Loading...
2010 01 14 WS MinutesMINUTES OF THE REGULAR WORK SESSION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BAYTOWN January 14,2010 The City Council of the City of Baytown,Texas,met in a Regular Work Session on Thursday, January 14,2010 at 5:00 P.M.in the Council Chamber of the Baytown City Hall,2401 Market Street,Baytown,Texas with the following in attendance: Lena Yepez Council Member Lynn Caskey Council Member Brandon Capetillo Council Member Terry Sain Council Member David McCartney Council Member Scott Sheley Council Member Stephen DonCarlos Mayor Garrison C.Brumback City Manager Bob Leiper Deputy City Manager Kevin Trailer Assistant City Manager Ignacio Ramirez City Attorney Leticia Garza City Clerk Keith Dougherty Sergeant at Arms Mayor DonCarlos convened the January 14,2010,Regular Work Session of the City Council with a quorum present at 5:00 P.M. 1.DISCUSSION a.Discuss Proposed Fee Amendments -Fire,Planning and Development Services and Parks and Recreation. City Manager,Garry Brumback presented the agenda item to discuss a proposal for fee amendments in Planning and Development Services,Parks and Recreation and Fire Departments. Mr.Brumback stated that the City has not adjusted its fee in many years and hopes to obtain guidance from Council on this issue and move forward.Mr.Brumback indicated that staff is trying to find a balance between ad valorem taxes and user fees with the goal of being at the center of our region. As a follow-up to discussions held during the budget work sessions forthe City's budget,staff discussed proposed user fee adjustments in the Planning and Community Development Department,Parks and Recreation and Fire Department. Page 2 of 8 Minutes of the January 14,2010 City Council Work Session Assistant Fire Chief,Bernard Olive,stated that the proposed fees for the Fire Department are as follows: New Construction: Proposed Fee:$100 -1st 12,000 square feet Cost for City to provide:a little higher Includes: •Plans review or reviewed •Initial inspection •(1)re-inspection Cost Recovery:66% Lower than:Harris County and Richmond Higher than:Webster Fire Protection System (26-100 heads/devices): Proposed Fee:$150 Cost for City to provide:$172.59 Includes:Plans review Sprinkler: •Underground Hydrostatic Test and Visual Inspection •System Hydrostatic Test and Visual Inspection •Flow Test and Alarm Initiation Test Fire Alarm: •Visual Inspection •Initiation Device Test •Alerting Device Test •Monitoring Station Verification Cost Recovery:87% Lower than:Harris County,Webster,Richmond,Tomball,&Galveston Certificate of Occupancy (For New Business or new owner in existing building with no plans reviewed required): Proposed Fee:$35 Fee Cost for City to provide:$78.24 Includes: •Initial inspection •(1)re-inspection Cost Recovery:45% Lower than:Harris County and Galveston Higher than:Webster,Richmond,and Tomball Mayor DonCarlos asked how much higher the City is than Tomball;Chief Olive stated that the City's fees are $10 higher than Tomball. Page 3 of 8 Minutes of the January 14,2010 City Council Work Session Annual License Inspections: Davcares Proposed Fee:$75 Fee Cost for City to provide:$78.24 Includes: •Initial inspection •(1)re-inspection Cost Recovery:96% Lower than:Harris County and Galveston Higher than:Beaumont Foster Homes Proposed Fee:$50Fee Cost for City to provide:$78.24 Includes: •Initial inspection •(1)re-inspection Cost Recovery:64% Lower than:Harris County Equal to:Beaumont Hospitals &Nursing Homes Less than 50 beds:$50 50-100 beds:$100 (comparison) More than 100 beds:$150 Cost for City to provide:$117.36 Includes: •Initial inspection •(1)re-inspection Cost Recovery:85% Lower than:Harris County and Beaumont Equal to:Galveston Mr.Olive stated that these fees are calculated according to the amount of staff time it takes to complete the task. Council Member Sheley asked if the costs for nursing homes are based on 50 beds or more than 100;Mr.Olive stated that the fees are based on the amount of hours that the inspector spends at the location and not on the number of beds.Mr.Olive reported to Council that there are four (4) certified inspectors in his office that deal with these inspections,and about six (6)in suppression. Permit/Inspections Tar Pots:$75 perpot -Max $225 per site Cost Recovery:96% Carnivals/Fairs:$150 Page4 of 8 Minutes of the January 14,2010 City Council Work Session Cost Recovery:93% Underground Fuel Tank Install/Remove:$50 tank Cost Recovery:64% Temporary Food Vendors:$25 per site location Cost Recovery:64% Hazardous Materials Occupancies:add'l $150 At time of Certificate of Occupancy Mayor DonCarlos recommended that all of the cost for the fuel tank install/remove fee be recovered. Inspections Miscellaneous (Based on City of Baytown Municipal Code Sec.18-127) $35 -Re-Inspections,after 1st re-inspection,per inspection-hour,1-hour minimum,or cost to COB $35 -Inspection for which fee is not specifically indicated,per-inspector hour,or cost to COB $35 -Inspection outside of business hours,per inspector-hour,minimum 2 hours,or cost to COB $35 -Other inspection activity/standby/per inspector-hour,minimum 1 hour,or cost to COB Inspection Fee Exemptions (Based on criteria in use for permitting by Building Services and Health Department) •Schools •Churches •Other 501 (c)3 Entities Mr.Brumback stated that previously the churches were exempt from fees during the July 4th celebration and Mr.Leiper stated that clarification of the specific exemptions will be brought before Council at the next meeting.Mr.Brumback also stated that an exact fee schedule for all fees will be brought to Council for their review. Planning Director,Kelly Carpenter stated that the proposed fees areasfollows: Fire Lane Easements Proposed Fee:$150 Home Occupation Proposed Fee:$25 Remove and $7 Annual Remove Fee Ms.Carpenter stated that building fees have not been increased since 2001and propose an increase by approximately 27%in order to be in line with the inflation of the last seven (7)years. Ms.Carpenter stated that the Plan Review fee is not being proposed to be changed atthis time. She explained that the plan review fee is 25 %of the fees that are charged for a residential permit and 50%of the fees that are charged for a commercial permit and if the permit fees are raised, the plan review fees will change since it is a percent. Page 5 of 8 Minutes of the January 14,2010 City Council Work Session Residential Permit Fees (New residence 2731 SF (a)$151.000 Valued Building Proposed Fee:$784 Current Fee:$616 Lower Than:LaPorte,Beaumont Higher Than:Deer Park,Pasadena,Seabrook,Missouri City Electrical Proposed Fee:$126 Current Fee:$99 Lower Than:Pasadena,Missouri City Higher Than:LaPorte,Deer Park,Beaumont Mechanical Proposed Fee:$103 Current Fee:$81 Lower Than:Pasadena Higher Than:LaPorte,Deer Park,Beaumont,Missouri City Plumbing Proposed Fee:$116 Current Fee:$91 Lower Than:Pasadena,Missouri City Higher Than:LaPorte,Deer Park,Pasadena,Beaumont Plan Review:25% Proposed Fee:$784 Current Fee:$616 Lower Than:LaPorte,Deer Park,Pasadena,Seabrook,Beaumont,Missouri City Commercial Permit Fees (New Commercial based 280QSF @.$340.000 Value! Building Proposed Fee:$1,445 Current Fee:$1,136 Lower Than:LaPorte,Deer Park,Seabrook,Beaumont,Missouri City Higher Than:Pasadena Electrical f$15.000 Valuation^ Proposed Fee:$116 Current Fee:$91 Lower Than:LaPorte,Deer Park,Pasadena,Beaumont,Missouri City Mechanical (10.000 Valuation) Proposed Fee:$97 Page 6 of 8 Minutes of the January 14,2010 City Council Work Session Current Fee:$77 Lower Than:Pasadena Higher Than:LaPorte,Deer Park,Beaumont,Missouri City Plumbing ($15.000 Valuation) Proposed Fee:$70 Current Fee:$55 Lower Than:LaPorte,Deer Park,Pasadena,Beaumont,Missouri City Plan Review 50% Proposed Fee:$723 Current Fee:$568 Lower Than:LaPorte,Seabrook,Beaumont,Missouri City Higher Than:Deer Park,Pasadena Ms.Carpenter stated that the City of Baytown fees are second in comparison to other cities,and noted that these are not inclusive of impact fees,water and sewer fees,or the collection fees associated with residential development.Ms.Carpenter stated that the goal for the fees is to recover some of the cost and to remain competitive in the market. Mr.Brumback stated that the staff is seeking guidance from Council on how to reduce the amount that the General Fund is subsidizing for user base services. Mayor DonCarlos asked if everyone was comfortable with moving forward with the fees and if there was anything in the horizon that would cause for the fees to be further adjusted.Mr. Brumback stated that staff was comfortable with locking these fees in for several years,but stated that special circumstances may arise in the future that would require staff to consider adjusting fees,but those would be brought to Council for further consideration. Council Member Sain requested for Ms.Carpenter to develop a percent recovery.Ms.Carpenter stated that it would bean estimate,but would bring Council the requested information at the next meeting.Council Member Capetillo recommended scheduling the review of Planning and Development fees every three (3)years. Director of Parks and Recreation,Scott Johnson,introduced the new Aquatics Coordinator Sarah Szymanski.Mr.Mike Flinn stated that Parks wanted to cover the cost instead of City.Mr.Flinn presented the fees as follows: Admission: Over 48"tall -$15 after 4pm -$7 Under 48"tall -$12 after 4pm -$5 Season Passes (Residents Only)-$75 The rentals