00:00:06
[ CALL TO ORDER ]
00:01:07
>> We will call for action on
00:01:11
the minutes which are item
00:01:13
20-0638. This is the minutes of
00:01:17
July 14th, 2020, CIP committee.
00:01:23
>> A motion to approve.
00:01:24
>> Second.
00:01:25
>> Approve the minutes from
00:01:26
July 14th. . Seconded by
00:01:29
Mr. Taylor.
00:01:31
>> You'll those in favor raise
00:01:32
your hand. All those same sign
00:01:34
wish to carries. First item is
00:01:41
1090m3-2019 impact fee update.
00:01:49
--
00:01:50
>> I'll introduce the item and
00:01:52
Aaron will jump in to get into
00:01:53
the details.
00:02:09
>> July 28, 2020. July 28,
00:04:03
2020.
00:09:40
>> Prosper at 26 square miles to
00:09:45
28 square miles. We have a lot
00:09:47
greater need, um, or a lot
00:09:49
bigger area to fill than a lot
00:09:51
of those other cities. Our
00:09:59
infrastructure cost are higher.
00:10:00
The roadway improvement plan,
00:10:01
the total cost is 465 million.
00:10:05
So you can kind of see the
00:10:06
breakdown as everyone else looks
00:10:08
at that. But more importantly
00:10:10
is really this recover cost.
00:10:12
This is what we can recover as a
00:10:14
city per state law. You see
00:10:18
McKinney can collect $302
00:10:21
million as opposed to everyone
00:10:23
else which is 116. That's based
00:10:25
on all those anticipated
00:10:28
roadways that are, um, need to
00:10:30
be built in the future. So side
00:10:34
by side comparison of those two
00:10:36
numbers. You can see on the
00:10:37
left, McKinney on quite a bit
00:10:41
bigger. Even as you look at our
00:10:43
recoverable cost, our
00:10:45
recoverable cost is higher than
00:10:46
what people can actually capture
00:10:48
for their total infrastructure
00:10:50
here. So you see that. Let's
00:10:58
move into funding sources. This
00:11:00
is a breakdown of what we did in
00:11:02
fiscal year 2020 so far. They
00:11:17
are for new growth and they are
00:11:19
on our roadway improvement plan.
00:11:21
Those are the key ones, but
00:11:23
those are the ones we look at
00:11:24
the most. Anything that's not
00:11:30
-- anything related to
00:11:32
maintenance or expansion for an
00:11:34
existing development impact fees
00:11:35
are not go towards those
00:11:37
projects. Because impact fees
00:11:39
are for new growth and adding
00:11:40
capacity to our system. So keep
00:11:42
that in mind. Um, so as we talk
00:11:46
about that, and look at funding
00:11:47
sources for those impact fee
00:11:50
eligible projects, this is the
00:11:52
breakdown you see of how they're
00:11:53
funded in the city of McKinney.
00:11:55
You have bonds, grants,
00:11:57
developer contributions and
00:11:58
impact fees. I put the number
00:12:00
up here for impact fees to show
00:12:02
how small it is right now. We
00:12:05
collect 13% or use 13 percent of
00:12:09
impact fee dollars for eligible
00:12:11
projects. So we talk about that
00:12:30
impact or range. We're going to
00:12:37
get more into that next time,
00:12:38
but I want to show the graphic
00:12:41
-- we're going to be somewhere
00:12:43
within this fee range and that's
00:12:46
where the discussion is. As we
00:12:48
move away from that recoverable
00:12:50
cost, that means anything in
00:12:52
other funding sources would have
00:12:54
to go up for that. So keep that
00:12:56
in mind. It's used for new
00:13:05
infrastructure rather than
00:13:07
maintenance. That's another
00:13:08
thing to keep in mind as we move
00:13:09
forward. What does this mean?
00:13:12
Or at least the takeaways.
00:13:15
McKinney has a lot of
00:13:17
infrastructure and it's growing.
00:13:19
Probably nothing new to anybody
00:13:22
here. Impact fee collection,
00:13:27
like I mentioned before, we can
00:13:28
collect that during our period
00:13:30
of growth so it's the one
00:13:33
opportunity to get it right or
00:13:35
pay for it later. And then
00:13:37
also, just when you start to
00:13:40
look at McKinney as compared to
00:13:43
the city -- the sister cities,
00:13:46
McKinney has more needs and it's
00:13:48
bigger and that information
00:13:49
comes into play as we present
00:13:51
that. As we move forward, we're
00:13:52
going to focus on the concepts
00:13:53
and kind of this approach to
00:13:55
impact fee funding. But we'll
00:13:59
get into that a little bit
00:14:00
later. So on the information
00:14:02
that I've provided to you today,
00:14:06
do you have initial thoughts,
00:14:08
any questions? Um, any areas
00:14:10
that you want me to kind of go
00:14:12
back and cover, focus on?
