Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004/12/13-Minutes-City Council-Worksession FORT WORTH CITY COUNCIL CALLED— SPECIAL WORKSHOP SESSION ON GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT ISSUES MONDAY, DECEMBER 13, 2004 Present: Mayor Mike Moncrief Mayor pro tempore Ralph McCloud, District 8 Council Member Chuck Silcox, District 3 Council Member Becky Haskin, District 4 (arrived at 9:12 a.m.) Council Member Donavan Wheatfall, District 5 (left at 12:45 p.m.) Council Member Clyde Picht, District 6 Council Member John Stevenson, District 7 (arrived at 12:00 noon) Council Member Wendy Davis, District 9 (left at 1:50 p.m.) Absent: Council Member Jim Lane, District 2 City staff: City Manager Charles Boswell Assistant City Manager Libby Watson Assistant City Manager Joe Paniagua Assistant City Manager Mark Ott Acting Assistant City Manager Dale Fisseler Acting Assistant City Manager Richard Zavala City Attorney David Yett City Secretary Marty Hendrix Staff Presenters: Tom Higgins, Director of Economic and Community Development Doug Rademaker, Director of Engineering Fernando Costa, Director of Planning Frank Crumb, Acting Director of Water Department Robert Goode, Director of Transportation and Public Works Bob Riley, Director of Development Marcella Olson, Assistant Director of Water Department Administration Guest Speakers: Mac Churchill, Chairman of the IH-35W North Corridor Coalition FORTH WORTH CITY COUNCIL CALLED—SPECIAL WORKSHOP SESSION ON GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT ISSUES MONDAY, DECEMBER 13, 2004 Page 2 of 68 Guest Speakers (cont'd): Dennis Shingleton, Chairman of the Annexation Program Advisory Committee/City Plan Commission Other city staff in attendance included the other City Department Heads or their assistants and other staff support personnel. With a quorum of the Fort Worth City Council being present, Mayor Moncrief called to order the Called — Special Workshop Session on Growth and Development Issues at 9:00 a.m., on Monday, December 13, 2004, in Room 202 of the Fort Worth Convention Center, Fort Worth, Texas 76102. Workshop Obiectives Mayor Mike Moncrief Mayor Moncrief provided opening remarks and he explained the reason for this called — special workshop session. He advised of the need for review and additional information in order that the City Council can provide for direction to the City staff on critical policy issues. He stated that the issues to be covered today would be an opportunity for the City Council and City staff to look at "big picture" issues and from a city-wide perspective in order to develop a universal product. He encouraged the Council Members to look at it from that perspective rather than from just their particular Council districts perspective. Mayor Moncrief also explained that this was an opportunity for the Council to look at the issues on a long-term basis, not just for the next budget cycle. He advised of the status of Fort Worth on a national level, being the 20th largest city. He added that just living in the City, it may not feel that way; however, from the City staff's perspective it probably does due to the large amount of work it requires to keep up with the development and requests for city services. He pointed out the large amount of growth being experienced by the City. He stated that from this workshop, the Council could give the City staff the input and the direction that they need to move forward with certain policy-making directives. Mayor Moncrief explained that the City staff would be taking notes on the large writing tablets for follow-up issues and one tablet had been assigned for "the parking lot issues" that come up during the discussions that do not directly relate to the items being discussed, but are topics that the Council has an interest or needs further information or follow-up. He advised the Council of how the discussion process would proceed. Before starting the presentations, Mayor Moncrief opened the floor for comments from the Council. Council Member Picht interjected that he had a couple of issues that were of concern to him before the presentations begin. He pointed out that in his mind the Council has not determined or even discussed what span of control the City will be able to provide in staffing, and by budget, for the growing city. Also, what is the particular size, or what is the FORTH WORTH CITY COUNCIL CALLED—SPECIAL WORKSHOP SESSION ON GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT ISSUES MONDAY, DECEMBER 13, 2004 Page 3 of 68 Workshop Obiectives (cont'd) Mayor Mike Moncrief manageable size that the City of Fort Worth wants to achieve that can be addressed from the offices and staffing located at the downtown area. He added that the growth is projected to be very large in the north area of the City and there has been no long term planning for the support and staffing and City services in those areas. He added that he felt until those issues are addressed, he was concerned that the Council could not provide direction on other issues. Policy Issues Requiring City Council Direction City Manager Charles Boswell City Manager Boswell stated that this workshop session is the result of the recent presentations made to the Council for the central city revitalization efforts and the projected growth in the north and northwest areas of the City. He stated that the City staff presentations today are going to blend the two topics together and show how they are related. He explained that the agenda for the meeting is very ambitious; therefore, the City staff and City Council would reassess the workshop results at the lunch break and see what has to get completed today and then defer the rest of the presentations and discussion to a later time, if necessary. City Manager Boswell stated that there are eight presentations to be made, with one on the overall growth and trends and with seven of the presentations ending with policy questions posed to the Council. He added that then from those questions, the City staff will seek direction needed from the Council. He pointed out that those directions would be captured on the flip charts. He added that this workshop is a big investment in the Council's time and this action will help to save time in the future on these topics. He added that with the City Council and staff going through this process, it would help to determine what amount of incentives need to be used for future growth and development. (Council Member Haskin arrived at the meeting at 9:12 a.m.) City Manager Boswell took the Council through the following list of policy issues requiring the City Council's direction: 1. Economic Development Goals and Draft Incentives Policy • Are we on the right track to adequately address the challenges of revitalizing the Central City? • Should we use different thresholds/criteria upon which to judge a project's merit based on where it is located? • Are we measuring our success in the right way? 2. Surplus Property Management Policy FORTH WORTH CITY COUNCIL CALLED—SPECIAL WORKSHOP SESSION ON GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT ISSUES MONDAY, DECEMBER 13, 2004 Page 4 of 68 Policy Issues Requiring City Council Direction (cont'd) City Manager Charles Boswell • Should the City continue to "hold" surplus properties that it owns or controls for housing and economic development initiatives? • Should the City proactively assemble and market "land banked" properties? • How should the maintenance costs for properties being held be allocated and funded? 3. Public/Private Partnerships for Economic Development • Should we hold our private sector partners accountable for progress they are to make in moving community agenda items forward? • Should the City actively pool and leverage its funding resources with other sources of funding (foundations, private corporations)to support Fort Worth community development? • Is the City on the right track with how it is approaching working with the private sector to plan for the future? 4. Infrastructure Funding Challenges • How should we pay for the operation, maintenance, and rehabilitation of our existing infrastructure? • How should we pay for the operation, maintenance, and eventual rehabilitation of the new infrastructure from development within the City limits, redevelopment, and annexation? • How should we pay to build new infrastructure? 5. Draft Five-Year Annexation Program • Should City staff release the draft annexation program for public review? • Should City staff, in cooperation with the Annexation Program Advisory Committee, hold a series of community meetings on the draft annexation program and report the results of those meetings to the City Council? 6. U.S. 287 Zone Service Plan and Fiscal Impact Analysis • Should the City continue to consider the U.S. 287 Zone for full purpose annexation in 2005? City Manager Boswell pointed out that the above item relates both to policy decisions and to budget decisions. FORTH WORTH CITY COUNCIL CALLED—SPECIAL WORKSHOP SESSION ON GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT ISSUES MONDAY, DECEMBER 13, 2004 Page 5 of 68 Policy Issues Requiring City Council Direction (cont'd) City Manager Charles Boswell 7. Policy on Municipal Utility Districts (MUD) • Should City staff continue to formulate a MUD policy and to negotiate the terms of potential MUDs/WC1Ds for Council consideration? Mayor Moncrief requested the Council hold their questions until the end of the presentations. Growth and Development Trends Director of Planning Fernando Costa Fernando Costa, Director of Planning, presented the first presentation on the growth and development trends. He started with a chart showing the population growth in the City of Fort Worth from 1950 to the present day and into the future year of 2030. Those figures were 300,000 in 1950, to 598,850 in 2004, and up to more than 800,000 in 2030. He pointed out that this was statistical information from the United States Census, as projected by the North Central Texas Council of Governments. Mr. Costa pointed out that Fort Worth was the fastest growing big city in the country, with a population of 598,000 as of January 1, 2004. He stated that based upon the building permits, the population is currently well over 600,000 and shows no sign of slowing down. He stated that much of it has occurred on the edges of the City in the north, northwest, west and southwest. Using a color-coded map, he did point out that there were areas of the City where population has been lost. He advised that the downtown area is now showing growth in population for now and the future. Mr. Costa then advised of growth from the year 2000 by preliminary plats that have been approved by the City. He reviewed the developments in those areas using a color-coded map showing the preliminary plats and concept plans. He pointed out the areas in the far north and far northwest areas of the city as well as the far south and the far southwest areas. He then reviewed a chart showing the number of building permits from the year 2002 to present. The chart showed the number of single-family homes being constructed in year 2002 as 7,066 compared to the current year at 10,451. The chart also compared the high single-family unit construction to the categories of multi-family units, commercial, industrial, and other categories, where the construction was much lower. Mr. Costa presented a chart showing the value of those single-family building permits for that same permit of time, i.e., year 2002 at $739 million compared to current year at $1,008 million. FORTH WORTH CITY COUNCIL CALLED—SPECIAL WORKSHOP SESSION ON GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT ISSUES MONDAY, DECEMBER 13, 2004 Page 6 of 68 Growth and Development Trends (Cont'd) Director of Planning Fernando Costa Mr. Costa reviewed the map showing the population growth from 2000 to 2030 for the City. He pointed out the high growth areas in the north and west and southwest. He stated that the results of this map bring up the question of whether the City needs to consider decentralizing the City services out to these areas and/or combining the City's services with other entities, for example combining with the school district facilities. He gave as examples the placement of the community centers and libraries with the schools. He posed the question as to whether this joint effort would better serve the citizens. Mr. Costa stated that Fort Worth is part of a rapid growing metropolitan area. He showed a slide of the North Central Texas Council of Governments' Region totals for the next 30 years showing maps of the total population, household population, and employment. Mr. Costa then reviewed the information regarding the degree of suburban sprawl and the ranking of metropolitan areas and their degree of suburban sprawl index. He pointed out that Fort Worth is ranked Number 10, with a sprawl index of"77". He pointed out that this is not a good ranking for the City to have. Mr. Costa stated that Forth Worth is going to have to think about how the land in the City can be used more efficiently. He emphasized that the 10th greatest degree of suburban sprawl for Fort Worth is even greater than experienced by the City of Dallas. He pointed out again that this is not a positive. Mr. Costa reviewed the sprawl index chart, showing the cities of Atlanta, Georgia; Fort Worth, Texas; Dallas, Texas; Austin, Texas; Denver, Colorado; and Portland, Maine. He stated that Fort Worth competes with these certain cities and only Atlanta exceeds Fort Worth as having a worst sprawl index. He then advised of the four factors of influencing the sprawling effect as follows: 1. Street connectivity 2. Strength of downtown and other activity centers (centeredness) 3. Mix of land uses, i.e., housing,jobs, and services within neighborhoods 4. Residential density Mr. Costa presented charts showing each of those factors for the cities referenced earlier and pointed out where the City of Fort Worth was in relationship to the other cities. He pointed out that Fort Worth is below the average in this comparison in all of the categories. Mr. Costa advised of the profound effects of the sprawling and presented a slide on this information as follows: FORTH WORTH CITY COUNCIL CALLED—SPECIAL WORKSHOP SESSION ON GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT ISSUES MONDAY, DECEMBER 13, 2004 Page 7 of 68 Growth and Development Trends (Cont'd) Director of Planning Fernando Costa 1. Higher rates of driving and vehicle ownership 2. Higher levels of ozone pollution 3. Greater risk of traffic fatalities 4. Lower rates of walking and transit use 5. Increased risk of obesity and high blood pressure 6. Higher rates of arthritis, asthma, headaches, and other chronic illnesses 7. Social isolation. Mr. Costa showed the next map and explained the growth center areas identified for the categories of community mixed-use, regional mixed-use and industrial growth. Mr. Costa continued his presentation with a review of a chart showing the population of the City by age and sex from years 1990 and 2000. He pointed out that the rapidly growing age groups include the elderly (ages 90+), baby boomers (35 — 54) and children (0— 14). He reviewed the pie charts showing the race/ethnicity of the City in the years 1990, 2000 and 2020. Mr. Costa presented maps showing the locations of where the minority population resides within the City of Fort Worth for the years 1990 and 2000. He explained how certain areas of the City could change over the years. He gave as an example the Polytechnic Heights area had gone from mostly an Anglo neighborhood to African/American and was now is a Hispanic neighborhood. Mr. Costa then reviewed a slide showing the non-English speaking households from the years 1990 compared to year 2000, with the English language dropping in percentage and the Spanish speaking increasing from 14% to 20% and the Asian increasing from 1% to 2%. Mr. Costa pointed out that one-fourth of all Fort Worth households speak a language other than English at home. He presented a chart showing the levels of educational attainment comparing the City of Forth Worth with Texas and the United States and CMSA. He reviewed the graph for years 1990 and 2000 showing the number of people with a Bachelor's Degree in those referenced areas and then compared with the other larger cities in Texas. He pointed out that in the first chart it had increased from 13% to 15%. He compared Forth Worth with the City of Dallas and other areas. He stated the information reflected in that chart has been constant at 15%. Mr. Costa pointed out his concern that the City of Fort Worth is not keeping up with the education trends in higher education due to the fact that the percentages are increasing in other comparison cities. FORTH WORTH CITY COUNCIL CALLED—SPECIAL WORKSHOP SESSION ON GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT ISSUES MONDAY, DECEMBER 13, 2004 Page 8 of 68 Growth and Development Trends (Cont'd) Director of Planning Fernando Costa Mr. Costa continued his presentation with a review of the employment growth chart by place of work showing the years of 1990 through 2030, then a color-coded map showing the employment growth by place of work for the years 1995 to 2000. Mr. Costa revised the next chart showing the unemployment rates from 1990 to 2003 and the amount of fluctuations during certain periods of time. He presented two color-coded maps showing the areas of the City for unemployment in 1990 compared to year 2000. Mr. Costa advised of the various shifting paradigms in the City that have occurred to create the City of Fort Worth as one of the most "livable cities" in the country. He reviewed those items as follows: 1. Preferred development pattern from dispersed to multiple growth centers 2. Commercial development from single-use corridors to mixed-use villages 3. Multifamily development from scattered, isolated to targeted, mixed-use 4. Transportation from highway emphasis to multi-modal 5. Zoning from reactive to proactive, inclusive 6. Annexation from reactive to proactive, inclusive 7. Comprehensive plan relevance from limited to broader 8. Citizens from consumers to partners In conclusion, Mr. Costa reviewed the balancing of goals to sustain a livable city. He pointed out the need to balance economic growth with quality of life; with the free market with public purpose; and with peripheral areas within the central city. Mayor Moncrief commended Mr. Costa on this presentation and the growth the City has seen in recent years. Mayor Moncrief expressed his concern for what he is seeing in the growth trends. He referenced one of the slides of information and pointed out the lack of growth showing up on the east side and the southeast side of the City. He added that trend is continuing to show up even though the Council has identified these areas for growth and special development projects. He stated that projects are starting to happen there; but he questioned when they are going to show up in the statistical information. Mr. Costa stated that his presentation is showing growth trends based on forecasting by the North Central Texas Council of Governments. He added that trends and forecasting are usually