Loading...
2004 07 08 WS MinutesMINUTES OF THE WORK SESSION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BAYTOWN July 8, 2004 The City Council of the City of Baytown, Texas, met in work session on July 8, 2004, at 5:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber, Baytown, Texas, with the following in attendance: Sammy Mahan Don Murray Mercedes Renteria III Scott Sheley Calvin Mundinger Gary M. Jackson Karen Horner Gary W. Smith Absent was: Ronnie Anderson Council Member Council Member Council Member Council Member Mayor City Manager First Assistant City Attorney City Clerk Council Member The meeting was opened with a quorum present after which the following business was conducted: Receive presentation on and discuss Storm Water Management plan and rate study. Mike Lester, Director of Health and Emergency Medical Services, reviewed the storm water management legislation. In March 2003 Phase II became effective. Due to implementation delays, it is fully effective only for construction sites. Cities with population under 100,000 in urbanized areas are required to apply for permits. The permits have not been issued yet. Through prior work sessions and action of Council, the City has developed the Best Management Practices — public education and outreach, public participation and involvement, detect and eliminate illegal discharges, reduce construction site storm water pollution, reduce post - construction storm water pollution, and reduce municipal operations storm water pollution. Council established the storm water utility in November 2003. Staff proposes to apply for a general permit, due to the simplicity and significantly lower expense. Currently, it is necessary to develop a funding strategy of fair and equitable user fees. The benefits from storm water management are as follows: improved water quality, improved existing storm water infrastructure, flood control /prevention, and protection/restoration of creeks and natural areas. Taxation is not an appropriate method of funding storm water management. There is no correlation between taxation and storm water runoff. It does not equitably distribute storm water management costs. The fee should be based on a rational nexus. Staff recommends basing the fee on the percentage of impervious cover on property. The Municipal Drainage Utility Act Page 2 of 4 Minutes of the Work Session — July 8, 2004 legally supports fees if they are based on any basis other than the value of the property, the basis is directly related to drainage, and the fees are nondiscriminatory, equitable and reasonable. Currently an administrative charge is assessed. This is applied uniformly to residential and commercial properties. It is not equitable and is not related to the impervious cover. It was put in place temporarily to provide funding for the rate study. Costs eligible to be recovered through the fees are land and rights -of -way acquisitions; construction, repairs, maintenance of drainage- related structures, equipment and facilities; architectural, engineering, legal and related services, plans, studies, surveys, revenue and feasibility studies; funding, financing and interest charges arising from construction costs of a drainage facility; debt and financing costs of drainage facilities and equipment; and administrative costs associated with a drainage utility system. The following may be exempted from the fee: property owned by the State of Texas, county - owned property, municipally -owned property, school district property, and religious properties that are exempt from ad valorem taxation. The following properties must be exempted from the fee: property with proper construction and maintenance of a wholly sufficient and privately - owned drainage system, property held and maintained in its natural state, and a subdivided lot until a structure has been build on the lot and a certificate of occupancy has been issued. The following criteria should be considered when evaluating the fee: there should be a direct nexus to the service provided, the fee should be easy to administer, the fee should be perceived as equitable, and the revenue generated should be sufficient to fund the program. Staff has identified costs by level of service, identified the percentage of impervious cover and categorized it by land use, calculated a single - family living unit equivalent as 1,979 square feet, calculated the average monthly bill for each level of service, and calculated the rate design alternatives with and without schools and churches. The six possible levels of service are as follows: mandated compliance; efforts to meet best management practices; direct costs of drainage division; drainage related departmental overhead; drainage related annual debt service costs; and billing and collection costs. Staff will ask Council to determine the level of service to be funded, the rate design alternative preferred, and any other alternatives to consider. Gary Jackson, City Manager, explained that the proposal that will be presented in the budget will cover the minimum mandatory service, providing funding for the incremental increases. Receive presentation and discuss Downtown Master Plan. John Hoal, H3 Studios, reviewed the three public meetings and the private interviews that supported the development of the Downtown Master Plan. The vision must be supported by leadership. The implementation must be supported. Downtown is connected to the identity and economic health of a community. It is connected to small business creation. It is connected to tourism. It protects neighboring property values. Page 3 of 4 Minutes of the Work Session — July 8, 2004 Principles involved in redevelopment are as follows: • Well defined downtown districts and neighborhoods, • Creation of a mixed use, walkable district, • Creation of commercial and residential streets, • Creation of business and redevelopment programs, and • Creation of public /private partnerships to accomplish implementation. The initial focus should be on the area between Main Street and Whiting Street. This area has the concentration of commercial buildings and is a walkable distance. Remove the Snake, widen the sidewalks to sixteen feet, and provide one lane of traffic for each direction with parallel parking. Add trees and lighting. Connect the side streets and neighborhoods. Develop a streetscape to create a gathering place for people. Phase I should take two to three years. This will signal the change and encourage private development. Phase II will develop the streetscape. Phase III will maximize the return on the streetscape. Phase I will include formalizing the boundaries of downtown and the districts, establish economic incentives for each district, encourage volunteer work to clean the area, increase the number of special events, re -sign Decker Drive, restripe Texas Avenue, create an overlay zoning district to apply the rehabilitation code, create an historic district, and create a downtown zoning overlay district. The economic development programs should include a 50150 grant for facade improvements within the designated district, low interest building improvement loans for exterior work, small business incentives, and utilization of the enterprise zone. The first phase is primarily organization. Interested entities should join together to create a downtown development agency, which can raise funds for the project. Phase II will involve locating the funding for the streetscape design. It is estimated that it will cost approximately $350,000 per block for the design. Phase III involves management and maintenance of the area. At 6:00 p.m., Council took up the item on the Consumer Confidence Report. Receive presentation on and discuss Consumer Confidence Report. Armando Martinez, Lab Supervisor of Baytown Area Water Authority, reviewed the report. The Consumer Confidence Report has been mailed to each water customer in the City. It is also available at the Sterling Municipal Library, Utility Billing, and at the Baytown Area Water Authority. The report is designed to reveal contaminants in the drinking water. Contaminants may not be negative, as fluoride occurs naturally. It is beneficial in preventing tooth decay. The report provides a history of BAWA and sources for additional information. A table of contaminants is provided, along with goals for concentrations. The City of Baytown had no violations of the goals and, in all cases, met the limits by a lower concentration. Mayor Mundinger commented that Baytown has clean water and plenty of it. He commended the employees at BAWA for their work in providing clean water to the City. Page 4 of 4 Minutes of the Work Session — July 8, 2004 City Council again took up the topic of the Downtown Master Plan. Council discussed whether a cost sharing for fagade improvements was permitted by Texas law. Council requested a financial assessment on the proposed project. The timeframe for each phase is as follows: Phase I—one or two years and Phase II —five years. Mr. Hoal projected that the area would be vibrant within ten to fifteen years. Council Member Sheley reported that the Baytown Downtown Association was contacting legislators at the federal and state level to seek funding for the project. Discuss appointments. Baytown Industrial Development Corporation. Council Member Sheley indicated that he would move the appointment of Sammy Mahan to the Baytown Industrial Development Corporation. Industrial Appraisal Review Board. Council Member Renteria stated that he would move the reappointment of Ronn Haddox, Joe Muller and David A. Sherron to the Industrial Appraisal Review Board. Adjourn. There being no further business, Council Member Murray moved that the meeting adjourn. Council Member Sheley seconded the motion. The vote follows: Aye: Council Members Mahan, Murray, Renteria, and Sheley Mayor Mundinger Nay: None. The motion carried and the meeting adjourned at 6:22 p.m. d&Nf�v Gary W. Smith City Clerk