[Call to Order]
[00:00:05]
OUT THIS POINT WE WILL CALL TO ORDER THE MEETING OF CITY OF ROULAC, CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS ADVISORY COMMITTEE. TODAY IS NOVEMBER, 12, 2019. AT THIS TIME, THREE-MINUTE OCMMENTS WILL BE TAKEN FROM THE AUDIENCE ON ANY TOPIC. TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION.
SEEING NONE. WE HAVE ONE ITEM, 3A. CONSIDER A RECOMMENDATION TO
[3A. Consider a recommendation to the City Council regarding the Land Use Assumptions and the Capital Improvement Plans in the 2019 Impact Fee Update Study]
THE CITY COUNCIL REGARDING THE LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS AND THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLANS IN THE 2019 IMPACT FEE UPDATED STUDY. JEFFREY?>> GOOD EVENING. YES, WE ARE HERE TO MAKE A PRESENTATION TO THE COMMITTEE.
WE HAVE A FINAL DRAFT OF THE REPORT. WE CAME BEFORE YOU A FEW WEEKS AGO, TO GIVE YOU A LITTLE BIT OF AN INTRODUCTORY SESSION. TONIGHT WE HAVE THE FINAL REPORT I DID SEND THAT OUT TO ALL OF YOU LAST WEEK. I HOPE YOU HAVE HAD A CHANCE TO LOOK THROUGH IT. WE ARE GOING TO GO THROUGH AND HIGHLIGHT THE MAJOR TAKEAWAYS.
I'VE GOT OUR CONSULTANT WHO HAS DONE A LOT OF THE WORK. WITHOUT THEM WE COULD NOT HAVE COMPLETED THIS TASK. THEY ARE FROM KIMBERLY HORN. IT IS PETE KELLY AND ANDREW SIMONSON. PETE WILL TALK ABOUT THE ROADWAY IMPACT FEES AND ANDREW WILL SPEAK ABOUT THE WATER AND WASTEWATER IMPACT FEES. I'M JUST GOING TO GO AHEAD AND
TURN IT OVER TO THEM. >> LAST TIME, JEFFREY WAS HERE WHILE I WAS OUT OF TOWN AND NOW YOU GET ME WHILE HE IS OUT OF TOWN. NICE TO BE WITH THE GROUP HERE TONIGHT. SO, I'M GOING TO RECAP WHAT WE DISCUSSED IN THE OCTOBER 22 MEETING RECAP OUR LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS FOR THE 2019 STUDY. ALSO THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLANS. THE SERVICE UNITS, THE MAXIMUM FEES AND WE DID TALK THAT LAST TIME. WE WILL TALK ABOUT THE MAXIMUM FEES.
THERE ARE A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS FROM THAT LAST MEETING THAT I WANT TO TRY TO COVER, AND ALSO TALK ABOUT THE PROPOSED COLLECTION RATES THAT STAFF AND US HAVE TALKED ABOUT AND WE WANT TO PRESENT TO YOU TONIGHT. AND ALSO GO THROUGH THE NEXT STEPS FOR THE ADOPTION PROCESS.
>> IS SO RECAP OF THE OCTOBER 202ND MEETING. WE TALKED ABOUT WHAT IMPACT FEES ARE, WHAT YOUR ROLE AS AN ADVISORY COMMITTEE IS. WHY DO WE NEED TO UPDATE, WE TALKED ABOUT THE BASIC COMPONENTS OF THE IMPACT FEE STUDY.
AND ALSO OUR METHODOLOGY AS WE PUT IT TOGETHER. IF THERE IS ANY OUTSTANDING QUESTIONS FROM ANY OF THESE TOPICS, WE ARE GOING TO COVER THOSE IN DETAIL.
PLEASE FEEL FREE TO BRING THEM UP AS I AM GOING THROUGH AND I WILL SEE IF I CAN ANSWER THOSE.
OUR LAND ASSUMPTIONS RELATE THAT AT TWO MAIN COMPONENTS THAT WAS YOUR HISTORIC BUILDING PERMITS, WHAT HAVE BEEN THE TREND THE LAST FIVE YEARS, AND ALSO THE COMP PLAN UPDATED THIS YEAR AND WHERE THE FUTURE LAND USES ARE PLANNED, SPECIFICALLY WHICH SERVICE AREAS FOR THE ROADWAY SIDE. HERE IS OUR TABLE. THE LAND-USE ASSUMPTIONS, THE POPULATION AND DWELLING UNITS ARE THE SAME AS YOU SAW LAST& TIME.
WE DID MAKE SOME SLIGHT TWEAKS TO THE EMPLOYMENT SQUARE FOOTAGE TO BE MORE IN LINE WITH THE COMP PLAN. A TOTAL CHANGE, -- I GOT A MOUSE THERE.
THE TOTAL CHANGE IN THIS NUMBER OF LESS THAN 5000 SQUARE FEET. MINOR TWEAKS SHOULD BE DETAILS
OF THE REPORT THAT YOU HAVE. >> JUST REVISITING AGAIN THIS IS THE ROADWAY IMPACT FEE.
LAST TIME WE SHOWED YOU THIS WE HAD A PROJECT HERE THAT HAS SINCE BEEN REMOVED FROM THE ROADWAY IMPACT FEE. THE SERVICE AREA -- [INAUDIBLE] AGAIN, THE WATER IMPACT FEE, CIP RIGHT HERE SHOWN AS THE SAME, AND THE WASTEWATER IS ALSO THE SAME. I JUST WANTED TO TALK REAL QUICKLY ABOUT WHAT SERVICE UNITS ARE AND HOW WE USE THEM TO CALCULATE IMPACT FEES. CHAPTER 395 SERVICE UNIT
[00:05:07]
COMMISSION IS THE UNIT OF CONSUMPTION PER DEVELOPMENT UNIT FOR WATER AND WASTEWATER UTILIZING STANDARD WATER METER THAT IS THE 58 BY THREE-QUARTER INCH IS THE BASE WATER METER SIZE IN ROWLETT. ON THE ROADWAY SIDE WE USE WHAT IS USED A VEHICLE MILE.THE AMOUNT OF CAPACITY NEEDED FOR ONE VEHICLE TO TRAVEL 1 MILE WE USE THAT FOR THE DEMAND AND THE SUPPLY SIDE OF THE CALCULATION. JUST A RUN THROUGH AN EXAMPLE OF CALCULATION, THIS IS AN EXAMPLE CALCULATION OF VEHICLE MILE DEMAND FOR ROADWAY IMPACT FEES.
FIRST WE WOULD LOOK AT THE TRIP RATE, GENERATED BY SPECIFIC USES.