based on what has been occurring in certain areas for a period of time. Mr. Costa advised that those trends would change and show up when the Council changes their policies and provides for new direction. FORTH WORTH CITY COUNCIL CALLED—SPECIAL WORKSHOP SESSION ON GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT ISSUES MONDAY, DECEMBER 13, 2004 Page 9 of 68 Growth and Development Trends (Cont'd) Director of Planning Fernando Costa Mayor Moncrief advised that the density is beginning to improve in certain areas and this change will help the City of Fort Worth with the commuter rail piece that is needed for transportation. He added that this has been something that has been hard for the City to address in the past as the density was just not in certain areas as noted by NCTCOG and other transportation agencies. Mr. Costa stated that the density projections are a positive trend towards addressing that issue. There was further discussion on the "suburban sprawl" issue and the need to work with adjacent communities and other agencies that lie within the city limits. Mayor Moncrief suggested the need to work closer for example with Arlington and the Arlington City Council. Mr. Costa stated that the correct answer is "yes" on the need to work jointly with other entities. He added it will be of benefit to the City to work with all of them for the development of northeast Tarrant County area as an example. Mr. Costa pointed out the city limits expanding and taking in the Counties of Parker, Johnson, Hood, and Wise, thus the need for working together with those entities in the future. There was further discussion on the traffic problems and air pollution caused from the impact that automobiles have on air pollution. Mayor Moncrief advised of the health problems he has seen and heard about and he stated that this is telling. He added he is seeing people with breathing problems, etc. He also expressed his concerns about the City of Fort Worth not keeping pace with educational trends. He indicated his interest to work closer with the Fort Worth Independent School District. He referenced the drop out rates that are being experienced. In further deliberation, Council Member Davis requested further clarification about how economic vitality is measured, i.e., job growth, economic development, increase of property values, and increase in density, etc. She referenced the population growth charts and pointed out that it appears that the central city is growing slower than the other peripheral areas. She stated that she was not sure what that was telling the Council about the economic vitality in that area. She asked if the Council should develop different economic policies for different parts of the City and what would help guide the Council's analysis in that regard. She referenced the information on the sprawl index held by the City. She also referenced the slides that had been presented that showed that policies are only as good as putting them to the best use. She explained that she has been concerned about development occurring in the far north, west, and northwest and the other growth areas and being able to meet the mixed-used policies for development. She explained that she is concerned about the single-family growth in those areas and these developments are being approved by the Council and not being supported by the other mixed uses to support the residential development. She explained that the Council has been supportive of the residential development thinking that it is low intensity zoning, however, FORTH WORTH CITY COUNCIL CALLED—SPECIAL WORKSHOP SESSION ON GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT ISSUES MONDAY, DECEMBER 13, 2004 Page 10 of 68 Growth and Development Trends (Cont'd) Director of Planning Fernando Costa perhaps it is not really a good thing and could be a bad thing. She wanted staff analysis showing the Council the patterns of single-family growth but with that development what are the sustainable uses with that zoning. She also requested the best practices that successful cities are using to accomplish what they are doing, i.e., Portland, Maine. Council Member Picht pointed out that the declining growth of the central city has been referenced as a long time problem since his service on the Council. He indicated that the presentation emphasized growth in the central city; however, the emphasis was on the downtown area rather than central city. He pointed out that the tax abatements and development incentives offered by the Council are given more often for areas outside of the intercity. He suggested that the most lucrative offers for development should be for the intercity. He felt it was good for developers to build here but not necessarily good for the city. Council Member Picht suggested that in considering the growth in the next 30 years there is a need for the City to be doing more planning with Tarrant County. He suggested more cooperation between other entities. He also supported the regional approach to working with those other entities. He suggested that more Council districts would need to be created as well with the city limits expanding. He stated that it is hard to travel into downtown, considering the traffic issues, for a one-hour meeting. He pointed out that he works more out of his Council District Office rather than coming downtown. He pointed out those areas of growth and reiterated that this needs to be considered. Council Member Picht stated that he also had a question on the educational statistical information. He raised the question about all of the new people moving to the City and whether they are just under educated or taking blue-collar jobs rather than more white-collar jobs. Council Member Picht stated that the information on the unemployment rates did not present that particular trend. He added he did not think much could be drawn from the information trend on unemployment as it was just for a particular cycle. City Manager Charles Boswell responded to Mr. Picht's employment question. He stated that from the 1950's on, the City of Fort Worth did better with providing jobs and employment centers; however, now it is no longer the case. He used Lockheed Martin (formerly General Dynamics) as an example. He pointed out that it does not have a large number of employees now, but this industry use to employ 30,000 employees when Fort Worth was a much smaller city. He pointed out that the economic trends are decreasing since the end of the Cold War. He pointed out that the City staff has been tracking these trends. He commended the city leaders on realizing at the end of the Cold War, that there needed to be diversity in the City's economic FORTH WORTH CITY COUNCIL CALLED—SPECIAL WORKSHOP SESSION ON GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT ISSUES MONDAY, DECEMBER 13, 2004 Page 11 of 68 Growth and Development Trends (Cont'd) Director of Planning Fernando Costa base. City Manager Boswell recommended that more emphasis be placed on the economic base in the City and more work was needed to diversify the economic base of the City. Mayor pro tempore McCloud felt the presentation and information was very enlightening and at the same time frightening. He referenced the suggestion to use different criteria and merits for various developments and he felt the Council should probably do so. Mayor pro tempore McCloud referenced all of the factors presented, i.e., population, mix-used centers, suburban sprawl, density, etc. He pointed out that if the City really wanted to strike a balance of all things, he posed the question of just how big does the City Council want Fort Worth to be now and in the future. He stated that determining a large size city could be counter productive. He expressed concerns for the areas shown in red and white on the maps. He indicated that he felt the City needed to work closer with the FWISD and have interaction even though the City has a tendency to stand apart from that entity. He felt the City should take a part to enhance the education in the community. He felt the City does have a bigger role to play in the education arena. Council Member Wheatfall felt that the Council needed to project their influence into the education system. He added that the economic viability of an area can be seen in what is occurring in that area and the negatives need to be turned into positives. For example, he felt that the unemployment rates might continue to rise in areas unless jobs are brought to the area. He added that poverty drives crime and that poverty is the result of lack of education. Council Member Wheatfall suggested to the Council that the City did need to engage the FWISD to address the educational issues. He advised of a tour he recently took at the National League of Cities Conference held in Indianapolis, Indiana. He pointed out what that city had done to stimulate growth and revitalization of their central city corridor to their downtown area with the use of a tax abatement policy and with general fund monies to do some land banking, and land acquisition, etc. Council Member Wheatfall pointed out that their process stimulated the growth and development in that six block area and turned the area around into a viable product that provided $1 million in taxes to the City each year. He emphasized their proactive stand from the top of government down to stimulate this economic growth. Council Member Wheatfall indicated that he felt the City is seeing unhealthy growth. He expressed concerns for the areas that are loosing population, areas that are experiencing unemployment and areas that have large populations of minorities. He felt the Council needed to be more proactive to address these issues. He referenced the charts showing the value of the building permits and the large increase in the residential centers and really a decrease in commercial centers. He added that there is a lack of commercial centers to support those growth areas and this is not a good policy for the City to follow. He felt the Council needed to be more proactive with correcting that situation. FORTH WORTH CITY COUNCIL CALLED—SPECIAL WORKSHOP SESSION ON GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT ISSUES MONDAY, DECEMBER 13, 2004 Page 12 of 68 Growth and Development Trends (Cont'd) Director of Planning Fernando Costa Council Member Haskin stated that in her opinion the Zoning Commission is not getting the correct message. She expressed her concern for what is being built in the City in the growth areas, particular for the zoning of AR for single-family residential development. She referenced the number of zoning cases that have already been approved and that are still coming forward to the Council. She stated the City is just approving what the developers' want and are not building to accommodate what really needs to occur. Council Member Picht interjected that the Zoning Commission has to comply with the Zoning Ordinance. He added that if this is not what the Council wants them to do then the Council needs to provide for other direction in the zoning policies. Council Member Silcox stated that years ago one of the major issues was the fact that there are three major taxing entities in the City of Fort Worth, i.e., the city, county, school district(s). He pointed out that these entities serve most of the same people within the City. He stated that 80 to 85% of the population is served by the school district. He stated in the year 1994/95 the school district was building schools with a library, nurse's office, gymnasium, etc. He explained that joint use facilities could be accomplished through the use of the nurse's office being made larger and providing a neighborhood clinic; the library could be used by the school during the day and staffed by the city staff for use after school hours; and the gymnasium and other recreation areas could be used by the school and after hours be used as a neighborhood community center. He advised of talking with the school district about these suggestions and they held meetings but nothing got off of the ground. Council Member Silcox pointed out that these joint efforts would be very viable in the growth areas. He pointed out that more citizens could be served with less money with the use of joint programs and infrastructures. Mayor Moncrief suggested joining with the school district and developing a pilot program at one school. Council Member Silcox stated that the City would have to come up with funding and this could be accomplished during a bond program. Council Member Picht stated that this type of joint effort is currently being done in the Crowley Independent School District with a natatorium on a park land area. Council Member Silcox stated that this could be the start of these joint use facilities. He pointed out that all of the entities are all going in different directions without communicating with each other. He gave an example of how the school was going in one direction, and the City in another direction when a new school was being built. He added these projects could be resolved with better communication between the county, school, and city to get more things done for the citizens with fewer dollars. FORTH WORTH CITY COUNCIL CALLED—SPECIAL WORKSHOP SESSION ON GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT ISSUES MONDAY, DECEMBER 13, 2004 Page 13 of 68 Mayor Moncrief suggested again a pilot program within the City be done with a agreement between the City and the FWISD or perhaps one of the other school districts in the City. Balancing Central City Revitalization with Orderly Growth In Peripheral Areas City Manager Charles Boswell City Manager Boswell presented his presentation with a slide showing the balancing goals to sustain a livable city as was just presented by Mr. Costa. He pointed out that he felt that there is a way to serve both ends, but it is a challenge as to where the City's time, efforts and resources go. He stated that it is truly a balancing act and the City cannot just focus on the central city and not the outlying areas. He stated that physical growth of the City can not continue to grow unless there is a net positive economic impact. He stated he is not in favor of making the footprint bigger unless the City will benefit. Mr. Boswell pointed out the Alliance Airport annexation issue that occurred in the past and how controversial it was for the City at the time. He emphasized how much it has contributed to the City to date and what has happened in that area for economic development for the City. Mr. Boswell also emphasized the recent Ralls Ranch Development. He stated that he felt this was another homerun for the City by capturing the growth to the City's benefit. He pointed out that all of this has to be done with good planning, etc. He stated that the challenge is to get it done with good policies. City Manager Boswell pointed out the growth is going to happen whether the City wants it or not and the population in the City's extraterritorial jurisdiction will also continue whether the City wants it to or not. He explained that the Council and City staff need to look at each opportunity and determine whether or not to capture it. Mr. Boswell pointed out that this growth trend is occurring in the areas to the north and northwest, south, and southwest, thus it is occurring all around the City. He stated that Tom Higgins, Director of Economic and Community Development, is going to talk about the incentive policies and how the City can influence the development. He stated that in reality the City would not be able to totally dictate the development and where it goes. Mr. Boswell stated that there should be a commitment to the older areas and older commercial areas, whether it be through incentive packages or infrastructure improvements, etc. He felt the best approach is through correct management and it could be part of the solution. Mayor Moncrief stated that by looking at the trends, growth, the changes in demographics and makeup, and the population numbers of the neighborhoods, the Council would be faced with addressing fiscal needs. He pointed out that the Council is going to have to FORTH WORTH CITY COUNCIL CALLED—SPECIAL WORKSHOP SESSION ON GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT ISSUES MONDAY, DECEMBER 13, 2004 Page 14 of 68 consider whether they can hold the line and is the growth fast enough and paying to serve the numbers of people moving here. Economic Development Goals and Draft Director of Economic and Community Incentives Policy Development Tom Higgins Mr. Tom Higgins, Director of Economic and Community Development, presented his first slide showing the City Council vision and goals "The Destination" with the following information: "By the year 2020, Fort Worth will be commonly recognized as the most livable city in Texas. Residents will be able to enjoy ..... the opportunities that are associated with a growing economy .... and a skilled workforce to fill high- paying jobs in local businesses...." • Become the nation's safest major city. • Create a cleaner and more attractive city. • Promote orderly growth in developing areas. • Ensure quality customer service. • Improve mobility and air quality • Diversify the economic base and create job opportunities • Revitalize central city neighborhoods and commercial districts Mr. Higgins presented the next slide showing the Economic and Community Development Department's goals, i.e., "The Vehicle" as follows: To implement the City Council's strategic goals: • Attract development projects that diversity the city's economic base and revitalize the central city. • Maximize job opportunities for Fort Worth residents from companies receiving incentives • Promote economic diversification by assisting small or medium sized companies with emphasis on women and minority-owned businesses Mr. Higgins went over the Draft Incentive Policy, i.e., "The Roadmap". The guiding principles are as follows: • Promote development that conforms to the community's vision as expressed in the Comprehensive Plan and other widely accepted community plans. FORTH WORTH CITY COUNCIL CALLED—SPECIAL WORKSHOP SESSION ON GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT ISSUES MONDAY, DECEMBER 13, 2004 Page 15 of 68 Economic Development Goals and Draft Director of Economic and Community Incentives Policy (cont'd) Development Tom Higgins • Significantly advance City Council goals such as job creation, retention of Fort Worth residents, and utilization of Fort Worth-based companies, including certified Fort Worth Minority/Women Business Enterprise companies, the provision of affordable housing, historic preservation and balanced and fiscally responsible growth. • Provide preference for projects in targeted areas that create mixed-use activity centers (or components thereof) emphasizing live/work opportunities with multi- modal access (e.g., Urban Villages, NEZ, model blocks, CDBG eligible areas, etc.) • Avoid negative financial impacts to the funding of general government operations and effectively leverage private dollars. • Provide assistance for eligible projects that have verifiable financing gaps at a level not to exceed incremental dollars generated by the planned investment. • Create opportunities