HomeMy WebLinkAbout32 Correspondances Impact Area 03-02 August 7, 2003The City of
College Station, Texas
Embracing the Past, Exploring the Future.
P.O. Box 9960 • 1101 Texas Avenue • College Station, TX 77842 • (979) 764-3500
www.ci .college-station.tx.us
Memorandum
JUL 2 6 2002
To: Harvey Cargill, City Attorney
From: Brett McCully, Assistant City Engineer cc
Date: July 25 , 2002
Re: Impact Fee Questions
Harvey,
During recent discussions regarding two proposed utility impact fee areas, several
question areas came up that I would like to ask for your clarification. They involve not
oniy our ordinance(s), but are also probably affected by the enabling legislation at the
state level.
The following questions refer to the 10 year time period listed in COCS Code of
Ordinances Chapter 15 , Section 1,(D),23 and 28
1.Vls the 10 year period set by State law, or can Council modify this period? .._?c-/J
2. "What is the starting trigger to begin this period? c.;0 c;o/°71 bz___
3. If a service plan is amended, does the 10 year window restart? v /
4. Can fees be collected after the 10 year service plan time period expires? Y
fTIWhat is the maximum time period that an impact fee area can collect fees? "? 0 Can Cow1cil change the fee collection period once enacted? ; {
SB243, Section 2, (a) (7)(A) describes a credit for ad valorem taxes and utility revenue
used to repay capital debt. We do not use ad valorem taxes to repay utility debt, so the
following questions apply to the credit that would result from that portion of utility bills
used to repay debt.
What is the program period described in this section?
Can this credit be estimated based on projected utility consumption, or is this an
adjustment to be calculated after the fact either a single time or periodically?
Home of Texas A&M University
Some of these questions have probably been addressed with earlier staff, however I can
find no record of such information, and given the recent changes made as part of SB243 I
would like to make sure before we make any further decisions.
Our timing for these answers will be related to two upcoming events. Our first impact
fee area is coming up on it's 10111 anniversary in September, which may cause some
administrative changes in our fee collections. Our second impact is that water and
wastewater impact fees are proposed as part of the annexation plans currently being
considered by Council.
Please let me know if I can provide any additional information to clarify these questions,
or give any insight as to how these answers may affect our current operations and
proposals.
Thank you for your assistance.
Ir
(Brett Mccully -Impact Fee Record
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
Marla Brewer
Brett McCully
8/16/02 6:05PM
Impact Fee Record
Here is the updated impact fees. I also saved it on the 0 : drive under Impact Fees.
Stacey Ann Smith
Page 1 I
• cCully -Impact Fee Requirements
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
Brett Mccully
Harvey Cargill
8/12/02 11 :35AM
Impact Fee Requirements
Welcome to yet another fun-filled week!
A while back, I sent a memo your way with some questions on impact fee requirements. My memo came
back to me through Kelly, with the direction to reference LGC 395. At that point I realized I did not explain
my situation completely .
Chapter 395 was recently revised by SB243 of the 77th Session. There is a newly added section that is
giving us fits, and thus I would like the assistance of your experience in determining what this section
requires. I have attached what would be a revised memo that lays out the three specific issues that th is
poor engineer could not figure out on his own for your review and reference.
I ask that you consider these questions and set a time to meet with me so we can go over your
interpretations so I can move forward and get the next impact fee on to Council ASAP.
Thanks for your help!
Brett
CC: Kelly Templin
Page 1
The City of
College Station, Texas
Embracing the Past, Exploring the Future.
P.O. Box 9960 • 1101 Texas Avenue • College Station, TX 77842 • (979) 764-3500
www .ci.college-sta tion. tx. us
Memorandum
To: Harvey Cargill, City Attorney
From: Brett McCully, Assistant City Engineer
Date: August 12, 2002
Re: Revised Impact Fee Questions
Harvey,
During recent discussions regarding two proposed utility impact fee areas, several
question areas came up that I would like to ask for your clarification. I am fairly familiar
with our Code of Ordinances Chapter 15, and LGC Chapter 395, but SB 243 of the 7ih
legislative section made several key modifications that I would like to have your
interpretation on.
1. I would like verification that an impact fee may be collected for an unlimited time
period as long as the capital improvements plan and the land use plans are updated and
approved every 3 years to reflect a forecast of up to 10 years.
2. LGC Chapter 395.014 (a)(7)(A) includes the term "program period". Since I
cannot find this term defined within this chapter, or find another usage, I would like a
determination of what specifies this term. Obvious possibilities within the chapter
include the periodic update period (5 years max per state, 3 years max city), the Capital
improvement and land use plan forecast period (10 years max per state and City), or the
entire life of the impact fee from inception to final termination Specific action.
3. Finally, I would like to discuss alternative plans to calculate impact fee credits as
described in LGC Chapter 395.014 (a)(7)(A).
Please let me know if I can provide any additional information to clarify these questions,
or give any insight as to how these answers may affect our current operations and
proposals.
Thank you for your assistance.
Home of Texas A&M University
The City of
College Station, Texas
Embracing the Past, Exploring the Future.
P.O. Box 9960 • 1101 Texas Avenue • College Station, TX 77842 • (979) 764-3500
www.ci.college-station.tx.us
Memorandum
To: Harvey Cargill, City Attorney
From: Brett McCully, Assistant City Engineer
Date: July 25, 2002
Re: Impact Fee Questions
Harvey,
During recent discussions regarding two proposed utility impact fee areas, several
question areas came up that I would like to ask for your clarification. They involve not
only our ordinance(s), but are also probably affected by the enabling legislation at the
state level.
