Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCAP 2009-05-07 Minutes 1 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS ADVISORY COMMITTEE OF THE '', CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS, TEXAS MAY O7, 2009 1. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairman Randy Shiflet at 6:30 p.m. 2. '' ROLL CALL 'PRESENT Chairman Randy Shiflet Vice Chair Secretary Ex-Officio ';ABSENT '; 'iCITY STAFF Dir. of Planning & Development Chief Planner Asst. Planner Asst. Dir. of Public Works Civil Engineer Recording Secretary Bill Schopper Don Bowen Mark Haynes Dianna Madar Steven Cooper Kelly Gent John Pitstick Eric Wilhite Chad VanSteenberg Greg Van Nieuwenhuize Caroline Waggoner Gina Harner 3. CONSIDERATION OF THE MINUTES FROM THE NOVEMBER 13, 2008 MEETING APPROVED Don Bowen motioned to approve the minutes of November 13, 2008 seconded by Mark Haynes. The motion was approved unanimously (5-0). 4. '' REPORT ON IMPACT FEES (Greg Van Nieuwenhuize, Assistant Director of Public Works, gave the report in a detailed power point presentation. ', IPage 1 05/07/09 Capital Improvement Advisory Committee Greg Van Nieuwenhuize said that staff has requested in the current CIP budget to go ahead and update the Capital Improvements Plan and look into what we hnrill be charging for Impact fees in the future. With the two rail stations and the 'proposed Transit Oriented Development there is going to be an impact. The 'amount of the impact would be determined by the study. ~lohn Pitstick said that we have to project the population growth over the next 10 years and determine the impacts based on that. ,Bill Schopper asked if that meant that we are looking at raising the Impact fees? ,Greg Van Nieuwenhuize said that the study has to be completed first in order to ',raise the fees. The study itself costs approximately $180,000. The study takes Tinto account the population growth, the areas that the forecast for growth within Ithe next 5 and 10 years. Then from the forecast they determine how much will ~!be multi-family commercial etc. and their corresponding meter sizes. If City 'Council goes ahead and approves the study in the budget. for next year then ',Public Works is prepared to start advertising a consultant in October 2009. hn Pitstick said ,that this study doesn't raising the fees. The fees are based w many projects we have. necessarily mean that we are going to on how much growth is projected and 'Bill Schopper said that developers are already upset so increasing the fees will 'only make this worse. 'Greg Van Nieuwenhuize said yes. The fees probably will go up but there are a 'few things to consider. The fees are .based on the cost of the infrastructure. ',Right now we are seeing really good pricing on bids. That doesn't necessarily ',.mean that it will be that way in a year from now. It is based on a lot of things. ',Perhaps with the infrastructure that we have built now and if the population 'growth flattens maybe we won't need as much as we thought we did. !,Bill Schopper said that we are already seeing that we are upside down $400,000 'on water and sewer. I can see where there would be an emphasis on increasing the fees. '; 'Greg Van Nieuwenhuize said that he doesn't want to say that raising the fees ', won't happen because I think they probably will be increased. The other thing to understand about impact fees is if the Capital Improvements that is necessary is ', ',$10,000,000. The maximum that we can set to collect is $5,000,000. 'Bill Schopper said that is because that is what we set it at is half. Greg Van Nieuwenhuize said no. That is state law. Years go,Fort Worth was a trendsetter. They had looked at the maximum they could collect and felt that it Page 2 05/07/09 Capital Improvement Advisory Committee ,would seriously discourage development. Therefore they always collected a ',number less than that and it was typically 50% less. It became state law in 2000. 'There were cities that were collecting the maximum and the developers lobbied 'our state legislature. ',John Pitstick said that it is a function of our growth divided by the number of ',projects. It isn't necessarily that we need the money. Bill Schopper said that he understands that. It just seems when you are looking at the numbers we are upside down $400,000. ,Greg Van Nieuwenhuize said that in actuality if there is a time to be upside down ', ',it's on these fees. It is not great to be upside down millions and millions of 'dollars. If you are not upside down you have to return those fees. Mike Benton asked if there is an amount of time that we have to spend those funds? ',Greg Van Nieuwenhuize said that we can only collect them in that 5 year time 'i Iperiod. We are allowed to look out to 10 years from when the study was done. '' ~IThe study was done in 2005 which allows us to collect those fees through 2010. ',~ Now with the pace we are moving right now we are about where we want to be. '; ',Obviously we wouldn't want to be upside down as far as we are but still give the ''~; ',choice we would rather be down then have money left over. ' ',Mike Benton asked if at the end of the collection time if the projects would be ; (completed? ', ',Greg Van Nieuwenhuize said not necessarily. That is somewhat based on (development. If development doesn't move forward then we aren't collecting the ', '',fees. If we don't get the development then we don't collect the fees and '; ',consequently the infrastructure is not necessary. Infrastructure is only necessary ',for the new development. 'John Pitstick said that state law requires new projections every 5 years. If ',development is slowing down or things are changing such as the new rail !,stations. That might affect the growth changes. We can only charge for new 'growth in water and sewer lines. It is basically the required capital improvements ',divided by the growth. We can only charge for 50% of the growth. The new ',people that are coming on are paying their Impact fee to buy into the system ', where as current residents and business owners are already paying taxes 'towards this system. Chairman Shiflet asked if they are asking for any kind of recommendation other ,than to accept the report? ''Page 3 05/07/09 !,Capital Improvement Advisory Committee .Greg Van Nieuwenhuize said that the commission needs to accept report and 'recommend to City Council that we keep the fees as they are. '' APPROVED Bill Schopper motioned to accept the Capital Improvement Plan as '. presented recommend approval from the City Council. Don Bowen seconded the motion and it was carried unanimously (5-0). 5. ADJOURNMENT 'The meeting was adjourned at 7:05 p.m. G rcanay 5rntiet, c;nairman ', Rage 4 05/07/09 Capital Improvement Advisory Committee Don Bowen, Secretary