Northlake 635(3)-CS 960524To:
Jim Witt, City Manager
Via:
From:
RE:
Date:
Clay Phillips, Deputy City Manager
Kenneth M. Griffin, P.E., ACM/City Engineer
Credits and offsets to Impact Fees f, r-~'"~"~'~'~'~
May 24, 1996
I have completed my review of a request on March 29, 1996 from Westm
for a credit to the impact fees. Their credit request cuts across Ord
Resolution g010996.2. The request is for an offset and credit of $1,023,131
analysis of their approach to the request shows that there could be some mis
first part of the request concerns the construction and right-of-way dedicatio
Crestside, both interior streets through the Northlake Business Park develop
are handled under Resolution t/010996.2 Section 3-1-b which states that on-,,
not on the Thoroughfare Plan, are eligible for a credit against the impact t~
of the construction of the roadway and the dedication of the right-of-way.
recall that we revised the ordinance to be very specific that any individual
not exceed 50 % of the actual amount of the impact fees due and payable. ~
deducted 50% on the front end and only asked for half the credit due then
Crestside. On the surface this may appear to be a better deal for the City.
they now believe they can get 100% offsets against any impact fees, then in
be a situation where the City would not be collecting any fees until thei
million dollars had been expended. I have recalculated this and have given
the construction and right-of-way dedication of Lakeshore and Crestside.
is conveyed back to Westmark it needs to be very clear that while they haw
million dollars, each individual development is only eligible for up to a 50
roadway impact fees.
The second aspect of this request is for credit for the assessment paid on Be
trk Realty Advisors
inance t/95685 and
i.58. However, my
anderstanding. The
a for Lakeshore and
a~ent. Those streets
:ite collector streets,
.'e of the actual cost
However, you may
credit request could
testmark Realty has
t for Lakeshore and
However, if in fact
actuality this would
r bank of over one
them full credit for
~Iowever, when this
~, a bank of over one
~ reduction in their
It Line Road. They
are requesting 100% credit for that assessment. However, Ordinance #9568~ states that you can
only get a credit in the amount of a fraction of which the numerator is th~ impact fee actually
assessed and the denominator is the maximum impact fee that could be as~ssed. In this case,
we assess $300 and in this zone we have the right to assess up to $1258. ~hat fraction creates
a percentage of 23.85%. When you multiply the Belt Line Road assess~en, t of $391,589.65
times the 23.85% you arrive at a credit of $93,383.86. It is important t~ draw a distinction
between the amount of credit generated under Ordinance//95685 and the b: mk generated under
Resolution//010996.2. The distinction is that the credit under Ordinance//95685 is given only
on a 23.85% basis not a 50% basis. Because we are utilizing two different modes of
calculations, this could become a very complicated endeavor to track.
In summary:
1.
There is a $1,263,093.86 credit available under Resolution 010996.
for 50% offset against any impact fees on a case by case basis.
There is a $93,383.86 credit available under Ordinance #95685 wl
rate of 23.85% per equivalent service unit until such time as
exhausted.
My recommendation to simplify this matter is that the applicant
$1,263,093.86 against their development at a 50% reduction of impact fee
it is exhausted. Only at that time should they consider utilizing the $93
reduction until it is exhausted. It is unlikely that this development will ext
dollars prior to the build out of this development.
2 which is available
rich is credited at a
the $93,383.86 is
hould utilize their
:s until such time as
~83.86 at a 23.85%
aust the 1.2 million
I will be happy to discuss this with you if you have any questions.
It should be very clear in the responding correspondence that again the offs,;t is only up to 50%
of the amount due for each individual development. Based on previous ex~aerience, there may
also need to be some dialogue in the letter to Westmark Realty Advisor concerning the
ownership of this property. Their letter indicates that they are the owners o{ Northlake Business
Park, however, there have been numerous enquiries concerning developn~ent on this land, in
particular Varilite. Therefore, I am unsure whether Westmark Realty is st~ll the sole owner of
the property or if they have sold off portions of the property. The last thint: that we need to get
into is a situation similar to the Park West Development. While the ordina ace does not require
us to research ownership, it might be prudent to bring up that matter wi'~a Westmark Realty
Advisors to resolve this matter on the front end and adjust their credit, if in fact they do not still
own the entire land.