The following questions refer to the 10 year time period listed in COCS Code of
Ordinances Chapter 15, Section 1,(D),23 and 28
1. Is the 10 year period set by State law, or can Council modify this period?
2. What is the starting trigger to begin this period?
3. If a service plan is amended, does the 10 year window restart?
4. Can fees be collected after the 10 year service plan time period expires?
5. What is the maximum time period that an impact fee area can collect fees?
6. Can Council change the fee collection period once enacted?
SB243, Section 2, (a) (7)(A) describes a credit for ad valorem taxes and utility revenue
used to repay capital debt. We do not use ad valorem taxes to repay utility debt, so the
following questions apply to the credit that would result from that portion of utility bills
used to repay debt.
7. What is the program period described in this section?
8. Can this credit be estimated based on projected utility consumption, or is this an
adjustment to be calculated after the fact either a single time or periodically?
Home of Texas A&M University
I
Some of these questions have probably been addressed with earlier staff, however I can
find no record of such information, and given the recent changes made as part of SB243 I
would like to make sure before we make any further decisions.
Our timing for these answers will be related to two upcoming events. Our first impact
fee area is coming up on it's 1 oth anniversary in September, which may cause some
administrative changes in our fee collections. Our second impact is that water and
wastewater impact fees are proposed as part of the annexation plans currently being
considered by Council.
Please let me know if I can provide any additional information to clarify these questions,
or give any insight as to how these answers may affect our current operations and
proposals.
Thank you for your assistance.
r
[Carol Cotter -Re : Impact Fee Update and Staff Orientation
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
Sue Holcomb
Karl Goldapp
4/1/2005 9:21 :25 AM
Re: Impact Fee Update and Staff Orientation
Here is the work order # to be used to cut the po
WF0622045 I 001
Karl, your ti me spent in orientation meetings, etc. should be included.
Let me know if you have any questions. thanks.
Sue Holcomb
Staff Assistant
City of College Stati on
PO Box 9960
College Station, TX 77842
979/764-6335
979/764-3492 fax
»>Karl Goldapp 3/31/2005 3:32:28 PM»>
Sue,
Rimrock Consulting Company will be conducting updates on our present impact fee lines ($12,200) and
training staff on impact fee process, etc. ($14,300) to give a total of $26,500. Can you identify the location
of funds and send an account code to me, Spencer, & Carol Cotter.
Thanks again! ! !
Karl
CC: Carol Cotter; Spencer Thompson
Page 1 I
Carol Cotter -Impact Fee Proposal
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
Mickey Fishbeck <rimrok@earthlink.net>
"Cotter, Carol" <Ccotter@cstx.gov>
1/31/2005 4:31 PM
Impact Fee Proposal
Dear Ms. Cotter:
Page 1of1
Attached is a draft proposal for the water and sewer impact fees. I tried to tailor it to the
somewhat fluid work program we discussed, where we orient staff first, and then subsequently
make a determination of how to proceed. Nevertheless, I thought you would probably want
some idea of what would be involved after the staff orientation, so I prepared a scope that
assumes you will just proceed with the same multiple-service-area approach that you have
now. Let me know if the scope is responsive to your needs, or if it needs to be changed in any
way.
The cost is a time-and-materials cost, so it would vary according to the work actually
performed. Your study may turn out to be fairly simple if very little has changed since you did
the study originally. But I won't know until I get into the study and see what needs to be done.
If it requires a simpler process than what is described in the scope, then the cost will
accordingly be less.
Thank you very much for considering Rimrock. I look forward to hearing from you.
Mickey Fishbeck, AICP
Principal
Rimrock Consulting Company
512-442-1435
file://C :\Documents%20and%20Settings\ccotter\Local%20Settings\ Temp\GW} 0000 l .HTM 1/31 /2005
Carol Cotter -Re: Impact Fee Proposal
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
PS
Mickey Fishbeck <rimrok@earthlink.net>
"Cotter, Carol" <Ccotter@cstx.gov>
1/31/2005 4:46 PM
Re: Impact Fee Proposal
Page l ot 1
I forgot to mention, if you don't know: Impact fee studies can be, probably should be, paid for
with money in the impact fee accounts. You will also add the amount of the study to the
impact fees for future feepayers, so that eventually the fee program completely pays for itself.
M
file://C: \Documents%20and%20Settings\ccotter\Local%20Settings\ Temp\GW} 0000 l .HTM 2/1/2005
( .. Page 1 ot2
Carol Cotter -Data needs to begin feasibility study
From: Mickey Fishbeck <rimrok@earthlink.net>
To: "Cotter, Carol" <Ccotter@cstx.gov>, "Thompson, Spencer" <sthompson@cstx.gov>
Date: 12/23/2005 1 :48 PM
Subject: Data needs to begin feasibility study
Carol, Spencer,
Here are some data needs to begin the feasibility study. This data is the same we
would use to actually calculate a city-wide impact fee, so if it is available, we can
check it off and set it aside for use later. If it is not available, then that is part of the
feasibility assessment --to develop a list of outstanding data that will need to be
developed in order to enact a city-wide fee program.
So, as you find these items, please send them on to me; I would rather get it
piecemeal than hold everything back until the whole list is compiled. If there is
something that you do not have, then just let me know about that so I can note it.