00:14:16
>> Questions, Chris.
00:14:17
>> Um, the impact fees -- I
00:14:21
apologize. You said that's good
00:14:22
for ten years? When you look at
00:14:24
the I am fact fees and they're
00:14:26
set, you said it's every ten
00:14:28
years?
00:14:29
>> It's done every five years,
00:14:30
but you look at the ten-year
00:14:32
window. So you look at the --
00:14:34
what happens over the next ten
00:14:35
years.
00:14:36
>> I know I ask this a lot, but
00:14:37
I like to think ahead. So when
00:14:39
you're considering, and I know
00:14:42
nothing is set -- the 3D
00:14:46
project, when we're looking at
00:14:48
that and growth may occur, how
00:14:50
does that -- is that
00:14:52
(Indiscernible) that that's not
00:14:53
impacting your dynamics of where
00:14:55
growth may occur over the next
00:14:57
ten years or are you considering
00:15:00
that?
00:15:01
>> It affects it a little bit
00:15:02
because that is a text stop
00:15:05
roadway and although McKinney
00:15:07
participates in part of that
00:15:08
project, a lot of the funds come
00:15:10
from text stop for those
00:15:14
projects. It's being considered
00:15:15
and we can continue to look at
00:15:17
it and monitor it. But we'll
00:15:18
see more as it actually -- an
00:15:21
alignment gets determined and we
00:15:22
have more information.
00:15:24
>> I was thinking about once
00:15:26
that's constructed -- but that
00:15:31
could be a focus, I guess, as
00:15:33
you move forward. If things
00:15:35
shifts, you can look at those
00:15:37
impact fees and those are -- and
00:15:39
assess those.
00:15:40
>> That's right. State
00:15:42
(Indiscernible) requires we look
00:15:44
at -- if there's a significant
00:15:45
change in dynamic, for example,
00:15:47
if our ATJ signs change, we can
00:15:54
do an update in between those
00:15:56
times. Minimum we have to look
00:16:00
at every five years.
00:16:01
>> How will the change in the
00:16:02
ability of the city to annex and
00:16:09
having a longer time period
00:16:11
within these impact fee studies.
00:16:15
>> Everything we show as far as
00:16:16
the roadway impact fees, they're
00:16:18
all within city limits so we
00:16:20
calculate information within
00:16:21
city limits right now. So as we
00:16:23
look to the future, it
00:16:25
definitely will have an impact
00:16:28
and a lot of our policies, um,
00:16:30
that we set is to try out of
00:16:32
those ETJ areas so we stay out
00:16:37
of those as much as possible
00:16:39
currently. But it will. Anyone
00:16:44
else.
00:16:45
>> I have a question. If you
00:16:46
can two to 16 of 19. If you can
00:16:48
run over that slide again.
00:16:51
>> Okay. So what we have here
00:16:55
is just for the fiscal year 20,
00:16:59
that's this year right now.
00:17:00
Fiscal year 20 that we're in, of
00:17:03
all the projects we have, only
00:17:05
60% of these projects are
00:17:08
eligible for impact fees and the
00:17:09
breakdown in funding from that
00:17:11
is that little pie chart you see
00:17:14
coming out of that. So bonds,
00:17:16
grants, developer contributions
00:17:18
and then impact fees. So impact
00:17:21
fees right now only cover about
00:17:23
13% of our projects in 2020
00:17:27
right now.
00:17:28
>> So the total impact fees are
00:17:29
13% verses 13% of the impact
00:17:32
fees?
00:17:34
>> I'm not --
00:17:35
>> You said earlier, my notes
00:17:37
say only 13% of the impact fees
00:17:41
goes towards infrastructure.
00:17:43
What you just said was 13% of
00:17:47
the total for impact fees cover.
00:17:51
>> Sorry. I misspoke earlier.
00:17:53
>> The developer contribution
00:17:55
would be -- what is an example
00:17:56
of that little shiver you --
00:17:59
shiver you have there?
00:18:01
>> Those are escrow funds where
00:18:03
a developer will maybe not build
00:18:04
the road right now, but
00:18:07
contribute into a fund and that
00:18:08
goes into building a roadway.
