Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCPA 2026-03-04 Minutes CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS 2025 CAPITAL PROGRAM ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING MEETING MINUTES MARCH 4, 6:00 PM PUBLIC SAFETY TRAINING CENTER, POLICE CLASSROOM 7200 DICK FISHER DR. SOUTH NORTH RICHLAND HILLS The 2025 Capital Program Advisory Committee met on Wednesday, March 4, 2026, at 6:00 pm in the Police Classroom at the North Richland Hills Public Safety Training Center. The following members were present: Chair Tito Rodriguez, Vice Chair, Richard Davis, Mona Bailey, Jane Birkes, Suzy Compton, Darlisa Diltz, Rodney Glenn Brianne Goetz, Patti Hourihan Mike Kerby Miles Maze, Julia Miller, David Newhouse, Sean Nutt, Kyle Pekurney, Adam Pope, John Schleeter, Steve Tate, Joe Tolbert, Marc Trevino, Gary Vieregger, Bill Witsett, Mark Wood The following member(s) were absent: Elouise Kennedy, Dave Lambson, Ann Perchard, Brad Pipes, Jason Roberts, Justin Welborn Staff present at the meeting were: Paulette Hartman, City Manager, Trudy Lewis, Assistant City Manager, Caroline Waggoner, Assistant City Manager, Boe Blankenship Director of Public Works, Cecilia Barham, Director of Library Services, Dakota Ford, Digital Content Producer, Sierra Clark, Video Production Intern, Jennipher Castellanos, Manager of Strategic Initiatives, Stan Tinney, Fire Chief CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chair Tito Rodriguez at 6:00 p.m. II. APPROVE MINUTES FROM FEBRUARY 17, 2026, MEETING A motion was made by Committee Member, Brianne Goetz seconded by Committee Member Mike Kerby to approve the minutes of February 17, 2026, Capital Program Advisory Committee (CPAC) Meeting. The motion passed unanimously. III. REVIEW AND DISCUSS SURVEY RESULTS. Assistant City Manager Trudy Lewis opened the meeting with a review of the results from the second CPAC feedback survey. She noted a strong response rate of 72% and summarized the committee's input for each question. For Survey Question 1, regarding the preferred target tax rate impact for the 2026 Bond Program, Ms. Lewis reported a clear majority supporting a 4-cent tax rate impact. For Survey Question 2, which asked for the most appropriate total General Obligation Bond funding amount for the ballot, the committee showed strong consensus for a total of$156 million. Survey Question 3 addressed the target funding level for the combined street reconstruction package. Ms. Lewis stated that 81% of respondents supported a range of $75 — $80 million. Survey Question 4 asked whether any streets above the Blue Line should be downgraded or removed; one of the twenty-one respondents suggested removing Harwood Rd. Survey Question 5 asked if any streets below the Blue Line should be upgraded or added. Ms. Lewis reported that two respondents recommended adding Iron Horse Blvd., one suggested Emerald Hills Way, and one recommended adding all five streets below the Blue Line listed in prior materials. Ms. Lewis concluded the survey summary by noting that the results support an 8- to 10-year capital program with a total of$156 million in G.O. bond funding, a 4-cent tax rate impact, and $75 — 80 million allocated for street reconstruction. The program would fund all projects previously presented, including two fire stations, street reconstruction, the service center, and the library expansion. IV. DISCUSS SURVEY FEEDBACK AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE CITY COUNCIL. The committee continued discussion on the survey results and related recommendations. Ms. Lewis asked the committee to confirm support for including both Fire Station 1 and Fire Station 2 on the GO Bond ballot. The committee expressed unanimous consensus. Assistant City Manager Caroline Waggoner led a discussion on major and residential streets. She noted that feedback from the first survey indicated stronger interest in funding streets up to the Blue Line, and asked the committee whether they preferred to remain at that level or consider funding additional streets beyond the Blue Line. She collected comments and addressed questions regarding street priorities, funding levels, and the potential inclusion of additional streets. City Manager Paulette Hartman responded to questions about public education materials, including information on tax rate impacts. She also explained key differences between the previous bond election and the current one that affect the City's approach. Ms. Lewis reminded the committee that results from Survey 1 and Survey 2 differed, particularly regarding the preferred funding level for combined street reconstruction. Vice Chair Richard Davis emphasized that the committee had agreed on a methodology for selecting streets earlier in the process. The committee discussed additional street options and the idea of including contingency funding. The primary question remained what total funding amount the committee was comfortable recommending, given the gap between the earlier lower survey results and the later higher range. Ms. Waggoner stated that staff would return at the next meeting with recommendations and a revised street reconstruction list. One committee member proposed an $80 million funding level for the combined street reconstruction package. Ms. Hartman added that more information on the bond propositions would also be provided at the next meeting. Ms. Lewis then confirmed that the committee wished to include the Service Center in the bond package. The committee agreed by consensus. Ms. Lewis asked the committee whether they wished to include the full list of Library Expansion projects in the bond package, noting that survey results from Survey 1 and Survey 2 differed slightly. The committee then discussed the Library expansion projects in more detail. Ms. Hartman noted that the committee could recommend shifting certain components to Certificates of Obligation (COs) if they felt some items were better funded outside the GO bond. The committee also discussed the possibility of identifying alternative funding sources for the lower-cost Library improvements. Ms. Lewis asked for the committee's thoughts specifically on the Library's circulation room. One member requested data on the number of library visitors who are City-registered voters. Ms. Hartman clarified that library usage extends beyond cardholders, and many visitors use the facility without holding a card. Committee members expressed interest in leaving the Library Circulation