The URL can be used to link to this page

Item 7AItem 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