Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCAP 2004-11-18 Minutes MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS ADVISORY COMMITTEE OF THE CITY OF NORTH RICH LAND HILLS, TEXAS NOVEMBER 18, 2004 1. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairman Richard Davis at 5:17 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL PRESENT Chairman Ex-Officio Richard Davis Don Bowen Bill Schopper Randy Shiflet Scott Wood Ken Sapp Suzy Compton ABSENT Brenda Cole CITY STAFF Assistant City Manager Director of Planning Planner Director of Public Works Asst. Dir. Public Works Recording Secretary Bo Bass Dave Green Donna Jackson Mike Curtis Lance Barton Carolyn Huggins 3. CONSIDERATION OF THE MINUTES OF MARCH 18,2004. APPROVED Mr. Sapp, seconded by Mr. Schopper, motioned to approve the minutes of March 18, 2004. The motion was approved (4-0-2) with Chairman Davis, Mr. Bowen, Mr. Schopper and Mr. Sapp voting for approval and Mr. Shiflet and Mr. Wood abstaining as they had not yet been appointed to the Planning & Zoning Commission on March 18, 2004. Page 1 11/18/04 Capital Improvement Advisory Committee CONSIDERATION OF THE MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 2,2004. APPROVED Mr. Bowen, seconded by Mr. Schopper, motioned to approve the minutes of September 2, 2004. The motion was approved (6-0). 4. REPORT ON IMPACT FEE STUDY APPROVED Mike Curtis, Director of Public Works, announced that the consultants, Freese and Nichols, have completed the Impact Fee Study. The study is being done concurrently with a water rate study through the Finance Department. Public Works is trying to follow the Finance Department schedule in order to get them the information they need. The plan is to present the impact fee study to CIAC this evening and obtain a recommendation on price - what the impact fee should be. The consultant will present the calculated fees to CIAC. By law, 50% of the calculated fee is the maximum charge allowed without going in and calculating profit and revenues earned on CIP projects. The 50% cost is in front of the CIAC tonight. The report outlines the fees from neighboring cities. The question before CIAC this evening is what the City of North Richland Hills fee should be - should it be 50% or something less? The CIAC recommendation will go to the City Council on January 24, 2005. State law requires a public hearing. The public hearing will take place at the City Council meeting on January 24, 2005. Mr. Curtis explained that state law requires that the impact fees be tied to a Comprehensive Land Use Plan. Two years ago the City went through a very detailed process in updating the Comprehensive Land Use Plan. The plan used for this study is the plan that was approved two years ago, plus the changes that Council has made during the past two years. (Council has changed some industrial areas to residential and some neighborhood services and retail areas to residential.) Thomas Haster, engineer, Freese and Nichols, presented the water impact fees. The measurement used is "service units equivalents" which is a way to nail down the impact on an equivalency that represents a single family home. The impact fee will be applied to a single family home. If someone wants a bigger meter - a bigger service connection because they will need more water -- then a rating table allows the cost to be ramped up based on their true impact on the system. There are two categories - 1) domestic growth through single and multi-family homes, and 2) commercial and industrial impact. Developed acres are examined. Those numbers are used to calculate an overall service unit Page 2 11/18/04 Capital Improvement Advisory Committee equivalent now, and then what it will be in 2014. The whole concept of the impact fee is a cost recovery mechanism associated with the impact due to growth. Impact fees are calculated based on the dollar cost associated with 10-year capital improvements. Additionally, growth in service units is calculated. Total capital costs divided by service units represents the maximum allowable number that can be charged for an impact fee. Chairman Davis: "Do we truly have 23,248 service units online today? Some are three-quarter inch meters and some are 2-inch meters. Do we know how much we are billing in water to people?" Mr. Haster: "Absolutely. The 2004 number is a very hard number. We used COG projections as a check. We used the Land Use Plan and the acreages as a check." Mr. Haster explained that they did more than a pure impact fee study. They also did a water system master plan and a waste water system master plan for the City. He explained the figures in a table [copy in file]. He explained that not all of the items listed in the column for "total capital costs of projects needed" were eligible for impact fees. The projects must be associated with things that are needed for the water system master plan and there are some constraints on what can be used for impact fees. Anything that is going to meet a deficiency in the system cannot be used. The cost must be associated with growth. The