Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/27/2010 Capital Improvements MINUTES CITY OF THE COLONY CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS ADVISORY COMMITTEE July 27, 2010 After determining that a quorum is present, the Capital Improvements Advisory Committee of the City of The Colony, Texas convened into regular session which was held on July 27, 2010 at 6:30 p.m. in the City Council Chambers located in City Hall, 6800 Main Street, The Colony, Texas, at which time the following item were addressed: Board Members Present: Karen Hames, Chairperson; Deville Hubbard; Helene Parker; Debbie Morrison; David Terre; Eddie McCormick and Brian Wade. Board Member Absent: None Staff Present: J. Michael Joyce, Development Services Director; Gordon Scruggs, Director of Engineering; Felicia Koppang, Recording Secretary; and Ed Voss, City Attorney. 1.0 CALL REGULAR SESSION TO ORDER Chairperson Hames called the meeting to order at 6:30 pm. 2.0 REGULAR AGENDA 2.1 Consider making a recommendation to City Council regarding the Amendment of Office Creek Drainage Impact Fees. Mr. Scruggs introduced Steven Galloway with Kimley Horn. Steven Galloway with Kimley Horn conducted a presentation of the update for Office Creek Drainage Impact Fees. Commissioner Wade asked if the comparison of impact fees showing the current impact fee versus the proposed impact fee, the ultimate goal is to promote more development by decreasing the fees. Mr. Scruggs responded that the proposed impact fees are the maximum fees that can be charged by law, but the proposed fees can be decreased based on what City Council approves. Commissioner Wade asked if the law has changed from what we are doing now versus what the proposal is. Mr. Scruggs responded yes. Mr. Galloway continued that with each process, a new study is produced based on the amount of development that is anticipated within the watershed, how much the development is going to be feeding to the improvements which then determines the percentage of total improvements that Capital Improvements Advisory Committee July 27, 2010 Page 2 of 4 can be assessed the impact fee. The flows used to determine the maximum impact fees that can be assessed is calculated at the improvements today, 10 years and under ultimate conditions. Mr. Scruggs continued, noting that there are two major elements in assessing the fees. One element is computing the CIP costs, which is the infrastructure that is already built or will be built the future. The other element is the figure used to calculate the percent for growth over a 10-year period, which was independently calculated for each structure based on the formula showing what the flow is now, 10 years from now and the ultimate flow. With that, the incremental growth over the next 10 years can be determined, and the total growth may be derived, so an appropriate fee may be applied to the cost of each structure so we get the incremental cost for the next 10 years that the City can recover from the developers for the infrastructure. The two elements limit the City because we can only charge 50% of the calculation by state law; however it benefits the developers because they are only paying the impact fees for the amount of impervious surface they are developing. Mr. Voss stated that state law states that the impact fee study is required to be conducted and evaluated every five years. Commissioner Terre asked if the timeframe was five or ten years. Mr. Voss stated the evaluation and study is required every five years, with a ten year outlook. Mr. Scruggs continued in stating that there have been changes in the Land Use Assumptions, the CIP and the Master Plan, which is one of the reasons that we have to update the impact fees. Commissioner Wade asked if a developer came in with a five acre general retail, instead of putting in concrete, they put in impervious brick pavers, would there be a credit for it and would it be encouraged or discouraged. Mr. Scruggs responded that the brick pavers have been shown in the past not to work well with the clays in the City. Commissioner Wade asked if the developer wanted to treat the clays, which would be unlikely due to the cost, would it be considered for a credit. Mr. Scruggs responded that they could still calculate the impervious area and could receive a credit, which is different from the current impact fees since it is a fixed fee for the use. The proposed fees allow for a credit for more open spaces versus more pavement results with higher fees. Commissioner Wade stated that the City is ultimately trying to encourage more green space and less concrete to be more environmentally friendly. He continued by using Home Depot as an example of an area where less concrete could be used for greener spaces, however, he realizes the City has ordinances that require a particular number of parking spaces per square foot of building. Capital Improvements Advisory Committee July 27, 2010 Page 3 of 4 Commissioner Parker asked if the current impact fee goes into the current city budget as a part of income. Mr. Scruggs responded yes, it is a separate fund, along with Drainage Impact Fees, Water/Wastewater Impact Fees and Roadway Impact Fees, which can only be spent on Capital Improvements that are approved. Commissioner Parker stated her concern is that it doesn't matter if a recommendation is made by the Commissioners because the law states the City can only charge up to 50%, and if the City is reducing the impact fee by half, the taxpayers are going to be paying more property tax as a result. Mr. Scruggs responded that ultimately at least 50% will have to be paid by other means. Commissioner Parker asked if the Commissioners had a choice but to recommend the 50% fee to City Council. Mr. Scruggs responded the Commissioners can recommend the maximum to City Council. Commissioner Terre asked if the 50% is the maximum that can be recommended. Mr. Scruggs responded yes. Chairperson Hames asked for an explanation of what a detention outfall is. Mr. Galloway responded that along Office Creek, a flat bottom, sloped large creek that holds a lot of volume, a number of barriers would be created that sit in the channel that appear as walls shaped like a trapezoid. Water would build up behind the walls and could possibly have small pipes in the bottom to allow water to trickle out in small events, The detained water behind them will spill out in a controlled rate downstream at a certain level. In larger storms, the water will go over the top. The concept is to detain the water behind the barriers, take advantage of the volume of water already in the channel and decrease the amount of flow that would continue to travel down the channel not just in a 100 year flood storm, but also in smaller storms to reduce velocities and in turn reduce erosion downstream. The proposed locations of these barriers would be Blair Oaks, Paige Road, and South Colony. There is already a barrier at Morningstar, however, it needs modification. Mr. Scruggs continued the goal would be two fold, not to increase the 100 year flood volumes so the elevations would not be increased on the stream and impact people and to control the releases of the low, frequent storms. Commissioner McCormick asked in reference to the 50% savings, there is no budget loss unless a developer comes in, utilizes the space and pays the 50% fee. Capital Improvements Advisory Committee July 27, 2010 Page 4 of 4 Mr. Scruggs responded that the City and other developers have already built a lot of the infrastructure and there are agreements in place so the City as well as the developers have already been reimbursed some and as other developers come in, they will automatically be credited on their impact fees. Chairperson Hames opened the Public Hearing. No one came forward in favor or opposition. Chairperson Hames closed the Public Hearing. It was moved by Commissioner Wade to approve Item 2.1 as presented, seconded by Commissioner McCormick and carried (6-1), with Commissioner Parker in opposition. Being no more discussion, Chairperson Hames adjourned the meeting at 7:00 pm. Ka en Harries, Chairperson Fel cia oppang t~cor~iN Secretary