00:18:09
>> You receive the impact fees
00:18:11
from --
00:18:13
>> Builders, developers, whoever
00:18:15
is going to be building the --
00:18:18
>> A developer should not be
00:18:20
able to -- an sliver should be
00:18:25
more than that. The developer
00:18:27
has a small portion of
00:18:28
contribution towards
00:18:30
infrastructure.
00:18:31
>> Yeah. So in the city, the
00:18:35
developer is responsible for
00:18:37
building their portion. What
00:18:38
you're seeing right here is city
00:18:41
projects. This is only city
00:18:42
projects.
00:18:43
>> On the city side?
00:18:46
>> Yeah.
00:18:47
>> Good clarification.
00:18:48
>> If a developer develops a
00:18:49
neighborhood, they're doing the
00:18:51
roadways inside the
00:18:52
neighborhood. This ties it back
00:18:53
to more of the (Indiscernible)
00:18:55
to get to that developer.
00:18:56
>> Yes. That is true. But also
00:18:59
the developer is, uh,
00:19:02
responsible for the portion of
00:19:05
the arterials that's adjacent to
00:19:06
their site to provide service.
00:19:07
And so any of those arterials,
00:19:10
they typically build for their
00:19:12
site themselves.
00:19:13
>> So to Bill's 1 point, that's
00:19:16
not shown in the small sliver we
00:19:21
see on the chart.
00:19:24
>> Right. Like I said, these
00:19:25
are for capital improvement.
00:19:27
This is what the city goes out
00:19:28
and builds. That's not the
00:19:29
developer ones they build on
00:19:30
their own. Good point.
00:19:35
>> Anyone else? All right.
00:19:39
Ms. Arnold, are we receiving
00:19:42
this or taking action?
00:19:44
>> On the receiving -- only
00:19:45
receiving the report. Aaron, do
00:19:47
you want to walk-through the --
00:19:49
>> Yeah. I was going to
00:19:52
walk-through that. We're
00:19:53
meeting with you tonight. Next
00:19:54
week we meet with the Council 1.
00:19:58
In August, we have developer
00:20:00
focus to talk about their
00:20:02
feedback on options so we're
00:20:05
working on getting those
00:20:06
meetings setup right now. Over
00:20:07
the next three, I guess, every
00:20:09
other week, every time you have
00:20:10
a PNZ meeting, I'll discuss the
00:20:17
next part of the presentation
00:20:19
and we'll move on. There's no
00:20:21
action. This is a discussion
00:20:22
item. Just getting your
00:20:23
feedback and thoughts, so....
00:20:25
>> Aaron, at any time that you
00:20:27
present in the future, it's
00:20:28
possible fee structure related
00:20:31
to these impact fees and changes
00:20:32
to that fee structure, will you
00:20:35
place that back to what the
00:20:36
existing structure is so we can
00:20:37
have a comparison?
00:20:39
>> Yeah. As we move forward,
00:20:40
we'll show some of that more
00:20:42
detailed information. We're
00:20:45
taking a broad step right now,
00:20:46
and we'll move in closer and
00:20:48
show some of that, and then
00:20:49
we'll get down to actual
00:20:51
individual recommendations and
00:20:54
Latin uses of fees.
00:20:56
>> You have basically,
00:20:57
potentially case studies of what
00:20:59
our department is, and what a
00:21:01
department is, what atypical
00:21:03
shopping center is, those types
00:21:05
of studies?
00:21:06
>> We'll give examples of what
00:21:08
that is in McKinney right now.
00:21:09
We'll show some of those
00:21:11
comparisons on an individual
00:21:13
land use base. Single family,
00:21:17
multifamily. Office buildings,
00:21:18
light industrial, um, retail.
00:21:20
Some of those different shopping
00:21:22
centers type things so you'll
00:21:24
see that coming forward.
00:21:29
>> Good questions. Anyone else?
00:21:34
Aaron, thank you very much.
00:21:35
Ms. Arnold, thank you. With
00:21:37
that, rainy, we need a motion to
00:21:40
adjourn.
00:21:46
>> That's a yes.
00:21:47
>> What did you say --
00:21:50
>> Many comments, do you have --
00:21:52
any comments?
00:21:53
>> Does anyone have comments?
00:21:55
Ms. Arnold, do you have
00:21:56
anything?
00:21:57
>> Nope!
00:21:59
>> I'll make a motion to
00:22:00
adjourn.
00:22:01
>> Second
00:22:02
>> Motion and Hamilton seconds
00:22:05
by Mr. Duke. (Indiscernible).
00:22:06
[Laugher]
00:22:10
>> All those in favor, raise
00:22:12
your hand. Those opposed, same
00:22:14
sign. 7:20 and we're adjourned.