~ -Current in-City and ET J land uses (not zoning) -acreage, for each land use type,
including at least residential, commercial and industrial land uses.
~~Curr~nt 2006 and projected 2016 population figures for City and ET J ./-'1 . ~0~or' the last ten years (or whatever historical period you have available: ~~ -Average historical customer counts for each utility separately ~ ===;> -Water gallons treated
[
-Water gallons billed
-Wastewater gallons treated
0 -Water Meter Count by Size (current)
For each type of facility in each utility (treatment, ground storage, pumping, etc.),
give the usage standard. For treatment, this is usually the average number of
gallons per LUE times the peak day factor, for example. For ground storage, it may
be a number of gallons per person or connection. Give the source of your
standard. The law requires that it be based on actual historical demand or trends of
demand during the past ten years. Call me if you have questions on this. This also
has to be determined by a PE. . , .
"" Q( l'ck h--1 ' . ' ~ ~U1hventory of existing water and sewer f~cilities. his i~ the information ha~t. must
U\ be developed by a registered PE). The inventory must include, for eachJac1llty: ~
-Facility name and type (treatm~nt, ground. storage, etc.) ~ ~f ~0-1~
-Total cost paid by College Station (excluding grants and contnbut1ons) ·
( .. v~ .,.,~ ~ -tc ~} (;,..V'""'>t. ~ ~<~
file://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\ccotter\Local%20Settings\Temp\XPGrpWise\43A... 1/6/2006
Page 2 otl
-Total capacity (MGD, MG, %, LUE's, etc.)
-Capacity needed for existing customers
~~IP of future water and sewe(r facilities, with the same type of information as the
existing facilities above. C'Dfvl)
~~h bond issue or other debt instrument funding water and sewer facilities,
vi de:
) -Date of issue
-Type of instrument (CO, Revenue bonds, etc.)
-Amount originally bonded
-Principal and interest schedule for remaining payments from 2005 until the
issue is paid off
-Precise uses of the bond proceeds. For example, out of a $5 million issue, $3
million for "XYZ" treatment plant, $1 million for "ABC" ground storage tank and $1
million for "LMN" lift station.
;.1 -Comprehensive Plan for College Station { w :\61 ~ Sl'.L~12 ?)
(5.ui:/ ~~ost recent copy of water/sewer rate study (electronic format, if possible)
r holesale service contracts, if any
, ~ -I am supposed to survey 20 comparable cities. Give me a list of the cities you ~ want included (if they don't add up to 20, I will supplement with other cities of
comparable size).
There will be more that we have to talk about and work through, but this will get you
started.
Have a very nice holiday!
Mickey
fi le://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\ccotter\Local%20Settings\Temp\XPGrpWise\43A... 1/6/2006
! Carol c.cill~r-~ land use ~es
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
City Limits:
Adrian Welsh
Cotter, Carol
1/30/2006 10:44 am
land use acres
Residential = 16097 .68 acres
Commercial = 1976.18 acres
Industrial = 1689.75 acres
ETJ:
Residential = 1349.16 acres
Commercial = 54.36
Industrial = 16.43 acres
This information is from the comprehensive land use plan.
[Tecl'"'ty1ayo -Re'.°'Tabulation of monthly utility revenue generated by new development in Impact Fee Service Areas
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
Service Areas
Bruce Albright
Ted Mayo
8/31/01 9:52AM
Re: Tabulation of monthly utility revenue generated by new development in Impact Fee
The attached files have the information you have requested. Several of the areas have no active sewer
customers so you will not have files for them. Castlegate and woodland hills are the two that do not have
sewer customers I have attached the files that have active sewer customers. I did redo the report sent
earlier to only have Court and not street for Edelweiss 7-b.
Let me know if you need additional information
>»Ted Mayo 8/30/01 3:03:08 PM »>
Thi~ looks fine except data from Edelweiss Phase 7-C (Bernburg Lane) and Phase 8 (Landsburg Lane) is
included. I can live with this if you can not separate Bern burg Court( 7-B ) from Bern burg Lane ( 7-C ) or
Landsburg Court ( 7-B) from Landsburg Lane). Thanks
>» Bruce Albright 08/30/01 01 : 17PM >»
Ted, Look at the attached file and see if it contains what you are looking for in a report. I have tried to get
the data for the first list of streets on your list. This try is just for this year. Let me know what you think.
»> Ted Mayo 8/29/01 9:04:32 AM >»
Bruce, as we discussed yesterday the Texas Legislature made changes to the statute governing impact
fees-Senate Bill 243. A major change requires the City to calculate a credit for the portion of utility service
revenues generated by new service units during the program period that is used for the payment of
improvements including the payment of debt. Theses are effective September 1, 2001 . Legal has advised
us that we need to go back to the beginning of each impact fee program period and identify the utility
revenues that were applied to the payment of improvements. My request of you is as follows: Make a
tabulation of monthly sanitary sewer revenues by residence for the following Subdivisions for the period
shown.