LOOKING AT A SINGLE FAMILY HOME USING THE TRIP MANUAL, A SINGLE-FAMILY HOME IS PROJECTED TO GENERATE .99 VEHICLE TRIPS DURING THE PEAK HOUR. THAT IS YOUR HIGHEST OUR BETWEEN FOUR AND 6:00 P.M. WE ALSO LOOK AT THE NATIONAL HOUSEHOLD TRAVEL SURVEY, WE HAVE TO ATTACH A LINK TO THAT AS WELL, A TRIP LENGTH TO GET THE VEHICLE MILE UNIT.
THAT IS 4.9 MILES AFTER YOU ACCOUNT FOR THE FACT THAT YOU'RE HAVING AN ORIGIN AND A DESTINATION AND NOT TRIP. WHEN YOU MULTIPLY THOSE TWO TOGETHER, YOU COME UP WITH A VEHICLE MILE USE OF 4.8 VEHICLE MILES PER SINGLE-FAMILY HOME. THAT IS THE SERVICE UNIT.
DOING THE SAME THING FOR SHOPPING CENTER,, PROVIDING A TRIP RATE OF 3.81 VEHICLES.
THAT IS PER THOUSAND SQUARE FEET OF A SHOPPING CENTER. THAT IS ALSO DURING THE PNP.
WHAT IS DIFFERENT FOR SOME USES AND AMONG THOSE, AS YOU ALSO APPLY A PASS BY REDUCTION.
THE EASIEST WAY TO EXPLAIN THAT IS YOU PUT WALMART ON A STREET, YOU HAVE SOME PEOPLE THAT ARE ALREADY DRIVING ON THE ROAD THAT STOP AT THAT WALMART, BUT YOU MAY HAVE SOME NEW TRIPS.
WHAT WE TRY TO DO IS REMOVE THE TRIPS THAT ARE ALREADY ON THE ROAD AND ONLY ACCOUNT FOR THE NEW TRIPS IN THAT DEMAND. AFTER YOU ACCOUNT FOR PASS BY YOU GET A TRIP RATE OF 2.51 VEHICLES PER THOUSAND SQUARE FEET. IN A TRIP LENGTH OF 2.8 MILES ON MULTIPLY THOSE TOGETHER AND YOU GET A VEHICLE MILE CONSUMPTION OF 7.03 VEHICLE MILES PER THOUSAND SQUARE FEET OF THAT PARTICULAR DEVELOPMENT. THERE IS A TABLE IN THE REPORT THAT DETAILS A WHOLE BUNCH OF OTHER LAND-USE TYPES. 2.11 I THINK IS THE LAND-USE VEHICLE MILE EQUIPMENT SOLELY -. ANY QUESTIONS BEFORE I MOVE FORWARD? MOVING ONTO THE WATER WATER AND WASTEWATER SERVICE UNITS. IT'S A LITTLE SIMPLER, USUALLY GET YOUR MIND AROUND, IT'S THE BASE METER SIZE. WE JUST SHOW HERE, 2-INCH METER FOR SHOPPING CENTER IT COULD BE 3-INCH, IT COULD BE MULTIPLE SMALLER METERS.
THAT IS JUST TO DEMONSTRATE THAT A LARGER DEVELOPMENT WOULD REQUIRE A LARGER WATER DEMAND.
WE SCALED UP LARGER MERE SIZES BY A FACTOR BY THE BASE METER SIZE.
FOR AN EXAMPLE HERE, 2-INCH METER HAS EIGHT TIMES THE CAPACITY OF A THREE-QUARTER INCH METER. THAT IS WHAT IS DEMONSTRATED ON THE SLIDE.
>> BRINGING THROUGH ALL THE CALCULATIONS, THE END RESULT IN THE ROAD IMPACT FEE CALCULATION IS A MAXIMUM IMPACT FEE PER VEHICLE MILE AND SERVICE AREA ONE OF $1418 PER VEHICLE MILE AND THEN SERVICE AREA $677 PER VEHICLE MILE. YOU CAN SEE THE CHANGE FROM THE CURRENTLY ADOPTED RATE UP TOP, 55 AND 466. BOTH HAVE GONE UP.
>> HERE IS WHAT THAT WOULD LOOK LIKE WHEN YOU CONVERT THE PER VEHICLE MILE RATE TO AN ACTUAL LAND-USE. THIS IS AN EXAMPLE OF THE SINGLE-FAMILY LAND-USE.
CURRENTLY THE MAXIMUM FEE FOR SINGLE-FAMILY SERVICE AREA ONE IS 4275 AND IN SERVICE AREA TWO
[00:10:09]
IS 2330. IT'S ACTUALLY BEING COLLECTED IN SERVICE AREA ONE IS $3490 PER SINGLE AREA FAMILY HOME. WE ARE CURRENTLY COLLECTING THE MAXIMUM FEE.SO OUR MAXIMUM FEE FOR SINGLE-FAMILY HOME IN 2019 FEET PER VEHICLE MILE BECOMES 6877 IN SERVICE AREA ONE 3283 IN SERVICE AREA TWO. JUST A NOTE TO STRESS HERE, THIS IS THE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE FEE, BY LAW, THAT CAN BE CHARGED. IT IS NOT WHAT IT NECESSARILY HAS TO BE CHARGED. COUNSEL CAN SET THE RATE AT ANY TIME UP TO THIS MAXIMUM.
SIMILAR EXAMPLE WITH WATER AND WASTEWATER OUR CURRENT MAXIMUM FEE FOR WATER IS 1466 AND FOUR WASTEWATER IS 1377. WE ARE COLLECTING THE MAXIMUM ON RESIDENTIAL USES.
THERE IS A 50% DISCOUNT ON NONRESIDENTIAL USES. THAT NUMBER ISN'T SHOWING HERE.
IT IS JUST NOTED. WITH THE 2019 MAXIMUM FEE FOR THE BASE METER SIZE IT IS 2253 FOR WATER AND 1189 FOR WASTEWATER. THE INCREASE IN WATER AND A
SLIGHT DECREASE FOR WASTEWATER. >> CAN YOU EXPLAIN AGAIN, I KNOW YOUR OTHER PARTNER DID LAST MEETING WHY THAT WENT DOWN COMPARED TO WHAT WE ARE COLLECTING RIGHT NOW FOR THE
WASTEWATER? >> IT IS A MEASURE OF THE DEMAND VERSUS THE DOLLARS COLLECTED.
AS THE COST OF PROJECTS, IT IS A COST OF PROJECTS IT GOES UP, BUT THE DEMAND STAYS FLAT THEN THE ACTUAL FEE WILL GO UP. BUT THE COST OF PROJECT STAYS THE SAME IN THE PROJECTED DEMAND GOES UP THAN THAT COST WILL GO DOWN. IT'S A COMBINATION OF THOSE TWO
THINGS HAPPENING. >> THAT IS ONLY FOR WASTEWATER, NOT FOR WATER?
