 Commissioner Kalaszczuk. 00:26:00.800 --> 00:26:01.800 Aye. 00:26:01.800 --> 00:26:06.840 And the Chair is an aye, so that passes 6-0. 00:26:06.840 --> 00:26:07.840 Thank you very much. 00:26:07.840 --> 00:26:09.680 Thank you. 00:26:09.680 --> 00:26:15.840 And that will bring us to a close of our Capital Improvement Advisory Committee meeting. 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 00:26:22.240 --> 00:26:22.640 session.