The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCAP 2004-09-02 Minutes MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS ADVISORY COMMITTEE OF THE CITY OF NORTH RICH LAND HILLS, TEXAS SEPTEMBER 2,2004 - 6:05 P.M. 1. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairman Richard Davis at 6:05 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL PRESENT Chairman Ex-Officio Richard Davis Bill Schopper Randy Shiflet Scott Wood Ken Sapp Suzy Compton ABSENT Brenda Cole Don Bowen CITY STAFF Building Official Director of Planning Director of Public Works Asst. Dir. Public Works Recording Secretary Consultant Dave Pendley Dave Green Mike Curtis Lance Barton Holly Blake Keith Reed Reed Municipal Services 3. CONSIDERATION OF THE MINUTES OF THE MARCH 18,2004 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING. CONTINUED Chairman Davis stated that a quorum was not available to motion on the minutes for the Capital Improvement Advisory Committee of March 18,2004. Page 1 9/02/04 Capital Improvement Advisory Committee 4. REPORT ON IMPACT FEE FUND PROGRAM AS REQUIRED BY CHAPTER 395 LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE APPROVED Mike Curtis, Director of Public Works, introduced Keith Reed of Reed Municipal Services and Richard Abernethy, Management Assistant, Public Works Department. Mr. Curtis explained that the first portion of the presentation will consist of what the current program consists of, what projects are identified in the current program and general locations of these projects and what projects are completed. This report will be similar to the report that was presented in March in terms of where the program is and what it consists of. The second portion of the presentation consists of the financial report. I mpact fees are fees that the City collects from the developers that help the City make system wide improvements that a particular development is going to place on the City's water and sewer system. In this case it is water and sewer impact fees. If the City doesn't have any impact fees then when a developer comes in and develops a subdivision, the developer places a burden on the City's water and sewer system and now the burden would be on the existing taxpayers and the City to make the changes. Impact fees are a way that the State of Texas allows cities to collect money to pay for these future improvements needed for future growth. The laws are very specific about what projects the City can spend this money on. They have to be identified in the City's report. The State also requires a 10 year projection. The City has to estimate what areas within the City are going to develop within those 10 years. What improvements are going to need to be made within those 10 years also needs to be included. Ken Sapp asked if that was a rolling 10 years or does that 10 years expire. Mike Curtis answered that the 10 years begins from the moment that the program is adopted. The current program was adopted in 1997. That program set the fees for 10 years. By law the City can keep the same fees for 10 years if the major or significant assumptions that were made when the program was developed remain the same. The laws have changed. Currently, every 5 years the City needs to go back and review the impact fees to make sure that none of these assumptions have taken place that might change what the fees should be or what project may need to be done. The City is at a point that a change needs to be made. The City has had some significant assumptions change. The City has hired Freese and Nichols to work on an update. They started in January and they are estimated to be complete by the end of this year. A new program and new fees will be established. Concerning the fees, the engineers go through Page 2 9/02/04 Capital Improvement Advisory Committee the calculations and they look at what areas are estimated to develop. All of this is done through a series of public meetings and the Comprehensive Plan Use Map. Within the next couple of months, the City will begin those public meetings. Staff will present the assumptions per growth