Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRoad Impact Fee October 2017 Revised Remarks - Blanche BrickBlanche Brick Statement on Road Impact Fees (1/8/17) (10/12/17) Some want to continue to subsidize growth and the businesses that profit most directly from it rather than utilizing this growth to help pay part of the cost and manage a more reasonable, sustainable rate of growth. We have raised taxes, borrowed money from the ROI enterprise funds, increased the wastewater rate by 8%, agreed to support a transportation fee for maintaining existing roads and bonded for $50 million to meet the costs associated with the growth we are experiencing. We have had to use general funds and our bonding capacity for certificates of obligation to cover $50 million of the $70 million in transportation costs that the CIP Citizens Advisory Committee recommended to be funded out of the $140 million in road infrastructure costs they had identified. We were unable to fund a new police station, a community center or a city hall, all of which were also recommended by the Citizens Advisory Committee, as well as some badly needed expansion of our parks for Little League and Soccer teams. To quote that great American, Yogi Berra, this is dejavu all over again. In 2010 & 2011 Council considered road impact fees and decided not to adopt these. We have heard the same arguments in 2016 that were given in 2011. Council was warned this would drive business from our city – even though in areas that had impact fees for water and wastewater over the past 5-6 years this has not proven to be the case. (We have even been told that builders will move to Bryan if we adopted these impact fees, in spite of the fact that we were also told that some builders are already building more homes in Bryan in spite of the higher tax rate there and the fact that we hadn’t adopted any impact fees.) Had we adopted water, wastewater and road impact fees in 2011, it has been estimated that the city would have collected $14 million dollars by (2016) that could have been used to meet some of these costs rather than relying solely on raising taxes, the enterprise accounts, and our bonding capacity. The 2018 budget has a tax increase and increases water rates by 6% in the 4th quarter – though not by 18% as would have been required had we not adopted water impact fees. Now we are being told that if we adopt roadway impact fees at the recommended amount, we can expect to collect $12 million over the next ten year period. (But again we are hearing that there is not the political will to make this decision.) For those who like to make decisions based on numbers, here are some numbers that should persuade you to support these road impact fees. The consulting firm hired by the Council recommended that $100 Million would be required over the next ten years to meet road infrastructure demands given present projections for growth. Our Citizens Advisory Committee found $140 million in transportation needs to cover maintenance of existing roads and expansion of future roads due to growth . They recommended $70 million and we have committed to funding $50 million with CO’s. Had we adopted these road impact fees in 2011, we would have collected $7 million by 2016. If we keep them now, even at the very low rate recommended by staff, we can expect to collect $12 million over the next 10 years. As Senator Everett Dirkson used to say, a million here and a million there and pretty soon you have spent some real money. Water/wwater fees were lowered to $3,000 when adopted to accommodate road impact fees that will ultimately increase to $1500 to keep the total amount under $5,000 – THE AMOUNT THE IFAC was told would be a reasonable amount. But more than the money is the question of fairness. What is the fairest way to fund these new roads? It has been argued that roads are different from water/wastewater because everyone uses them whereas the water fees can be tied to a specific connection. But the simple fact is that without growth these new or enlarged roads would not be needed. So they can, in fact, also be tied to a specific connection. The reason for building or expanding these roads is tied to the growth in a specific area. Our last citizen survey made it clear that traffic congestion was their #1 concern and the MPO is now conducting a Congestion Study to see how much it will cost to control congestion rather than allowing it to continue to increase as has been the case in some cities. So it seems only fair that a small portion –Council directed staff to prepare an ordinance where only 2 to 7.5% of the amount that could be collected as impact fees for commercial developments and 9 to 35% that could be collected for residential development - which together is about 10% of the expected costs of the construction these new roads require that is directly attributed to development - be collected. That is in no way putting all of the expense on one part of the community. It is asking those who profit most directly from this growth to contribute 10% to the costs we are facing. We heard from the members of the IFAC who have almost unanimously opposed the adoption of these road fees, pitifully small as they are, because they each believed these fees will have a negative impact on business. The one member of the committee who strongly supported the adoption of these road impact fees was the member of the committee who was appointed by the Council to represent the citizens of the community at large. We always need to be concerned about the impact any action we take will have on the business owners in our community but we need to be equally as concerned about the impact our decisions will have on the rest of the citizens. The material the citizen representative submitted with his remarks in support of road impact fees made it clear that all of the fears that have been expressed by specific business interests have not been what has happened in communities that adopted these fees. To the contrary, these fees have allowed growth to continue which means that businesses have prospered while the general welfare of the city has also been served. In 2011 the strongest opposition to establishing city wide impact fees came from the Home Builder’s Association. They stated the following reasons for opposing these fees: Economy is too weak right now to implement impact fees Will drive new development to Bryan and ETJ New home construction already pays for itself in 2 years Disproportionately harms entry level housing market We have heard these same concerns today. But the facts don’t support these concerns. -Today the economy is stronger, so that argument does not apply - Will drive new development to Bryan - we have already been told that some builders are building more homes in Bryan even though no impact fees were adopted in 2011 and Bryan has a significantly higher property tax and a transportation users fee. -New home construction pays for itself in 2 years. We have grown by 58% since 2000. If new home construction paid for itself in 2 years we would not be using our bonding capacity to fund $50 million of the $70 million in transportation needs recommended by the Citizens Advisory Committee in 2015, -Disproportionately harms entry level housing market. If this were true, We would not be hearing today that we do not have enough affordable housing. The lack of affordable housing was not created by impact fees because they did not exist at the time this was seen to be a problem. This is not an either/or decision. This is a decision that seeks to balance the good aspects of growth with the real costs of that growth. The Council chose not to do this 5 years ago. Surely, we will not repeat that costly decision today. To continue doing the same thing and expect different results is the definition of insanity. If changes are to be made in the very minimal fee structure which the Council adopted last fall after studying this for over a year, the changes should be to increase the amount to be collected from an average of 10% to at least 20% of the 50% of the costs of growth that is allowable under the state legislation. Some judge the health and welfare of a city by growth in population, sales and property taxes. But others look at the quality of life a city has to offer in its schools, parks and neighborhoods and the kind of jobs that are available. The Mission Statement of the City Council states that “We will work to promote and advance the quality of life for the community.” It does not say that we will, in the words of Dr. Suess’ Onsler, “keep on biggering and biggering and biggering” and taxing our citizens to subsidize this growth. There is also the fable of killing the Goose that laid the golden egg. College Station’s “golden egg” has been its commitment to building safer and secure neighborhoods and supporting an outstanding public school system and parks. In The Lorax, Dr. Suess warned that “Unless someone like you cares an awful lot, it’s not going to get any better, it’s really not.” I’m asking the Council to care an awful lot about all of its citizens. Don’t kill the goose that laid the golden egg for quick profit. Support a reasonable way to help pay for reasonable growth. Keep the road impact fees as adopted after 7 years of study by previous City Councils.