Sanitary Sewer Impact Fee "92-01"
Period: May 1, 2000 to August 2001
Edelweiss Phase 7-B
Streets: Landsburg Court, Bernburg Court. Augeburg Court
Sun Meadows Section 1
Streets: Sun Meadow Street. Sun Meadow Court. Hollyhock Street, Crepe Myrtle Street,
Crepe Myrtle Court, Willow Pond Street, Willow Pond Court
Edelweiss Business Center Lot 1, Blk. 3
Covenant Presybterian Church-220 Rock Prairie Road
Sanitary Sewer Impact Fee "97-01"
Period: August 1997 to August 2001
Woodland Hills
Streets: Woodland Ridge Drive, Woodland Ridge Court, Rocky Meadows Drive, Stoney Hills Court,
Woodland Springs Drive, Stone Cove Court, Stone Chase Court, Candle Stone Court
Page 1 I
(Ted""Mayo -Re:'Tabulation of monthly utility revenue generated by new development in Impact Fee Service Areas
' Castlegate
Streets: Ravenstone Loop. Belvoir Court. Rockingham Loop, Rockcliffe Loop, Clipstone Place, Crayke
Place. Kendal Green Circle. Alnwick Court. Danby Court, Appleby Place, Edinburgh Place. Roxborough
Place. Berwick Place. Tarset Court. Whitwick Place. Pickering Place
Impact Fee "97-02B"
Period: August 1997-August 2001
South Hamptoh Phase I
Streets: Windrift Cove, Cranberry Court. Bay
I realize that this request may be confusing and I may need to come over and review in detail. These are
all new developments and there should not be many active residences with the exception of Edelweiss
Phase 7-B. Many of the streets will not have active addresses especially in Castlegate.
Please take a look at this request and give me a indication of when you might be able to generate the
information requested.
Thanks
Page 2)
Fedti.--~•) Ill.Tabulation of monthly utifity revenue generated by new development i'ii"lmpact Fee Service Areas
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
Service Areas
Ted Mayo
Bruce Albright
8/29/01 9:04AM
Tabulation of monthly utility revenue generated by new development in Impact Fee
Bruce, as we discussed yesterday the Texas Legislature made changes to the statute governing impact
fees-Senate Bill 243. A major change requires the City to calculate a credit for the portion of utility service
revenues generated by new service units during the program period that is used for the payment of
improvements including the payment of debt. Theses are effective September 1, 2001 . Legal has advised
us that we need to go back to the beginning of each impact fee program period and identify the utility
revenues that were applied to the payment of improvements. My request of you is as follows: Make a
tabulation of monthly sanitary sewer revenues by residence for the following Subdivisions for the period
shown.
Sanitary Sewer Impact Fee "92-01"
Period: May 1, 2000 to August 2001
Edelweiss Phase 7-B
Streets: Landsburg Court, Bernburg Court. Augeburg Court
Sun Meadows Section 1
Streets: Sun Meadow Street, Sun Meadow Court. Hollyhock Street, Crepe Myrtle Street,
Crepe Myrtle Court. Willow Pond Street. Willow Pond Court
Edelweiss Business Center Lot 1, Blk. 3
Covenant Presybterian Church-220 Rock Prairie Road
Sanitary Sewer Impact Fee "97-01"
Period: August 1997 to August 2001
Woodland Hills
/1/t1 Streets: Woodland Ridge Drive, Woodland Ridge Court, Rocky Meadows Drive, Stoney Hills Court.
~j,.,._., s 5 Woodland Springs Drive, Stone Cove Court, Stone Chase Court, Candle Stone Court
Castlegate
Streets: Ravenstone Loop, Belvoir Court, Rockingham Loop, Rockcliffe Loop, Clipstone Place, Crayke
Place, Kendal Green Circle, Alnwick Court, Danby Court, Appleby Place, Edinburgh Place, Roxborough
Place. Berwick Place, Tarset Court, Whitwick Place, Pickering Place
Impact Fee "97-02B"
Period: August 1997-August 2001
South Hamptoh Phase I
Streets: Windrift Cove, Cranberry Court, Bay
I realize that this request may be confusing and I may need to come over and review in detail. These are
all new developments and there should not be many active residences with the exception of Edelweiss
Phase 7-B. Many of the streets will not have active addresses especially in Castlegate.
Please take a look at this request and give me a indication of when you might be able to generate the
information requested .
Page 1 I
(Ted &'lay<:> -fabuiafion of monthly utility revenue generated by new development i'ri"lmpact Fee Service Areas Page 2)
Thanks
CC: Charles Cryan ; Jim Callaway; Natalie Ruiz
Brett McCully -Steeplechase Impact Fee Area
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
Veronica,
Brett Mccully
Veronica Morgan
11/1/02 5:56PM
Steeplechase Impact Fee Area
As I think you recall, we have been on hold on this impact fee area pending response to some questions
from legal about the impacts of the recent legislative changes. I have been advised by PUD that they no
longer wish to wait, and that they want the report completed and ready for presentation to P&Z without
the input form legal.
Because of the timing of this notice, we will not be able to make the November meeting, so we should
shoot for the December P&Z, and a January Council.
I previously mentioned that I had some example calculations of the 'reimbursement plans' and have set
out my originals for you up front in case you do not already have copies. I will need them back once you
make a copy.
I will be out of town all next week, but I will be checking my e and voice mail at least daily if you have any
questions. Once I get back we will need to meet and catch up on exactly where we are and if anything is
still outstanding tor my staff report.
Thanks for your help!
Brett
CC: Carol Cotter; Kelly Templin
Page 1
..
