Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-03-02 MinutesMayor Dan Coody City Attomey Kit Williams City Clerk Sondra Smith aye evi le AR KA N SA 5 City of Fayetteville Arkansas City Council Street Committee Meeting Minutes March 2, 2006 City Council Street Committee Minutes March 2, 2006 Page 1 of 6 Member Aldermen Ward 1 Position 1 - Ward 2 Position 2 Ward 3 Position 2 Ward 4 Position 2 - Robert Reynolds — Don Man- - a r— Robert Ferrell Lioneld Jordan A meeting of the Fayetteville City Council Street Committee was held on March 2, 2006 at 5:00 p.m. in Room 326 of the City Administration Building located at 113 West Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas. MEMBERS PRESENT: Alderman Lioneld Jordan, Chair; Alderman Robert Ferrell; Alderman Robert Reynolds; and Alderman Don Marr Staff Present: Terry Gulley, Ron Petrie, Gary Dumas, Dan Coody, Tim Conklin, Jeremy Pate 1. Chairman Lioneld Jordan called the meeting to order. 2. Approval of the minutes from the February 13, 2006 Street Committee Meeting. Alderman Ferrell moved that the minutes of the Feb. 13, 2006 Street Committee meeting be approved as presented. Alderman Reynolds seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. Chairman Jordan moved Item #4 up on the agenda to #3 because a representative of Duncan & Associates, Jim Duncan, was waiting to participate in a conference call with the Committee. 3. Discussion of the Street Impact Fee Study as prepared by Duncan & Associates (formerly Item #4) Tim Conklin connected to a conference call with Jim Duncan of Duncan and Associates and asked him to explain the methodology for the Street Impact Fee Study and his experiences in how communities across the country have used that methodology. 113 West Mountain 72701 (479) 521-7700 (479) 575-8257 (Fax) accessfayetteville.org City Council Street Committee Minutes March 2, 2006 Page 2 of 6 Jim Duncan gave a basic description of the difference between a consumption -based methodology versus an improvements -based methodology. He said 90% of the impact fee studies his company performs are consumption -based and most cities and counties across the United States use the consumption -based methodology in figuring impact fees. There was discussion between the Committee and staff and Mr. Duncan regarding impact fees and growth issues. Chairman Jordan opened the floor for discussion from the audience. Charlie Sloan asked about a statement he remembered from Mr. Duncan about the possibility of some developers getting credits back for some of the roads they had built under the methodology now being used. Jim Duncan said that is correct. He said if any developer has the interest and commitment to build a road that is on the Street Master Plan and if the City concurs that the priority for that improvement is there, the developer can be credited. You don't pay impact fees in addition to the construction. It is called a construction credit. In response to a further question from Charlie Sloan regarding right-of-way, Mr. Duncan explained whether right-of-way is included or excluded is the community's choice. If you include right-of-way, the fee is higher. If right-of-way is included in the cost of the impact fee, then for anything beyond basic access (local or residential street) credit is given. He said he didn't have the study in front of him so he couldn't calculate at what point the "basic access" might be redefined if the street serves other areas in addition to the new development. Chairman Jordan asked if there is enough flexibility built into the impact fee to allow the City to reduce or eliminate the fee if a developer builds attainable housing. Jim Duncan said we have to be careful because of proportionate fair share issues. The affordability of housing is the number one issue in this country and there is some legislation being introduced to address the issue. Cities and counties' hands are pretty well tied now but he thinks there will be some legislative help in the future in many states. There was some discussion about impact fees where it affects retail establishments. Mr. Duncan explained that use and size affect the fee, so smaller establishments will pay less. However, ownership does not affect the fee so it wouldn't matter if the facility is a franchise or chain or locally owned. Alderman Marr asked if Mr. Duncan had a recommendation on whether Fayetteville, with its current growth rate, should lean toward including or excluding right-of-way in impact fees. 113 West Mountain 72701 (479) 521-7700 (479) 575-8257 (Fax) accessfayetteville.org City Council Street Committee Minutes March 2, 2006 Page 3 of 6 Jim Duncan said he would need to go back and look through the information regarding Fayetteville's impact