growth must be associated with development that is going to happen in 10 years. Anything that happens beyond that is not eligible. Chairman Davis: "In ten years, what percent are we developed?" Mr. Haster: About 85% to 90%. Mike Curtis: There will probably be about one more update in 5 years and that will end the program. Mr. Haster reviewed the schedule of improvements on the water system. He stated that North Richland Hills has a unique benefit that many cities don't have which is that the City receives water from two separate wholesale suppliers. There is water coming in from the east to a delivery point at the Trinity River Authority (TRA) and three delivery points from the south and west from the City of Ft. Worth. A computer model is developed of the system. The existing loads of the City usage are applied, field tested, and a model is calibrated. The next step is to take the 10-year additional growth in loads and build out, and apply that to the system. The question is then asked: What is it we need to add for capital improvement to adequately supply that additional load on the system? A major addition is a new transmission main along Mid Cities Blvd. This is the primary future delivery point that they are recommending be expanded to meet Page 3 11/18/04 Capital Improvement Advisory Committee much of the future growth in the City. This would be the most effective place to get additional water into some of the areas up north where a lot of the growth is happening. Mr. Shiflet: Is that parallel or increasing the size? Mr. Haster: The existing is a 12-inch line and we are recommending replacing that with a 30-inch line. Mr. Sapp: That's in the right-of-way so if we have to chop up Mid Cities is the replacement restoration of the road included in these figures? Mr. Haster: Yes. That's why some of the numbers are substantial. Mike Curtis: There were no options in getting more water to the northern part of the City without upsizing something. Freese and Nichols looked at where would be the most cost-effective place to upsize. They recommend upsizing everything at the Watauga Booster Pump Station, and the increase to the line at Mid Cities. That will be the most inexpensive way. Mr. Haster: We went to TRA, the other wholesale supplier, and asked them to do an ability to increase supply and they are to some degree, but they have very limited capabilities to increase supply much more than what the City is currently receiving. We also looked at two other delivery points, but there were two problems: that's not where the growth is happening, and to increase the take substantially from Ft. Worth at those locations would cause more problems than it creates benefits because there are pressure issues. Increasing supply increased the pressure problems. Mr. Sapp: The biggest area of growth is Hometown and I assumed that water lines had already been put in to support that. Mr. Curtis: They are not all in. They are being put in as it develops. Mr. Curtis: Staff went to Freese and Nichols and based on the analysis of the water system by Freese and Nichols we determined the maximum amount of water that we could get from TRA and not cause the City to have to make any improvements in the TRA watershed to get that water. We went to TRA to negotiate our supply. TRA committed to give us the maximum amount of water that we could take into the system without causing us any upgrades. We've maxed out the TRA side. Discussion followed among the Public Works staff, the consultants, and the Planning & Zoning Commission on road replacement costs. Page 4 11/18/04 Capital Improvement Advisory Committee Chairman Davis stated that there are 22 projects listed by the consultants. He asked about the timeline. He stated that these 22 have to be monitored over the next five years, plus the sewer ones, and he wondered how we know when #15, for instance, is done and over. Mr. Haster responded that their experience has been that a date is typically not associated to these projects other than to say that it is a project that will be needed in the next 10 years. There will be a separate document given to the City that schedules these improvements. This is done so that the City isn't obligated under the impact fee that says in year three they must have such and such item. Chairman Davis commented and summarized that the worst thing that the City could do, and the City hasn't done it before, is that the City collects and collects and collects and doesn't get it done. If in year nine the City hasn't done 90% of these then something is very wrong because it should have been picked up at least at year five if not within one of the six month reporting periods. The City should never get to the end of the road without monitoring the status and/or completion of these projects. This is a crystal ball and even though there is hard data, it changes and should be monitored. Mr. McGee explained the wastewater portion of impact fees. He stated that what was done for water applies to wastewater also. The same population data that was used to develop the