>> RIGHT. >> PART OF IT IS THE FACT THAT YOU'RE NOT HAVING TO BAIL OUT
WASTEWATER FACILITIES QUITE AS MUCH AS YOU DO. >> TARDY PUT IN.
I'M SORRY, WE ADDED MORE WATER PRODUCTS TO THE WATER CIP SO THAT RAISES UP THAT DOLLAR
AMOUNT. >> ALL RIGHT. I MEAN, MY MAIN CONCERN IS OBVIOUSLY, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE PARTS OF THE CITY, ESPECIALLY IN AREA ONE THAT ARE NOT EVEN SERVED, YOU KNOW, IT IS IMPORTANT THAT OUR CITY OFFICIALS KNOW, AND I'M SURE THEY DO THAT WE NEED TO DO WHATEVER WE CAN TO RECTIFY THE SITUATION.
ONE OF THE WAYS WE CAN DO IT IS THROUGH THESE FEES, ESPECIALLY IN THAT SERVICE AREA ONE.
YOU KNOW, WHEN YOU'RE NOT AN EXPERT AT THIS, LIKE YOU GUYS ARE.
YOU SEE IT GOING DOWN. I WANT TO MAKE SURE THE PUBLIC UNDERSTANDS THAT WE ARE PAYING ATTENTION TO THAT. WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE GET THAT SITUATION ON OUR
NORTHEASTERN PART OF OUR CITY SERVED AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE. >> RIGHT.
SO, ANOTHER QUESTION FROM THE LAST MEETING WAS, HOW DOES THE WATER AND WASTEWATER AFFECT THE ACCOUNT FOR THE SAPPHIRE BAY AREA? THE CIP, MAYBE THIS ALSO ADDRESSES A LITTLE BIT OF WAS THE DOLLAR AMOUNT CHANGE. WE LOOKED AT EACH INDIVIDUAL CIP AND WHICH PRODUCTS -- PROJECT NEEDED TO BE ADDED. THAT WAS BASED ON THE PROJECTED DEMAND. THERE IS NO PROJECT SHOWN, LET'S EVEN GO BACK TO THE MAP HERE.
YOU DON'T SEE ANY PROJECTS AROUND THIS AREA. THERE IS SOME EXISTING INFRASTRUCTURE ALREADY THERE. THESE IMPROVEMENTS BEING SHOWN ARE DOWNSTREAM IMPROVEMENTS.
[00:15:02]
THESE PROJECTS HERE DO ACCOUNT FOR THE INCREASED DEMAND. IF I GO OVER TO THE WATER, PROJECT NUMBER SEVEN IS A 24-INCH WATER LINE GOING ALONG DOWELL ROCK DOWN TO SAPPHIRE BAY AND THEIR -- SAPPHIRE BAY'S INTERNALLY BUILDING THEIR OWN WATER LINES TO CONNECT TO THIS24-INCH WATER LINE. >> CAN YOU GO BACK TO THAT WASTEWATER SLAVE OR JUST A SECOND. THE NORTHERN EASTERN MOST PORTION OF THE PROJECT, I CAN'T SEE THAT FAR, BUT YES, CAN YOU DESCRIBE, I KNOW YOU'RE GOING TO GET TO MORE FINITE SORT OF THINGS. CAN YOU COVER THAT A LITTLE BIT, THAT LITTLE PROJECT HERE.
>> I WOULD TELL YOU I I'M MENTIONING IT. AS YOU KNOW, WE HAVE EXPERIENCED A PROBLEM, THERE IS NO SEWER UP THERE. IS THIS GOING TO FIX THAT?
>> I CAN ADDRESS THAT I THINK. THAT IS THE SEWER LINE THAT WOULD SUPPORT THE TRAILS AT CON ONE CREEK PROPOSED PLAN DEVELOPMENT. COUNSEL HAS APPROVED A FACILITIES AGREEMENT WITH THAT DEVELOPER SPECIFIC TO THAT PROJECT THAT THEY WILL BUILD THE SEWER LINE, BUT THE CITY WILL CREDIT IMPACT FEES TO THAT DEVELOPER IN A CERTAIN AMOUNT THAT WE AGREE TO SHARE THE COST. THE EQUIVALENT DOLLAR AMOUNT THAT WE DON'T COLLECTED IMPACT FEES IS WHAT THEY ARE ESSENTIALLY REIMBURSED FOR THE PROJECT.
WE NEED TO GET THIS PROJECT ON THE IMPACT FEE CIP LIST SO THAT WE CAN ACTUALY DO THAT.
>> WHEN THAT HAPPENS, BECAUSE THAT IS NOT GOING TO AFFECT THE PEOPLE THAT ARE NOT START RIGHT NOW, THIS PROJECT FROM WHAT I CAN SEE, AS THAT CORRECT? IT IS CERTAINLY NOT GOING TO AFFECT AT LEAST THE WAY WE SEE THE FORESEEABLE HORIZON THE PEOPLE WHO LIVE.
IT IS POSSIBLE THAT THERE ARE LOTS AND PROPERTIES THAT ARE ON STONEWALL AND ON VINCENT THAT ARE IN THE CITY LIMITS THAT IF THE CITY WERE TO UNDERTAKE A CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT THAT IS NOT ON THIS MAP HERE. I UNDERSTAND THAT. THAT WOULD BE A FUTURE PROJECT THAT HAS NOT YET BEEN IDENTIFIED. THAT PROJECT COULD TIE INTO THAT
PARTS AND SERVE THOSE PARCELS. >> THIS WILL BE MY LAST QUESTION ON THIS, BUT WHY IS IT -- ISN'T VINCENT ROAD WITH THOSE HOUSES, WE ALL KNOW THAT THEY JUST TRIED TO JUST INCORPORATE FROM THE CITY BECAUSE THEY DON'T HAVE SEWERS. WHY ISN'T THAT ON THIS?
>> THAT IS A GOOD QUESTION. I DON'T KNOW THAT I HAVE AN ANSWER.
>> THE OTHER QUESTION TWO IS, WHAT IS ON HERE WHICH IS NUMBER EIGHT, THE TRAILS OF COTTONWOOD CEMETERY, AND WHATNOT. IS IS NOT SIZED APPROPRIATELY ENOUGH TO BE ABLE TO PICK UP?
