1988-05-16 CITY COUNCIL AND THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS ADVISORY COMMITTEE JOINT PUBLIC HEARING MEETING MINTUESMINUTES OF A JOINT PUBLIC HEARING OF 71E CITY SIL AMID TFE CAPITAL IMMVEM NIS
ADVISORY COMMITTEE OF TIE CITY OF PEARLAND, TEXAS, HELD ON MAY 16, 1988 AT 7:30 P. K
IN ME CITY HALL, 3519 T7EEDRIVE, PEARUM, TEXAS
The Hearing was called to order with the following present:
Mayor
Councilmember/Mayor Pro Tem
Councilmember
Councilmember
Councilmember
Councilmember
City Manager
Chairman, Capital Improvements
Advisory Committee
Tom Reid
Richard Tetens
Stella Roberts
James Bost
David L. Smith, Jr.
William Wolff
Ronald J. Wicker
Leroy Savoie
Member,
C.
I.
Advisory Committee
Al Lentz
Member,
C.
I.
Advisory Committee
James Garner
Member,
C.
I.
Advisory Committee
Helen Beckman
Member,
C.
I.
Advisory Committee
Clyde Starns
Member,
C.
I.
Advisory Committee
Mary Starr
Ad Hoc Member, C. I. Advisory
Committee
Assistant City Manager
Director of Public Works
City Secretary
Mark Klein
Donald Birkner
William Thomasset
Kay Krouse
Absent from the Meeting: Benny Frank, Member, C. I. Advisory Committee
SIGNING SIGNATIkZE ROSTER: 41 Signatures
Mayor Reid advised tonight's hearing was for the purpose of receiving testimony
concerning the work being performed in compliance with Senate Bill 336. The legisla-
tion basically sets out rules and regulations whereby a City can collect Capital
Recovery fees.
City Manager Ron Wicker and Mayor Reid stressed to the audience that this hearing has
nothing to do with annexation. For people living outside the city limits, on private
water systems or on utility district systems, this matter does not apply to them.
Capital recovery fees or impact fees will apply only to new users of the City's water
and/or sewer services.
Mayor Reid informed that this is the first of two public hearings, required by SB
336, for the purpose of determining whether the City should continue to enforce
current capital recovery charges or discontinue the practice. In compliance with SB
336, the Council has appointed the Planning and Zoning Commission as the Capital
Improvements Advisory Committee to work with the consultant, Art Storey of Bernard
Johnson, Inc., an independent and qualified professional engineer, licensed to per-
form this type of facilities planning and engineering services. Also, on the
Advisory Committee, the Council appointed a member living outside the city limits to
represent the extraterritorial jurisdiction.
Art Storey and Charles Kalkomey of Bernard Johnson, Inc. presented a set of exhibits
on land use assumptions, showing existing utility facilities and capabilities for
extending the services; showing nine areas within the city limits with projected
growth over the next ten years of single family, multi -family, commercial and
industrial units, and showing five areas of projected growth in Pearland's ETJ.
50
Mr. Storey pointed out that after this hearing, the Council will determine whether or
not to approve the land use assumptions.
TESTIMONY FWK THE PUBLIC
Mayor Reid read the names of approximately 37 people, living outside the city limits,
who signed the register but did not wish to speak at this time.
1. Tom Alexander, 3208 Nottingham.
Mr. Alexander stated that as a taxpayer he had strong objections to the City
charging capital recovery fees. He also stated he wanted an answer to his
request for the Attorney General's opinion on whether it was legal for the city
to pay an outside engineering consulting firm from capital recovery funds. Mr.
Alexander went on to say that with the economy in the poor condition it is today,
the City should promote new growth, not deter it through charging capital
recovery fees. In the past, Mr. Alexander said, capital improvements in the city
were financed by bond issues and the City experienced orderly growth. Mr.
Alexander said he believes the capital recovery fee is the most unfair tax that
can be put on a taxpayer.
