Capital Improvements Advisory Committee to ask council to confirm future land use plan before updating impact-fee projections

A city staff member leading the briefing told the Capital Improvements Advisory Committee (CIAC) that the city's auditing contractor and finance records do not produce a standalone impact-fee audit but that impact fees are reflected in the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report. The staff proposed adding a focused appendix to the next six-month report or requesting a consultant study funded from impact fees to review projections and fee calculations.

The staff said the committee is at the five-year review point required by state law and noted a large gap between projected growth and actual collections in the report's slides. "We're getting about a third of that," the staff said when describing a water-service projection, adding that the city had "collected about $1,000,000 since November '22 for water in that area." The staff explained that aligning the city's growth projections with actuals would lower per-service-unit impact fees because fewer new capital projects would be needed.

Committee members asked for clarity on whether the CIAC should request that the city council confirm the future land use plan before the committee updates its projections. The staff said the land use plan is a council-level policy that is typically reviewed at least every five years and that a council response would be needed within the statutory window for changes. The staff offered to draft a formal memo to the council on behalf of the CIAC and to include an audit-focused appendix in the next six-month report.

During the meeting the body also accepted the previously distributed minutes and voted to accept the audit summary reported by staff. The audit summary was described in the meeting as showing "no deficiencies or weaknesses." Committee members voiced support for receiving regular six-month reports that capture receipts and expenditures tied to impact-fee accounts so the CIAC can validate that funds are being collected and spent correctly.

On technical points, the staff explained that impact-fee spending is limited to projects shown on the city's future land use map for the relevant system (water, wastewater or roads). Work outside those mapped projects would be developer-funded or paid from other city funds. The staff also described how service-unit definitions (for example, a 5/8-inch water meter) and lane-mile calculations for road fees feed into per-unit fee formulas.

The committee directed the staff to draft a memo to the city council asking whether the existing future land use plan should be used as the basis for updated projections and whether the CIAC should proceed now to revise growth rates and fee calculations or wait for the council's action. The staff said it would also prepare a request for qualifications for a third-party consultant to perform the projection and impact analysis, with procurement funded from existing impact-fee balances if the CIAC chooses to move forward.

The CIAC set a follow-up meeting for June 1 at 2:00 p.m. to review the six-month report with the proposed appendix and to consider a draft memo to the council and consultant recommendations. The meeting adjourned after confirming the schedule.