>> WE HAVE ALREADY LOOKED AT THAT. >> I MEAN, IT'S ON THEIR, I
THINK MY QUESTIONS ANSWERED. THANK YOU. >> YOUR QUESTIONS ABOUT THE
DEMAND FOR SAPPHIRE BAY? >> IF I AM CORRECT ON THIS THERE MAY HAVE NOT BEEN A QUESTION ON SERVICE AREA TO FOR ROADWAY. THERE HAVE BEEN SOME CHANGES OVER THE LAST COUPLE OF UPDATES.
I WANTED TO GO OVER THAT. IN OUR 2013 LAST POLL UPDATE, SERVICE AREA TO CAME OUT TO THE VEHICLE MILE COST OF 698. IN THE 2016 UPDATE, OR SERVICE AREA TWO WAS UPDATED THAT DECREASED QUITE A BIT DOWN TO 466. WITH OUR 2019 UPDATE, SERVICE AREA TWO WE ARE LOOKING AT A MAXIMUM VEHICLE MILE FEE OF 677. IT IS A LITTLE BIT LOWER THAN 2013. THE REASON BEHIND THAT IS THE CFP COSTS FOR SERVICE AREA TO
[00:20:01]
HAS STAYED FAIRLY CONSISTENT BETWEEN 52 AND $56 MILLION PROJECTED.OUR GROWTH RATES, OUR PROJECTED GROWTH RATES HAVE CHANGED BASED ON WHAT WE HAVE SEEN ACTUALLY HAPPENING. WE ARE A LITTLE MORE AGGRESSIVE EXCUSE ME, WE ARE LITTLE LESS AGGRESSIVE. IN 2016 WE ARE REALLY AGGRESSIVE WITH PROJECTIVE GROWTH.
THAT SPREAD OUT THE DOLLAR PER UNIT A LITTLE BIT MORE, WE HAVE COME BACK DOWN A LITTLE BIT ON HOW AGGRESSIVE WE ARE WITH OUR PROJECTIONS IN 2019. THAT EXPLAINS HOW OUR DOLLAR PER VEHICLE MILE GOES UP AND SERVICE AREA TWO. SO, ONE IMPORTANT THING WE WANTED TO TALK ABOUT WITH YOU TONIGHT, AND THE STAFF AND US HAVE BEEN COLLABORATING ON THIS, WE ACTUALLY WANT TO RECOMMEND GETS COLLECTED OF THAT MAXIMUM, HOW MUCH OF IT AND WHAT IS OUR NEED AND HOW DO WE COMPARE TO SIMILAR CITIES AROUND TRAVELER. WE PUT TOGETHER A LITTLE DATA FOR THAT. HOPEFULLY THAT WILL BE HELPFUL FOR THE DISCUSSION.
WE HAVE A PROPOSED SET OF COLLECTION RATES THAT WE WANTED TO BRING BEFORE WE GET YOUR FEEDBACK ON. I WILL START WITH OUR COMPARISON OF WHERE WE ARE AT CURRENTLY AND ALSO WHAT THE MAXIMUM FEE, WHAT OUR CAPABILITY IS, WHAT OUR CEILING ESSENTIALLY IS.
FROM LEFT TO RIGHT WE HAVE GARLAND, MESQUITE, YOUR CURRENT COLLECTION RATE OF SERIOUS AREA ONE, KINNEY AND FRISCO. FRISCO IS ON THE HIGH-END, ACTUALLY BE COLLECTED IN THIS GROUP. AS YOU CAN SEE AND YOU HAVE THE CAPABILITY TO COLLECT UP TO ALMOST $7000 FOR SINGLE FAMILY HOME. LOOKING AT THE APARTMENT USE, ROWLETT CURRENTLY BELOW THE AVERAGE, THE SURROUNDING PEERS. FRISCO IS APPROACHING WHAT OUR
MAXIMUM POTENTIAL COLLECTION RATE FOR AN APARTMENT IS. >> THIS WOULD BE A TYPICAL SIZED SITDOWN RESTAURANT. THAT IS WHY WE PUT 3000 SQUARE FEET UP TOP THERE.
JUST A LITTLE BIT OF MATH INVOLVED IN CALCULATING THIS. AS YOU CAN SEE OUR DISCOUNT ON THE LAND USE IS PRETTY STRONG. OUR CAPABILITY IS WE CAN GO ON SET IT TO WHAT WE WANT.
>> JUST COMING OUT, LOOKING AT THIS, YOU KNOW, IT IS SHOCKING WHEN YOU SEE THAT.
BUT THEN YOU HAVE TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT WE ARE NOT FRISCO I WE ARE NOT GOING TO HAVE, YOU KNOW, THE STAR LIKE THE DALLAS COWBOYS IN ROWLETT, ALTHOUGH I THINK THERE WAS TALK ABOUT THAT.
I UNDERSTAND THAT, YOU KNOW, THIS IS WHY, YOU KNOW, WHEN YOU HAVE FRISCO AND MCKINNEY IN ONE END OF THE SPECTRUM. I THINK WHAT IS IMPORTANT FOR US TO LOOK AT IS MESQUITE AND GARLAND. THOSE SHOULD BE OUR TRUE COMPS FOR ROADWAY, WATER, AND WASTEWATER. WE NEED TO BE COMPETITIVE WITH MESQUITE AND GARLAND.
YOU KNOW, SO THAT WHEN PEOPLE SEE THESE SLIDES, BECAUSE IT WILL BE IN THE PRESENTATION, YOU KNOW THAT THE PUBLIC SEES, THAT THEY UNDERSTAND IT'S NOT THAT WE ARE, YOU KNOW, GIVING A FREE RIDE TO PEOPLE BECAUSE WE ARE ROWLETT, IT IS BECAUSE OUR TRUE COMPETITORS ARE OUR NEIGHBORS
NOT THE OBVIOUS SUPER GROWTH IN THE DALLAS METROPOLITAN AREA. >> WE HAVE TO DRAW DEVELOPMENT AND. WE CAN'T CHARGE WHAT FRISCO CHARGES ON EVERYTHING.
IT IS IMPORTANT THAT WE ARE NOT UNDER CHARGING COMPARED TO MESQUITE, GARLAND, OR WILEY.
THOSE ARE OUR COMPETITORS. THAT IS WHY I ASK THAT WE HAVE THESE COMPARISONS, BECAUSE I
THINK IT IS VERY IMPORTANT. >> ESPECIALLY WHEN YOU HAVE CONSIDERED BALANCING THAT LINE BETWEEN FUNDING, BUT ALSO LIKE YOU SAID IN COMPETITIVE THE RIGHT TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT.
[00:25:05]
>> THEY ON THE HIGHWAY TO. WILEY IS MORE COMPARABLE TO US. REALLY, WHAT WE'VE GOT WITH MARLON, MESQUITE, AND I THINK, IF WE ARE ALONG THOSE LINES, I PERSONALLY THINK THAT IS
APPROPRIATE. >> YOU DON'T HAVE ANYTHING PAST 2013 FOR MESQUITE?