CITY OF COLLEGE STATION
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
1101 Texas Avenue South, PO Box 9960
College Station, Texas 77842
Phone 979.764.3570 I Fax 979.764.3496
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Brett Mccully, P.E., Development Engineer
SUBJECT: Steeplechase Sewer Impact Fee Study
DATE: July 23 , 2003
Honorable Chair and Commissioners,
Under the authority of Chapter 395 of the Local Government Code, cities may
adopt a financial recapture method for many types of infrastructure
improvements where the benefit of the improvement to potential development
can be identified . These are known commonly as 'Impact Fees'.
In essence, if a city follows the impact fee process and constructs a facility
designed to serve projected land uses in a defined service area, then that city
may collect a fee upon development within that service area. The fees collected
are then used to repay the majority of bonds sold by the city to finance the
construction of the facility.
In this manner, those that develop within the impact fee area, pay their share of
the cost of providing the service required and used by their development. In
turn , a city has a means of recapturing a significant portion of the infrastructure
cost while still providing means to encourage development.
Chapter 395 prescribes a very detailed process to adopt such fees, and requires
an update process on fees once in place . One of these requirements is that an
Advisory Committee is appointed to review generated reports and provide
recommendations to the City Council for final action. College Station Code of
Ordinances Chapter 15 defines the Planning and Zoning Commission as that
advisory body. Therefore the Planning and Zoning Commission is assigned the
duties of evaluating proposals for new impact fees , as well as receiving updated
reports and considering amendments on existing fees.
The City of College Station currently has four such fees in operation, three for
sanitary sewer improvements, and one for a domestic water project. Update
reports for these existing fees are scheduled to be presented to the Commission
during the August 21 51 regular meeting .
A new impact fee is created through the following general steps :
1. Engineering study of the service area
2. Preparation of an Impact Fee Study Report
3. Public hearing and consideration study report by the Advisory Committee
4. Public Hearing on the Study land use assumptions (LUA) and Capital
Improvement Plan (CIP) by the City Council
5. Public Hearing on the imposition of Impact Fees by the City Council
For the Steeplechase Sewer Impact Fee, the first two steps have been
completed, and the executive summary of the report is attached for your
reference. This agenda item is the third step in the process.
A part of the improvements included in the CIP for this fee were identified to be
provided as part of the service plan for annexation area #1 during the most
recent annexation process.
Staff will present the contents of the Steeplechase Sanitary Sewer Impact Fee
Study and address any questions or issues that may arise.
The Commission is charged with taking one of the following actions within 30
days:
1.
2.
3.
Approval of the Study Report as presented and recommending its
presentation to City Council.
Approval of the Study Report with changes as directed, and presentation
of the revised Study Report to City Council.
Denial of the Study Report
r
To: Jim Callaway, Director
Development Services
From: Teddy D. Mayo, P.E.
Asst. City Engineer
Date: September 11 , 2001
Subject: Compliance with Senate Bill 243-Impact Fees
During the last session of the Texas Legislature several changes were made to the regulations governing
impact fees (Local Government Code Chapter 395) by way of Senate Bill 243 . Two changes which must be
addressed immediately are as follows:
• The Capital Improvements Plan must contain a plan for awarding a credit for the portion of
ad valorem tax and utility service revenues generated by new service units during the
program period that is used for the payment of improvements, including the payment of debt,
that are included in the capital improvements plan: or in the alternative, a credit equal to 50
percent of the total projected cost of implementing the capital improvements plan
• A political subdivision that imposes an impact fee shall submit a written certification
verifying compliance with Chapter 395 to the attorney general each year not later than the
last day of the political subdivision's fiscal year.
4 I."""'f"'~J ~~ Q<-<..?\ s~ 970 ~<.::., 0,1 0 l 1, c:: c:., .----#-
~ iY' 2-¢3. 3 "t //4v,,.,,,v,,._, );_/,iwd.L/:;,_ 3 s1, 35 3L,Lq. C.:<
sf < I ~·/ ' /, 3~3: ~z._3 /CJ/, 7c; 9 If) . .,,,.,.... .~---i CI f> (;,~ ,r. · 1,.5t,e19 ( ,,,,._/~ f-..:ip<4)
( /tJ0,-~/2. .,,,
() J. /, ~ /l,J.,, ~-o///)_f) j, # 0 (). 78 I 5 l ~P.. &1/? _,l.~rv
~Yto ~~
I ( 3?3t/-3& 7 1J ~L.ve-, dT? ~ _3/j
91 ;Pwo-~ . 0 .002 Ma~cl: Jt c,..d -;/:.u~ o .zo 0 -,r ..,
# 3cfi,7"~ z43,3 ?J
f; . .J' c_() fft?--1.
I' , ~· 3c:;1 . /3 ?' /l ;/,,,__, ' ''C/'
.,/ :2//7,~4·-z.1~ r?!,,
/l J ~~/;.::_<,_ 23 z.,ot...f
..._r...)YY .... , --?/ ~.,:,
~:?' _..-
C,o)Y717ltWVJ.-
qC -o I fi_/
.&:;; _,
55£},&<.)
,,,,
/6£~0
3 ou
0
Y /I
-;-~.o u
,,,.
:;c;;o.ov -__:_ ----·-----
y-7
Ze:::::<'.'.?I
Z(!';,O/ l /,.(,g.J
Zo o'Z....
2oo5
Zoo f.p
Zoo "-1
7 ~7-'~ I ._,
7,~;::;., ,., "?
0 •. , ,
h , -~---/ -.