and development. When you look at what areas are going to develop and what projects are going to need improvement, a calculation needs to be made on how much this will cost. Then how much is this improvement is for future development vs. current development needs to be looked at. The City can only collect for future developments, not existing developments. The maximum fee can be calculated based on future improvements that are needed. In 1997, the City Council adopted the current plan and adopted to collect only 25% of the allowable fees. The City estimates how much money is going to be needed to complete a project, and 25% of those funds are collected. The City pays the developers as they come forward with their projects. They are paid out of the balance of the water and sewer accounts. Mike Curtis stated that City projects are controlled by the City. The City picks the schedule for those projects. Developer projects are done as the plan develops. Ken Sapp stated that this reports only shows upgrades, no repairs. What happens if a replacement of a pump is needed due to an overload of capacity but is not on the schedule? How do you prorate that? Chairman Davis stated that the new study would show that. If the study states that a pump station no longer has the capacity to meet the future growth of the City it will be included as future improvements. Mike Curtis stated that the existing pumps that are meeting the existing capacity can't be collected on per impact fees. This study is highly involved in engineering analysis. It is determined what improvements are projected with some assumptions made based on the Comprehensive Land Use Plan and how things develop. The current population is a factor and then what that projection will be. Whatever that percentage increase is that is what is calculated to be for impact fees. Ken Sapp asked about the funds being collected that the impact fees are going into. When these CIP projects are implemented, does the City typically have enough money to pay for those or does the City have to advance the money. Mike Curtis answered that the City has had the money because when the City of North Richland Hills sold the water system to the City of Watauga, the City put that money in an account to cover future improvements. This way the City wouldn't have to go out and issue debt for water system improvements. Up to a year ago, the City had the money. Since the City had the money, no one really paid attention about the City projects and impact fee money were never used. The way this program is set up, it is set up so that whoever puts the project in, Page 3 9/02/04 Capital Improvement Advisory Committee they are eligible to receive the impact fee money. If a developer puts in the project, the City pays the developer what he has put in. Mike Curtis explained the Capital Improvement Plan as outlined below; 1997 -2007 10 Year Capital Improvement Plan (Water System) · Misc. Small Water Main Replacements $2,000,000 · S.C.A.D.A. Implementation Program $ 575,000 · College Hills Booster Pump Station Imprvts. $ 400,000 · Davis Blvd. Tank Improvements $ 650,000 · Rufe Snow Tank Improvements $ 400,000 · Watauga Booster Pump Station Upgrade $ 243,000 · Basswood Pump Station and Ground Storage Tank · Developer Funded Projects $1,692,000 $6,324,558 · Total Estimated Costs $12,284,758 Mike Curtis explained that the developer projects are all tied to the shaded areas. These are the areas that were projected to develop within the next 10 years. Out of the 6 million dollars of developer projects, the areas where the City put in those projects are shown graphically below, the black area being the projects that are complete and the red area being those under work. Page 4 9/02/04 Capital Improvement Advisory Committee Water Lines t - ':at:. - - Water Lines Page 5 9/02/04 Capital Improvement Advisory Committee Water Lines :.1"..,,""= .__~M!iII!t.....- ...-____ .........."............---- ......__-.J ____fl_ .., ---- ..,.,. --..... b> >:: I --.-...- 1I«nI~IIUJi _ 1I~~1Ic Water Lines Page 6 9/02/04 Capital Improvement Advisory Committee Water Lines MATCH LINE =>..::= ---_._---~.