2. John Alexander, Pearland.
Mr. Alexander said he agreed with his brother Tom. He feels the City should not
put roadblocks in the way of individuals or developers; the City should use the
system of bond issuing and he urged the City to give a lot of question and
thought to bring new developers into Pearland.
3. Tony Banfield, Houston, Texas.
Mr. Banfield stated that Pearland has a tremendous amount of vacant lots that are
not selling and are not bringing in any tax revenues to the City because the
values of these lots are decreasing. Mr. Banfield said he feels the Council
should consider abating this capital recovery fee until the economy recovers.
&104i 0 0Q:SII : � 4015Q U OR 1;1
Art Storey, Council and Staff answered questions from the following individuals
concerning the capital recovery fee and whether it would have an impact on those
living in our ETJ:
1. George Benn, Rt 4, Box 4746, Pearland
2. John Hawk, Pearland ETJ
3. Betty Clemens, Rt 4, Box 4451, Pearland
4. Pete Miceli, Rt 4, Box 4391, Pearland
5. Frank Clemens, Rt 4, Box 4451, Pearland
6. Mary Catherine Cousins, 7720 CR 935
7. Melvin Stratton, Pearland ETJ
8. Jeannie Savell, P. 0. Box 159, Pearland
9. Orlen O'Day, P. 0. Box 162, Pearland
City Manager Ron Wicker explained that the City has been charging capital recovery
fees for about four years. As a matter of fact, we have collected in excess of
$400,000 of which $100,000 is being used to fund this study. This study was mandated
by SB 336, passed by the State Legislature last year. The law requires that in order
for a city to charge capital recovery fees, certain procedures and guidelines have to
be met. After June 20, 1988, a city charging a capital recovery fee has to be
certain the fee charged is actually the cost involved in the impact that use will
have on the total system. The object of the hearings is for Council to receive input
from the citizens and determine whether or not to continue with a capital recovery
program; and, in any event, they are making sure all of the studies and procedures
have been legally done.
Art Storey said it was his belief that the intent of this law is to limit the power
of cities to impose capital recovery fees.
In answer to questions made previously by Tom Alexander, concerning the City's
obtaining an opinion from the Attorney General as to the legality of paying the fee
for the consulting engineer from the capital recovery fees, City Manager Ron Wicker
explained that some time back, former City Attorney Luke Daniel discussed this matter
with the District Attorney and was told that there was no need to get an opinion from
the Attorney General because it was easily spelled out in the law. Mr. Wicker read
the following excerpt from Senate Bill 336, Section 2(B):
51
"An impact fee may be imposed only to pay the costs of constructing capital
improvements or facility expansions, including and limited to the construction
contract price, surveying and engineering fees, land acquisition costs (including
land purchases, court awards and costs, attorney's fees, and expert witness
fees), and the fees actually paid or contracted to be paid to an independent
qualified engineer or financial consultant preparing or updating the capital
improvements plan who is not an employee of the political subdivision."
In addition, Mr. Wicker stated, the City did ask and receive an opinion from an
attorney, J. K. Gayle of Able and Able. Mr. Wicker said a copy of this opinion would
... be given to Tom Alexander.
Chairman of the Capital Improvements Advisory Committee Leroy Savoie pointed out that
this hearing was a joint hearing before the City Council and the Capital Improvements
Advisory Committee. He introduced the committee members and stated that this
committee was acting in the capacity of an advisory group. The members, with their
experience on the Planning and Zoning Commission, will be providing advice in their
consultations with the engineer Art Storey as they go through the different
procedures as required by SB 336.
Miad �1%���1► ,�_ 1► ��� • �� ,� , �,I �l y `i�.,�;1�i ::�
/ "I -h i;+►
The meeting adjourned at 9:00 P. M.
Minutes approved as submitted and/or corrected this --�3 day of
A. D. 1988. _
LIN
ATTEST:
Ci S
tY ary
LVK61