>> THEY ARE UNDERGOING THOROUGH UPDATE NOW. >> THEY ARE LOOKING AT OUR
NUMBERS RIGHT NOW? [LAUGHTER] >> SAME SITUATION WITH MCKINNEY,
THERE ALSO UNDERGOING THE UPDATE PROCESS AS WELL. >> YOU COULD BE SEEING THESE TWO NUMBERS BUMP UP, AND THE NEAR FUTURE, SOMETHING TO KEEP IN MIND.
>> THAT IS SOMETHING THAT CITY COUNCIL CAN CHANGE, YOU KNOW, AS LONG AS THEY DON'T GO OVER THE MAXIMUM AT ANY TIME, YOU GUYS COULD APPROACH CITY COUNCIL AND SAY LOOK, WE NEED TO REVISE THIS BECAUSE WE ARE FALLING BEHIND THE POWER CURVE HERE AND WE NEED TO BUMP THIS UP.
THAT IS SOMETHING MCKINLEY DOES. WE ARE TALKING ABOUT MAXIMUMS AND PROJECTED FEES, BUT IT CAN BE UPDATED DURING THIS NEXT 10 YEAR. IS THAT CORRECT?
>> WHAT IS REQUIRED OF THIS BODY IS TO PROVIDE FEEDBACK FROM LAND ASSUMPTIONS AND THE CIP.
WE AND STAFF ARE ASKING FOR FEEDBACK ON THE COLLECTION RATE SO THAT WE ARE UNIFIED.
WHAT IS REQUIRED IS THE CIP AND LAND ASSUMPTIONS. >> MOVING FORWARD, THIS WOULD BE A 10,000 SQUARE-FOOT OFFICE BUILDING. YOU SEE A SIMILAR SHAPE TO THE GRAPH WITH THE RESTAURANT, AND JUST TO POINT OUT ON THE BOTTOM THERE, THE ACTUAL COST PER THOUSAND SQUARE FEET, THE MAXIMUM FEE IS 8154. WE JUST MULTIPLY THAT BY 10 TO GET TO THE SQUARE-FOOT OFFICE. THIS WOULD BE A 50,000 SQUARE-FOOT SHOPPING CENTER WOULD LOOK LIKE. WE ARE LITTLE BIT HIGHER ON SHOPPING CENTERS THAN THE LAST TWO USES THAT YOU. THIS GIVES YOU AN IDEA, ESPECIALLY RIGHT IN THE MIX WITH
GARLAND AND MESQUITE RIGHT NOW. >> LIKE YOU SAID, THEY ARE THEIRS RIGHT NOW.
>> WE CONSIDERED THAT, AND THE COLLECTION RATES, WILL SHOW THE NEXT COUPLE OF SLIDES HOW WE CAN
RAISE THAT TO RECOUP A LITTLE MORE OF THAT COST. >> WE ARE A LOT HIGHER.
>> WE HAVE PULLED UP THE MASTER FEE SCHEDULE FOR SEXY AND THEIR HIGH TURNOVER/SITDOWN RESTAURANT
IS $1903 PER THOUSAND SQUARE FEET. >> THAT WAS FOR A RESTAURANT? OKAY, THEY WOULD BE THE BOTTOM. IT WOULD BE AROUND 3300-DOLLAR PER 2000 SQUARE-FOOT.
>> FOR THE WATER AND WASTEWATER, WE JUST LOOKED AT THE BASE METER SIZE.
AS YOU GO UP IT IS JUST A FACTOR , SCALING UP FROM THE BASE METER SIZE.
HERE'S A COMPARISON OF WHAT IS BEING CHARGED CURRENTLY WITH THE SAME CITIES.
YOU LOOK AT GARLAND, MESQUITE'S, WE ARE BELOW MESQUITE CURRENTLY. AND THEN PRETTY WELL ABOVE
GARLAND. >> ISN'T GARLAND A PUBLIC CO-OP AND NOT COMMERCIAL? WE HAVE TO DO NORTH TEXAS WATER AND WE HAVE TO DO COMMERCIAL, IS OF THE CITY OF GARLAND PUBLIC
OWNED? >> I'M NOT SURE. >> THAT IS NORTH TEXAS.
>> AM THINKING OF POWER. I'M SORRY. >> WE HAVEN'T QUITE GOT TO THAT POINT IN THE PRESENTATION. I'LL LET YOU KNOW THAT ONE OF OUR RECOMMENDATIONS WOULD BE FOR A BASE METER SIZE, AS YOU CAN SEE THE CURRENT STUDY, THE 2019 HAD ABOUT 2253.
WE WOULD RECOMMEND 100% OF THAT AND SACKS HE IS RIGHT IN LINE WITH THAT.
>> THAT IS BECAUSE WE ARE CAPTIVE TO NORTH TEXAS. >> YOU WILL SEE VERY SOON, I AM
[00:30:05]
SURE. >> THANK YOU. >> THE LAST COMPARISON SLIDE WE HAVE IS OUR WASTEWATER IMPACT FEES. GARLAND DOESN'T SHOW UP, BECAUSE THEY HAVE WASTEWATER IMPACT FEES YOU COMPARE ROWLETT AND MESQUITE , THESE ARE ABOVE THEM FOR RIGHT NOW. WASTEWATER LIKELY POINTED EARLIER WAS THE MAXIMUM FEE GOING DOWN. WE PUT TOGETHER A FEW OPTIONS AS FAR AS WHAT COLLECTION RATES WE WOULD RECOMMEND. OF COURSE, ANYTHING UP TO THE MAXIMUM IS WHAT IS ALLOWABLE.
I WILL START WITH WHAT IS CURRENTLY BEING COLLECTED THAT IS IN THE FIRST COUPLE OF COLUMNS IN OPTION ONE. WE BLIND OUT THE SAME SIZES OF LAND USES AS AN EXAMPLE OF HOW THAT WOULD LOOK. OUR MAX FEE IN EACH OF THESE USES IS SHOWN OVER HERE IN THE TO COLUMNS. THE OPTION THAT WE DISCUSSED WITH STAFF THAT WE THINK WOULD BE A PRETTY GOOD FIT IS TO MAINTAIN THE CURRENT PERCENTAGE FOR EACH OF THE LAND USES.
WHAT THAT MEANS IS CURRENTLY A SERVICE AREA TWO, WE ARE COLLECTING 100% OF THE MAXIMUM FEE FOR SINGLE FAMILY HOME. 97% OF THE MAXIMUM FEE FOR AN APARTMENT.