for the utilization of minority-owned businesses and woman- owned businesses. • Capitalize on near or mid-term market opportunities. • Provide assistance for the minimum possible length of time. Mr. Higgins continued his presentation with a review of the unique features of the Draft Incentive Policy as follows: Targets Public Resources: • Evaluate projects in a larger contest as a"portfolio of assets" • Acknowledgment that certain areas have bigger challenges • Coordinates "layering" of incentives Public Investment Requires a"Return" • Sensitivity to project feasibility in the context of market conditions • Magnitude and structure of incentive package tied to public value of proj ect • Rigorous evaluation requires that developers have an "open-book" Ties Together and Complements Existing Policies • References related policy and regulatory documents • Format is responsive to a range of audiences • Flexibility provides the ability to amend and revise incentive policy FORTH WORTH CITY COUNCIL CALLED—SPECIAL WORKSHOP SESSION ON GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT ISSUES MONDAY, DECEMBER 13, 2004 Page 16 of 68 Economic Development Goals and Draft Director of Economic and Community Incentives Policy (cont'd) Development Tom Higgins He went on to review a map showing the 13 Priority Preference Areas and reviewed those areas of the city. He advised of criteria for those types of areas. Mr. Higgins continued his presentation with a slide of information on the Market Perception or Risk/Reward --What We Have Learned as follows: • Private sector perceives risk in difference degrees depending on the unique characteristics of the village. • IH35W as the "great divide" of central city market dynamics • Prediction has become reality in just two years: • Urban Villages west of IH35W have experienced investment • Amount of public sector commitment will need to be greater in east villages to"prime the pump" • Pump priming in areas with greater market risk is not all about money. Mr. Higgins then reviewed the map showing the target leverage concept, which showed the City's current practice of 10:1 leverage ratio (private dollars spent for every public dollar). Minimize fiscal impact to the City: Total value of incentive available not to exceed incremental dollars generated. Director Higgins presented the list of policies included as follows: • Tax Abatement Policy • Tax Increment Financing Policy • Local Grants Policy (Chapter 380) • Neighborhood Empowerment Zone Policy • Community Facilities Agreement Policy (including Enhanced CFAs) • Land Transaction/Surplus Property Policy • Zoning Ordinance No. 13896 Section 4-31 (Related to Preservation Incentives) • Citywide Historic Preservation Plan (July 2003) • Housing Policy • M/WBE Company Utilization Mr. Higgins then reviewed the chart showing the list of ways to measure the success as follows: FORTH WORTH CITY COUNCIL CALLED—SPECIAL WORKSHOP SESSION ON GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT ISSUES MONDAY, DECEMBER 13, 2004 Page 17 of 68 Economic Development Goals and Draft Director of Economic and Community Incentives Policy (cont'd) Development Tom Higgins • Number of new companies recruited to the Central City and outside the Central City • Number of jobs created or retained • Number of Fort Worth/Central City residents employed at companies receiving incentives • Value of economic development agreements approved • Number of businesses started and expanded • Value of Fort Worth MWBE contracts • Value of private investment for companies receiving incentives • Value of new public funds made available to leverage private investment In conclusion, Mr. Higgins reviewed the list of questions posed to the City Council regarding his presentation as follows, with the City staff s recommended response: Are we on the right track to adequately address the challenges of revitalizing the Central City? City staff recommendation: "Yes", but need to move to complete and adopt the Comprehensive Incentive Policy and develop a formalized marketing plan. Mayor Moncrief asked about the 10 to 1 plan and whether it was appropriate or did it need to be adjusted to meet the needs of what is occurring in the City of Fort Worth and how is this plan measured to date. Mr. Higgins stated that he felt it has served the City well but currently it is not getting the City where it needs to be. Mr. Higgins added that he felt it was the financial guideline, but it would take more to get where the City needs to be. Mayor Moncrief interjected that this is part of the layering process presented by Mr. Higgins. He felt it is a tool that needs to be compromised and could be changed to meet certain needs. Council Member Davis referenced the comments made by Mr. Higgins that the City might want to use a different ratio for public/private development where development has been targeted but the City is not seeing it occur. She suggested that she wants to include as part of the policy a shift from what the City has done with regard to the partnership with the developer. She explained that the City has seen that in some cases that the results of the pro forma are much more favorable to the developer than was originally estimated at the time of the agreement; therefore, the developer is reaping those benefits and not the City. Council Member Davis recommended that the Council consider crafting the economic development agreements to include the provision that if the pro forma meets or exceeds the expectations then the City is able to share in the return of the incentive that the City has put into that project. She gave an example that if the developer achieves a 50%profit then the City would receive the same type of ratio FORTH WORTH CITY COUNCIL CALLED—SPECIAL WORKSHOP SESSION ON GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT ISSUES MONDAY, DECEMBER 13, 2004 Page 18 of 68 Economic Development Goals and Draft Director of Economic and Community Incentives Policy (cont'd) Development Tom Higgins profit. She explained that this policy would be used in just certain areas. Council Member Davis suggested that one policy might be used for west of I-35W and another be used for east of I- 35W. She explained further that when the risk by the developer is very large then the developer's profit should be higher as they had more to loose if the development did not succeed. Council Member Davis referenced the use of a "marketing plan" and she emphasized that she felt it was the "key." She wanted to aggressively put it on the table and for developers to know that it is available. She wanted to hire marketing expertise to work with the City to get the information out. She wanted the City to get more into developer partnering rather than planning partnering. She gave as an example the Evans and Rosedale Project and how people in the private development sector stepped up and pointed out to the City the mistake to use the prime piece of property for the public health building rather than opening it up for private development. Council Member Davis encouraged the use of"real world" developers partnering with the City to a better development and what it would take to make a project more successful. She stated that these incentives have been talked about for the central city revitalization; however, perhaps they are also needed in the growth areas. She added that those areas need to be looked at not just for single-family development. She explained that this could mean the City has to invest in infrastructure to provide for east/west arterial streets so that the mixed-use developments will occur and not just the single-family homes. Council Member Picht expressed his concerns with the amount of funding spent on the Evans and Rosedale Project to just benefit a small portion of the City. He referenced the project on the tour in Indianapolis and the combinations of things that they had used to accomplish their goals for the intercity area. He stated that he felt the $13 million that has been approved for the Evans and Rosedale Project could be used to address other things and would accomplish more for a larger area of the City. Council Member Picht provided as an example the Greenbriar area in 1997. He advised that the streets had been surveyed for infrastructure improvements but the work had not been completed in a two-year period. He stated that it has been completed with new streets and utilities, along with a code sweep of the area and a lot of other things done. He pointed out that this area is coming back and it was due to the infrastructure improvements and other attention to this area. He felt the citizens were trying to bring back their neighborhood and it looks a lot better than it did in 1997. He felt that the same would apply to the intercity here in Fort Worth. He pointed out the lack of adequate streets or street repairs; the City has not dropped the barriers to development; and people who tried to develop hit roadblocks at City Hall. He added that the City is investing money in the Evans and Rosedale Project but it is not helping the rest of the community with new streets and infrastructure. He felt that a lot could be accomplished with just an infrastructure improvement. He felt the same would apply to the central city and the City is not addressing this issue. FORTH WORTH CITY COUNCIL CALLED—SPECIAL WORKSHOP SESSION ON GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT ISSUES MONDAY, DECEMBER 13, 2004 Page 19 of 68 Economic Development Goals and Draft Director of Economic and Community Incentives Policy (cont'd) Development Tom Higgins Councilman Member Wheatfall spoke about the project he saw in Indianapolis and how a former Mayor of the city did not support the project, then the new Mayor felt it was vital for their city to be involved in what was occurring in their central city and the need to make a commitment to address this issue. Council Member Wheatfall pointed out people moving out to the suburbs and the "suburban sprawl" effect. He stated that until the City break these trends and gets a mix back into the intercity, the City is going to see the same trends. He explained what the City of Indianapolis had done to accomplish their vision. He stated that they used a TIF with tax abatement. He stated that they wanted the benefits of the TIF and the ability of being able to control where that increment went in the development. He pointed out that there is no TIF east of I-35W in Fort Worth. He pointed out how developers do receive a benefit from the NEZ policy that has been established; however, the City is not seeing a reinvestment outside that redevelopment. He recommended the use of the TIF and indicated that what he wanted to see was a real effort to mix all of the tools that the City has available to stimulate that type of growth. He gave as an example the area around Lake Arlington. Council Member Wheatfall then advised of his business in the technology field and how most technology jobs are located in the markets of Dallas and Plano. He recommended crafting certain incentive policies to attract certain industries to the City. He recommended partnerships with all of the area Chambers of Commerce to get out and actively recruit the type of companies that the City of Fort Worth is trying to attract. Mayor pro tempore McCloud brought up the issue of how to measure success for certain developments. He suggested that projects get extra points for stabilizing an area or increasing population in the intercity area and decreasing the amount of suburban sprawl or decreasing the unemployment rates in places where it is high. He stated that the 10 to 1 ratio is good but it does not always fit in another area. He recommended that the ratio might need to be considered on a proj ect-by-proj ect basis. Mayor Moncrief pointed out comments made by Council Member Wheatfall regarding looking at the TIF issue and the creation of other TIF's. He pointed out that the City does need to look east of I-35W and find something that does fit and bring reinvestment back into that southeast corridor. City Manager Boswell reviewed the two other questions with the City staff s recommendations in response to the questions and comments that had been made by the Council Members in the previous discussion. FORTH WORTH CITY COUNCIL CALLED—SPECIAL WORKSHOP SESSION ON GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT ISSUES MONDAY, DECEMBER 13, 2004 Page 20 of 68 Economic Development Goals and Draft Director of Economic and Community Incentives Policy (cont'd) Development Tom Higgins Should we use different thresholds/criteria upon which to judge a project's merit based on where it is located? City staff's recommendation: Continue to apply the guiding principles, but the metrics used should be reflective of the historic pattern of investment in the areas. Are we measuring our success in the right way? City Staff's Recommendation: Continue measuring the same factors, but develop benchmarks that help determine success based on the relative impact, and that provides the measurement of all public participation. Mayor Moncrief pointed out that if the City uses a different threshold, deciding to come off the 10 to 1, he wants it well documented as to what the City is accomplishing. He added that the City needs to measure the success in the right way and development benchmarks on the relative impact. Council Member Wheatfall indicated that he felt for a project to be successful, the City needs to put a hook into it so that the incentive comes back to the City. He also supported looking at projects on a case-by-case basis. He stated that more conversations need to be held with the transportation agencies to see what transportation is available and to identify the transportation needs to get people to the jobs in the intercity and other job areas of the City. Surplus Property Management Policy Doug Rademaker, Director of Engineering Doug Rademaker, Director of Engineering, made a presentation on the Surplus Property Management Policy. He advised that the purpose of his presentation was to provide an overview of staff's recommended strategic management plan for properties owned or controlled by the City of Fort Worth, and to seek input/agreement on the plan prior to program and guideline development. He then reviewed the properties that are currently owned or controlled by the City as follows: City-owned property City-owned surplus property Donations/dedications Tax-foreclosed property Excess right-of-way FORTH WORTH CITY COUNCIL CALLED—SPECIAL WORKSHOP SESSION ON GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT ISSUES MONDAY, DECEMBER 13, 2004 Page 21 of 68 Surplus Property Management Policy Doug Rademaker, Director of Engineering cont'd He then reviewed how the strategic management plan fit into the City's big picture as follows: The plan supports targeted City Council strategic goals: • Creates a clean, attractive City • Revitalization of the central City • Diversification of the economic base • Promotes a safe City The plan focuses the efforts of multiple departments to provide a holistic approach to the City's growing property inventory Mr. Rademaker advised that their mission is "to effectively manage and promote the use of all real properties owned or controlled by the City of Fort Worth in a manner that meets the expectations of our customers." He reviewed the goals of the strategic management plan as follows: • Productive use • Property maintenance • Strategic acquisition • Customer service He reviewed the productive use as follows: Goal: To put properties owned or controlled by the City of Fort Worth into productive use. • Housing initiatives (public and private) • Economic development • Public/community use (parks, green space, community centers) • Private ownership through disposition of property • Land banking of City-controlled/owned property • Conformance with adopted community plans Mr. Rademaker reviewed the slide showing the property maintenance as follows: FORTH WORTH CITY COUNCIL CALLED—SPECIAL WORKSHOP SESSION ON GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT ISSUES MONDAY, DECEMBER 13, 2004 Page 22 of 68 Surplus Property Management Policy Doug Rademaker, Director of Engineering cont'd Goal: To development a strategic plan for maintenance of all real properties owned or controlled by the City of Fort Worth. • Identification of maintenance funding opportunities • Cleaning and mowing of lots • Cleaning and securing of structures • Demolition of structures • Long term maintenance issues pertaining to land banking He then reviewed the strategic acquisition Goal: To target and acquire properties that will support the achievement of the City of Fort Worth goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan." • Land assembly (private and tax-foreclosed) • Zoning review • Conformance with adopted community plans Mr. Rademaker then reviewed the customer service aspect, which is: Goal: To evaluate, organize, and focus the City's efforts to promote customer satisfaction by effectively managing properties owned or controlled by the City of Fort Worth. • Identification of highest and best use • Proactive marketing initiatives Mr. Rademaker reviewed the barriers to land banking implementation as follows: • NEZ holds on tax foreclosed properties • Prolonged taxing entity approval process • Identification of authority to determine the highest and best use for land banked properties (Planning and Economic Development) • Interpretation of Texas law Mr. Rademaker reviewed the fiscal and administrative issues concerning the land banking implementation as follows: • Long-term "holds" on tax-foreclosed property • Cost to maintain and manage properties on long term "hold" FORTH WORTH CITY COUNCIL CALLED—SPECIAL WORKSHOP SESSION ON GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT ISSUES MONDAY, DECEMBER 13, 2004 Page 23 of 68 Surplus Property Management Policy Doug Rademaker, Director of Engineering cont'd • Increasing potential degradation of properties on "hold", i.e., illegal dumping/illicit use • Properties are currently held upon request from City departments and elected officials for special project initiatives. He continued his presentation with a review of the current NEZ "Hold" Requests as follows: Evans & Rosedale NEZ 121 Stop Six NEZ 107 Ridglea/Como NEZ 51 Polytechnic/Wesleyan NEZ 39 Magnolia NEZ 25 Riverside NEZ 14 Hemphill/Berry NEZ 8 Lake Arlington NEZ 6 Rolling Hills NEZ 6 Historic Hundley NEZ 3 Berry/University NEZ 1 W 7t11 St./University NEZ 0 Trinity Park NEZ 0 Woodhaven NEZ 0 Total 381 The annual maintenance costs for NEZ "hold" properties is $133,350 per year (formula: 381 properties X $350/property = $133,350/year) Mr. Rademaker reviewed the Other"Hold" Requests. This chart reflected 299 additional properties, with a total cost to maintain at$104,650 per year. Mr. Rademaker reviewed the recommendations chart as follows: 1. Allow "hold" request to be active for two years with ONE year extension at Council's discretion, which would allow the redemption period to expire and facilitate title companies to provide a title policy on the sale of the property. FORTH WORTH CITY COUNCIL CALLED—SPECIAL WORKSHOP SESSION ON GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT ISSUES MONDAY, DECEMBER 13, 2004 Page 24 of 68 Surplus Property Management Policy Doug Rademaker, Director of Engineering cont'd 2. Seek Council policy direction on fiscal impacts of NEZ "holds" — maintenance cost issues. 