0 ,'_)i i ·~ -:!:;_ L). ,")\ . .) 1
(.> . ~,' ·1 ) . c.?, ('»-!_ '·;; ') p I .
...\• . r,.
:;-r:,~ :?.?('
;i' if.;, d 7· -
-f ... '" .. ' . ") 1 (.. '"
"!J ~r./.·). .. ~...,, . '
/OT,i'..'. .. SS
U C\" 5['.::;J?Vaf" (~%'
',· . .-.::.··G ·'·
//?J]:· .-
10 9:.r)·~:.
,~5 .; ,<_; v,.~-· ~ ...
r:~,!v-l;~, < -~ ...
/, ;;o_::: -~
.. o-1rvl 1 I ,·-I
fl I.,'_ 1
0 . ·;v"5
~
92-0Y' ·~=<
/'~!:.I:~///,~
3; Szr.
7t;gr.-o~·
"' ;: .,
1. . 't.:>
I J 3.o,,Z..?
,· //-,, ·1 -._,
/ _,,... ,
I -
~:>7·-~ 7
. ' _, '
.... -o ..... ,
, -10 "':·)Iv
. ' ·/-/ '""~, 7-I
'IJ." '•) ·)
4 G. 17?,_
45; :?Jf
3S,zo L.
r') , I
')' )
Zo·.->
Z o :>
Z oo -':::;:;>
z_oo / b
zo.:7 I
zoo !',?
0
ZDoC/ I
I
I~joor / / :>--_) ./·-~y,., ....
-·~_;r ·· ...... _., .-;. . du ·1 , :_ ·'~ ~ 'f t")r:\ ·, c--•
6 '
0 :;:--o 1,.-c,u --;o.-,a ;; c :J -'/a
'12.cot .,
/:./~~/--: __ _ /,'
_ rl/1
·"?;; ;.;_,,.., .'e.
/: ~ ,·, . ?.
I 7 2-~· "" c;-z !1, ,.J
,,.,.
~3. /::u
,,
JCrJS11J
I~ .. J
·~ / 0 1,,t;;·,,;
-f 'l "'.1
.'jj ~·~ ; ',.,t')
.,,,r · ~ I I "'7 '
"""' .J"" , I• I 13/ O!/D :''/ ,,
_.,
8 ..., 2,1.'' l zc~ ·) :J•J / t-.v-;., I I '--,
' / ! • j ' C? ~· I 0,2 ,;;» I .... -'(~ ~ ")"' ( 7/:
j;t
cf. Dr::/ ~;'.ti () ,-ri '·· ·. -.·c)
, I ./ I
-~'
o;;-.. 1> 01-.c -:.Jf
D7,-,1 -r1 o c,·'''N I I ,, ;
I
r ·· '(
./ ,
i. • :' !
c; ?-, ; -z.o
I f-.1~; -I '
-~
/
,..
. ' ! '
..
I -··
I
I ,:I .
I ,_.
. 'J
.'.·/
·)
.)
-t./
/// ... --. Ye.~~
:J }
I'/. ;-:;,< /. / -·
~-7 !
,,,_)
,._, r-tc)
r··
So7 ...
I f?;l !J
4 ·
;-. , ,....., -.. ,.--. • _!I __ , ',,J
/17·..,. ~·,.-) (' ./ 7 1., .
I •• ·, _,.,
'I/.))
-. •.)
)
,
(.):.'.'.'..° r~-: ' '
~· ~:/ .
l-o:J /'
/-c··)
z.'">D 0
Zou 7
7 zoo )
Zo.''J
,-1 7 /..
•
or. f_) :
q ., --,. -.
......:.· <::;.
o!----~..:..-
)
-/':r/ '7 _I n~u . :-; (: --(?/.-;., , ;:/
~1 .
'••.
('.·· (".,-~
z.t::.'.')~) '
----·---,;1.-
/ (
1' ,,.-' -....
di
:_~'7$ 7 15
/1/'
.:.:;() ...-' . '
4 _., /. . I
~--'" -')
rJ-, / /C....-0 .' __..... -~-----..
. ·-,-/ ' . '.).',,)
C:,c!3 ,2'
~·· ._ -· .
-:-~~
' .. ~.
"'--(
:? -/..,.
i. <-. / ,_ -· . ···-·----,,.: ,. · ' j -
,... } . )
,t"
// ;' ') . ) / ,' ~~' ~ -.
/2/',
/ :r-
>)~
. .-
/ /:.· . .,
--______ . ......--------.. --
-,::P')_~")!?~ ~-.-
(c;-7-1-8...; 21· i
--. ")
/ --_)
)/~
.199!/t-i~
..c-.,---,.__ .... ?-:J ,,, ... , ./ .. _-:; .. r _.. , . .-. t i ,. ~ < / ,.. .• -,.
/ .' ( A . -:J -7
_ _/ rv->/C.r / . • '--~ /-.
t ( ..
/I ' ) { t'1 1 ~ ?' v--... , ... . ~ · -V2 ... ' )',
/ l:: __ Q • 'p ' .
0
0
0
~ !;(! -· /y) zB -;.. 1~0 :? 2)
.i .
• ":"-' / .)~, . I
. ~' :,....,
1f3ot?fJ I
0 I , ,, .
(.
' ! .
c iJ/, . . l ,'
:.'. _) ~' • .-:-' <_': ;,\ ,/ ~. I )
.1...-,,: • .t,;,,. i~-· ~-~
., )•·..-..
