Advisory committee hears technical case for roadway impact fees, tables recommendation for further review

Consultants from Friese and Nichols presented a technical analysis of a proposed roadway impact fee program to the Manvel Impact Fee Advisory Committee, outlining how the city could charge new development a one-time fee to pay for added roadway capacity and capital projects.

Eddie Haas of Friese and Nichols opened the presentation, saying the program ‘‘is simply just a funding mechanism’’ and that the analysis is rooted in ‘‘Chapter 395 of the Texas Local Government Code.’’ He and consultant Ellen Almarine walked the committee through the study steps, the four legally required service areas, and the cost-per-service-unit formula: the portion of CIP costs attributable to growth divided by projected service units (vehicle miles) over a 10-year horizon.

The technical report lists 73 capacity-improving project segments with a planning-level total cost of $432,000,000 and an eligible portion of $426,000,000; after an ad valorem tax credit the recoverable system-wide cost was presented as $354,000,000. Presenters said the study translates population and employment projections into vehicle miles using Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) trip-generation rates and localized trip-length adjustments.

Committee members pressed presenters on the land-use and growth assumptions underpinning the calculations. One committee member argued that the projection of ‘‘10,000 new homes in 10 years’’ was unrealistic for Manvel, saying, ‘‘Manvel can't absorb 10,000 new homes in 10 years,’’ and asked whether an independent market-absorption study had been done. Ellen Almarine replied that staff inputs and known development applications were used and that no separate outside market study was done for absorption in this analysis; she also noted the land-use assumptions must be reviewed at least every five years and can be updated sooner if warranted.

Consultants stressed policy choices remain: the technical derivation shows the maximum fee the law allows in each service area, but the committee and council may recommend lower collection rates, different rates by land-use category (for example, lower rates for smaller ‘‘mom-and-pop’’ businesses), or uniform rates across service areas to influence development patterns. Presenters gave examples of how a single-family equivalency (3.91 vehicle miles in one area) is multiplied by a per-service-unit fee to derive the fee charged per dwelling.

Members also sought clarity on how system-wide projects that cross service-area boundaries are treated; presenters said projects inside city limits are included and, where appropriate, capacity is split between adjacent service areas. Several members raised concerns that if nonresidential growth assumed in a southern service area does not materialize, unit costs could increase or eligibility percentages would change, and recommended further verification of projections.

After discussion, Committee member (speaker 2) moved to table a recommendation to council on the impact fee policy and collection rates; Committee member (speaker 3) seconded the motion. The committee voted unanimously to table further action, and then unanimously moved to adjourn. Presenters noted the advisory committee’s letter to council would be due ahead of a targeted public hearing in December if the committee chose to proceed.

What’s next: the committee deferred a policy recommendation pending additional review of service-area projections, market absorption, and finer policy choices (collection rates and land-use exemptions). Consultants encouraged the committee to use the remaining meetings and to submit questions in writing so staff and consultants can provide follow-up information ahead of council hearings.