__. --~_...- .......__-.F ---- . <I ___ --... ~:i::,:::::;;>',;hd __._,.w.. 1OI'I\I~MllU _ 1I~~~k ........-.--- 1 0 Year Capital Improvement Plan (Water System) Summary · Misc. Small Water Main Replacements · S.C.A.D.A. Implementation Program · College Hills Booster Pump Station Imprvts. · Davis Blvd. Tank Improvements · Rute Snow Tank Improvements · Watauga Booster Pump Station Upgrade · Basswood Pump Station and Ground Storage Tank · Developer Funded Projects · Total Estimated Costs ot CIP Program Developer Funded Projects Completed Developer Funded Projects Underway City Projects Completed Total C.1.P. Projects Completed To Date Page 7 9/02/04 Capital Improvement Advisory Committee $2,000,000 $ 575,000 $ 400,000 $ 650,000 $ 400,000 $ 243,000 $1,692,000 $6,324,758 $12,284,758 $2,536,952 $ 452,233 $3.868,000 $6,857,185 1997 -2007 10 Year Capital Improvement Plan Sewer System · Total Estimated Cost of CIP Projects (Sewer) $5,769,893 · Total Completed $1,560,989 · Total Underway $ 541,632 Sewer Li nes Page 8 9/02/04 Capital Improvement Advisory Committee Sewer Li nes ~,-,--~,._---",,--,~---~~~~~----,._-------,~~,,~-----'-~-"_'~'~--"--^'~~-~-"~"",-,-~--,.,,,-~~ Sewer Lines MATCH LINE ... AQUIIID MUS Page 9 9/02/04 Capital Improvement Advisory Committee Sewer Lines City of North Richland Hills Water Monthly MUE Growth 1997 -2004 Schedule 1 Monthly Monthly Monthly Monthly Monthly Monthly Monthly MUE Growth MUE Growth MUE Growth MUE Growth MUE Growth MUE Growth MUE Growth FlY 1997-98 FlY 1998-99 FlY 1999·00 FlY 2000-01 FlY 2001·02 FlY 2002-03 FlY 2003·04 Estimated Total MUE 294.00 294.00 294.00 294.00 294.00 294.00 244.00 Annual 19.!?1 MUE 438.32 465.67 532.91 578.28 360.98 517.93 301.00 Annual Percent 149.09% 158.39% 181.26% 196.69% 122.78% 176.17% 123.63% Page 10 9/02/04 Capital Improvement Advisory Committee Schedule 2 1 Monthly Monthly Monthly Monthly Monthly Monthly Monthly MUE Growth MUE Growth MUE Growth MUE Growth MUE Growth MUE Growth MUE Growth fIY..tª.ª]"~ª fIY..tª.ªª.'.ªª fIY..tªªª'ºº f.IYÆ.ººº,!!.t flY)1.ºº:L-Q.;1 !"IY..~º.!I.;1:º;I. fIY.Æ.º.!!,ª,Q4 Estimated Total MUE 294.00 294.00 294.00 294.00 294.00 294.00 244.00 Annual IQ!al MUE 373.67 441.29 453.22 490.61 326.97 451.29 346.30 Annual Percent 127.10% 150.10% 154.16% 166.87% 111.21% 153.50% 141.93% Mike Curtis explained the financial summary of the water system. The projects that are seen in green and red represent all of the City projects. Those in green are complete or under construction and the two in red are currently on hold. These projects are significantly tied to the City's population projection. In 1997 the City estimated that ultimately the City of North Richland Hills could build out into 90,000. The population here has been downgraded. Mike Curtis explained that schedule 1 of the report is very detailed which is broken down. More meters were installed than what was originally projected. It may seem confusing because on one hand there are developers projects that are not completed and on the other hand look how many more MUE have been added. There are areas within the City that are developing that were not planned to be developed in that 10 year time frame. Chairman Davis stated that the City has collected more money due to more MUE coming in. If the City had made a more accurate projection, the City would have collected more money earlier in the game. Because the City was conservative and because the City only used 25%, the City still did not collect as much as the City could have. Even though the unit count is higher, if the City had projected in 1997 450 MEU the ratio would have gone up along with the cost of impact fees. Ken Sapp stated that the City Council was approached with 50%, but City Council cut that in half. Chairman Davis stated that the City's projection has made North Richland Hills developer friendly, compared to some our immediate neighboring cities. Page 11 9/02/04 Capital Improvement Advisory Committee Mike Curtis stated that the City can collect what the maximum rate is. There are two choices, 1) collect the