AND SO ON SO FORTH. THOSE FEES AND SERVICE AREA TO WERE MASHED OVER SERVICE HOW YOU WANT TO CREATE A FLAT FEE WITH THE EXCEPTION OF SINGLE FAMILY. YOU CAN SEE ALL OF THE OTHER USES IS THE SAME FEE THAT THE DEVELOPER PAYS. WE DECIDED TO MATCH THE SAME METHODOLOGY, APPLY THESE SAME PERCENTAGES THAT WERE APPLIED IN PREVIOUS STUDY, BUT TO THE NEW MAXIMA FEES. THE END RESULT IS THAT IT DOES RAISE EACH THE IMPACT -- IMPACT FEE FOR EACH OF THESE USES. THE ONLY EXCEPTION WOULD BE THE SINGLE FAMILY FOR AREA ONE.
THAT WOULD BE A TALKING POINT TO CONSIDER WHETHER WE STAY CONSISTENT BETWEEN BOTH SERVICE AREAS OR, TO CHARGE A LITTLE BIT HIGHER FOR SINGLE-FAMILY AND SERVICE AREA ONE.
WE WANTED TO JUST SHOW A CONSISTENT METHODOLOGY AND APPLY BOTH SERVICE AREAS THE SAME RATE
USING THE SAME PERCENTAGES THAT ARE BEING USED NOW. >> WHY IS IT 97 AND SET UP 100%
FOR YOUR PROPOSAL? >> WELL, IT COULD BE 100%. >> THAT IS WHAT IS BEING DONE
NOW. >> IS THERE ANY REASON WE DON'T KNOW ABOUT OF WHY THAT IS?
AGAIN, I THINK IT HAD TO DO WITH COMPETITIVENESS. >> THE MAXI IS WAY -- I MEAN, WE KNOW APARTMENTS THERE IS A BUNCH OF DEVELOPMENTS ONLINE. AT LEAST ON APARTMENTS, IT INSTEAD OF 97 LET'S GO AHEAD AND MAKE IT A FULL 100. THAT WAY IMPACT FEES ON ROADWAYS ARE CLEARED. THERE IS REASONING BEHIND ALL OF THAT.
YOU WANT THE LOWER ONES FROM WHERE YOU WANT ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT IN OUR CITY.
WE WANT TO ATTRACT RESTAURANTS, OFFICES, SHOPPING CENTERS. WE ARE NOT HAVING A PROBLEM ATTRACTING APARTMENT SOURCE -- OR SINGLE FAMILIES. THAT 3%, I SEE NO ISSUE WITHOUT
RECOMMENDING AS A GROUP. >> ARE WE CURRENTLY 100% ON THE APARTMENTS FROM WHAT I'M SEEING?
>> THAT WOULD BE MY ONLY RECOMMENDATION AND IT GOES DOWN TO HELL YOU PUT IT.
I DON'T KNOW HOW THE REST OF THE COMMISSION FEELS ABOUT THAT, IT SEEMS TO ME THE EXTRA%.
I GUARANTEE IT IS A LOT OF DOLLARS. IT IS DOLLARS WE CAN USE,
[00:35:04]
ESPECIALLY WITH THE INFLUX OF MULTIFAMILY AND DIFFERENT DEVELOPMENTS.>> I AM EVEN A LITTLE STUCK ON THE 30-30-75. WE ARE SAYING WE WANT TO CHARGE 30% OF THE MAXIMUM FEE BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT THE ORIGINAL RATE WAS?
YET, HOW DOES THAT BALANCE. >> THAT WOULD RESULT IN $9500 FOR 3000 SQUARE-FOOT RESTAURANT
WE COULD GO BACK AND LOOK AT THAT GRAPH HERE. >> RIGHT NOW IT IS A LITTLE LESS
THAN MESQUITE AND MCKENNEY. IT DOESN'T COMPARE TO GARLAND. >> I MEAN, I KNOW EXACTLY WHAT YOU'RE SAYING. WHY ISN'T THAT 50% INSTEAD OF 30%.
THE CITY COUNCIL IS GOING TO GET INTO THE WEEDS ON THIS, NOT US. IT IS A GOOD POINT FOR THEM TO REMEMBER WE ARE GOING TO VOTE ON SOMETHING TONIGHT AND IT IS GOING TO CITY COUNCIL, IS THAT
RIGHT, JEFF? >> IF YOU VOTE AFFIRMATIVELY. >> AND THEN CITY COUNCIL IS PAYING ATTENTION TO WHAT WE'RE SAYING MAYBE BETWEEN NOW AND THAT TIME, WHATEVER WE APPROVED TONIGHT MIGHT BE SOMETHING THAT THEY LOOK AT. I AGREE WITH YOU, JOHN, YOU KNOW , IF THAT IS WHAT WE WERE CHARGING BEFORE. I'M NOT AN EXPERT AT HOW YOU ATTRACT BUSINESS. I'M SURE JIM AND ALL OF THOSE GUYS KNOW HOW TO DO THAT.
WE ALL KNOW WE NEED COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT IN THE CITY. I DON'T WANT TO JUST OUT OF THE BLUE SAY, WE'VE GOT TO BUMP THAT UP, BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW WHAT IT TAKES.
IT IS SOMETHING THAT MAY WHEN THIS GOES TO CITY COUNCIL, BETWEEN .-DOT CITY COUNCIL TAKES A STRONGER LOOK AT THESE RUNWAYS JUST BECAUSE IT WAS 30% BEFORE, MAYBE THAT IS NOT THE RIGHT
NUMBER. >> THAT IS THE ONE THING I AM HEARING A LOT FROM PEOPLE IS THEY WANT MORE SITDOWN RESTAURANTS, SOME BIGGER CHAIN RESTAURANTS.
BY KEEPING FEES LOWER, I MEAN, THAT IS THE WAY YOU ARE ATTRACTED.
THE ONE PROBLEM THAT ROWLETT HAS HAD FOR A LONG TIME IS NOT ENOUGH OFFICE SPACE, AND BUSINESSES HERE. I MEAN, IT IS COMING ALONG, BUT FOR THE LONGEST TIME YOU COULD GO TO ANY RESTAURANT HERE IN TOWN, AT LUNCH, AND THERE WAS HARDLY ANYBODY IN THERE.
IT GOT TO WHERE THERE WASN'T ENOUGH PEOPLE TO MAINTAIN RESTAURANTS DURING LUNCH BUSINESS, SO THEY WERE JUST CLOSED DOWN AT LUNCH AND JUST OPEN FOR DINNER.
YOU KNOW, YOU HAVE TO HAVE THE OFFICE, THE PEOPLE STAYING HERE AND NOT DRIVING OUT OF THE CITY TO GO TO WORK, AND STAYING IN ROWLETT AND SUPPORTING THESE BUSINESSES.