3. Promote citywide use of the GIS Tax Foreclosure Application. Mr. Rademaker reviewed the next steps as follows: • Develop programs/procedures/guidelines • Establish measures • Seek Council endorsement • Implement • Measure/report out Mr. Rademaker then reviewed the questions posed to the City Council with the City staff's recommendation: Should the City continue to "hold" surplus properties that it owns or controls for housing and economic development initiatives? City staff's Recommendation: Yes, being mindful of the costs of doing so. Should the City proactively assemble and market "land banked" properties? City staff's Recommendation: Yes, based upon the highest and best use and considering the needs of the community. How should the maintenance costs for properties being held be allocated and funded? City staff's Recommendation: Cost should be regularly reviewed and budgeted. Sale proceeds should be used to offset maintenance costs. Council Member Silcox advised of his recent discussion with Paul Giesel, Chairman of the T-Board, at the Regional Transportation Council meeting regarding transportation needs. He expressed concerns for identification of land for parking for future rail projects. He added that while the City is in these early stages, the issue is going to be where are the people going to park for rail service. He gave as an example a 9.5-acre tract of land along Granbury Road that would have been an excellent spot for a parking lot and for consideration of future use of the rail line in that area for rail service. He stated that this land was bought and used for a senior citizens development. He stated that he felt, as part of the land banking process, the City should identify land where there will be a need for parking and rail access. FORTH WORTH CITY COUNCIL CALLED—SPECIAL WORKSHOP SESSION ON GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT ISSUES MONDAY, DECEMBER 13, 2004 Page 25 of 68 Surplus Property Management Policy Doug Rademaker, Director of Engineering cont'd Mayor pro tempore McCloud requested further clarification on the "holding factor" on properties. He also suggested the use of the marketing professional previously recommended by Council Member Davis to include this in economic development packages. Council Member Picht stated that he is apprehensive about the City being in the land banking business. He indicated that he does not have a problem with it if the land is needed for an immediate public use or to aid in the transportation system. He stated that to acquire property for land banking based upon what had been presented was of concern to him. He felt the best way to determine the use of property if the market need is there. He felt the City needed to be very careful when spending money to acquire and maintain the property with the expectation of making money off of the property. He was concerned about proactively doing this practice and proactively marketing the sale of the property. Council Member Wheatfall stated that he has a tendency to agree with Council Member Picht's statements on this process except where the NEZ's are located. He felt the policy needs to be proactive rather than reactive. He wanted to make sure that the NEZ incentives on surplus property for home ownership are just that. He wanted to make sure that they do not create rental properties. He gave examples of people coming in from out of state to buy homes and those people wanted the property for rental purposes. He wanted that process controlled to prevent that from occurring. Council Member Wheatfall wondered about the creation of an over sight committee for the process. He added that he wanted the land purchase or land assimilation to be project driven and identify what kind of land is needed for that process. He indicated that he did not favor the City purchasing property just for the marketing of the property. Council Member Wheatfall also recommended that there be a larger discussion about the housing initiatives. He stated that part of the intercity redevelopment is the single family housing development. He stated that the proper density has to be present before the commercial development will come to the area. Council Member Haskin complimented Mr. Rademaker and the Parks Department on their working together to keep land for trails and parks, etc. Council Member Davis also commended Mr. Rademaker and added that she felt this policy was well thought out. She stated that the free market is not always free and the City has to make wise investments to sometimes stimulate the free market. She felt that when the Council is looking at economic development incentives there is a need to also look at land banking and how is it going to stimulate the development or the free market. FORTH WORTH CITY COUNCIL CALLED—SPECIAL WORKSHOP SESSION ON GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT ISSUES MONDAY, DECEMBER 13, 2004 Page 26 of 68 Surplus Property Management Policy Doug Rademaker, Director of Engineering cont'd Mayor Moncrief pointed out the results of the presentation in all of the properties owned by the City and the amount of funding to maintain them. He stated that he understands that a regular review needs to be done with the City being proactive with way the City deals with the properties and not reactive. He stated that the City needs to use its ability and use of technology to see ahead and be proactive in acquiring the properties that are needed for park and ride and other projects as the density of the City increases. Mayor Moncrief stated that overall he felt it was a good game plan. He added that it will be an advantage to be able to use this tool in the City's tool box more effectively; however, the City needs to be sensitive to what Mr. Picht stated and not hold the properties forever. City Manager Charles Boswell reviewed again the previous questions and the identified responses to the questions. He reiterated that he heard that the Council is generally supportive of what had been presented. The Council indicated that they were generally supportive of the answers to the questions. Council Member Picht interjected that his position is "no" for proactively acquiring property for land banking unless there is a definite need by the City. In further discussion, City Manager Boswell stated that there is a need to have additional budget funds for mowing of these properties. Council Member Picht stated that perhaps it would be helpful to see the lost in tax base as a result of purchasing these properties. He pointed out that maintenance of the property is a loss as well as the loss in property tax base. Public/Private Partnerships for Economic Development, Including Introduction to 135W North Corridor Coalition Mac Churchhill, North Corridor Coalition Acting Assistant City Manager Dale Fisseler provided opening remarks on the need by the City to develop public/private partnerships. Mr. Fisseler pointed out the questions to be considered at the end of the presentation as follows: Should we hold our private sector partners accountable for progress they are to make in moving community agenda items forward? FORTH WORTH CITY COUNCIL CALLED—SPECIAL WORKSHOP SESSION ON GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT ISSUES MONDAY, DECEMBER 13, 2004 Page 27 of 68 Public/Private Partnerships for Economic Development, Including Introduction to 135W North Corridor Coalition (cont'd) Mac Churchhill, North Corridor Coalition Should the City actively pool and leverage its funding resources with other sources of funding (foundations, private corporation)to support Fort Worth community development. Is the City on the right track with how it is approaching working with the private sector to plan for the future? Acting Assistant City Manager Fisseler stated that the City staff's recommendation was "yes" to the first question. He added that the City staff's recommendation to the second question was: The City should actively pool and leverage its funding resources with other sources of funding (foundations, private corporations) to support Fort Worth community development. He stated that the City staff's recommendation to the last question was that: The City should expand the current approach in working with the private sector to plan for the future. Acting Assistant City Manager Fisseler reviewed the private partnership main purposes as: minimize perceived/real market risk; shape policy framework; plan for an area's future; share the responsibility of implementing the plan; and leverage resources by pooling resources. Mr. Fisseler presented the sampling of this type of partnership: • Annexation Program Advisory Committee • Development Advisory Committee • Focus Group on Sustainable Neighborhoods • Historic Preservation Incentives Focus Group • IH35W North Corridor Coalition • Tree Preservation Citizen Advisory Committee He reviewed the example partnership planning for an area's future. He pointed out the IH35W North Corridor Coalition as an example. He advised of example partnerships: sharing the responsibility of plan implementation. Mr. Fisseler explained the Commercial Corridors Task Force: Central City Revitalization Strategy as follows: • `Blue Ribbon" panel of stakeholders and Council Members • Prioritize the 31 central city commercial corridors to five • Create redevelopment plans for five high priority corridors FORTH WORTH CITY COUNCIL CALLED—SPECIAL WORKSHOP SESSION ON GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT ISSUES MONDAY, DECEMBER 13, 2004 Page 28 of 68 Public/Private Partnerships for Economic Development, Including Introduction to 135W North Corridor Coalition Mac Churchhill, North Corridor Coalition • Seek resources to implement the plans • Generally address revitalization issues facing all central-city commercial corridors He presented the purposes of stakeholder involvement as follows: • Understand past efforts and challenges • Articulate vision • Move projects forward • Educate "delivery system" • Advance the discussion towards implementation • Give the plan"legs" Mr. Fisseler presented the Central City Strategies— Shared Burden as follows: Among 65 strategies— '/z City lead—priority initiatives.... • City designee to champion process (ACM, ECD Manager) • "Gap" financing (NEZ, tax abatement, fee waivers, etc.) • Remedy existing problems prevent future ones • Enhance the public realm • Preserve cultural and historic resources • Educate (within and throughout community) • Village portfolio (linking the success of areas to rise all boats) • Expanded role of CDC's and other non-city partners (Community Development Partnerships) • Accelerate return of publicly-held property (surplus property) Mr. Fisseler continued his presentation with a review of a slide showing the central city strategies— shared burden as follows: Among 65 strategies— '/z advocate led—priority initiatives.... • Petition-based re-zoning • Code violation monitoring • Expanded role of neighborhood associations FORTH WORTH CITY COUNCIL CALLED—SPECIAL WORKSHOP SESSION ON GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT ISSUES MONDAY, DECEMBER 13, 2004 Page 29 of 68 Public/Private Partnerships for Economic Development, Including Introduction to 135W North Corridor Coalition Mac Churchhill, North Corridor Coalition • Low-interest financing • Design standards He pointed out that this is largely incomplete...however, assumption was the City would provide a range of resources to assist private-sector partners. He then reviewed the re-energize private sector around the Central City Strategies: Priority for FY 2005 as follows: • Identify critical stakeholders/advocacy groups • Hold series of workshops and focus groups to discuss specific needs and potential resources of the City to address these needs—First one held on December 9, 2004 • Meet with department representative to review list of needs and available resources by department • Update department business plans in response to intended efforts • Present response strategies to ED and City Council for approval • Follow-up with partners—describe intended efforts and timeframe for action • Monitor effectiveness of efforts Mr. Fisseler reviewed the leveraging of resources by joining forces. He then reviewed the slide showing "Readying the Environment for Partnerships among Equals" as follows: • Expectation of private partners "stepping up to the plate" as equal partners requires they have adequate resources to do so. • Disparity in resources and access to resources among private sector redevelopment partners (well-capitalized TIF district vs. community development corporation (CDC's). • In areas of the City with greatest risk, CDC's are often the primary tool to stimulate the local economy ("prove-up" the market). • Business of community development requires stable, sufficient and appropriate financial support (operations and projects). • Pronounced shortage of resources to support community based developers that will make them equal partners. FORTH WORTH CITY COUNCIL CALLED—SPECIAL WORKSHOP SESSION ON GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT ISSUES MONDAY, DECEMBER 13, 2004 Page 30 of 68 Public/Private Partnerships for Economic Development, Including Introduction to 135W North Corridor Coalition Mac Churchhill, North Corridor Coalition Mr. Fisseler presented the information on community development partnership as follows: • Public-private funding collaborative 5016 —pools and leverages resources • Invests in community development corporations — sustains and advances their mission • Supports housing and commercial projects sponsored by the CDC's serve neighborhoods that lack a strong market interest • Increases oversight, accountability and performance of community-based groups • Organizes and engages civic interest • 15 partnerships throughout the United States. Well tested and successful structure. • Funding partnership recently established in Dallas last year. (Also in Houston and El Paso) • One of the highest ranked strategy arising from the Commercial Corridors Task Force Revitalization Strategy • Right now, strong appetite from the local foundations and private sector to partner with the City on establish a Fort Worth partnership • Framework for a partnership is in place. Housing and ECD Department priority for FY 2005 Mr. Fisseler presented a slide showing the potential outcomes from a Community Development Partnership as follows: • Vehicle to share resources from different sources for the redevelopment of the Central City. • Increases housing and commercial space production and absorption • Rational and accountable system in place to fund community based redevelopment • Grows strong partners to carry out development projects in the Central City, particular in challenged areas. • Expands the financial infrastructure that supports and sustains the community's revitalization efforts. Mr. Fisseler then introduced Mac Churchill, a long standing business leader and active volunteer in the Fort Worth community and a member of the I-35W North Corridor Coalition. FORTH WORTH CITY COUNCIL CALLED—SPECIAL WORKSHOP SESSION ON GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT ISSUES MONDAY, DECEMBER 13, 2004 Page 31 of 68 Public/Private Partnerships for Economic Development, Including Introduction to 135W North Corridor Coalition Mac Churchhill, North Corridor Coalition Mr. Churchill spoke before the Council on the development of that corridor and the associated problems with it. He advised of the current traffic problems. He stated that he likes to be proactive and the north area as been identified as providing a growth area that will be as large as the cities of Irving or Plano. He stated that they want a good quality of life and not have traffic problems or infrastructure problems. He then referenced the handout information that had been provided to the Council and reviewed this information. He referenced the second page of the handout that showed the I-35W north corridor with 108 square miles (69,120 acres) in the Tier 1 area. He referenced the Tier 2 area located next to the I-35W corridor. He advised of this area being a major job and population growth area for the City. The current statistics show 34,800 jobs in the corridor, with 41,700 people residing in the corridor. He reviewed their three main goals as follows: • Increase capacity of transportation system— expedite funding and construction • Freeways • Arterial Streets • Future Rail Service • Assure land use and design quality throughout the 22-mile corridor • Create on-going I-35W North Corridor organization to work with the City and others. He pointed out that this is the fastest growing area and there are great developers. Using a map, Mr. Churchill showed the list of some of the participating companies as follows: Legacy Capital Galderma Laboratories Bank One Hillwood Properties Motorola Fed Ex American Airlines Woodbine Development Texas Motor Speedway Burlington Northern Santa Fe Mercantile Center FORTH WORTH CITY COUNCIL CALLED—SPECIAL WORKSHOP SESSION ON GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT ISSUES MONDAY, DECEMBER 13, 2004 Page 32 of 68 Public/Private Partnerships for Economic Development, Including Introduction to 135W North Corridor Coalition Mac Churchhill, North Corridor Coalition Allan Samuels Beechwood Cross Fire Development Fort Worth Chamber of Commerce SouthTrust Bank Mac Churchill Auto Group Coca-Cola Synergy Properties Moody Printing Doral Tesoro Mr. Churchill reviewed a map showing the major planned developments for this area as follows: Fossil Creek— 1,150 acre master-planned business park Mercantile Center— 1,300-acre commercial/business park Alliance—9,500-acre technology business center Circle T—2,500-acre master-planned community Heritage—2,300-acre residential development Presidio Vista—300-acre residential development Beechwood—900 acre master-planned Business Park Mark IV BNSF Corporate Campus Railhead Industrial Park Texas Motor Speedway Mr. Churchill reviewed the zoning and land use recommendations for those areas. He pointed out that 45% to 50% is currently not under a master developer condition. Mr. Churchill advised of the Coalition's review of the freeways, locations for rail stations and the thoroughfares in the area. He advised of funding received from the North Central Texas Council of Governments. He advised of the importance of this funding. He advised of the land use. He stated that they do not want the fast growth to mushroom out of control. He indicated that they want to work with the City on other arterial streets in order to provide other ways for citizens to get to work. He stated that the large traffic jam could be a bad thing for this area. He pointed out the participating companies in this issue and how the bad traffic problems affect their businesses. He pointed out the zoning and land use recommendations. FORTH WORTH CITY COUNCIL CALLED—SPECIAL WORKSHOP SESSION ON GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT ISSUES MONDAY, DECEMBER 13, 2004 Page 33 of 68 Public/Private Partnerships for Economic Development, Including Introduction to 135W North Corridor Coalition Mac Churchhill, North Corridor Coalition Mr. Churchill reviewed the transportation success to date as follows: • Working with the City, NCTCOG, TxDOT • Enhanced Partnership Program • I-35W and 820/183 Managed Lanes Projects • Both have been assigned high priority and funds have been identified • Now working with City officials regarding east/west arterial streets • Will continue to reinforce the urgency of transportation improvement with all transportation agencies. Mr. Churchill concluded his presentation with appreciation to the Mayor and Council Members. He added that the Coalition looks forward to continued cooperation with the City. They share goals of quality development for the entire corridor. He pointed out some of their next steps were to continue to push on transportation and to work with the City on land use/zoning and design standards for the corridor in the year 2005. Mayor Moncrief pointed out the Coalition has been in place for a long time. He stated that he has observed a new player, which is Cabellas' and the Coalition needs to contact them. There was further deliberation on the need for the rail sites in this area. Mayor Moncrief encouraged staff to work with them on this rail issue. Council Member Picht interjected that he understands Mr. Churchill's concerns for the north area of Fort Worth; however, he added that the Council has to look at all of the areas of the City and the transportation issues are just as bad on the southside of the City as to accessibility issues. Mayor Moncrief expressed appreciation to Mr. Churchill for the presentation. Lunch Break 12:00 noon At 12:00 noon, Mayor Moncrief recessed the Called —Special Workshop Session of the Fort Worth City Council for the lunch break. Council Member Stevenson arrived at 12:00 p.m. Mayor Moncrief reconvened the meeting at 12:45 p.m. Council Member Wheatfall left the meeting at 12:45 p.m. FORTH WORTH CITY COUNCIL CALLED—SPECIAL WORKSHOP SESSION ON GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT ISSUES MONDAY, DECEMBER 13, 2004 Page 34 of 68 Assistant City Manager Marc Ott,Acting Director of the Water Department Frank Infrastructure Funding Challenges Crumb, Director of TPW Robert Goode Assistant City Manager Mark Ott made opening comments to the Council on the presentations to be made on infrastructure funding challenges. Frank Crumb, Acting Director of the Water Department, spoke before the Council on issues and planning efforts and current funding issues regarding the City's water system. He reviewed the water inventory list that showed the current information as: • Total length of pipe is 2,654 miles • Total pumping capacity is 1,030 mgd (includes pumps at the Treatment Plant) • Total Treatment Capacity = 450 mgd Value is $616,92,912 Projected 2010 • Total Length of Miles of Pipe =3,154 • Total Pumping Capacity = 1,315 mgd (includes pumps at Treatment Plant) • Total Treatment Capacity— 540 mgd Mr. Crumb then advised of the wastewater inventory list that showed the current information as follows: • Total Length of Pipe = 2,655 miles • Total Capacity of Lift Station= 42 mgd • Total Capacity of Treatment Plant= 166 Value: $756,638,893 Projected 2010 • Total Length of Pipe = 32,65 miles • Total Capacity of Lift Station= 58 mgd • Total Capacity of Treatment Plant= 178.5 mgd FORTH WORTH CITY COUNCIL CALLED—SPECIAL WORKSHOP SESSION ON GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT ISSUES MONDAY, DECEMBER 13, 2004 Page 35 of 68 Assistant City Manager Marc Ott,Acting Infrastructure Funding Challenges Director of the Water Department Frank Cont'd Crumb, Director of TPW Robert Goode Mr. Crumb advised of the existing water system, that there is a strong present in the north area and now getting it in the west area. He advised of the water CCN that he had obtained. He reviewed the map of the water distribution system area showing the existing water system mains and the proposed water mains and the 2015 Water Service Area. He pointed out the growth areas. He then reviewed the wastewater side and the map showing the wastewater collection system with the existing wastewater service area. Another map indicated the proposed gravity mains and proposed force mains. The map also showed the 2015 Wastewater Service Area. Mr. Crumb then reviewed the chart showing the water/wastewater CIP funds for years 2000/2004. The chart showed 31% was for rehab; 34% for growth; and 35% was for regulatory. He pointed out that over the past five years $626,512,397 has been spent on water and sewer infrastructure. Of that figure, 34% or $215,555,039 has supported growth. He then reviewed the water/wastewater CIP funds (years 2006 — 2010). The pie chart showed 30% for rehab, 60% for growth, and 10% for regulatory. Mr. Crumb stated that over the next five years, the department has planned improvements exceeding $600,000,000 for water and sewer infrastructure. Although an increasing portion of those funds will be used to provide capacity to meet anticipated demands, over $250,000,000 will be required to maintain the existing system and ensure regulatory compliance. He reviewed the chart showing the cost trends from years 2002 to 2010. The chart showed a comparison of the increase in costs comparison to the increase in revenue for those years. Mr. Crumb reviewed the current funding sources as follows: • Capital projects are funded through both operating cash and long-term debt • Revenue required to pay debt service and provide for cash financing is derived from: • Water and wastewater rates and charges • Impact fees (used to offset the cost of growth) Mr. Crumb reviewed the chart showing the debt service costs versus the impact fee debt transfer for the years 2000 to 2005. He advised when this would take place during the year. FORTH WORTH CITY COUNCIL CALLED—SPECIAL WORKSHOP SESSION ON GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT ISSUES MONDAY, DECEMBER 13, 2004 Page 36 of 68 Assistant City Manager Marc Ott,Acting Infrastructure Funding Challenges Director of the Water Department Frank Cont'd Crumb, Director of TPW Robert Goode The next chart presented by Mr. Crumb was the impact fee collection comparison for FY 04 and FY 05. The chart showed the wholesale water collection for year FY 04 vs FY 05 and the retail water in FY 04 versus FY 05. Mr. Crumb reviewed the next chart showing the impact fee collections versus the debt transfer. The chart showed the annual collection and the amount of impact fee transfer from 2000 to projected year of 2008. He stated that the City should be cautious about dependence on this fee. Mr. Crumb reviewed a chart showing the impact fee collection versus debt service for the years 2005 to 2009. The color-coded chart reflected information on the debt service increase, collection increase at 35%, collection increase at 40%, collection increase at 45%, and the collection increase at 50%. Mr. Crumb presented a chart showing the water and wastewater impact fees for the various comparison cities to the City of Fort Worth. Those cities included Arlington, Austin, Carrollton, Colleyville, Denton, Georgetown, Houston, Fort Worth (35% and 100%), Plano, Round Rock and Saginaw. Mr. Crumb advised that the survey statistics would be expanded to see what other cities in the Tarrant County area are doing and what other large cities are doing. Mr. Crumb concluded his presentation with the recommendation that the Water Department will evaluate the benefits of increasing the impact fee collection rate to: • Help close the revenue gap with projects costs • Require growth to pay a higher share of the costs to extend/expand capacity • Keep up with the projected increase of debt service transfers • Reduce the impact of future rate increase Mayor Moncrief requested further clarification about the quality and quantity of water to serve the City. Mr. Crumb stated the quality of the water is excellent and improvements have been made to accomplish this rating. He stated that the quantity is in good shape. He stated that the capacity in the existing reservoirs have been identified through the year 2016. He stated that reuse projects extend out past that time frame. He advised that currently state wide there is planning water recapture projects and for water conservation practices. Mayor Moncrief referenced one of the charts reviewed by Mr. Crumb and pointed out two lines showed that the costs were up and revenues down on that slide in the cost trends. He FORTH WORTH CITY COUNCIL CALLED—SPECIAL WORKSHOP SESSION ON GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT ISSUES MONDAY, DECEMBER 13, 2004 Page 37 of 68 Assistant City Manager Marc Ott,Acting Infrastructure Funding Challenges Director of the Water Department Frank Cont'd Crumb, Director of TPW Robert Goode asked about this gap widening and whether there are more costs to provide the service to meet the growth demands. Mr. Crumb stated that the costs are rising in order to put in the infrastructure needed for the growth. He added that the revenues are growing with the new development, but he felt that there would still be a gap and he does not know if it will continue forever, but it will for several years. Mayor Moncrief then referenced the chart on impact fees with other comparison cities and he asked about the City of Dallas. Mr. Crumb explained that the City of Dallas does not require impact fees; therefore, that is the reason they are not on the chart. There was further clarification on the need to increase the impact fee to generate the necessary revenue while growth is occurring because once the development is gone, this revenue option is not available. Mayor Moncrief requested clarification about who the impact fees affect. Mr. Crumb advised that it is the developer to the builder and then to the resident who buys the house. Mr. Crumb advised of the Citizen Advisory Committee who studies this trend. In further discussion, Assistant City Manager Mark Ott wanted to point out to the Council that even though the development may be gone the City will still be face with the debt service schedule and it will then impact the water and sewer rates. Council Member Picht requested further clarification about the experienced short fall and increasing the impact fees to increase the revenue. He pointed out the information on the slide presented showed a constant gap. He expressed concerns that the increased impact fees will not totally cover the cost for service. Council Member Picht also stated his concerns that the experienced growth is not providing a benefit to the City. There was further deliberation and clarification about the growth paying the City back for these costs. Council Member Picht asked about the City of Dallas and what their rates are for water since they have no impact fees. Mr. Crumb pointed out that their rates are lower; however, they are also not experiencing the growth that the City of Fort Worth is experiencing or the need for new infrastructure. Council Member Picht stated he is concerned that the City of Dallas seems to be in a good positive, yet the City of Fort Worth is seeing shortfalls, too much growth, etc. Mr. Crumb provided further clarification. He pointed out that the impact fees are an immediate source of revenue for the City. He pointed out that the City has to provide for infrastructure to areas and the growth may not come to the area for several years. He then advised of the water and sewer revenues and how they are utilized. FORTH WORTH CITY COUNCIL CALLED—SPECIAL WORKSHOP SESSION ON GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT ISSUES MONDAY, DECEMBER 13, 2004 Page 38 of 68 Assistant City Manager Marc Ott,Acting Infrastructure Funding Challenges Director of the Water Department Frank Cont'd Crumb, Director of TPW Robert Goode Council Member Haskin asked about the cost of providing water service to commercial developments. Mr. Crumb stated that they are charged differently based on their demands on the system. He stated that a cost of service study is done each year to see what their demand is for service, i.e., irrigation, etc. Council Member Haskin asked about incentive packages for economic development packages and how that is impacting his budget. Mr. Crumb stated that some of the waiver of the impact fees for the NEZ's can affect their budget. Council Member Haskin asked if it was a large amount. Mr. Crumb advised of the need for the impact fee and the need for it with new growth. There was further clarification as to whether it covers the total cost of growth. Mr. Crumb indicated that it really does not cover all of the costs and the capital improvement program. Council Member Picht asked for further explanation for the impact fee connections and City staff advised that it does not off set all the costs for services. Acting Assistant City Manager Dale Fisseler explained that the impact fee is collected for the cost of growth and the expansion of the plant for this development. He added that it is not paying for the infrastructure needed for the system. Mr. Fisseler referenced the cost trends again and emphasized that it reflected a point in time. He advised of the debt load for fixing the system. He pointed out to the Council that the City got behind in the 1970's and 1980's and then started upgrading the system in the 1990's and continuing through today and there is a lot of debt service costs associated with that upgrade of the existing system. He pointed out that Mr. Crumb is bringing to the Council today a policy question of whether everyone should pay their fair share. He pointed out now the new development is paying about 35% of what they are adding to the system. Mr. Fisseler stated that the question to the Council is whether they should pay more and then this will affect the price of the new homes. He wanted the Council to understand that by raising the impact fees, it would raise the revenues from the other cities Fort Worth serves. He added that by raising the water rates that simply affect the residents of Fort Worth. Mayor Moncrief requested to revisit the map for the wastewater collection system map. He asked about the mains north, south, and west and whether there is a need to the east for any of the new connections. Mr. Crumb stated that the eastside system on the southside of IH30 is bounded by Arlington and almost everything is served. Mr. Crumb reviewed possible other areas. Mayor Moncrief asked about the City's wastewater collection system and stated it does not appear adequate particularly when there is a lot of rainfall. He requested a map that shows where those repairs, replacements or enlargements need to take place. He wants to see what the City is facing in that regard. There was further clarification by City Manager Boswell that what FORTH WORTH CITY COUNCIL CALLED—SPECIAL WORKSHOP SESSION ON GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT ISSUES MONDAY, DECEMBER 13, 2004 Page 39 of 68 Assistant City Manager Marc Ott,Acting Infrastructure Funding Challenges Director of the Water Department Frank Cont'd Crumb, Director of TPW Robert Goode the Mayor is referring to is the storm water drainage system. He added that the City has spent a lot of money to upgrade the City's wastewater system. City Manager Boswell stated that City staff would be presenting the stormwater issue later in the meeting. Director of Transportation and Public Works, Robert Goode spoke about the transportation side of the infrastructure challenges. He then gave an outline of the areas that he was going to cover in his presentation as follows: Current Transportation Infrastructure inventory Projected growth Operation and maintenance service level impacts from increasing inventory Recommended service levels Projected operation, maintenance, and rehabilitation costs Potential Funding Sources Funding New Infrastructure He pointed out that the policy questions are: • How should we pay for the operation, maintenance, and rehabilitation of our existing infrastructure? (transportation, water/sewer, fire stations, community centers, etc.) • How should we pay for the operation, maintenance, and eventual rehab of the new infrastructure from development within the City limits, redevelopment, and annexation? • How should we pay to build new infrastructure? He then reviewed the current inventory for streets, which represent 6,276 lane miles. He advised that 728 lane miles (12%) are in "poor" shape; and 1,703 lane miles (28%) are "fair". He advised that there are 271 major bridges of which 86 are over 40 years old, 21 are in "poor" condition, and 10 are in "very poor" condition. He then reviewed the drainage system, which is 650 miles of pipe, 151 miles of channels and five detention facilities. Mr. Goode clarified that there is no inventory on this so they really do not know how good it is. He advised of knowledge on the channels. FORTH WORTH CITY COUNCIL CALLED—SPECIAL WORKSHOP SESSION ON GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT ISSUES MONDAY, DECEMBER 13, 2004 Page 40 of 68 Assistant City Manager Marc Ott,Acting Infrastructure Funding Challenges Director of the Water Department Frank Cont'd Crumb, Director of TPW Robert Goode He presented the current inventory for the traffic signals at 663 and that 205 should be replaced; 55,500 street lights with a service level of 65%, and signs at 97,800, with 21,000 street name signs must be replaced by the year 2012. He advised of 2012 to replace all street signs. Mr. Goode then reviewed the projected growth in 5 years: Streets—6,600 lane miles • 825 lane/miles (12.5%) "poor" (assumes FY 04/05 operating budget is maintained through next five years) Bridges—291 • 26 are poor • 12 are very poor Drainage • Pipe—680 miles • Channels— 164 miles • Detention facilities - ? He then reviewed the projected growth in 5 years— • Traffic signals—770 • Streetlights— 60,000 • Signs— 115,300 Mr. Goode presented two charts showing the service levels impacts — increasing inventory. Example = street light program. He reviewed the two charts, one showing the street light inventory costs for the years 2000 to 2004 on the increase and the street light maintenance budget for the same years which have fluctuated and declined. Mr. Goode noted that with increasing maintenance costs (labor, material, equipment, increasing inventory, and declining budget(year 2002) service levels have declined to 60% operational. He then recommended the service levels. He advised of the streets was to reduce "poor" streets from 12.5% to 9% (national average); and signs replace every 20 years (currently have no replacement plan in place). Streetlights need to be at 85% operational and it is currently at 65%. Mr. Goode reviewed the drainage service level, which was just to not make things worse. He explained that the development standards level was to "make things better" (improve existing flooding locations -- $350 million of needed improvements). He reviewed the traffic signals FORTH WORTH CITY COUNCIL CALLED—SPECIAL WORKSHOP SESSION ON GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT ISSUES MONDAY, DECEMBER 13, 2004 Page 41 of 