maximum rate, but any revenue has to be subtracted out. 2) Take the maximum amount and cut it 50%. Staffs recommendation will probably be the 50%. By the time that the revenues are subtracted it will be close. Bill Schopper stated that we are going to bring it up to 50% from the 75% it is now, is that correct. Mike Curtis stated that when he says 50%, that is what Staff will be recommending to City Council. This is the maximum that can be charged, by law that can be cut 50% and only charge that 50% or the maximum is charged and then subtract. Schedule 3 City of North Richland Hills Impact Fee Fund Transfers Prolect Name Actual Cost Fundlno Source DuetoW&S S.C.A.D.A. Program $590,532 W/S Funds $ (207,513) Watauga Rd, Gd. Storage Tank $283,016 W/S Funds $ (141.508) Davis Snow Storage Tank $437,290 WS Funds $ (153,663) Rule Snow Blvd. Elevated Tank" $ 84,032 W/S Funds $ (29,529) KEF Impact Fee Study $ 44,666 W/S Funds $ (44,666) Watauga Rd. Wa. Line $114,116 W/S Funds $ (60,024) Watauga Re. Wa. Line $ 91,787 W/S Funds $ (26,848) Bursey Rd. (3 Jobs, Wa & Se) $276,265 W/S Funds $ 266,678 Denton Hwy, 377, Wa. Line $421,635 W/S Funds $ (397,180) Holiday La. Wa. Adjustment $ 88,976 W/S Funds $ 51,339 Total Amount Due to W&S Utility Operating Fund $ 318,017 D.L. Hall 24" Water Line $ 454,347 Bond Funds $ 452,075 D.L. Hall 12" Water Line $ 17,785 Bond Funds $ (17,785) K.E.F. Impact Fee Study Update'" $ 40,000 Bond Funds $ (40,881) Blaney Rd. Water Line $ 50,369 Bond Funds $ (32,286) Total Amount Due Water & Sewer Revenue Bonds $ 361,123 '" Study updates Include Water & Sewer shared cost Amount transferred to Utility Fund $ (1,151,883) Page 12 9/02/04 Capital Improvement Advisory Committee City of North Richland Hills Impact Fee Fund Operations October 1, 1997 - July 31, 2004 Schedule 4 Beginning Balance: Oct. 1, 1997: Both Water & Sewer Portions $469,425 Water Impact Fee Operations Beginning Balance: Oct 1, 1997 - Water Portion Revenues: Oct. 1, 1997 to date Expenses: Oct. 1, 1997 to date Ending Balance: Jul. 31, 2004 - Water Portion Sewer Impact Fee Operations Beginning Balance: October 1, 1997 - Sewer Portion Revenues: Oct 1, 1997 to date Expenses: Oct 1, 1997 to date Ending Balance: July 31,2004 Sewer Portion Ending Balance: July 31, 2004 - Both Water & Sewer $ 360,606 $1,750,831 $1,903.822 $ 207,615 $ 108,819 $ 842,741 $ 827.572 $ 123,988 $388,224 Chairman Davis asked Staff that once this new program is adopted, does the 10 year program start over. Mike Curtis answered that once the new program is adopted, the 10 years start over and the existing program is thrown out. Keith Reed stated that Staff will recommend to City Council that Council set a date for the new plan to go into affect in order for everyone to close out all funds and get ready for the new impact fees. Mike Curtis stated that once the new plan is adopted all accounts will be zeroed out. Before CIAC meets, there will need to be a public hearing on the Comprehensive Land Use Plan. The engineers do not want to get down to the end only to have the Comprehensive Land Use Plan change. That would change the calculations that the engineers come up with. This is state law. The engineers are working under the assumption that there will not be significant changes. Chairman Davis stated that the only recommendation that can be made tonight is to accept the report as an update only and not a recommendation for City Council at this time. Another update in the fall will be needed as far as the Comprehensive Land Use Plan and addition to a public hearing regarding the new Freese and Nichols Study at the first of the year. Scott Wood motioned to accept the update, which contained account balances on water and sewer impact fees, status of current and completed Page 13 9/02/04 Capital Improvement Advisory Committee projects and MEU usages. Randy Shiflet seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously (5-0). 5. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 6:47 p.m. C~\-~J)~'ð Richard Davis, Chairman William Schopper, Vice Chair Page 14 9/02/04 Capital Improvement Advisory Committee