fees and the dialogue that went into the study. There being no further questions for Mr. Duncan, the conference call was terminated. Alderman Jordan said, for the purpose of the discussion tonight, he wants the committee to determine whether they can agree on the calculation methodology used in the study in order to forward it on the Council. Alderman Marr said there are numbers in the study both including and excluding right-of-way. He is concerned that the question of whether we do or don't include right-of-way in the calculations must be answered before the methodology is approved. Mayor Coody agreed that this is a fundamental question that must be answered up front. In response to a question from Alderman Marr, Tim Conklin said in addition to the right-of- way issue, there is language in the study regarding developer credits that also needs to be clarified. There was discussion between staff and Committee members about examples of roads where developers might or might not receive credits. There was also discussion regarding the current policy and how the language in the study reads. Charlie Sloan, a developer, said he thinks the developer should be given credit (off the impact fee) for roads they build that are used by residents other than those living in the development. Gary Dumas explained that the impact fees are an investment into the street system. He said the impact fee must be paid after the house is built, not while it is being developed. By State law, the impact fee must be paid at the time the certificate of occupancy is granted. The developer dedicates the right-of-way; the City pays for the additional work and then is reimbursed by the collection of impact fees as the homes are built. The City can give credit for the improvement of a specific section of road if the Council chooses to do so. However, he said we would need to look closely to make sure the impact fee is adequate to reimburse that portion. After further discussion, Chairman Jordan suggested setting up another Street Committee meeting to discuss this issue further. 4. Proposed amendment to the Master Street Plan to reduce the required dedication of right-of-way from 55' to 35' along Archibald Yell Boulevard for the property at 230 East Avenue (Penguin Ed's Barbeque) Jeremy Pate explained that the right-of-way at this site was dedicated to the City and ultimately to the Arkansas State Highway and Transportation Department in 1951. This building was 113 West Mountain 72701 (479) 521-7700 (479) 575-8257 (Fax) accessfayetteville.org City Council Street Committee Minutes March 2, 2006 Page 4 of 6 originally constructed around 1960 and was constructed within the State right-of-way. This was prior to our current zoning ordinances. The owners would like to add approximately 400 sq. feet to the back (south) of their building, outside of the right-of-way and the building set -backs. In order to expand this structure, which is located within the right-of-way, Penguin Ed's was required to first get a variance from the Board of Adjustments (which they did), and also either request to vacate the right-of-way (which they can't do through the City since it is a State right- of-way) or request that the City recognize that they are located within the State Highway Dept. right-of-way and allow them to get a building permit. They are asking that the 50 feet from center line right-of-way be reduced to 35 feet from center line. Alderman Marr asked if this request is consistent with the cross section for College Avenue that was presented by staff at the last Street Committee meeting. Jeremy Pate said that it is consistent with that drawing. In response to a question from Alderman Ferrell, Mr. Pate stated that staff is supportive of this request. Alderman Ferrell moved that the request be granted. Alderman Reynolds seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. After some further discussion, Alderman Marr moved that an amendment be made to the previous motion, changing the 35' from center line to 36' from center line. Alderman Ferrell seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. 