68 Assistant City Manager Marc Ott,Acting Infrastructure Funding Challenges Director of the Water Department Frank Cont'd Crumb, Director of TPW Robert Goode service level, which is 95% functional, and the current level is 78% (22% in need of major repair). He then reviewed the bridge service level, which is to reduce the percentage of"very poor" bridges from 3.6%to 1%. Mr. Goode reviewed the cost trends to operate, maintain, and rehabilitate what the City has now and for future growth. The chart showed the projected costs and the projected budget for the years 2002 through 2009 and he emphasized the large gap between these two figures. He then reviewed the potential funding sources as follows: • General fund • Bond Programs • Stormwater utility • Public Improvement Districts • Municipal Utility Districts • Impact Fees—new infrastructure • Federal/State grants He then reviewed the questions regarding the future infrastructure, which is: • How do we fund capacity improvements to our transportation system? • What's left to build? o About 50% (1,400 lane miles) of the arterials identified on the Master Thoroughfare Plan ■ $1.4 billion ■ 20% of current network ■ Does not include new residential streets! Mr. Goode presented potential funding sources for future infrastructure: • Development ....How do we ensure development is paying its proportional share of cost of improvements within framework of the law? • City bond programs • Federal/state grants Mr. Goode reviewed for the Council how this potential funding will be identified: FORTH WORTH CITY COUNCIL CALLED—SPECIAL WORKSHOP SESSION ON GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT ISSUES MONDAY, DECEMBER 13, 2004 Page 42 of 68 Assistant City Manager Marc Ott,Acting Infrastructure Funding Challenges Director of the Water Department Frank Cont'd Crumb, Director of TPW Robert Goode • Mobility and air quality plan • Capital Improvement Program • Development Policy o Impact fees — detailed analysis needed for establishment of impact fee policy Mr. Goode continued his presentation by providing the background information on the impact fees. He pointed out the court cases (both United States and Texas Supreme Court) required that the "rough proportionality test" (both in nature and extent to the projected impact of the development) be applied to determine exactions imposed by a municipality. He added that Fort Worth's current CFA Policy does not utilize the rough proportionality test. The current policy requires participation based on frontage. He presented the points for a potential policy on the impact fees as follows: • Developer contribution based on the traffic impact of new development on the roadway system. • City is divided into zones or "areas of influence" (no larger than approximately 6 miles in diameter). • Fees per unit established for each zone (may vary per zone) based on land use assumptions (expected growth within next 10 years) and the cost to construct the roadway network within the zone. • Fees collected must be used for capacity improvements within that zone (arterials, intersection improvements, traffic signals, bridges) and must be spent within 10 years.) He reviewed the benefits of the impact fees: • Captures cost of impact of development on transportation system (fee not just based on frontage). • City could prioritize necessary capacity improvements within each zone to ensure construction of a functional network over time (not piecemeal improvements). • Would distribute burden of cost for regionally significant improvements within zone, i.e., bridges FORTH WORTH CITY COUNCIL CALLED—SPECIAL WORKSHOP SESSION ON GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT ISSUES MONDAY, DECEMBER 13, 2004 Page 43 of 68 Assistant City Manager Marc Ott,Acting Infrastructure Funding Challenges Director of the Water Department Frank Cont'd Crumb, Director of TPW Robert Goode Mr. Goode presented the obstacles for impact fees as the City is not allowed, by state law, to collect impact fees for any property that is issued a building permit within one year of policy adoption. Also, based on land area of the City of Fort Worth and restriction of state law, there is potential for 57 zones. Mr. Goode presented the questions posed to the City Council as follows: How should we pay for the operation, maintenance, and rehabilitation of our existing infrastructure? City staff's recommendation is a combination of sources: General Fund (which will compete with other needs), Stormwater Utility (continue evaluation) and federal/state grants (aggressively pursue). How should we pay for the operation, maintenance, and eventual rehab of the new infrastructure from development within the City limits, redevelopment, and annexation? City staff's recommendation: Combination of sources: General: (compete with other needs (track increased inventory/costs to justify increases), public improvement district (for higher service levels), Stormwater Utility (continue evaluation) and federal/state grants (aggressively pursue). How should we pay to build new infrastructure? City staff's recommendation is a combination of sources: City Bond Program (complete MAQ Plan and CIP), impact fees (begin in-depth evaluation— detailed analysis needed for establishment of impact fee policy. Consultant services will be needed), Stormwater utility (continue evaluation), federal/state grants (aggressively pursue). Council Member Silcox re-emphasized what had been presented through the Capital Projects and Infrastructure Committee and he wanted the Council to understand the severity of what they have been presented. He pointed out the numerous drainage problems. He referenced that this is occurring all over town. He referenced a video tape that had been presented by a citizen. Council Member Silcox advised of other areas that are in fair to poor conditions. He stated that it has to be addressed and funded. He stated that streets are probably the number one issue in citizen surveys. He felt the next one would be to keep their houses from flooding. He stated that it is a serious problem and that the Council needs to look at the drainage and streets funding. He emphasized that these are basic services and there is a real need for policies and funding sources. He stated that the City does not need to fall behind any longer. He stated that the committee will continue to see these issues and there is a real need to find out how to pay for these two issues, which are city-wide problems. FORTH WORTH CITY COUNCIL CALLED—SPECIAL WORKSHOP SESSION ON GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT ISSUES MONDAY, DECEMBER 13, 2004 Page 44 of 68 Assistant City Manager Marc Ott,Acting Infrastructure Funding Challenges Director of the Water Department Frank Cont'd Crumb, Director of TPW Robert Goode Council Member Haskin requested further clarification about when the stormwater issues will be brought back to the Council. Mr. Goode stated by June. She then expressed her concerns for the new growth and that some of the new developments are totally concrete, thus placing more water runoff in the system. She requested further clarification on the creation of the capital improvement program and the prioritization of the projects by certain years and how they are going to be paid for. Mr. Goode explained what that process would include and that it would take the CIP beyond the fifth year for future years for the next bond program. Council Member Haskin then asked for further clarification on the CFA policy. She asked where they are with that policy. Mr. Goode explained that he is asking Council whether they should continue to pursue the revisions to the impact fee policy. There was further deliberation on this policy, how the current policy works, proposed changes, and who is affected by this policy. Mayor Moncrief referenced the figure in the amount of $350,000,000 to address the drainage issues and the City staff s question of whether to move forward with the stormwater drainage utility process. Mayor Moncrief stated that he did not feel the City had a choice. He felt that the Council had to move forward with the storm water drainage. He then identified the need for a change in the impact fees and policy; again, he felt there was no choice. Mayor Moncrief pointed out that the most important product the City can provide is the quality of life in the city and it has a price tag. He stated to keep homes from flooding and to correct the depleted infrastructure, the City must do something to deal with the runoff. Mayor Moncrief also added that when the Council sees what is taking place with development and how that is impacting what the City has to provide in infrastructure, he did not want to have to tax others for that infrastructure. He referenced one of the charts presented and added that he felt Fort Worth is lower because of the conservative approach and being cautious. He felt the City needs to be realistic for the future needs of the City. He stated that the City cannot continue to do things the same way and if changes are not made this will impact the city negatively and impact the image they are trying to create. Mayor stated this needs to come before the Council. Council Member Stevenson stated he is interested on focusing these things and processing them and moving forward effectively. He stated that if the policies are what the City needs, those can be done. He stated that the City staff can point out all of the streets in need of repair, all of the traffic lights that need repair, etc., and all of the associated costs for those projects. He pointed out that the City can not pay for all of them at once. He indicated that he wants to get on top of this thing and give the City staff the leadership and priorities to get it going forward. He stated that the Council has to deliberate on the impact fees, the zoning, the FORTH WORTH CITY COUNCIL CALLED—SPECIAL WORKSHOP SESSION ON GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT ISSUES MONDAY, DECEMBER 13, 2004 Page 45 of 68 Assistant City Manager Marc Ott,Acting Infrastructure Funding Challenges Director of the Water Department Frank Cont'd Crumb, Director of TPW Robert Goode streets, drainage, etc. He wants to know how it can be done and to get a game plan, with priorities. Mayor pro tempore McCloud indicated that he wants a plan and he also does not want to loose any further ground. (Council Member Wendy Davis left the meeting at 1:50 p.m.) Mayor Moncrief requested further clarification about other growth issues. He advised that he understands that when the Fire Department and EMS respond for service in the new growth areas, they may not even have the street signs up to provide direction. He questioned whether they have the new streets on their GPS system. He pointed out that this is a major problem. Mr. Goode stated that he felt they are doing a good job staying ahead of this. In further deliberation, Assistant City Manager Mark Ott advised the Council of the work on the stormwater utility program. He also advised of the need to get the City's annexation policy program and capital improvement program policy on the same page. Mr. Goode advised the Council of several committees that are working on the stormwater utility issue. He felt this could be done in June working on these revised policies. He advised of the capital and appropriation needs and how it will be addressed. Mayor Moncrief indicated that he wants the Council to be kept appraised through Council Member Silcox's committee and he does not want the City to play catch up. Mr. Fisseler stated that they are going to address the flooding and address the quality of the water. Acting Assistant City Manager Fisseler pointed out the Trinity River Vision plan and the quality of the water and that it has to be good for the development to occur at the river. Council Member McCloud explained that he does not want the stormwater problem to get worse and cost more in the future. Mr. Goode pointed out that the inflation would continue to go up. He stated that working with the development community, they could help to address this situation with new development. FORTH WORTH CITY COUNCIL CALLED—SPECIAL WORKSHOP SESSION ON GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT ISSUES MONDAY, DECEMBER 13, 2004 Page 46 of 68 Dennis Shingleton, Chairman of Annexation Draft Five-Year Annexation Program Program Advisory Committee Dennis Shingleton, Chair of the Annexation Program Advisory Committee, made the presentation to the Council on the annexation policy. He advised that on September 7, 2004, the City Council adopted an annexation policy that: • Provides the City Council with more specific objective and prescriptive guidance for making annexation decisions; • Enables the City to be more proactive in identifying areas to consider for annexation; and • Promotes meaningful and timely public participation in formulating the annexation program as part of the annual update of the City Comprehensive Plan Mr. Shingleton presented the elements that are included in the adopted annexation policy as follows: Purpose and intent Definitions Annexation criteria and procedures Disannexation Preparation of fiscal impact analysis Preparation of five-year annexation program Preparation of three-year annexation plan External communication Mr. Shingleton presented a chart showing a comparison of the issues covered in the old policy with the newly adopted policy. He then advised of the purpose of the Annexation Program Advisory Committee as follows: • To review the City's draft annexation program and make appropriate revisions; and • To recommend the annexation program to the City Plan Commission and the City Council for adoption as part of the 2005 Comprehensive Plan Mr. Shingleton presented a list of the individuals that serve on the committee. Those individuals are: Dennis Shingleton, City Plan Commission (Chair) Eva Bonilla,Fort Worth League of Neighborhood Association FORTH WORTH CITY COUNCIL CALLED—SPECIAL WORKSHOP SESSION ON GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT ISSUES MONDAY, DECEMBER 13, 2004 Page 47 of 68 Draft Five-Year Annexation Program Dennis Shingleton, Chairman of Annexation Cont'd Program Advisory Committee Clay Brants, Greater Fort Worth Association of Realtors Byron de Sousa, City Plan Commission Monnie Gilliam, Zoning Commission Bill Greenhill, Zoning Commission Darlia Hobbs, Citizens Against Forced Annexation Joe Howell, Greater Fort Worth Builders Association Ann Kovich, Turner Collie & Braden G. K. Maenius, Tarrant County Brandy O'Quinn, Central City Redevelopment Committee Cindy Owings, Eagle Mountain Alliance of Neighborhood Organization Brud Pickett, City Plan Commission Mr. Shingleton explained how the City should use the annexation program. The annexation program is a general guide for making decisions about annexation. It merely identifies areas within Fort Worth's extraterritorial jurisdiction that the City might wish to consider for annexation during the next five years. The annexation program is not legally binding. Inclusion of an area in the annexation program does not obligate the City to annex that area. Omission of an area from the annexation program does not prevent the City from annexing that area. Mr. Shingleton reviewed the criteria for considering a full purpose annexation. He explained that the area must meet one or more of the following conditions: Enclave Enclave within the City's ETJ Ability to provide municipal services Urban Development Development activity of an urban nature Ability to provide municipal services Positive fiscal impact analysis Growth Center Designated growth center Ability to provide municipal services Positive fiscal impact analysis Adverse Impact Adverse impact on City if not annexed Ability to provide municipal services FORTH WORTH CITY COUNCIL CALLED—SPECIAL WORKSHOP SESSION ON GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT ISSUES MONDAY, DECEMBER 13, 2004 Page 48 of 68 Draft Five-Year Annexation Program Dennis Shingleton, Chairman of Annexation Cont'd Program Advisory Committee Option to Expand Determent to City's orderly growth if not annexed Ability to provide municipal services Mr. Shingleton then reviewed the criteria for a Limited Purpose Annexation. He stated that the area must meet one or more of the five conditions for full-purpose annexation and either of the following conditions: populated area or long-term development. Mr. Shingleton presented the elements that are included in the draft annexation program as follows: Procedure to prepare annexation program Potential City-initiated annexation, 2005 —2009 Potential Owner-Initiated Annexation, 2005 —2009 Potential Annexation, 2010—2024 Relationship to Comprehensive Plan and Capital Improvement Program Mr. Shingleton presented the kind of areas that would be considered for City-initiated annexation during the five-year period from 2005 through 2009. He stated it would be 30 areas totaling 19 square miles; 25 enclaves within the City's CNN; two limited-purpose annexation areas to be considered for full-purpose annexation; two contiguous areas with anticipated urban development and one mixed use growth center. He explained what would be done in each of the years as follows: Year 1 —2005 13 acres totaling 12.5 square miles 12 enclaves totaling 242 acres within the City's CCN 1 limited purpose annexation area: 287 Zone (12.1 square miles) Year 2—2006 1 enclave totaling 4 acres within the City's CCN Year 3 —2007 3 enclaves totaling 219 acres within the City's CCN FORTH WORTH CITY COUNCIL CALLED—SPECIAL WORKSHOP SESSION ON GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT ISSUES MONDAY, DECEMBER 13, 2004 Page 49 of 68 Draft Five-Year Annexation Program Dennis Shingleton, Chairman of Annexation Cont'd Program Advisory Committee Year 4—2008 10 areas totaling 4 square miles 7 enclaves within the City's CCN 2 areas with anticipated urban development 1 mixed-use growth center: SH121/FM 1187 Year 5 —2009 3 areas totaling 2.5 square miles 2 enclaves within the City's CCN 1 limited-purpose annexation area: Eagle Mountain Zone pursuant to 6/21/04 agreement with property owners Mr. Shingleton explained that currently there are no owner-initiated annexations to be considered during the five-year period from 2005 through 2009. Mr. Shingleton presented the kinds of areas that would be considered for long-term annexation, during the 15-year period from 2010 through 2024 as follows: 45 areas totaling 38.6 square miles: • 29 enclaves through City-initiated annexation • 2 limited-purpose annexation areas: Edwards-Geren and Walsh Ranch pursuant to agreements with property owners • 14 areas with anticipated urban development Mr. Shingleton continued his presentation with a chart of the capital improvements that are needed to support the City-initiated annexations in the years 2005 to 2009. The projects identified were temporary (or permanent) fire stations, roadways and water and wastewater proj ects. Mr. Shingleton explained the next steps in this process as follows: • December 13 — City Council receives briefing on draft annexation program and authorizes staff to provide briefings to community groups. • December 15 — January 18 — Planning Department