Council adopts impact fees
' The misinformation is that it will take all the burden off the local taxpayers, and that's just false. KEITH MCMULLIN CITY COUNCILMAN
BY PHIL REYNOLDS SOUTH JETTY REPORTER

Port Aransas has a roadway impact fee program, despite last-minute objections from residents who admitted they had waited too long to take a closer look at the proposal.

The new ordinance, approved on its third and final reading on Thursday, April 17, aims at making developers responsible for part of the wear and tear that their projects cause on city streets.

It uses a sliding scale for those assessments, which are payable at the time the building permit is picked up from the city. Multi-family developments would pay more than single-family houses because they're expected to generate more street traffic. By the same reasoning, businesses will be assessed more than homes.

Even with the fees, developers will pay slightly less than half the estimated cost of the streets that are in the city's sights as beneficiaries. Those streets are State Hwy. 361 between Avenue G and Beach Access Road 1A, 11th Street between Avenue G and Beach Access Road 1A and a proposed new beach access road south of Access Road 1.

To be eligible to benefit from the impact fee, streets must be in the city's thoroughfare plan and must be identified in the capital improvements plan. All three of the streets earmarked for impact fee funds meet those qualifications.

While admittedly long, complicated and cumbersome, the new ordinance had to be written that way to comply with state laws governing impact fees, consultant Dan Sefko told the council on Thursday.

In all, five people spoke to the council Thursday about the ordinance. Erol Hanmore, who has argued against the proposal since its beginning, attended the public hearing but did not have a statement.

Mark Creighton said like many residents, he paid no attention to the fee ordinance until Hanmore began speaking out.

"It seems like a lot to do to be in a position to cover street building (fi- nancially)," Creighton said. "I believe applications are questionable, and revenue will be variable at best."

He urged the council to seek ways to build streets without adding cost and complexity.

Former Councilman Mark Grosse noted that a friend had told him, "Whether you have one reading (of an ordinance) or 40, nobody ever shows up until the last reading."

"I recognize the frustration in this," Grosse said. "I'm one of those people."

He said he had read the ordinance, but wasn't sure whether he knew more after reading it than before.

"My first feeling was (that) it reminds me of those folks in Austin who have patted themselves on the back saying no new taxes … while raising every fee you can imagine," he said.

Grosse used as an example the hypothetical building of 10 boat barns along State Hwy. 361.

"That's 10 (boat trailers) that have a place to stay instead of driving down

' the Island Road or across the ferry," he said. "They'll be here whether there are boat barns or not, so I feel I've alleviated traffic instead of adding to it."

Yet, Grosse said, building the boat barns would cost him $1,200 in impact fees - for a project he believes would remove traffic from roadways instead of adding to it.

"(Impact fees) are a user fee," said Randall Moore. "Those who are building and developing pay the fee instead of using tax dollars."

He pointed to Nueces County Water Control and Improvement District No. 4, which uses impact fees.

"During the past 25 years, they've built a new water tower and new lines along (State Hwy.) 361 as well as expansions to the wastewater treatment plant, and they've done this without bonds or debt. This has resulted in a superior water system, the state's highest rating," he said.

' However, Moore said, he believes that's because the water district has administered impact fees carefully.

"I'd sorely hate to see the council implement impact fees and borrow against an unknown revenue stream," he said. "I believe if you implement it, it should be allowed to accrue funds instead of borrowing against it, a revenue stream which we have no idea what it's going to generate in the future."

Developer John Hooten spoke specifically about the State Hwy. 361 project.

"This project if envisioned as I see it would be a disaster," Hooten said.

He pointed to businesses along the highway that have one main entrance. If that entrance doesn't happen to be at a point where a left turn lane breaks the median, it would completely cripple the business, he said.

"I don't think impact fees for improvements to these (roadways), which are pretty much used by 90 percent of residents, is an equitable way to finance," Hooten said.

Jana Snow called the impact fee ordinance "not only confusing, it's ambiguous."

She argued that impact fees can't be used to improve existing roads. Yet, she said, "We're calling these (eligible roads) 'new' because they're being taken down to the base and being rebuilt, but they're the same streets and the people who live there will have the same address."

Snow also wanted to know if any study had been done on the potential impact to the city's economy (Sefko answered that none had been done).

"I'd just ask -- and I don't know that it will make a difference -- that you guys table this and take another look at it," she pleaded. "I know it's not fair to come here at the last minute when you've worked on it, but we need to know if we're really saving money or not."

Councilman Keith Donley apparently summed up the feelings of the council when he said, "If we don't have impact fees, the taxpayers pay 100 percent. If we do have, the taxpayers pay less than 100 percent. So to me it's just another form of alternative financing."

Councilman Mike Hall admitted that he hadn't liked the idea of impact fees when they were first proposed.

However, he said, "We have so many streets to fix that bonds won't cover, we'll probably have to do some of both anyway."

"I hate taxes and I hate fees," he added, "but we have to do something."

Councilman Bubba Jensen addressed Hooten's comments about the State Hwy. 361 project: "What we tried to do was decide what the money could be spent on. We didn't look at highway design," he said. "The money hasn't been allocated for design, we're simply outlining where it can be spent. We realize the design questions … there are issues to be ironed out, at the proper time."

"I've kept track of people who have called, and they've been overwhelmingly in favor (of impact fees)," said Councilman Rick Pratt.

But Pratt wanted to know, "If someone wants to know how much it's going to cost to build a boat barn, is there a way to hand him something simple, or do we need to wrestle with it this way until it decays?"

Sefko said the ordinance includes a table of costs so applicants can calculate how much traffic their building will generate.

"I'm not going to sit here and tell you this is the best way to write an ordinance on impact fees, but this tracks the law," Sefko said.

"Most of the comments I've heard have been very supportive," Councilman Keith McMullin said. "I remain supportive despite tonight's credible comments. I believe we can manage this as well as we've managed our fiscal policy before. The misinformation is that it will take all the burden off the local taxpayers, and that's just false; 200 homes on a golf course aren't going to pay for all this; it just assumes part of the burden."

The council voted unanimously to approve the ordinance, which includes some exemptions councilmen wrote into it. It also provides that an impact fee can't be collected on property that's already been platted for development, and has other exemptions and restrictions.

Jensen got in virtually the last word by recalling those who had waited until the final reading of the ordinance before speaking.

"Whether it's the first or the third reading, it's never too late for a citizen to come forward," he said. "We want to encourage citizens to come forward and we applaud you for doing so."