5. Discussion of the proposed City Transportation Improvement Program Ron Petrie said the decision was made to bring this back to the Committee and staff determined to make changes to get the program ready for this meeting. Since the costs associated with the projects were approximately one year old and had been calculated before the escalation in gas prices and Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, staff went through and reevaluated those costs for each project. They also revised all the drawings of the projects and made all the revisions to the lists for the decisions and changes that have occurred in the last five or six months. He distributed the revised information to the Committee members and reviewed those revisions. He talked about Phase One projects, explaining that he had moved some of the dollars from Phase Four into Phase One. Alderman Marr asked for clarification about the limits of Phase One. His understanding from the presentation made by the Bond Counsel was that Phase One was limited to around $24 or $26 million. Ron Petrie explained that the bottom line funding was $25 million, with $27 million considered acceptable by the Bond Counsel. He suggests that the City Council decide on what they think 113 West Mountain 72701 (479) 521-7700 (479) 575-8257 (Fax) accessfayetteville.org City Council Street Committee Minutes March 2, 2006 Page 5 of 6 should be a part of Phase One and submit that to the Bond Counsel to see what it would take to make it happen. Projects can later be pulled out of Phase One if necessary. If the Committee can agree now on phasing, staff can get some options for funding from the Bond Counsel for the next Street Committee meeting. Mr. Petrie continued to review the changes presented to the Committee. Kings Drive has been eliminated from the Bond Issue list because there is currently money in the CIP for that project. There was some discussion of the match money in the Bond Program for the Federal earmarks for the Economic Development Corridor around the Mall area. A plan has not yet been developed for this project. But the $9 million Federal earmark and the $2.25 million match from the City is all a part of Phase One. Gary Dumas explained that the $9 million Federal funds will probably come to the City in three or four annual disbursements but is all a part of Phase One. Ron Petrie said that a new item added to the Bond Issue list is the College Avenue project. The amount shown is $12 million. At this time there is no "other available funding" but staff anticipates having additional funding at some point to stretch the dollar amount for this project. The $12 is spread out throughout Phase One through Phase Four, with $3 million per phase. Mayor Coody reminded the Committee that AHTD has expressed willingness to cost -share with the City on Phase Two of the Economic Development Corridor, which is 6th St. to North Street. There was discussion about the boundaries of the Economic Development Corridor, which includes all of College Avenue from 6th St. to the Mall area. However Phase One of this Corridor project is limited to the Mall area and that is what the $9 million Federal earmark and the $2.25 million City match will fund. The entire Corridor is divided into five phases. Alderman Jordan asked if there is a consensus from the Committee to move forward with the Phases outlined in the material Mr. Petrie has presented for the Bond Issue. Alderman Reynolds said he would like to see 15th Street back in Phase One because of the traffic issues in this area. Alderman Marr said he would like to get more input from the Bond Counsel on the maximum dollar amount they feel we could count on for Phase One. That could make a great deal of difference in the final plan. Gary Dumas said staff hoped to have the meeting with Bond Counsel by next week. Alderman Ferrell suggested meeting again in two weeks to review the information staff brings back from that meeting. 113 West Mountain 72701 (479) 521-7700 (479) 575-8257 (Fax) accessfayetteville.org City Council Street Committee Minutes March 2, 2006 Page 6 of 6 Alderman Jordan opened the floor to public comment. Tracy Hoskins asked who did the designs for the streets upon which the dollars amounts for the plan were based. Ron Petrie said most of the street concepts were done by staff. They used some of the BWR concepts from the Master Street Improvement plan in some areas. Staff has updated the costs where necessary. Charlie Sloan questioned that Mt. Comfort Rd. was considered a higher priority than Hwy. 16 East. Ron Petrie pointed out that Hwy 16 from Happy Hollow to Stonebridge is a Phase One project. Alderman Jordan suggested that Happy Hollow to South College be added into Phase One of the project list. Alderman Marr said he still feels that until we get an answer from Bond Counsel on the amount of money we can count on for Phase One, it is useless to continue discussing or adding particular projects. It was decided to leave the list as it is now until we get further information from the Bond Counsel. Staff will find out when Bond Counsel is available and try to get a representative to come to the next Committee meeting. 6. Scheduling of the next Street Committee Meeting A time will be set once Bond Counsel availability is established. 113 West Mountain 72701 (479) 521-7700 (479) 575-8257 (Fax) accessfayetteville.org