of the park fees are to recover the cost of the life guards and closing down of the park to the regular citizens. Page 7of 8 Minutes of the January 14,2010 City Council Work Session Mr.Flinn stated,in response to a questions from Mayor DonCarlos regarding whether the pavilion rentals included admission to the water park,that the rental fee did not include park admission.Council Member Sain asked if the rental of the pavilion included the entire pavilion or just the kitchen area;Mr.Flinn indicated that this item had not been decided and Council's direction would be considered in the final decision.Mr.Flinn indicated that the three (3)big cabanas will be rented by the day at $100 or $150 per day on the weekend and swim lessons will be offered with the fees at the following: •Levels 1 &2 $30/6 classes •Levels 3,4,&5 $45/6 classes •Private $30 Session Council discussed the possibility of a family rate and/or discount,and requested that staff consider options and report back to Council on their findings.During the discussion of full time staff,Mr.Flinn stated that all staff if seasonal with the exception of the Aquatics Coordinator. Mr.Leiper noted that staff has been tasked with bringing forth information and fees that would allow the City to recover the water park's operating costs and have brought forth fees that they believe will help them achieve that goal;Council may reduce fees,but that reduction will have a direct impact on theCity's ability to recover cost.Mr.Johnson stated that the Baytown Parks and Recreation Board approved the presented fees earlier this month. b.Discuss Approach to a Tree Preservation Ordinance -Planning and Development Services. City Manager,Garry Brumback presented the agenda item and stated that more information will be brought back to Council. Ms.Carpenter presenteda report concerning the preparation and content of tree preservation standards. To date,Baytown has adopted landscape standards for commercial development but not for residential subdivisions nor for tree preservation.The existing standards are the Building Code. Tree preservation is the protection of desirable trees from mechanical and other injury during land disturbing (clearing),construction activity,and land development.Tree preservation ordinances can ensure the survival of desirable trees where they will be effective for erosion and sediment control,watershed protection,landscape beautification,dust and pollution control, noise reduction,shade and other environmental benefits while the land is being converted from forestto urban-type uses. Tree preservation standards are a key element in a unified land development code. Ms.Carpenter stated variousoptions for preserving trees. During the discussion on clear cutting,Ms.Carpenter stressed her concerns and explained her findings;1)many cities have an ordinance which identifies that a clearing and grubbing permit is Page 8 of 8 Minutes of the January 14,2010 City Council Work Session necessary,whether a development is being done or not and;2)a site plan is required before a permit is issued (which the City of Baytown eurrently does not have).Ms.Carpenter indicated that citizens and business owners arc clearing and grubbing because we do not regulate it and suggested when subdivision regulations and design guidelines come forward,there will be clearing and grubbing requirements not associated with tree preservation -unless she hears otherwise from the Council. Mr.Brumback staled that at this point we have no tools to prevent it. Ms.Carpenter slated that if the goal is short term for clear cutting,then she recommendswd writing an ordinance butnot calling it tree preservation. 2.APPOINTMENTS a.Library Hoard -City Clerk. City Manager,Garry Brumback presented the agenda item to discuss three (3)appointments to the Baytown Library Board. The Baytown Library Board 18 a seven (7)member board of qualified voters and residents appointed by the City Manager with Council approval;members serve two (2)year terms with a three (3)consecutive term limit. The Library Board promulgates general rules and regulations covering the policies and operations of the Library Department with the approval of the City Council. There are three (3)members whose term is set to expire on February 28,2009,and they are;Ms. Steffani Boxwho is not eligible for rcappointincnt as shehasserved her three (3)consecutive terms;Ms.Madeleine CrespoandMs.Cheryl Griffin who both desire reappointment. Mr.David Frazier has filed an application to serve on the Board with the City Clerk's Office to fill the vacancy left by Ms.Box. 3.ADJOURN Mayor DonCarlos adjourned the January 14,2010,Regular Work Session of the City Council at 6:10 P.M. Leticia Garza,Ci City of Baytown"