Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCPA 2026-02-17 Minutes CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS 2025 CAPITAL PROGRAM ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING MEETING MINUTES FEBRUARY 17, 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 Tuesday, February 17, 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, Jane Birkes, Suzy Compton, Darlisa Diltz, Brianne Goetz, Elouise Kennedy, Mike Kerby Dave Lambson, Julia Miller, David Newhouse, Sean Nutt, Kyle Pekurney, Adam Pope, John Schleeter, Steve Tate, Joe Tolbert, Marc Trevino, Justin Welborn, Bill Witsett, Mark Wood The following member(s)were absent: Mona Bailey, Rodney Glenn, Patti Hourihan, Miles Maze, Ann Perchard, Brad Pipes, Jason Roberts, Gary Vieregger 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, Chris Amarante, Director of Facilities and Construction CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chair Tito Rodriguez at 6:01 p.m. II. APPROVE MINUTES FROM FEBRARY 3, 2026, MEETING A motion was made by Committee Member, Mark Wood seconded by Committee Member Dave Lambson to approve the minutes of February 3, 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 an overview of its objectives and a review of the City Council's mission, vision, and goals. She then provided an explanation of General Obligation (GO) bonds, including their purpose, backing by Ad Valorem Tax Power, and the requirement for voter approval. A slide showing historical bond election data for the city was presented. Ms. Lewis continued with an overview of Certificates of Obligation (CO) bonds, covering their definition, uses, and issuance process. She also presented a comparison of GO and CO bonds, highlighting differences in voter approval requirements, best uses, timelines, transparency, amounts, and tax impacts. Next, Ms. Lewis discussed the CPAC Feedback Survey results. She noted that 29 invitations were sent, with 23 responses received (79%). She reviewed the results for each survey question in detail and summarized the overall findings. Based on the survey results, the committee favored recommending an 8-to 10-year capital program with a GO bond issuance between $125M and $155M, a potential tax rate impact of 4 to 6 cents, and inclusion of projects such as Fire Stations, Streets (Priority Blue at $69.3M), the Service Center, and the Library Community Room. Ms. Lewis also presented cost estimates for these recommended projects. City Manager Paulette Hartman concluded by noting that the committee will receive a follow-up survey to provide additional feedback. Ms. Hartman and Ms. Lewis responded to committee questions during the survey results presentation. IV. DISCUSS SURVEY FEEDBACK AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE CITY COUNCIL. The committee engaged in further discussion and questions regarding the survey results. A question was raised about the use of leftover bond funds. Ms. Hartman clarified that if projects totaling, for example, $70 million are approved and $5 million remains at completion, those funds cannot be used for purposes other than those authorized. Another question concerned funding options, and Ms. Hartman explained that the City may utilize other sources, such as reserves, to address potential shortfalls. A question was raised regarding street reconstruction. Ms. Hartman noted that the proposed list from the committee does not include all streets requiring reconstruction or preventive maintenance and emphasized that it is unlikely any city could address every street in need. Ms. Lewis reviewed the Library Community Room Expansion project and noted that the slide had been updated to remove the Southwest Corner Buildout. She also provided a cost estimate for the Service Center and summarized the total General Obligation (GO) bond recommendations of $135.3 million, which include Fire Stations 2 and 3, Library Community Room Expansion, Streets Reconstruction, and the Service Center. This represents an estimated tax rate increase of approximately 2 cents based on a 10-year timeline. Ms. Lewis then presented non-GO project recommendations, including the Library Circulation Room Expansion, Library SB412 compliance, and Library elevators. Ms. Hartman and Ms. Lewis responded to committee questions. V. REVIEW AND DISCUSS DEBT CAPACITY AND PROPERTY TAX IMPACT OF FUNDING CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS. Ms. Lewis led a discussion on property tax rates, including the City's current rate, and presented a preliminary tax rate impact analysis for a $135.3 million bond program, illustrating the impact over several years. She then discussed debt tax rate payment capacity and provided an overview of a preliminary bond capacity analysis showing that an issuance of$116.88 million could be funded with no tax rate increase. Ms. Lewis noted that if no tax increase is proposed, the funding capacity would be approximately $116.88 million; however, with a 2-cent increase, based on survey recommendations for projects to consider, the capacity would increase to $135.3 million. Ms. Hartman and Ms. Lewis responded to committee questions. VI. REVIEW AND DISCUSS STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUNDING AND COMPLETING CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS. Ms. Lewis clarified that the City is not recommending specific projects but presenting scenarios based on survey feedback. If the committee selects the $116.88 million option, members will need to determine which projects to include within that funding level. Ms. Lewis continued responding to questions and comments from the committee regarding project recommendations. VII. REVIEW AND DISCUSS TIMING OF BOND ELECTION AND RELATED BALLOT LANGUAGE REQUIREMENTS. Ms. Lewis reviewed a slide with tax law provisions, noting that the bond proposition must state it includes a tax rate increase. She then presented a summary of property tax entities that impact the overall tax rate, explaining that the City's rate is influenced by multiple factors. Ms. Lewis provided an overview of property valuation components, including market value, appraised value (with caps and growth limitations), and taxable value after exemptions, clarifying that the City receives taxes based on taxable value. She displayed a chart comparing single-family property market versus taxable values and shared residential value snapshots: in 2024, the certified average market value was $381,951, and in 2025 it was $367,388. A June 2025 market snapshot was also shown to illustrate potential fluctuations in City finances. Ms. Lewis presented changes over time in NRH senior exemptions, discussed 5-year tax ceiling projections, circuit breaker limitations, and noted upcoming legislative changes affecting business personal property exemptions. She explained that these changes will result in a $60.1 million reduction in taxable business personal property value next fiscal year, unrelated to City Council decisions. Additional slides covered the Governor's five-point property tax relief plan. Ms. Lewis also provided population comparisons with neighboring cities, property tax comparisons within Tarrant County, property tax rate history showing an 11.2-cent decrease since 2017 and highlighted who benefits from the proposed projects. She noted that NRH points of interest attract over 1.25 million visitors annually then provided an overview of General Fund revenues and expenses. She concluded by providing an overview of the actions the city council has taken to reduce taxes over the years. Ms. Hartman and Ms. Lewis addressed questions and comments throughout the discussion. VIII. REVIEW AND DISCUSS THE NEXT STEPS AND FUTURE MEETINGS OF THE COMMITTEE. Ms. Lewis informed the committee that another survey will be distributed by Friday, February 20, with responses due by February 25. The next meeting is scheduled for March 4 and will include the survey results. She then reviewed the timeline for next steps: finalizing the project list in April, presenting it to City Council in May/June, calling the election in July/August, and preparing for public education efforts. The committee then moved into questions, input, and discussion. Ms. Hartman addressed a question regarding advocacy, clarifying that the committee would need to form its own advocacy group and noting that public funds cannot be used for advocacy related to the propositions. She emphasized that the City cannot advocate, but the committee can. Ms. Hartman and Ms. Lewis responded to additional questions and comments from the committee. 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 7:27 p.m. APPR ED: Tito Rodri uez, Chair Jennipher Castellanos, Secretary