Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999-04-06 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS ADVISORY COMMITTEE MINUTES April 6, 1999 Coy CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS ADVISORY COMMITTEE MINUTES April 6, 1999 MEMBERS AND STAFF PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT Chairman Ron Young Robert McMillon George Zahn Richard McNeese Billy Owens Katherine Houk Nancy Bright Bo Bass, Director of Planning and Development Andrea Baxter, Assistant Director of Public Works Paul Kruckemeyer, City Engineer Michael Logan, Fire Marshal Carol Griffith, Planning Services Manager Donna Brown, Administrative Secretary VISITORS PRESENT John Birkhoff Matt Hickey Chairman Ron Young called the Capital Improvements Advisory Committee meeting to order at 8:50 p.m., immediately following the adjournment of the regular Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting. ITEM 1 COMMENTS ON THE PROPOSED 1999 IMPACT FEE UPDATE Consideration and action on written comments to be filed on the proposed amendments to the land use assumptions, the capital improvements plan, and impact fees Carol Griffith, Planning Services Manager, briefly described the process to be completed by the Capital Improvements Advisory Committee (CIAC) in order to comply with state law concerning the three-year update of the land use assumptions, capital improvements plan, and impact fees. She stated that this board must file written comments, and that a sample resolution had been included in the packet which could be modified. She stated that the written comments by the CIAC should address whether the following appear to be appropriate: L CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS ADVISORY COMMITTEE MINUTES April 6, 1999 ,,,,,,,. 1. Land Use Assumptions 2. Living Unit Equivalent 3. Capital Improvements Plan for Water and Wastewater 4. Maximum Impact Fees Ms. Griffith stated that in addition to this CIAC comments were needed on the percentage of the Maximum Impact Fees that should be assessed (approximate or specific). She stated that right now the City of Euless charges 25% of the maximum allowable impact fee, and that staff recommends that the CIAC and City Council consider raising this, possibly to 50%. Ms. Griffith stated that in addition, CIAC comments were needed on whether additional lines should be included in the calculation of the Maximum Impact Fee. She directed the Committee members to page 8 of the report, a map that showed the lines that had been included. She stated that there are additional lines along S. H. 360 and in the S. H. 121 area that could be included since they are proposed for future development. However, she pointed out that the City's policy has been to expect developers to pay for those lines. She also noted that there was a small segment that had not been included in the calculation of the Maximum Impact Fee, Segment 703. This segment is near S. H. 360 and goes across City property, so the City will be responsible for it. Therefore, she stated, staff is requesting that that segment be included and the rest of the lines that were not included remain that way. Cry Chairman Young requested that one of the consultants come to the podium. John Birkhoff, Shimek, Jacobs, and Finklea Consulting Engineers, 8333 Douglas Avenue, Suite 820, Dallas, Texas, stated that they had undertaken the impact fee analysis for the City of Euless. Mr. Birkhoff briefly described the history of impact fees, and then addressed the current report. He stated that state law requires that cities justify their impact fees, and review the fees every three years, including the land use assumptions and capital improvements program. In addition, at the end of ten years cities must do an audit to make sure they have spent the money they collected through impact fees. He noted that the City of Euless had completed a three year review and revision in 1993, and a brief review in 1996 that determined no revision was necessary since basically nothing had changed. He stated that by this year, things have changed: the City has completed a rezoning and changes to the master land use plan. Mr. Birkhoff stated that these changes have been incorporated into this report, and that was one thing that the CIAC needed to comment on tonight. Mr. Birkhoff stated that the next thing that comments were needed on was the Living Unit Equivalent. He stated that in the past this has been tied to water meter size, specifically the 5/8" water meter since that represents a typical single family home. Using information from the American Water Works Association, the maximum flow that can go through the meter can be determined in gallons per minute. Different land uses require different sized meters, and these have different maximum gallons per minute. These amounts can be compared to the maximum flow for the 5/8" meter to find the equivalent number of 5/8" CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS ADVISORY COMMITTEE MINUTES April 6, 1999 meters for each meter size. These proportions are used to determine the amounts of impact fees charged for each meter size. Mr. Birkhoff stated that they next looked at the number and size of meters needed for each type of land use per acre. This was compared to the expected land absorption by each use type over the next ten years. Next, the consultants determined what was available in the existing system, and what would be needed to meet the projected