water computer model, the loads and the flows, was used to develop the same model for wastewater. Most of the City tends to flow to the south. There are some exit points which discharge to Ft. Worth. There is one on the northeast side that goes to TRA. Purple lines on the map are major basins in the City and those have been established for quite a while and they are utilized for the study. The Aegon Lift Station on the east side of the City will need some improvements due to the commercial development in the area. That lift station will need to be upgraded to increase the capacity. This area of the City tends to flow to the east. There is nowhere to get a treatment plant on this side so it has to be lifted back to the west to get into the major interceptor on the Walker Basin. The lift station pumps it over the high point in the City and gets it into the Walker Basin. Some downstream gravity lines will need to be increased in capacity to be able to handle the additional flow from the lift station. Along the southern side, there will be some 24-inch lines added. Chairman Davis asked what percentage TRA handles and what percentage Ft. Worth handles. Mr. McGee stated that for wastewater it is approximately 80/20. Mr. Curtis added that a lot of TRA water goes to Village Creek which is part of the Ft. Worth system. If you look at the TRA watershed it's not an 80/20 split. We get 50% of our water from TRA. Chairman Davis: It's easier to pump water than waste. Page 5 11/18/04 Capital Improvement Advisory Committee Mr. McGee: Right. It's to your advantage to let the wastewater move by gravity rather than pumping in most situations except for on the east side, for instance, where there really isn't much other of an option. Mr. Shiflet asked Mr. Curtis if project ten was a multi-city project. Mr. Curtis stated that it wasn't; it is a North Richland Hills project. Mr. McGee explained that there are meters where the flow flows out of the City limits which monitors the flow for billing purposes. Everything upstream of those meters belongs to the City. There is some cost sharing because other City's flows mingle in once you get south of those meters. Mr. McGee explained the fees. The total 10-year eligible proposed capital improvement costs are a little bit over 13 million. Add the CIP study and update cost to that which brings the total to just short of 13.5 million that is eligible for impact fees. Maximum impact fee before you take the 50% credit, based on a three-quarter inch meter because that is typical for a single family residence in the City, divide 13.4 by the 6,193 service units (that's the growth in service units over the ten year period) come up with $2,174 per service unit, less the credit (which is required (488 to 1,000, which is 25%» comes out to $306 per service unit. The mean for water was $1,129 and for sewer $724. Chairman Davis asked who will be doing the six month updates. Mr. Curtis stated that it will be the City and Keith Reed, Reed Municipal Services. The Chairman asked the Commission to consider the calculation and whether or not it should be 50% (the maximum allowable by the City). Mr. Curtis added that the new law gives two options: 1) charge 100% and determine profit, or 2) go straight 50%. Mr. Sapp asked if there is an over-collection how it would be given back. Mr. Curtis stated that it is very complicated and the City has never over-collected and had to face how to determine who the fees were collected from and how to return those fees. Chairman Davis stated that this issue has never come up and hopefully the City will never over-collect and have to face that problem. He stated that if these fees aren't collected through the impact fees then the taxpayers will pay for it - the existing rate structure pays for it. "Let's be reasonable and fair. I believe we should recommend the 50% which is going to be a big jump, but it's justified by the anticipated growth and will still be lower than surrounding cities other than Ft. Worth." Mr. Schopper commented that the last time impact fees were calculated, times were a lot slower, there was a recession, and other problems. The Chairman explained that two actions need to occur: 1) accept this report, and 2) recommend to the City Council that they adopt it with what rate structure - 50%,40%,25% or whatever. Page 6 11/18/04 Capital Improvement Advisory Committee Mr. Schopper motioned to accept the Land Use Plan, accept the CIP plan and adopt the fees at 50% as outlined in the report. Mr. Shiflet seconded the motion. Mr. Sapp stated, for the benefit of Council, that the Commission does believe that the probability of achieving this development is very high over the course of ten years. Chairman Davis concurred and stated that it is even more reason to keep it to that maximum allowed which will still be under what is charged by surrounding communities. The motion carried unanimously (6-0). 5. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 6:04 p.m. .'" Richard Davis, Chairman C '=R\'~ Vaw\-,t; Page 7 11/18/04 Capital Improvement Advisory Committee