:I-' / /7 / ({>, /'..'
r . ·'. (·.'.f)..
_r ()',.
.' 10-k\. . ,.,
/·-~ /: "') .\ '?? ., .
/,
..J-M PA---~
_rec..
.. .. ,
, . -
:17 -o l
' -
/' ' . ,,
~y r.-•
---.1:... ;.rx !'>/ '
~· !C
,,.,..
7 .._ __
__:_.I l_ ~
Ph.L -
'/"
-::>-;z rr -.. '7 -1
-------· _--•. , 1 f·'
\Q'-1r ,_,,_....1'
, / ,-!"),../
J , '
" /
. ""r t .~ • ,
,#' 'I',--
/ CYl. ')7.'I
--.--: -;-.~,· _' ) --~ ...._ __
"" ,.-::; ·--:; ... ~·.-:::.,;.?
:J5 -7'1o 2.
/ou"(, / .:.JA -
/· 96 /_)/
/,.
,. I : .!~·
9?
I" " . r· I ;,;:. ' /.'. -.,_
/0,/'(.l, :.·');Ir./
Carol Cotter -impact fee area populations
From:
To:
Date:
Lindsay Boyer
Carol Cotter
7/27/2005 1:12 PM
Subject: impact fee area populations
Current:
Steeplechase-Wellborn: 390
Graham: 3,046
Harley: O
Spring Creek: 2,504
Alum Creek: 43
Estimated:
Steeplechase-Wellborn: 732 -853
Graham: 3,286 -3,526
Harley: 0
Spring Creek: 7,751 -10,667
Alum Creek: 405 -595
Page 1of1
I gave you the high and low for each because these are based on acres that are not platted and their
comprehensive plan designation (and a little guess work as to what would build and what wouldn't). The Comp
Plan gives a range of DU/acre for each land use designation, hence the range. Midpoint probably wouldn't be a
bad estimate if you need an exact number. Hope this helps-
Lindsay
file ://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\ccotter\Local%20Settings\Temp\XPGrpWise\42E7 ... 3/2/2 006
Impact Fee Projects
Bond Data
Project
SS1014 -Graham Road Extension
SS9808 -Alum Creek Sewerline
SS9809 -Spring Creek Sewer Ph I
SS9902 -Craeger/Pebble Hills II
WT9905-Harley Waterline
Utility Revenue Bond
Amount Issued
Principal Left -Original Bond
Principal Left -Refunding Bond 2003
Principal Left -Refunding Bond 2005A
Total Principal Left
Issue
Bond Issue Amount
Principal ./~o
Left
1993 $250,000.00
1998 $396,000.00
1998 $720,000.00
2000 $580,000.00
$95,558
$297,496
$540,901
$476,774
1993
$5,850,000
$0
$2,236,047
$0
$2,236,047
Not associated with a bond issue
1998 2000
$2,700,000 $10,500,000
$705,000 $3,885,000
$0 $0
$1,323,381 $4,746,260
$2,028,381 $8,631,260
..
To: Jim Callaway, Director
Development Services
From: Teddy D. Mayo, P.E.
Asst. City Engineer
Date: September 11 , 2001
Subject: Compliance with Senate Bill 243-Impact Fees
During the last session of the Texas Legislature several changes were made to the regulations governing
impact fees (Local Government Code Chapter 395) by way of Senate Bill 243. Two changes which must be
addressed very soon are as follows:
• The Capital Improvements Plan (CIP) must contain a plan for awarding a credit for the
portion of ad valorem tax and utility service revenues generated by new service units during
the program period that is used for the payment of improvements, including the payment of
debt, that are included in the capital improvements plan: or in the alternative, a credit equal to
50 percent of the total projected cost of implementing the capital improvements plan.
• A political subdivision that imposes an impact fee shall submit a written certification
verifying compliance with Chapter 395 to the attorney general each year not later than the
last day of the political subdivision's fiscal year. The certification must be signed by the
presiding officer of the governing body of the political subdivision.
The City of College Station currently has four impact fees: "92-0 l" (Sanitary Sewer), "97-0 l" (Sanitary
Sewer), "97-02B" (Sanitary Sewer), and "99-01" (Water). The maximum amount that can be charged for
each fee is calculated by dividing the total cost (including financing costs) for capital improvements
required during the !en year program period by the number of new living units added during the program
period then multiplying by the ratio of tofaf new living units created during the total period (20 years) to
the total number of living units served.
With the assistance of Kathy Hubbard in accounting and Bruce Albright in utility customer service I have
completed an analysis to determine the current status of each of the four impact fees as to compliance with
Senate Bill 243. Please note that no ad valorem taxes are used for payment of sanitary sewer bond debt.
The following table summarizes my findings:
Impact Fee 92-01 97-01 97-02B 99-01
Max. Allowable $351.33 $349.55 $243.38 $550.00
CIP Cost (including $656,829 $1,353,523 $101 ,759 $165,600
financing)(l'st. 10 yr.)