demand during the ten year period. He stated that water lines that had been installed in the past could be included in the maximum impact fee calculation by calculating the excess capacity in those lines that is available to serve future development. The same calculations are completed for proposed water lines and elevated storage tanks. The percent of excess capacity is the percent of the costs of the lines that can be included in the impact fee calculation. He stated that another element of this is the Trinity River Authority (TRA). The TRA supplies the City of Euless with water and pressure, and the City of Euless provides the elevated storage tanks and the distribution lines. Each city that is a part of the TRA system owns a percentage of that system, and the City of Euless owns about 25%. So Euless pays for 25% of the improvements to the TRA system, and this dollar amount goes into the impact fee calculation. Mr. Birkhoff stated that TRA also provides the City with sewer service. TRA trunk lines run through the City, and the City has metered collection lines that connect to the trunk lines. He stated that this keeps the City's part of the sewer system fairly small. He stated that the City's share of the trunk lines, lift stations, and the central plant is around 4-5%. He said that in the past, impact fee calculations have included a physical plant expansion, including building, concrete, and equipment, which would have cost about$1.5 million per additional million gallons that could be treated. However, because the plant is meeting the water quality standards established by its permit so well, it will be allowed to upgrade through process improvements to treat an additional 27 million gallons per day for a cost of about $3.5 million. The wastewater impact fee is a lot smaller than it has been in the past because TRA will not have to expand the physical plant. Mr. Birkhoff stated that the dollar amount of proposed capital improvements and the dollar cost of the excess capacity of existing improvements are totaled, then divided by the living unit equivalents to come up with the maximum impact fee, shown on p. 16 of the report. The elected body has the ability to reduce this maximum fee to a certain percentage, and up to this point the City has charged 25%. He stated that the market partially determines the percentage, since a city would not want to charge $2,600 if its neighbor was only charging $500, or to charge $2,600 if the neighbor was charging $5,000. He stated that the cost of improvements not recovered comes from the existing citizens, so the higher the percentage of the maximum fee that is charged, the more a city pushes the cost to people who are moving into town. He stated that these are the considerations that have to be balanced. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS ADVISORY COMMITTEE MINUTES April 6, 1999 Mr. Birkhoff stated he would be happy to answer any questions the Committee members had. Commissioner Houk asked what the current maximum impact fee for a 5/8" meter is. Ms. Griffith answered that the maximum fee was about$2,400 for water and about $2,800 for sewer. Mr. Birkhoff noted that the proposed maximum fee for water was about the same, but the proposed sewer fee was substantially lower. Chairman Young recognized Andrea Baxter, Assistant Director of Public Works. Ms. Baxter stated that staff had noted in their review of the Water Capital Improvements Plan that the time table for construction of the third elevated storage tank is now the year 2000. She asked Mr. Birkhoff to provide a brief description of the general factors that were considered in the recommendation for the timing of the tank. Mr. Birkhoff stated that elevated tanks are important because they provide pressure to the water system in addition to storing water. He stated that he had tracked the maximum daily demand and the maximum hourly demand for the City of Euless at various times and had compared these to studies done in other area cities. These studies and other calculations have shown that the City of Euless has a projected need for 1999 of about 3.5 million gallons of elevated storage, especially considering the hot, dry 1998 summer. Today the City has 3 million gallons of elevated storage in one 2 million gallon storage tank and one 1 million gallon storage tank. He stated that at buildout in 2010, the City will need more than the '/ million that is currently needed, and his calculations show that a 2 million gallon tank will be needed. He stated that it takes two years after construction is begun in order to be put into service. Mr. Birkhoff stated that the City will be short of water for the next two years if the summer is extremely hot. In the City's favor is that Euless still has some operating water well in addition to what is provided by TRA; because of these, the need for the water is not urgent. Long term, however, these wells will likely be phased out because of the expense of running them. The proposed elevated storage is sized to meet the demands of the system. He noted that in addition to typical water demands, the system must be analyzed from a fire protection standpoint. He stated that the construction of this tank would be included in the maximum impact fee whether it was built in the year 2000 (as recommended in this report) or 2008 (1993 report recommended "after 2003") because either way it would be built within the ten year impact fee period. In response to Commissioners' questions, Mr. Birkhoff stated that the site shown for this elevated tank on the maps is an old well site south of S. H. 183, behind a park. Commissioner Houk recommended that height constraints be considered due to the proximity of the Dallas/Fort Worth Airport. Mr. Birkhoff agreed, stating that the next step would be Federal Aviation Administration approval of the proposed tank's height. Chairman Young confirmed with Mr. Birkhoff that the most recent Land Use Plan had been used for the Land Use Assumptions. He asked if the same Living Unit Equivalents were used in this report as in 1993. Mr. Birkhoff replied that the same methodology used in this report was used in 1993. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS ADVISORY COMMITTEE MINUTES April 6, 1999 Chairman Young asked Ms. Baxter if the Capital Improvement Plan for water and wastewater was satisfactory, and appeared to be valid for the City for the next ten years. Ms. Baxter replied yes. Mr. Birkhoff reminded the Commissioners that the only proposed lines that were included in the calculation of the maximum impact fee were those lines that were to serve future development. He stated that proposed lines can be included in the fee if and only if the City states in the Master Plan that the City will construct and pay for them. He stated that this is one item that the CIAC needs to comment on—whether the City wants to try to spur development by providing lines in the areas along S. H. 360 and S. H. 121 or whether these should be paid for by private developers. He stated that if the CIAC chose to add some of these, he would recalculate the maximum impact fee. Commissioner Houk stated that she would like to see some options, such as a maximum number of lines included, versus the status quo, versus a middle range. Mr. Birkhoff stated that his guess would be that it would increase the maximum fee by$100-200. Ms. Griffith asked if Ms. Baxter could talk about City policy about paying for those lines. Ms. Baxter stated that the City's policy is to require developers to pay for any lines that are 12" or smaller, and the City only pays for upsizing above that. She also pointed out that the City currently has a water line along Mid-Cities Boulevard and the storage tank to pay for now. Commissioner Owens reminded the Committee that they were charged to get their comments in by a certain date. Ms. Griffith stated that was a consideration, as well as the current policies the City has for economic development incentives. She stated that staff had discussed ways the City could have the developers install the lines, but waive other fees, or arrange somehow for the City to pay impact fees for the developer. Commissioner Owens stated that the City had to be careful not to add additional burdens that exceed the money taken in by impact fees. He asked Mr. Birkhoff what his recommendation would be if he was sitting on the CIAC. Mr. Birkhoff recommended that the developers should pay for those improvements that enhance their property. Commissioner McNeese agreed, stating that the incentives the City provides developers do not have to be decided tonight. Chairman Young asked the Commissioners if anyone had questions on how the maximum impact fee was calculated. He noted that staff had recommended increasing the percentage to 50%, and because the sewer impact fee had gone way down, this means the total fee charged would remain about the same. Commissioner Owens requested the Mr. Birkhoffs opinion of this recommended increase. Mr. Birkhoff stated he recommended calculating the percentage that would cause the impact fee charged to remain roughly the same, and thereby maintain the fee in equilibrium, to be competitive with the neighbors. Commissioner Zahn asked how the proposed change in percentage would compare to what the neighbors were charging. Ms. Griffith mentioned a survey included in their packet that showed how the City's current fees compared to others. She also described the calculations included in the packet that indicate that if the City charged 50% of the proposed maximum impact fee, the City would be 4th of 12 cities for water fees and 11th of 12 cities for wastewater. Ms. Griffith stated that if the City continued to charge 25%, Euless would be 9th of 12 cities for water and 11th of 12 cities for wastewater, which she said seemed unreasonably low. L CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS ADVISORY COMMITTEE MINUTES April 6, 1999 Chairman Young asked Ms. Griffith to go over the information about line segment 703. Ms. Griffith stated that this very short line segment had not been included in the maximum impact fee calculation, but should have been since it crosses City property and the City will have to pay for its construction. Ms. Baxter mentioned that if this line segment is included in the maximum fee calculation, it can be paid for out of the impact fee account, and this is why it is important to have it included. Mr. Birkhoff mentioned that Council can increase the percentage of the maximum impact fee charged at any time, without having to go through the entire update process. Commissioner Zahn moved to send Resolution 99-01-CIAC forward to City Council as presented. Commissioner Houk seconded the motion. The vote was as follows: Ayes: Chairman Young, Commissioners Bright, McNeese, Zahn, Houk Nays: Commissioner Owens The motion carried. Chairman Youns adjourned the meeting. Chairman Ro = d sung,00 to L