Mineral Wells council hears Kimley‑Horn overview of impact fees; no fee adopted

The Mineral Wells City Council received a presentation from consultants at Kimley‑Horn about the mechanics and legal limits of municipal impact fees, but did not adopt a fee schedule or take formal action on the proposal.

Kimley‑Horn consultant Pete Kelly told the council that “impact fees are a one‑time fee for new development,” designed to recover infrastructure costs required to serve growth for roadways and water and wastewater systems. He said eligible uses under the state statute include capital improvements identified in an impact‑fee capital improvement plan, associated engineering and planning costs, land acquisition and debt service for CIP projects; ineligible items include routine repair and operations, upgrades solely for existing development and administrative operating costs for the impact‑fee program.

Kelly explained that water and wastewater service areas are typically citywide while roadway impact‑fee funds must be spent within a service area limited to roughly a six‑mile radius of the development that generated the fee. For water, Kimley‑Horn uses meter sizes as a standard service unit (for example, a 3/4‑inch meter represents a single‑family home; a 2‑inch meter represents a shopping center and would carry a larger fee). For roadways the practice is to compute vehicle‑miles of travel (using the ITE trip‑generation manual) to estimate how much of the network a development will use.

The firm described the steps of an impact‑fee study: define service areas, adopt land‑use assumptions, convert those to service units, compile a capital improvement plan (based on adopted master plans), and calculate a maximum assessable fee per service unit. Kimley‑Horn showed comparison figures for other Texas cities; its illustrative midpoint for combined roadway and water/wastewater fees for a single‑family home was roughly $8,500, though consultants cautioned that local master plans and growth stage strongly affect outcomes.

Kelly summarized recent Texas legislative changes that affect cities with impact fees: longer public‑notice windows for draft studies, a three‑year limit on increasing fees (cities may not raise fees again within three years of adoption), a change to advisory committee rules (the capital improvements advisory committee must include participation by planning and zoning members but cannot be de facto fulfilled only by that commission, and at least 50% of committee members must represent real estate development or building industries), and a requirement for external financial audits when updating a study. He also noted a pending rule change under consideration to allow credits for water‑conservation or reuse investments.

During questions, a council member asked whether already‑platted lots avoid fees; Kelly said properties platted before adoption have one year to pull building permits before becoming subject to the fee. The consultant also confirmed that water and wastewater fees must be spent on projects included in the impact‑fee CIP and that roadway funds are geographically limited to the service area in which they were collected.

A council member asked whether Kimley‑Horn could present comparisons from similarly sized nearby cities (for example, Eastland or Breckenridge); Kelly said the firm could provide those comparisons and emphasized that apples‑to‑apples comparisons can be difficult because cities at different stages of growth show different fee outcomes.

Staff told the council they were seeking direction on next steps: whether to pause the process or move forward with a formal request for proposals for a full impact‑fee study. The council did not vote on any ordinance or fee schedule at the meeting.

Earlier in the meeting the council approved the consent agenda (items 6–17) on a recorded voice vote, 6–0.

Next steps: if the council directs staff to proceed, the city would request proposals for a formal impact‑fee study that would produce a draft schedule and supporting capital improvement plan for further public review and required advisory‑committee feedback.