Impact Fee Utility Revenue $136 $0 $0.78 $0
Applied to Payment of CIP
New LUE's (1 'st. l 0 yr.) 688 3734 389 300
Mandated Credit/LUE $0.20 $0 $0.002 $0
Rev. Max. Allowable $351.13 $349.55 $243.38 $550.00
•
'
Current Fee $232.04 $349.55 $243.38 $550.00
In Compliance YES YES YES YES
The following describes the methodology of computing the Impact Fee Utility Revenue applied to the
payment of CIP cost:
Example-Impact Fee "92-01"
'95 Bond issue in the amount of$5.7 million
Amount for sanitary sewer projects = 20% or 1.14 million
% of 1.14 million applicable to 1192-01 11".' $473,5 18 (Total CIP cost) I $1, 140,000 x
100 = 41.5367%
Annual debt service for '95 Bond:
FYOO $582,975
FYO I $564,225
Annual sewer operating revenues:
FYOO $7,178,147
FYOI $7,505,000 (Budgeted)
Annual sewer debt service for '95 Bond
$116,595 (20%)
$112,845 II II
% of sewer rate allocated to debt service: ( p
FYOO $ 116,595/ $7, 178,147 = 0.016243
FYOl $ 112,845/ $7,505,000 = 0.015036
FYOO Sanitary Sewer Revenues Collected From New Service Units = $1,327
FYOO Sanitary Sewer Revenues Applied To CIP Annual Debt Payment =$1,327 x
0.016243 = $21.55
FYO 1 Sanitary Sewer Revenues Collected From New Service Units as of 8/31/0 I=
$7585
FYOl Sanitary Sewer Revenues Applied To CIP Annual Debt Payment = $7585 x
0.015036 = $114.05
The above shows that the City is currently in compliance with Senate Bill 243. Looking ahead we will need
to re-evaluate each of the four impact fees to project future sanitary sewer revenues that will be generated
by new service units during the program period and will be applied to the CIP debt payments and reduce
the fees as required by Senate Bill 243.
-
Brett McCully -Impact Fees and our Rate structure.
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
Brett McCully
Dale Schepers
11/13/021 :16PM
Impact Fees and our Rate structure.
Good afternoon Dale,
We're (still) trying to put together the credit plan for the Steeplechase Impact Fee report, and have finally
received some clarification from Legal on my earlier questions.
I am down to only needing information on our current sanitary sewer rate structure. Specifically, I need
the budget summary which shows how our rates were determined so I can calculate how much of our
current rates are used for debt service and reduction purposes.
Please let me know what you have, or if there is somebody else I can talk to so I can get this ready to go.
Given our 30 day notice requirements after the report is completed, we can no longer make the
December P&Z meeting, but can hit the first in January if this info is handy.
Thanks for your help
Brett
CC: Carol Cotter
Page 1
Memorandum
To: Harvey Cargill, City Attorney
From: Brett McCully, Assistant City Engineer
Date: August 12, 2002
Re: Revised Impact Fee Questions
Harvey,
During recent discussions regarding two proposed utility impact fee areas, several
question areas came up that I would like to ask for your clarification. I am fairly familiar
with our Code of Ordinances Chapter 15, and LGC Chapter 395, but SB 243 of the 7]1h
legislative section made several key modifications that I would like to have your
interpretation on.
1. I would like verification that an impact fee may be collected for an unlimited time
period as long as the capital improvements plan and the land use plans are updated and
approved every 3 years to reflect a forecast of up to 10 years.
2. LGC Chapter 395.014 (a)(7)(A) includes the term "program period". Since I
cannot find this term defined within this chapter, or find another usage, I would like a
determination of what specifies this term. Obvious possibilities within the chapter
include the periodic update period (5 years max per state, 3 years max city), the Capital
improvement and land use plan forecast period (10 years max per state and City), or the
entire life of the impact fee from inception to final termination Specific action.
3. Finally, I would like to discuss alternative plans to calculate impact fee credits as
described in LGC Chapter 395.014 (a)(7)(A).
Please let me know if I can provide any additional information to clarify these questions,
or give any insight as to how these answers may affect our current operations and
proposals.
Thank you for your assistance.
Page 1of1
Your memo of August 12, 2002 was referred to me by Harvey on October 8, 2002.
I have researched your question concerning Section 395.014(a)7(A) of the Texas Local Government Code
regarding the meaning of the term "program period". You are correct, there is no definition in the statute. I did
further research to ascertain whether that term was defined elsewhere. It is not.
As I read the statute it is my interpretation that "program period" means the period that the city has established for
the capital improvements plan to be constructed and the debt floated, if any, has been scheduled to be repaid.
With regard to your other two questions, I will be happy to schedule a meeting with you to discuss the methods
for calculating a credit. The statute provides two methods according to Section 395.014(a)7(A) or (B).
file:/ IC: \Documents %20and %20Settings\bmccull y\Local %20Settings\ Temp\GW} 00002.... 1111 3/2002
Brett,
I talked with Lewis McLain with NTCOG re: his presentation material and
explained that we would like to have a conference call with him next week to
discuss some questions related to items in his presentation. He was more
than willing to do that (he seems very nice and willing to help us
understand this stuff). He asked specifically if we could have someone from
accounting or budget on the call to hear how you have to do this accounting
for this new section. I told him that was where our questions were. He said
the budget/accounting folks need to understand this. He knows Kathy Hubbard
and Charles Cryan and asked for one of them. I told him that I thought it
might be Kathy that would listen in. Can you see if that is possible?
I have it scheduled for Tuesday Nov 26th for 9am. I wi ll come over there for
the conf call. Is that ok with you guys or do you need me to reschedule?
v
Page 1 of 1
file://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\bmccully\Local%20Settings\Temp\GW }00002.... 11126/2002
I
I -