provides briefings on draft annexation program to full Tarrant County Commissioners Court; property FORTH WORTH CITY COUNCIL CALLED—SPECIAL WORKSHOP SESSION ON GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT ISSUES MONDAY, DECEMBER 13, 2004 Page 50 of 68 Draft Five-Year Annexation Program Dennis Shingleton, Chairman of Annexation Cont'd Program Advisory Committee owners and community organizations affected by draft annexation program in Districts 2, 3, 5, 6, and 7 and Citizens Against Forced Annexation • December 17 — City Plan Commission receives briefing on draft annexation program and provides comments. • January 19 — Advisory Committee reviews comments received at public meetings and recommends annexation program. • January 26, 2005 — City Plan Commission conducts public hearing on annexation program and votes to recommend adoption as part of 2005 Comprehensive Plan • February 8, 2005 — City Council conducts public hearing on annexation program as part of 2005 Comprehensive Plan • February 22 —City Council adopts 2005 Comprehensive Plan Mr. Shingleton presented the proposed meeting briefing schedule for the Tarrant County Commissioners Court and the districts meetings referenced earlier in his presentation. In discussion on this presentation, Mayor Moncrief advised of what happened during the last annexation processes and how the policy addresses some of those issues. Mr. Shingleton stated that the property owners would be notified that these are the reasons that they need to be considered for annexation. There was further discussion and clarification on the enclave issue and how many are within the city limits and located out of the city limits per the information presented. Council Member John Stevenson pointed out that the issues of providing water, sewer, and drainage services with the annexation issue. He pointed out that these services are necessary to the residents already in the city limits. He stated that the City just needs to continue to be cautious in this regard when annexing property. He gave as an example the ranchette areas near Eagle Mountain Lake and that it was too hard for the City to provide that infrastructure to that area; therefore, the property owners agreed to put off those services for several years. He stated that this is about realism both for the City and the area to be annexed. He commended Mr. Shingleton for his work in this area and taking it out to the public forums for input. There was further discussion by the Council with the City staff that this will be updated on a yearly basis. Mayor Moncrief emphasized the fact that there was mention that the City should meet with the other county officials in this regard and some of the smaller area cities like Aledo, FORTH WORTH CITY COUNCIL CALLED—SPECIAL WORKSHOP SESSION ON GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT ISSUES MONDAY, DECEMBER 13, 2004 Page 51 of 68 Draft Five-Year Annexation Program Dennis Shingleton, Chairman of Annexation Cont'd Program Advisory Committee Weatherford, etc., that are in the path of these annexations. Director of Planning Fernando Costa advised of letters that had been prepared for the Mayor's signature to those area cities, which suggest joint meetings with them regarding the annexation plans. Mayor Moncrief commended Mr. Shingleton on his work and the presentation. U. S. 287 Zone Service Plan and Fiscal Director of Development Bob Riley, Impact Analysis City Attorney David Yett Director of Development Bob Riley presented to the Council a presentation on the U. S. 287 Zoning Service Plan and fiscal impact analysis. He explained the presentation objective as providing the background, fiscal impact analysis, the next steps to be taken, and the policy questions/recommendations. Mr. Riley presented a map showing the 287 Zone with 7,656 acres (11.96 square miles), with an estimated population of 105. Mr. Riley provided the background information. He explained that in January/February 2002, the City identified areas that met the City's Annexation Policy criteria. He stated that the original 287 Zone study area contained approximately 20.8 square miles with an estimated population of 2620. He added that based upon the public comment and the City's ability to provide water in areas already within another providers' CCN and minimal impacts of large lot residential development, the 287 Zone was reduced to approximately 12.1 square miles. Mr. Riley stated that it was placed in the City's Annexation Plan on October 29, 2002. This was for the three-year period with full purpose annexation needing to occur during a 30-day period beginning October 29, 2005. He stated it required: Request for existing services (January 2003) Received information on existing service (April 2003) Make existing services report available (June 2003) Development of a proposed service plan and conduct public hearings (September 2 and 11, 2003) Mr. Riley advised that the County Commission Court appointed a Service Plan Negotiation Panel. The Panel had meetings in February and March 2004. Additions to the proposed Service Plan from the panel meetings included: FORTH WORTH CITY COUNCIL CALLED—SPECIAL WORKSHOP SESSION ON GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT ISSUES MONDAY, DECEMBER 13, 2004 Page 52 of 68 U. S. 287 Zone Service Plan and Fiscal Director of Development Bob Riley, Impact Analysis(Cont'd) City Attorney David Yett • Need for additional police patrol in the area (divide Beat C-123 into two beats, consisting of 5 patrol officers) • Need for a fire station and tanker truck in the area (2004 CIP provides for a new fire station in the area, if fire station is not constructed by the time of full purpose annexation, temporary station would be provided) • Need for water and wastewater in the area (a 200'credit for water and/or wastewater extensions will be proved for each occupied structure) Mr. Riley stated that the Council certified the completion of the service plan on March 30, 2004, with PZ 2525) Mr. Riley advised that the Council requested staff to continue to negotiate with the panel on a possible "contract in lieu of annexation." He pointed out that meetings and exchange of draft contracts occurred in April through June 2004. The points of consideration included: • Would continue the limited purpose annexation provisions in the area • Would extend full purpose annexation to no sooner than January 2009 unless the properties began to develop Mr. Riley stated that the panel considered "contract in lieu of annexation" from June to November 2004. The City was notified on November 17, 2004, that the panel rejected the contract offer. Mr. Riley reviewed other actions since being placed on the City's Annexation Plan: • Limited purpose annexation (January 7, 2003) • Zoning of all properties within the area completed on October 12, 2004 Mr. Riley presented the fiscal impact analysis information. He pointed out that the Tarrant County Appraisal District Certified Value in 2004 was $72,970,262. There were 35 residential structures/105 estimated population. The general fund revenue was $300,653. The property tax for non-farm and ranch was $235,467; property tax on farm and ranch was $33,686; sale tax was $13,440 and other revenue was $18,060. He explained that the general fund expenditures were $74,665, based upon per capita spending of $711. The additional funding requests for FY 2004/05 were Fire Training Class at $406,885, Police Training Class at $150,000. For FY 2005/2006, the TPW was at$922,400, with a 5.85 linear mile Willow Springs Road overlay, $1.54 million Blue Mound Street pulverization and overlay; drainage, pavement markings and signs and Fire at $76,000 to $350,000 for temporary station. FORTH WORTH CITY COUNCIL CALLED—SPECIAL WORKSHOP SESSION ON GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT ISSUES MONDAY, DECEMBER 13, 2004 Page 53 of 68 U. S. 287 Zone Service Plan and Fiscal Director of Development Bob Riley, Impact Analysis(Cont'd) City Attorney David Yett Mr. Riley explained for the future years it would be: TPW - $26,200,500 over the next 8 to 20 years Code Compliance - $129,472 per year Health—Animal Care and Control - $26,523 per year Mr. Riley reviewed the General Fund Budget as follows: FY 2004/05 deficit of$556,885 FY 2005/06 deficit of$772,402 to $1,047,747 FY 2006/07 positive by $225,998 Cumulative total goes positive in FY 2011/12 if lease fire station used or FY 2013/14 if temporary fire station is constructed Mr. Riley reviewed the water fund as follows: FY 2006 estimated expenditure of$2.77 million Over the next 4 years approximately $6.3 million will be needed to install water and wastewater facilities Mr. Riley advised that the next steps to be taken are: • Evaluate the continuation of consideration of annexation • Determine whether to fund fire and policy training classes in FY 2004/05 or wait until normal budget consideration in FY 2005/06 • Delay would add to total cost due to the need to provide Fire Services through overtime until the training class was completed. Mr. Riley reviewed the policy question posed to the City Council as follows: Should the City continued to consider the 287 area for full purpose annexation in 2005? The City staff recommendation was "yes," due to: enhancements to serve this area will improve delivery of services in area already in Fort Worth; potential growth in the northwest sector; and zoning in place. Mayor Moncrief asked about moving forward with this annexation plan and what will occur if the Council decided they do not want to move forward. City staff explained that this would leave a gap or hole in the plans that have been seen in this growth corridor. Mr. Riley stated that the opportunity for this area would be lost. City staff pointed out that the City has FORTH WORTH CITY COUNCIL CALLED—SPECIAL WORKSHOP SESSION ON GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT ISSUES MONDAY, DECEMBER 13, 2004 Page 54 of 68 U. S. 287 Zone Service Plan and Fiscal Director of Development Bob Riley, Impact Analysis(Cont'd) City Attorney David Yett also put in a water line to Sendera Ranch in anticipation of potential growth off of that area. Mayor Moncrief pointed out on the positive side that by moving forward, it also gives the City the ability to provide for quality growth in that area. Council Member Picht requested further clarification on the positive impact on the General Fund growth and his concern that it does not take into account the TPW expenditures. Mr. Riley stated that it was cost per capita as it grew in population. Mr. Riley also advised that Code Compliance Department does not have enough employees for staffing in that area. Mr. Riley advised of the priority services provided by the City and that the most costly is the fire and police services. Council Member Picht asked about the growth over the next few years and what kind of growth has to occur to make it really beneficial for the city. There was considerable discussion on the issue of growth. City Manager Boswell advised of no final staff recommendation on this issue. He advised of executive session scheduled for the next week. He pointed out that there are pros and cons and he could put it in context for the Council very quickly. Council Member Stevenson advised of meetings held and he expressed appreciation for the staff s work. He felt it was an open process and staff handled it very well. Assistant Director of Water Department Policy on Municipal Utility Districts Administration - Marcella Olson Marcella Olson, Assistant Director of Water Department, advised the Council of the summary of her presentation which would include: What is a municipal utility district(MUD) and how is it created? What can a MUD do? What is the City's authority to affect the creation and operation of a MUD? How do MUD's affect cities? What other types of districts can be formed? What happens next? Respond to petitions for consent to creation of MUD's Prepare and adopt MUD policy Ms. Olson explained that initially the City had two municipal utility districts, however, they no longer exist. She advised of three groups of developers that want to form a MUD and a separate water control improvement district. FORTH WORTH CITY COUNCIL CALLED—SPECIAL WORKSHOP SESSION ON GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT ISSUES MONDAY, DECEMBER 13, 2004 Page 55 of 68 Policy on Municipal Utility Districts Assistant Director of Water Department Cont'd Administration - Marcella Olson Ms. Olson provided a description and creation of a MUD as follows: A MUD is a political subdivision Provides water, wastewater, solid waste and drainage facilities and services Can also provide recreational facilities and police and fire service MUDS are authorized by the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality Upon consent of a city (if located in its ETJ), TCEQ grants or denies the petition after notice and opportunity for a hearing Voters in the district must confirm creation, authorize bonds and taxing authority, and elect a permanent board Ms. Olson explained what a MUD can do as follows: A MUD, through its board of directors, can: Incur debt Issue bonds with voter and TCEQ approval With voter approval, levy operation and maintenance taxes and/or ad valorem taxes Charge for services such as police and fire Adopt regulations Enter into contracts Condemn property Ms. Olson then explained what the City's authority is to affect the creation and operation of a MUD. A MUD cannot be created within city limits without that city's consent. A MUD cannot be created in an ETJ without that city's consent But: • A city is deemed to consent to the initiation of MUD creation activities by the owner if the city and owner do not enter into an agreement for the city to provide water and wastewater at a reasonable cost. • A city has 90 days to consent to MUD creation • A city has 120 days thereafter to agree or not agree to provide water and wastewater A city can place conditions on consent: • Construction of facilities to city specifications FORTH WORTH CITY COUNCIL CALLED—SPECIAL WORKSHOP SESSION ON GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT ISSUES MONDAY, DECEMBER 13, 2004 Page 56 of 68 Policy on Municipal Utility Districts Assistant Director of Water Department Cont'd Administration - Marcella Olson • City inspection of facilities • Some restrictions on terms of bonds, e.g., interest rate, debt to value ratio • Limit purposes for issuance of bonds to water, wastewater, solid waste and drainage • Additional conditions by agreement with owner ■ A city and an owner can also enter into a separate agreement addressing: • Development regulations • Timing of annexation • Design and construction of capital facilities • Provision of services by city or cooperation between MUD and city to provide services • Limited purpose annexation of land in MUD and collection of sales and use tax by City of Fort Worth Ms. Olson presented how MUD's affect cities: A MUD, not the city, constructs infrastructure to support development. Bond financing of infrastructure frees money for construction of amenities, higher quality development. A city and a MUD can agree for the MUD to construct capital improvements such as fire stations and police stations. Thus, this decreases city's costs upon annexation and the City and MUD can share facilities before annexation. The impact on the city by developments on periphery is source of sales tax revenue, development not lost to neighboring cities, potential catalyst for commercial development and impact on city facilities but MUD receives property tax. Ms. Olson presented the affect on annexation: Delays annexation — City assumes MUD debt upon annexation and should not annex until property tax revenue is sufficient to pay for services and bond debt Annexation of developed MUD may be controversial Potential physical barrier to annexation of other property Ms. Olson reviewed what happens next: Petitions to consent to MUDS Talasera (Justin Ranch) Haywire Ranch FORTH WORTH CITY COUNCIL CALLED—SPECIAL WORKSHOP SESSION ON GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT ISSUES MONDAY, DECEMBER 13, 2004 Page 57 of 68 Policy on Municipal Utility Districts Assistant Director of Water Department Cont'd Administration - Marcella Olson Consent to creation of MUD and related documents must be approved by the City Council MUD Policy Staff formulating policy Staff will present elements of MUD policy to City Council before submitting Talasera or Haywire Ranch MUDS to Council for consideration Ms. Olsen presented a map showing the location of the Talasera (Justin Ranch). She also reviewed a color-coded concept plan of this area showing the various types of development for this area. She presented the Concept Plan for Phase 1 development. Ms. Olson then reviewed the location of the Haywire Ranch location. She presented that concept plan and the area for Phase 1 development. Ms. Olsen reviewed the elements of a MUD policy. She advised that when a MUD is requested, a city should ask: Can the city provide water and sewer service to the area at a reasonable cost? Is the city ready to annex the area? Should the city challenge the formation of the MUD? Must be feasible, practicable, necessary, benefit to land If the MUD is acceptable, what conditions should be city place on consent and what terms should city negotiate in a separate development agreement? Condition consent to creation of MUD Construction to city standards City inspection Allowable restrictions on bonds Negotiate annexation, land use regulations, construction of capital facilities Maximize benefits and minimize detrimental effects of MUDS Annex for limited purposes for collection of sales and use tax Ms. Olson then presented a chart showing the following pros and cons of the policy: FORTH WORTH CITY COUNCIL CALLED—SPECIAL WORKSHOP SESSION ON GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT ISSUES MONDAY, DECEMBER 13, 2004 Page 58 of 68 Policy on Municipal Utility Districts Assistant Director of Water Department Cont'd Administration - Marcella Olson PROS: MUD builds infrastructure Quality development More city control over development in ETJ City can annex for limited purposes and collect sales tax Residents pay sales tax Develop catalyst CONS: Loss of opportunity to collect property tax Burden on city facilities—roads, parks, etc. Possible failure of MUD Annexation after bond debt paid down Possible roadblock to annexation of other land She then reviewed the other types of districts as follows: Water control and improvement districts (WCID) South Denton County WCID No. 1 North Fort Worth WCID No. I Similar to MUD, except Authorized by commissioners court instead of TCEQ if location in one county May split into additional districts May annex additional land without city consent Ms. Olson explained that these are small developments, i.e., 250 acres. Ms. Olson presented the proposed schedule as follows: January 11: Presentation of MUD Policy to Capital Improvements and Infrastructure Committee January 25: Presentation of MUD Policy at Pre-Council. February 1: City Council votes on MUD Policy FORTH WORTH CITY COUNCIL CALLED—SPECIAL WORKSHOP SESSION ON GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT