Item 6A (3)Item 7.AOrdinance No. 657-BUpdating Impact Fees
Greg Last
2
3
Presentation Overview
Impact Fees Conceptually
Public Hearing / Notice
Land Use Assumption (LUA) Report
Water and Wastewater Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) Report
Roadway CIP Report
CIAC comments to City Council
Fee Benchmarking / Analysis
Fee Recommendation
4
Impact Fees Conceptually
Land use analysis performed identifying existing and ultimate land uses
Water, wastewater and roadway master plans updated; CIP costs identified
Future growth identified
Future CIP costs identified (must add capacity)
Future costs ÷ future growth = Max Fee
City Council determines final fee, not to exceed max fee
5
Public Hearing / Notice
1st Reading – April 1, 2008
2nd Reading / Public Hearing – April 15, 2008
Noticed in Fort Worth Star Telegram and Denton Chronicle on March 12
Documents available for review
Land Use Assumptions Report
Water and Wastewater Capital Improvements Plan
Roadway Capital Improvements Plan
CIAC Comments to City Council
6
LUA ReportUpdate Process
Updated comprehensive land use plan
Ultimate population
Ultimate employment
CIAC approval November 9, 2006
City Council concurs with recommendation
Basis for Capital Improvement Plans
7
LUA Report - Highlights
Land Use Plan
Basis for CIP
Determines
Ultimate Population
Ultimate Employment
Future increments of both
End
8
LUA Report - Highlights
9
LUA Report - Highlights
10
LUA ReportComparison with 1999 Study
11
Water & Wastewater CIP ReportUpdate Process
Updated the water distribution master plan
System hydraulic analysis
Updated the wastewater collection master plan
Capacity analysis
Updated costs for water / wastewater CIP
Performed financial analysis / max fee calc
12
Water & Wastewater CIP ReportHighlights
Significant increases in per capita water usage
Significant changes in water supply lines
Addition of north side pressure system-$3M
13
Water & Wastewater CIP ReportWater Highlights
NEXT
End
14
Water & Wastewater CIP ReportWater Highlights
Back
15
Water & Wastewater CIP ReportWater Highlights
Back
16
Water & Wastewater CIP ReportWater Highlights
Back
17
Water & Wastewater CIP ReportWater Highlights
Back
18
Water & Wastewater CIP ReportWater Highlights
Back
19
Water & Wastewater CIP ReportWastewater Highlights
End
20
Water & Wastewater CIP ReportWastewater Highlights
21
Water & Wastewater CIP ReportComparison with 1999 Study
*TCEQ Recommendation = 140 GPCPD
**2006 number used for comparison based on rainfall
22
Water & Wastewater CIP ReportMax Fee Calculations
10-Year CIP Costs (adding capacity)
÷ Number of SFLUE’s (1” meters)
= Impact fee before interest expense
+ Financing expenses
+ Study expenses
= Maximum impact fees
50% offset as allowed by law
= Net adjusted Maximum Impact Fee
23
Water & Wastewater CIP ReportMax Fee Calculations
24
Water & Wastewater CIP ReportMax Fee Calculations
25
Roadway CIP ReportUpdate Process
Master Thoroughfare Plan updated
Added: Kirkwood Blvd., Village Center, Rucker Rd., Watermere Drive
Eliminated: Durham Road
Increased Capacity: Dove, Kimball
Identified all segments to be built by area
Estimated costs for segments
Performed financial analysis / max fee calc
26
Roadway CIP ReportHighlights
Service Areas Reduced from 8 to 3 in accordance with changes in state law
Equivalency factors increased significantly
Some trip rates increased (new ITE Manual)
Some trip lengths increased from 3 to 4 miles as a result of increased service area size
Construction costs increased substantially
End
27
Roadway CIP Service Areas
28
Roadway CIP ReportComparison with 1999 Study
29
Roadway CIP ReportMax Fee Calculations
Inputs
Additional Vehicle Miles (VM) in eligible portion of CIP
Costs of CIP (+ financing, study)
Credit for ad valorem taxes
Outcome
Maximum assessable fee per development service unit ($ per VM)
Council establishes actual fee
Application
$/VM multiplied by VM per Development Unit = Fee for project (i.e. varies by type of development)
NEXT
30
Roadway CIP ReportVehicle Mile Definition
The basic service unit for computing roadway impact fees is the Vehicle Mile (VM) during the p.m. peak hour
A VM is a measure of supply and demand for roads in the City
Supply-side: A lane-mile of an arterial or collector street
Demand-side: A vehicle trip of one mile in length
Back
31
Study Year Comparisons
32
Study Year Comparisons
33
Study Year Comparisons
34
CIAC Comments to Council
CIAC approved the following:
LUA Report
Water and Wastewater CIP
Roadway CIP
Max Fee calculations for CIP’s
CIAC comments approved on December 6, 2007
Comments included with Council info and available to the public
35
Historical Fee Context
City has never charged a “max fee”
A uniform fee has been used across all roadway service areas (except very north area) for ease of administration
36
Fee Benchmarking & Analysis
End
37
Fee Benchmarking & Analysis
38
Fee Benchmarking & Analysis
39
Fee Benchmarking / AnalysisRecent City Projects
40
Fee Recommendation
Considerations in determining fee
Capital improvement programs
Economic development competition
Capital recovery vs. ad valorem tax contributions
City vs. developer interests
41
Fee Recommendation
City staff evaluation / recommendation
Consultation with development community
Recommendations:
Water Impact Fee: Increase 10%
Wastewater Impact Fee: Increase 5%
Roadway Impact Fee: Increase 15%, holding office components at the current fee
Ensuring no proposed fees exceed maximums
Effective October 1, 2008
End
42
Fee Recommendation - Benchmarking
End
43
Fee Recommendation - Benchmarking
End
44
Fee Recommendation - Benchmarking
End
45
In Summary
All statutory requirements have been met
Major components updated
Land Use Assumptions
Water and Wastewater CIP
Roadway CIP
Max fees have been determined
CIAC has forwarded comments
Fee recommendations provided
Questions / Discussion
Greg Last, (817) 748-8037
47
48