THAT IS ONE OF THE THINGS THAT ATTRACTS THEM IS LOWERING THEIR INITIAL COSTS TO GO IN.
>> LIKE I SAID, I MEAN, WE ARE NOT HERE TO REALLY DO THE NUMBERS TONIGHT OTHER THAN A FEW THINGS, JUST A GENERAL SORT OF OPINIONS THAT IS WHY WE'RE DOING THIS.
THAT WOULD BE SOMETHING I AM SURE JIM WOULD REALLY TAKE THE POINT ON TO MAKE SURE THAT THESE NUMBERS ARE IN LINE WITH OTHER CITIES IN OUR COMPETITIVE AREA. YOU KNOW, WE DO NOT WANT TO BE LOWBALLING THIS, YOU KNOW? JUST BECAUSE WE DID IT 10 YEARS AGO DOESN'T MEAN, YOU KNOW, I MEAN, WE ALL KNOW IF YOU WANT TO GO TO A RESTAURANT IN ROWLETT, THERE IS A LOT OF DRIVE THEORIES, YOU KNOW? WE LIKE, YOU KNOW, NICE ONES, AND BIG STORES AND STUFF.
ANYWAY, CITY COUNCIL, IF YOU'RE WATCHING THIS -- [LAUGHTER]
>> YOU HAVE TO LOOK AT WHAT WE ARE BETWEEN HERE. YOU HAVE FIRE WELL, YOU HAVE BASS PRO, WE ARE RIGHT IN BETWEEN THE THREE OF THOSE. WE ARE COMPETING WITH THEM TO GET THOSE TYPE OF SIT RESTAURANTS THAT THEY HAVE AND THEY ARE NOT GOING TO DUPLICATE.
THERE IS NOT A TEXAS ROADHOUSE IN ROWLETT. >> THAT IS SOMETHING THAT WERE
[00:40:05]
NOT GOING TO SOLVE TONIGHT. >> THERE IS TWO PERSPECTIVES AS WELL.
YOU KNOW, THE COUNCIL AND THE PEOPLE IN THIS ROOM THAT WILL SAY IT'S THE SAME% WE CHARGE 10 YEARS AGO. THE DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY IS GOING TO SAY THE DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY IS NEVER GOING TO SAY, OH YEAH, YOU GUYS CHARGE MORE MONEY.
THEY'RE NEVER GOING TO SAY THAT. IT IS UP TO OUR CITY COUNCIL WHO FINALLY MAKES THE DECISION.
BASED ON YOUR RECOMMENDATION, AND ALSO TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION WHY WE ARE HERE TONIGHT DOING THIS. WE WANT TO MAKE SURE BETWEEN NOW AND THE TIME CITY COUNCIL FINALIZES THIS FOR OUR 10 YEAR PLAN, EVEN THOUGH IT CAN BE CHANGED ON THE ROAD.
THINGS LIKE THIS ARE LOOKED AT REALLY CAREFULLY AND SOMEBODY DOES SOME HEAVY DUTY NUMBERCRUNCHING WHETHER WE ARE COMPETITIVE, AND JUST BECAUSE WE DID IT BEFORE IT WILL WORK IN
THE FUTURE. >> THEY WERE VERY LOW FEES TO BEGIN WITH.
WE ARE STILL LOOKING FOR RESTAURANTS. >> THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF
DEVELOPMENT IN 10 YEARS. >> IT IS IMPORTANT. ANYWAY, GO AHEAD.
I'M SORRY. >> FEEDBACK. I THINK WE ARE HEARING CLEARLY TO RAISE APARTMENTS UP TO 100%, MAYBE EXPLORE THOSE 30S THERE. I AM NOT HEARING INTEREST TO GO ALL THE WAY TO THE MAX. TRANSIENT AMINE LISTEN, YOU ARE THE EXPERT, NOT US.
WE ARE BASING A LOT OF OUR VOTING HERE AND WHAT YOUR RECOMMENDATIONS ARE.
I'M CERTAINLY NO EXPERT IN THIS. I'M A CITIZEN. WE DON'T WANT TO RECOMMEND TO CITY COUNCIL SOME BALONEY RECOMMENDATION THAT LOOKS STUPID, YOU KNOW?
YEAH, I MEAN, WE ARE BASING THIS ON YOUR EXPERTISE, YOU KNOW? >> TAKING A LOOK AT THE WATER WASTEWATER, SIMILAR APPROACH IN SAYING LET'S KEEP DOING WHAT WE'RE DOING, WHICH IS COLLECTING THE MAXIMUM FOR RESIDENTIAL, NOT COLLECTING THE MAXIMUM FOR NONRESIDENTIAL.
STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION WOULD BE THE MAXIMUM FEE FOR THE BASE METER SIZE FOR RESIDENTIAL.
>> IS THAT SOMETHING THAT IS THE NORMAL AND OTHER CITIES AS WELL? >> ON THE GRAPHS THAT WE SHOWED YOU, FRISCO IS THE ONLY ONE THAT DIFFERENTIATES BETWEEN RESIDENTIAL AND NONRESIDENTIAL.
THE OTHERS JUST HAVE THE BASE METER SIZE. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS ON THAT? THE ACTION TONIGHT HERE IS THAT WE ARE ASKING THE BODY, THE COMMITTEE, TO MAKE RECOMMENDATION FOR CITY COUNCIL TO ADOPT THE ASSUMPTIONS IN THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN AND THE IMPACT OF STUDY. AND TO MAKE RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR THE COLLECTION RATES. WHAT WE HAVE HEARD IS THAT THE COMMITTEE CONCURS WITH THE STAFF ON WASTEWATER AND IS INTERESTED IN SOME TWEAKS TO THOSE PERCENTAGES.
>> I DON'T KNOW THAT THE COMMITTEE HAS TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION ON COLLECTION
RATES. >> LET'S SEE WHAT, YOU KNOW, IF SOMEBODY WERE TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION BASED ON OUR CONVERSATION, I THINK IT WOULD BE FINE.
I MEAN, AT LEAST IT LETS THE CITY COUNCIL NO. WE ARE NOT BINDING THE CITY COUNCIL. AT LEAST IT LETS THEM KNOW THAT WE DO PAY ATTENTION TO THIS.
WE HAVE A GOOD DISCUSSION ON OPTIONS AND IF A FEW CONCERNS, TOO.
IS THAT WHERE WE ARE AT NOW? ARE YOU FINISHED WITH YOUR PRESENTATION?
IS THERE A SEPARATE ONE FROM ANDREA HERE. >> COMMISSIONERS DISCUSSION ANY
ISSUES ON THIS. >> I LIKED ALL OF YOUR COMMENTS TONIGHT.