ISSUES MONDAY, DECEMBER 13, 2004 Page 59 of 68 Policy on Municipal Utility Districts Assistant Director of Water Department Cont'd Administration - Marcella Olson March: City Council consideration of MUD consent petitions and related documents for Talasera and Haywire Ranch WCID consent petitions for South Denton County and North Fort Worth Ms. Olson advised that the question posed to the City Council is: Should City staff continue to formulate a MUD Policy and to negotiate the terms of potential MUDs/WCIDs for Council consideration? The City staff recommendation was: "Yes," the MUD Policy will guide the City in deciding whether to annex, to challenge the formation of the district, or to consent to the district. These districts can be beneficial to the City with appropriate conditions and negotiated terms. Mayor Moncrief asked about whether MUD's have been an affective tool for some cities. City staff advised that they have been useful in Austin. City staff added that while there are positive aspects, there could be negatives. City staff indicated that they believe that the positives can over come the negatives. Ms. Olson stated that the issue is really if the City can provide the services without the creation of the MUD. There was further deliberation as to whether the creation of the MUD's can cause a ripple effect. Ms. Olson indicated that City staff wanted to get the process right. She added that she felt it would not be feasible to say "no" to every MUD that comes to the City. City Manager Charles Boswell stated what the Council is hearing is that historically the City has been focused on the down side to the creation of MUD's. He stated that there might be an advantage to doing this in certain areas until the City is ready to annex. He added that the staff wants to fully develop this policy for the Council's consideration. Council Member Stevenson stated that one issue might be a pre-existing MUD and the City's concern for what lines are in the system, the quality of the work in the system, etc. He stated that on the front end it would be good for the City in the end. In further discussion, Council Member Silcox requested clarification on the pay down of the MUD debt. Ms. Olson stated that aspect could be dealt with up front when the MUD is created. She advised that there could be a limit on the amount of debt that could occur. Council Member Picht stated that he felt the cons are minimal. He felt the pros are weighted heavily enough for the Council to look at it. FORTH WORTH CITY COUNCIL CALLED—SPECIAL WORKSHOP SESSION ON GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT ISSUES MONDAY, DECEMBER 13, 2004 Page 60 of 68 Policy on Municipal Utility Districts Assistant Director of Water Department Cont'd Administration - Marcella Olson Acting Assistant City Manager Dale Fisseler stated that the City staff sees this as another form of voluntary annexation. He stated that it needs to be done right. Mr. Fisseler stated that these districts offer to abide by the City's development standards and to collect some of the fees the City requires in the MUD. He felt this gave the City an opportunity to capture some of the finer points that the City is trying to achieve. He added that the City staff is also trying to focus less on the "cons" and make them into a workable solution. Summary of Workshop Results City Manager Charles Boswell Mr. Boswell explained to the Council that the M&C on the redevelopment project Sierra Vista would come before the Council on their agenda for tomorrow's Council meeting. Acting Assistant City Manager Dale Fisseler reviewed this M&C briefly for the Council since the information had not reached the Council. At the request of City Manager Boswell, Assistant to the City Manager Anthony Snipes presented the Growth and Development Trends Staff Follow-up as follows: • Lack of Development and decrease in population in East and Southeast Forth Worth • Work collaboratively with neighboring communities regarding the future use of our land. • Work closer with school districts in the future. • Consider varying economic policies for various parts of Fort Worth. • Show patterns on single-family densities • Provide City Council with key benchmark information from cities with whom we compete to identify "best practices" • Consider more planning and collaboration with Tarrant County • Continue to diversity the economic base • Review balance between land use for commercial versus residential • Consider the City's policies and practices concerning the City's use of surplus properties • Get with the various ISD's within the city limits of Fort Worth and Tarrant County to consider a pilot program for co-location of facilities • Address growing fiscal needs • Increase in density and its impact on commuter rail FORTH WORTH CITY COUNCIL CALLED—SPECIAL WORKSHOP SESSION ON GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT ISSUES MONDAY, DECEMBER 13, 2004 Page 61 of 68 Summary of Workshop Results (cont'd) City Manager Charles Boswell Parking Lots Issues: • Consider additional Council Districts • Consider Decentralization of City Services Mr. Snipes presented the Economic Development Staff Follow-up as follows: • Review how the City can benefit with developers or investors on their return on investment • Mix all of the City's tools at our disposal — mixed use of economic development incentives • Craft incentives for targeted industries • Consider being more flexible with the 1:10 threshold in the future — thread carefully! • Consider how the City can effectively transport the citizens to the various job growth areas outside Central city (work with the "T") Parking Lot Issues ■ Consider having more TIF's East of IH-35W He then reviewed the Policy Issues for Economic Development as follows: Is the City on the right track to adequately address the challenges of revitalizing the Central City? • Staff Recommendation: Immediately move to bring the recommended Comprehensive Incentive Policy to the full Council for consideration and develop a marketing plan to communicate the opportunities available for Central City development. • Council Comments: Agree and move forward • Suggested that the City consider utilizing professional services regarding the marketing program. Should the City use different thresholds/criteria upon which to judge a project's merit based on where it is located? Staff Recommendation: Continue to provide the same guiding principals but the metrics used to judge projects and to structure incentive recommendations be FORTH WORTH CITY COUNCIL CALLED—SPECIAL WORKSHOP SESSION ON GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT ISSUES MONDAY, DECEMBER 13, 2004 Page 62 of 68 Summary of Workshop Results (Cont'd) City Manager Charles Boswell reflective of the historic pattern of investment in the area. ■ Council comments: Agree o Suggested that staff be flexible on the traditional 1:10 ratio as certain areas of the City will require greater public participation Is the City measuring its success in the right way? • Staff Recommendation: Continue to measure same factors but develop benchmarks that help determine success based on the relative impact and that provides the measurements of all public participation • Council Comments: Agree o Suggested that Council would like to see staff develop methods that more adequately describe the economic vitality that a project/investment creates Mr. Snipes presented the Surplus Property Management Staff follow-up as follows: • Develop a plan for land banking to accommodate future parking of rail passengers, etc. • Use land banking as an incentive tool. Marketing of Economic Development • Control the use of properties to promote desire ownership and use • Consider using surplus properties for housing needs • Identify loss of tax revenue on surplus properties as well as associated costs to maintain these properties. Mr. Snipes advised that no parking lot issues were identified on this topic. Mr. Snipes presented the Policy Issues for Surplus Property Management as follows: • Should the City continue to "hold" surplus properties that it owns or controls for housing and economic development initiatives? o Staff Recommendation: Yes, being mindful of the costs of doing so. Council Comments: Agree • Would like to have a larger discussion on housing initiatives • Tie home ownership to housing initiatives • Council does not want to encourage rentals • Should the City proactively assemble and market"land banked" properties? ■ Staff Recommendation: Yes, based upon the highest and best use and considering the needs of the community FORTH WORTH CITY COUNCIL CALLED—SPECIAL WORKSHOP SESSION ON GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT ISSUES MONDAY, DECEMBER 13, 2004 Page 63 of 68 Summary of Workshop Results (Cont'd) City Manager Charles Boswell • Council Comments: Agree • Let the private market help drive the process • Should we bring a"marketing" professional on board? • We should have a specific purpose in mind when proactively acquiring. We cannot afford to pursue all properties. • We may wish to have an oversight committee to help determine"highest and best use". • Consider our rail corridor needs as we assemble properties • How should the maintenance costs for properties being held be allocated and funded? • Staff Recommendation: Costs should be regularly reviewed and budgeted. Sale proceeds should be used to offset maintenance costs. • Council Comments: Agree • Costs should be regularly reviewed. • Utilization of GIS and other tools may be useful to track the inventory and reduce costs. • Costs should be budgeted to help offset maintenance costs. Mr. Snipes then reviewed the Public Private Partnerships Staff Follow-up as follows: ■ Work closely with the IH35W North Corridor Coalition and key stakeholders South of IH3 5 W There were no parking lot issues identified for this topic. He reviewed the Policy Issues for the Public/Private Partnerships as follows: • Should we hold our private sector partners accountable for progress they are to make in moving community agenda items forward? • Staff Recommendation: Yes • Council Comments: Agree • Should the City actively pool and leverage its funding resources with other sources of funding (foundations, private corporation) to support Fort Worth community development? FORTH WORTH CITY COUNCIL CALLED—SPECIAL WORKSHOP SESSION ON GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT ISSUES MONDAY, DECEMBER 13, 2004 Page 64 of 68 Summary of Workshop Results (Cont'd) City Manager Charles Boswell • Staff Recommendation: The City should actively pool and leverage its funding resources with other sources of funding (foundations, private corporations)to support Fort Worth community development • Council Comments: Agree ■ Is the City on the right track with how it is approaching working with the private sector to plan for the future? • Staff Recommendation: The City should expand the current approach in working with the private sector to plan for the future. • Council Comments: Agree Mr. Snipes reviewed the Infrastructure Funding Staff follow-up as follows: • Consider increase in water impact fees • Identify ways to pay for street and storm water issues • Consider impact fees for transportation needs • Establish game plan to address priorities There were no parking lot issues identified with this topic. He reviewed the Policy Issues—Infrastructure Funding Challenges as follows: • How should we pay for the operation, maintenance, and rehabilitation of our existing infrastructure? • Staff Recommendation: Combination of sources: • General Fund.... Compete with other needs • Storm Water Utility ... continue evaluation • Federal/State Grants ... aggressively pursue • Council Comments: Agree and Move Forward • Prioritize our needs • Strong support from Mayor Moncrief regarding moving forward with the Storm Water Utility. • How should we pay for the increasing infrastructure inventory costs (i.e., operation, maintenance, and eventual rehab) due to new development within the City limits, redevelopment, and annexation? o Staff Recommendation: Combination of sources: FORTH WORTH CITY COUNCIL CALLED—SPECIAL WORKSHOP SESSION ON GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT ISSUES MONDAY, DECEMBER 13, 2004 Page 65 of 68 Summary of Workshop Results (Cont'd) City Manager Charles Boswell • General Fund compete with other needs (track increased inventory/costs to justify increases) • Public Improvement District ... for higher service levels • Storm Water Utility .... Continue evaluation • Federal/State Grants . . .. aggressively pursue o Council Comments: Agree o Prioritize Needs ■ How should we pay to build new infrastructure? • Staff Recommendation: Combination of sources: • City Bond Programs.... Complete MAQ Plan and CIP • Impact Fees.... Begin in-depth evaluation (Detailed analysis needed for establishment of impact fee policy. Consultant services will be needed). • Storm water Utility ... continue evaluation • Federal/State Grants....aggressively pursue • Council Comments: Agree ■ Strong support from Mayor Moncrief to examine the impact fee policy and pursue consultant assistance He then presented the Annexation Program Staff Follow-Up as follows: Ensure citizen participation There were no parking lot issues identified for this topic. He presented the Policy Issues for the Annexation Program as follows: Should City staff release the draft annexation program for public review? • Staff Recommendation: Yes • Council Comments: Agree o Ensure citizen participation and open process. Should City staff, in cooperation with the Annexation Program Advisory Committee, hold a series of community meetings on the draft annexation program and report the results of those meetings to the City Council? • Staff Recommendation: Yes FORTH WORTH CITY COUNCIL CALLED—SPECIAL WORKSHOP SESSION ON GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT ISSUES MONDAY, DECEMBER 13, 2004 Page 66 of 68 Summary of Workshop Results (Cont'd) City Manager Charles Boswell • Council Comments: Agree Mr. Snipes presented the U. S. 287 Zone Service Plan Staff Follow-Up as follows: Revisit discussion with City Council regarding Public Safety training for employees (i.e., FY 2004-05 or FY 2005-06) There were no parking lot issues identified. The Policy Issues for the U. S. 287 Zone Service Plan Should the City continue to consider the U. S. 287 Zone for full purpose annexation in 2005? Staff Recommendation: "Yes," due to • Enhancements to serve this area will improve delivery of services in area already in Fort Worth • Potential growth in the northwest sector • Zoning in place Council Comments: Agree with continued consideration • Discussion regarding growth patterns and time needed to recapture GF costs • Be cautious on our Annexation efforts! Is it better to wait? • Briefing in Executive Session on December 22, 2004 • Growth rate necessary to cover $26 million in street construction He presented the Municipal Utility District Staff Follow-up as follows: Pursue the development of a MUD Policy There were no parking lot issues identified for this topic. He reviewed the Policy Issues—Municipal Utility Districts as follows: Should City staff continue to formulate a MUD policy and to negotiate the terms of potential MUDs/WCIDs for Council consideration? FORTH WORTH CITY COUNCIL CALLED—SPECIAL WORKSHOP SESSION ON GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT ISSUES MONDAY, DECEMBER 13, 2004 Page 67 of 68 Summary of Workshop Results (Cont'd) City Manager Charles Boswell ■ Staff Recommendation: "Yes," the MUD policy will guide the City in deciding whether to annex to challenge the formation of the district, or to consent to the district. These districts can be beneficial to the City with appropriate conditions and negotiated terms. Council Comments: Agree and move forward Council Member Haskin requesting further information from the City staff on zoning cases and whether they meet the Comprehensive Plan. She explained that she wants to have the reason that it meets the plan and the reason is it is compatible for the zoning. She brought up the issue of the AR zoning being done. City Manager Boswell asked for further clarification. He asked if these were the staff s comments given on zoning cases. Council Member Haskin indicated that she just wants it tighten up and a definition of why it meets the plan. She also advised of a meeting with the new superintendent of the Keller ISD regarding the multifamily density zoning to the north. She suggested a cooperative initiative with the developer to move it closer to the growth centers. In conclusion, City Manager Boswell advised the Council that the City staff had received a lot of good direction and would be bringing these back issues to the Council in the future. Closing Remarks Mayor Moncrief Council Member Picht stated that this workshop session shows that development and annexation go hand in hand and that there are many costs involved. Council Member Picht stated that while there are development projects that are worthwhile for the City, there are other projects that are not productive and there does need to be an analytical study done. He pointed out that development issues are becoming more complex and it is just not business as usual and that the City Council and staff must be careful in the planning process and what is in place for long range financing and planning and services. He added that it must be approached thoroughly. Mayor Moncrief interjected that he agreed with the statements made by Council Member Mr. Picht. He stated this process has been useful today and it needs to be an annual process. He stated that it would help to evaluate where the City is and will be useful to compare the results and see what needs to be done to the policies and define the game plan. He pointed out that this workshop has given the Council a preview of what needs to be accomplished to provide the quality of life for the residents and it has a price tag. He pointed out that it is going to cost the City to keep up. Mayor Moncrief stated it is not business as usual. He emphasized they have to FORTH WORTH CITY COUNCIL CALLED—SPECIAL WORKSHOP SESSION ON GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT ISSUES MONDAY, DECEMBER 13,2004 Page 68 of 68 reach out to neighbors as the City grows. He does not want the City to be perceived as "Big Brother". Mayor Moncrief pointed out that it is a challenge. He added that Fort Worth is a great city and it is an exciting time in the City. He emphasized that the City staff and Council cannot afford to make mistakes. He commended the City staff on their work in this presentation and discussion. Mayor Moncrief advised of a public hearing scheduled for this evening at 7:00 p.m., scheduled by TxDOT, on the final environmental impact statement for State Highway 121T (Southwest Parkway). With no further discussion or business before the Council, Mayor Moncrief adjourned the Fort Worth City Council's Called — Special Workshop Session on Growth and Development Issues on Monday, December 13, 2004, at 3:35 p.m. These minutes approved on the 4th day of January, 2005. APPROVED: Mayor Mike Mon of ATTEST: Marty Hendrix City Secretary