Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
Keller advisory committee reviews impact-fee study, asks council to reaffirm or update plan
Loading...
Summary
Keller's Capital Improvements Advisory Committee received a semiannual impact-fee report, reviewed how fees are calculated from land-use assumptions and service units, and agreed to ask the city council this year either to reaffirm the existing five-year assumptions or to authorize an update.
Alonzo Leon, the city's public works director, opened the Capital Improvements Advisory Committee meeting with an explanation of impact fees and why the committee exists. "It's a one-time fee for all new development that comes into town," Leon said, adding that fees are predictable because they are calculated from service-unit estimates tied to the adopted land-use plan.
Leon told members that a recent state statute change requires the advisory body to have at least five members, with a majority representing the development and building industries; the members introduced themselves to confirm the committee meets that requirement. "We have seven slots, only five of which have been filled," Leon said, and he noted the ordinance requires at least three of the five to represent real estate or the building industry.
The presentation described how staff translates land-use assumptions into a 10-year capital improvement program (CIP) and then divides the recoverable capital cost by projected service units. Using staff's examples, Leon said about $20,000,000 is recoverable over the next 10 years and that the water service-unit tally used for the calculation was 3,204. "We divide $20,000,000 by 3,204, and we get the maximum assessable impact fee," he said, and noted state law limits the city to charging at most 50% of that maximum.
Committee members pressed on whether slower-than-expected growth has produced capital-fund shortfalls. "If there are deficits of impact fees, that has to be made up by general fund," Leon replied, saying the city fronts projects and is reimbursed as fees come in, or the city may decide a project is no longer needed. JD Dodson, who identified himself as a registered nurse and former military hospital builder, asked how the audit fits into the review; Leon said the finance department performs the audit and the committee's role is to determine whether the assumptions and fee rates remain appropriate.
Leon emphasized the committee's advisory role: the council officially adopts land-use assumptions, the CIP and the impact fees. He recommended the group decide whether to meet more frequently to "crunch the numbers" and proposed the committee this calendar year ask the council either to reaffirm the existing five-year assumptions or to authorize an update. Members agreed in the session to "receive and adopt" the semiannual report procedurally and discussed dates for follow-up meetings so the committee could review corrected figures.
Staff committed to circulate corrected tables and the code citation referenced in the meeting materials and to return with the next collection update after the reporting period ends March 31. The meeting concluded with scheduling discussion and informal adjournment.
Why it matters: Impact fees help cities fund growth-driven capital improvements without putting the full burden on existing taxpayers. The committee's choice to ask the council to reaffirm or update the assumptions will affect future fee levels, the timing of projects in the CIP and whether the general fund must continue to front unrecovered costs.
Next steps: Staff will send corrected tables and the cited code excerpt to committee members, and the committee will reconvene to review audit figures and the semiannual collections report before advising the council on a reaffirmation or update.