>> I HAVE TO CONCUR AND AGREE WITH, IF WE WANT TO LOOK AT, AT WATER/WASTEWATER REMAINING THE
[00:45:05]
SAME AT THE MAXIMUM. ESPECIALLY SINCE WE HAVE BECOME A VERY HOT MARKET IN THE SENSEFOR APARTMENTS TO GO MAYBE LOOK AT THE 100%. FROM THE 97. >> OKAY.
>> I CONCUR. >> I AGREE WITH YOU. >> THE ONLY QUESTION I HAVE IS THERE A CALCULATION DWELLING UNIT? THE LAST TIME WE DID THIS WE ENDED UP SHORT OF WHERE WE WERE, AND IT LOOKS LIKE WE PROBABLY DO NOT NEED TO ASSUME THAT THE
GROWTH WILL CONTINUE AT THE RATE THAT IT IS. >> WHAT DO YOU THINK THAT IT
SHOULD DO? >> AGAIN -- TRANSIENT AMINE YOU NOW, I MEAN, MIB SOMETHING -- --
AGAIN -- >> NO, I MEAN,, YOU KNOW, I MEAN,, AGAIN, WHETHER CONTINUED
BONUS CONTINUE OVER THE NEXT 10 YEARS OR NOT. >> WILL BE A LITTLE HIGHER.
THIS CAN BE REVISITED, ALL OF THESE DOLLAR FIGURES CAN BE REVISITED IN THE NEXT 10 YEARS.
WE ARE SAYING A 10 YEAR WINDOW WITH SOME BASIC NUMBERS THAT ANY TIME THAT YOU GUYS NOTICE THAT WE ARE FALLING BEHIND OR YOU CAN COME IN, OR NO? IT WILL BE REVISITED IN FIVE YEARS. THAT IS BY STATE LAW. THE PROJECTIONS AND THE CIP
HORIZON IS 10 YEARS. >> IT CAN BE REVISED? >> THAT IS RIGHT.
>> ANY OF THESE NUMBERS CAN BE TWEAKED. IT IS ABSOLUTELY IMPORTANT THAT WE PAY ATTENTION TO THIS. DO YOU HAVE ANY OTHER ISSUES? IF YOU GO BACK TO THAT SLIDE IF SOMEBODY WANTS TO MAKE A MOTION FOR A RECOMMENDATION, YOU KNOW, THEY COULD USE THAT LANGUAGE.
WE HAVE TO MAKE SURE THAT OUR LANGUAGE IS FULL. MAYBE I'M WRONG.
DO WE WANT TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION, OR NOT? I DON'T KNOW.
>> I HAVE TO TAKE THIS OFF THE SCREEN. AS YOU RECALL, AS WE WERE SENDING THIS OUT, LAST WEEK, WE GOT SOME NEW COST DATA FOR ONE OF THE WASTEWATER PROJECTS.
IT CAUSED SOME CHANGES IN THE REPORT SO THAT THE REPORT THAT WE HAVE TODAY IS NOT EXACTLY THE
SAME AS THE REPORT THAT YOU ALL LOOKED AT. >> THE RECOMMENDATION THAT WE ARE PROVING THE ONE WITH THE MINOR CHANGES THAT ARE INCLUDED. I THINK THAT IS FINE.
PERSONALLY, I THINK WE OUGHT TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE COUNCIL.
WE ARE SITTING THROUGH THIS, TO DO THIS, TO TALK ABOUT IT. MAKES NO SENSE TO LISTEN TO IT AND SAY OKAY, WE ARE DONE. IF SOMEBODY WANTS TO MAKE A MOTION FOR A RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL, PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND AND I WILL RECOGNIZE THAT THE SPEAKER.
MARK? >> I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL TO REVIEW THE ROADWAY WITH REGARD TO APARTMENTS, THE FEE IS AT 97% AND I WOULD LIKE
TO SEE A MOVE TO 100%. >> WE ARE GOING TO COVER THE WHOLE THING.
PART OF WHAT WE DID WAS MAKE SURE THAT WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT ISN'T WITH THE FUTURE LAND USE PLAN AND THAT IS WHAT IS COVERED IN THAT FIRST PARAGRAPH. THAT IS WHAT WE ARE DOING.
WE ARE ALSO ADDING SOME THOUGHTS ABOUT THE FEES WHICH IS THE SECOND PART.
[00:50:08]
YOUR MOTION IF YOU WANT TO INCLUDE WHAT WE TALK ABOUT. >> DO YOU WANT TO REWORD YOUR
MOTION, OR WITHDRAW YOUR MOTION AND HAVE SOME DETAILS MAKE IT? >> I CAN WITHDRAW IT.
I'LL WE ASKING TO MOVE FORWARD? >> WHAT I'M ASKING IS, YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT ONE SPECIFIC THING THAT WE DISCUSSED ABOUT. I THINK IF WE COULD MAKE A MOTION THAT INCORPORATES EVERYTHING WE TALKED ABOUT TONIGHT, WE ARE RECOMMENDING WE ARE MAKING A MOTION TO RECOMMEND TO CITY COUNCIL THE LAND ASSUMPTIONS, THE 2019 IMPACT FEE STUDY, AND WE ARE MAKING THE FOLLOWING SPECIAL RECOMMENDATION, SOMETHING ALONG THOSE LINES.
>> WE START OVER. I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL TO ADOPT THE LAND-USE ASSUMPTIONS AND THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLANS THAT WE HAVE DISCUSSED HERE TONIGHT GREAT I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL REGARDING ROADWAY. IN SPECIFIC WITH THE APARTMENTS, WHERE WE ARE COLLECTING A FEE OF 97%, TO LOOK AT GOING UP TO 100% WHICH IS THE MAXIMUM FEE. WE ARE IN AGREEMENT WITH THE
WASTE/WASTEWATER FEES THAT HAVE BEEN PRESENTED TO US. >> IN YOUR MOTION, DID YOU WANT TO HAVE THEM ON THAT 30% THING, AS FAR AS THE RESTAURANTS AND WAS IT -- OFFICE TO CHECK THAT.
>> WE ALSO THE CITY COUNCIL TO REVIEW WITH THE OFFICES, AND THE RESTAURANTS THE FEE OF 30%, IF
THAT SHOULD GO UP SLIGHTLY MORE. >> DO I HAVE A SECOND ON THE MOTION?
>> I WILL SECOND. >> ANY DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? ANY REVISION OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT? TAKE THE VOTE.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. >> THANK YOU. [LAUGHTER] IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE WE ARE SUPPOSED TO DO ON THIS? AT THIS TIME WE WILL ADJOURN
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.