Room Expansion, the Library SB 412 compliance work, and the Library elevator improvements as non-GO bond recommendations to Council. Ms. Lewis confirmed that the committee preferred to recommend placing only the Library Community Room expansion on the ballot. With that change, the total proposed GO bond funding level for the ballot would be updated to approximately $142 million. Following these discussions, the committee reached consensus on the recommended funding levels for the 2026 Bond Program ballot. The agreed-upon amounts are: • $80,000,000 for Street Reconstruction (combined major and residential; $75 million for projects and $5 million for inflation) • $26,300,000 for Fire Stations 2 and 3 • $24,700,000 for the Service Center (to be rebranded) • $11,000,000 for the Library Community Room Expansion V. REVIEW AND DISCUSS DEBT CAPACITY AND PROPERTY TAX IMPACT OF FUNDING CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS. Ms. Lewis asked the committee to review the voter information from the 2020 Bond Election that had been provided. She then outlined several financial assumptions used during preparation of that election. She reviewed the estimated property value changes for FY27, noting the property tax rate is now 8 cents lower. New construction in 2021 was approximately$70 million higher than in 2025, and the previous bond amount was $105 million less than the current proposal. She also explained that more than 1,000 additional properties have received exemptions since the last bond election, resulting in approximately $47 million falling off the property tax roll. This loss in taxable value, combined with external policy changes, has contributed to compression of tax rates. Ms. Lewis discussed expectations for new construction and appraisal changes. She noted that there will be no residential reappraisals unless the City can provide clear and compelling evidence supporting an increase above 5%. Sales prices of homes will not be considered for valuation purposes. In addition, new Business Personal Property exemptions will reduce the tax roll by an estimated $60 million. After accounting for gains and losses, the City anticipates a net market value increase of approximately$5.5 million. She explained that a proposed $146 million bond program would generate approximately $4 million in new annual debt payments. To support that level at the current tax rate, the City would need to add roughly $932 million in new taxable value to the roll. Ms. Lewis presented a table showing historical taxable new construction values and year-over-year changes from 2019 through 2025, noting that past trends may not reliably predict future outcomes. She also highlighted that the property tax rate has decreased by 8.7 cents from 2019 to 2026, emphasizing the relationship between taxable values and the tax rate. Ms. Lewis concluded by outlining next steps for tax-rate impact calculations. She stated that the Tarrant Appraisal District (TAD) will provide preliminary taxable value estimates at the end of April, with updated figures expected in May. VI. REVIEW AND DISCUSS STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUNDING AND COMPLETING CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS. Based on the committee's discussions, staff will prepare updated project recommendations for presentation at the next meeting. Ms. Hartman noted that the proposed ballot propositions will also be provided for review during the March 31 meeting. VII. REVIEW AND DISCUSS TIMING OF BOND ELECTION AND RELATED BALLOT LANGUAGE REQUIREMENTS. Ms. Lewis outlined that the committee will also need to consider how the propositions should be presented to voters, including the structure and language used. She provided examples of possible approaches: consolidating all projects into four broad categories; separating projects into more detailed, individual propositions; or using a hybrid approach with some combined and some split. She noted that these are the types of decisions the committee will need to make regarding proposition format. Ms. Lewis responded to a committee member's question about how propositions had been presented in past bond elections. She added that messaging and outreach strategies will play a key role in how effectively information reaches voters. A committee member requested that the title for the Service Center project be reworded to better reflect the nature of the facility. VIII. REVIEW AND DISCUSS THE NEXT STEPS AND FUTURE MEETINGS OF THE COMMITTEE. The committee discussed the remaining steps in the project timeline as well as the distinction between education and advocacy for the bond program. Ms. Lewis reminded the committee that educational efforts by the city must remain neutral and focus solely on providing facts, data, and project information. She shared an example of an educational video from another city that demonstrated this approach. She explained that when it is time to prepare the educational campaign, the City can use various methods to ensure accurate information about the proposed projects is made available to the public. Ms. Lewis also clarified the role of an advocacy committee. She stated that advocacy efforts must be citizen-led and may promote passage of the bond measure, whereas City staff cannot advocate. She noted that an advocacy committee typically oversees public outreach, community engagement, and messaging in support of the election. She added that the committee will need to form its own advocacy group to begin discussing project messaging, organizational structure, and public outreach strategies. She emphasized that City funds cannot be used to advocate for the bond election. The next committee meeting is scheduled for March 31 and will be held in the Community Room at City Hall. Vllll. PUBLIC COMMENTS An opportunity for citizens to address the 2025 Capital Program Advisory Committee on matters which are scheduled on this agenda for consideration by the 2025 Capital Program Advisory Committee but not scheduled as a public hearing. In order to address the 2025 Capital Program Advisory Committee during public comments, a Public Meeting Appearance Card must be completed and presented to the recording secretary prior to the start of the 2025 Capital Program Advisory Committee meeting. There were no requests to speak received. X. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 7:28 p.m. APPR : Tito Rodriguez, Chair i r i /t6-L-K Jennipher Castellanos, Secretary