Loading...
2016 10 27 WS MinutesMINUTES OF THE REGULAR WORK SESSION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BAYTOWN OCTOBER 27, 2016 The City Council of the City of Baytown, Texas met in a Regular Work Session on Thursday, October 27, 2016 at 5:37 P.M., in the Hullum Conference Room of the Baytown City Hall, 2401 Market Street, Baytown, Texas with the following in attendance: Robert Hoskins Council Member David McCartney Council Member Chris Presley Council Member Terry Sain Council Member Stephen DonCarlos Mayor Rick Davis City Manager Ignacio Ramirez City Attorney Leticia Brysch City Clerk Keith Dougherty Sergeant at Arms Mayor DonCarlos convened the October 27, 2016, City Council Regular Work Session with a quorum present at 5:37 P.M., all members were present with the exception of Council Member McCartney who arrived at 5:41 P.M., and Council Members Capetillo and Renteria who were both absent. 1. DISCUSSIONS The agenda was taken out of order and item Ld was discussed. d. Discuss the Baytown Youth Fair request for granting variances regarding (i) the distance requirement from residential areas; (ii) the time limitations contained in such live outdoor exhibition for a concert; and (iii) the placement of off - premise signs on city property, contingent upon the filing of the requisite application and assumption of liability. Health Department Director, Mike Lester presented the item and stated that the City completed the annexation of the Baytown Youth Fairgrounds early last year, and because of the timing in which the annexation took place, they were already in the middle of their contractual agreements. As such, the Council at that time agreed that the annexation caught them off guard and they did not have time to comply with all aspects of the City Codes. He note that the Baytown Youth Fair had submitted for three (3) variances to the City's code, the first two dealt with variances to the City's live outdoor exhibition ordinance related to the 500 foot distance requirement, which is defined from lot line to lot line, from the event to the residential housing and the second was to extend the hours of operation from the 11:00 P.M. to 12:30 A.M. Mr. Lester stated that the third request allowed for the event to be a co- sponsored city event that would then allow for the City Council Work Session Regular Meeting Minutes October 27, 2016 Page 2 of 8 placement of their banners across city roadways, at Garth, North Main and Decker, which is something that has been done on numerous occasions in the past and staff had no opposition to the request. Mr. Lester noted that in the first variance related to the distance requirement in the code, that when the ordinance was being written, staff was looking at small property lots that backed up to residential structures mainly in the A.C.E. District and along Alexander Drive, and the direction of the council was to keep these types of events at least 500 feet away from a residential structure. He stated that in this instance the lots are large and the venue where the event is going to be held is a substantial distance from the closest residence; therefore, staff feels that the distance requirement is appropriate. He further noted that as it relates to the request for a variance to the hours of operation that this is in direct opposition to the existing live outdoor event ordinance which limits the hours of operation for these events to 11:00 P.M., as well as, the Juvenile Curfew ordinance that does not allow juveniles to be out after 12:00 A.M. Mr. Lester noted that this year is different from last year in the sense that the Baytown Youth Fair was well aware of the time limitations on their event, and cannot be supported by the staff as it is in direct opposition to the codes. The Mayor and Council discussed the item and felt that the variances are appropriate considering that council represented to the Baytown Youth Fair that they would not have to change their structure, their hours and the way they did business if they were annexed by the City, and because of their continuous operation and activities for the last 15 years with the same format, the council will work with them to allow for their continued operation even though they have been annexed. a. Discuss the quarterly substandard structures report. City Manager Davis presented the agenda item and reminded council that they had agreed a few months ago to create a better flowing and more effective system with regard to addressing substandard housing. He stated that the Council's desire was to receive an electronic monthly report on the progress of what's been happening. He stated that in addition to the monthly report staff meets quarterly and report to the council on the progress in addressing substandard housing. Mrs. Tiffany Foster, Director of Planning and Development Services and Mr. Scott Williams, Chief Building Official presented the council with its first quarterly report. Mrs. Foster noted that staff had provided the council with the first quarter monthly electronic reports, and have recognized that one of council's goals is the increase in enforcement as it relates to substandard buildings. She stated that the substandard process is very good, but one of the things lacking is man power; therefore, one (1) inspector was pulled from doing a number of different duties to focus solely on the substandard structure program, which resulted in the demolishing or repair of 72 structures from 2015 through September 2016, and six (6) more being taken down, along with 3 -5 more search warrants since the beginning of October of this year. She stated that the report shows a definite increase in activity in the substandard structure program and introduced Mr. Williams, who oversees the substandard program, to give council a general overview of the program and highlights of the substandard process. City Council Work Session Regular Meeting Minutes October 27, 2016 Page 3 of 8 Mr. Williams stated that the goal of the process is not to demolish structures but rather preserve the health, public safety, and value of this community by repairing structures and bringing them to a viable condition for the City. He stated that unfortunately, many structures end up being demolished due to a lack of interest of the property owner. He stated that the ordinance was re- written in 2012 -2014, after a lawsuit, Stewart vs. the City of Dallas, and the City's program was one of the first to come back online following that court decision. Mr. Williams stated that the City of Baytown's ordinance and program is structured almost identical to Chapter 214 of the Texas Local Government Code, which outlines the process a municipality must take in order to address a substandard structure, whether that be demolished, secured or repaired. He stated that in our case, since the City has a Court of Record, this allows staff to take substandard cases to the municipal court where it is then heard and decided upon and any appeals to these decisions then go to district court. Mr. Williams stated that as it relates to timelines, many of the time frames staff must adhere to are set by the Local Government Code. He noted that considering the weekends, holidays and scheduled vacations, as well as, the optimal court schedule and availability, the soonest an order can be attained on a substandard building is three (3) months or 90 days. He noted that on average it takes staff four (4) months, but if there are additional agreements or repair schedules put in place by the judge, the process could take anywhere from 12 -15 months. Mr. Williams stated that the process works and sometimes may take a little longer for more complicated cases; such as the old San Jacinto Hospital or the Bluebird Apartments, which had a motivated and committed owner. With regards to vacant structures, Mayor DonCarlos inquired if there was a way to move them from being secured to a tear down if they have been secured and then for all intents and purposes abandoned. Mrs. Foster stated that even if a property is abandoned, vacant and boarded, it cannot be put through the substandard structure process, unless it is actually substandard and is not structurally sound. She further stated that if the structures are structurally sound, the staff cannot recommend to a judge that they be demolished. Mr. Williams further noted that a structure has to pose a danger to the health, safety and welfare of the public; such as, parts falling off the structures that can hit and harm the public. The Council discussed various situations where structures could be considered dangerous and a potential hazard to the public. Mr. Williams noted that these nuisances had to rise to a level of being a true hazard to the public, as Texas is a property state and will not allow for the taking of private property without a very strong case to support it under state law. Mrs. Foster stated that staff does a review of the different structures that have some varying degrees of issues and identify those that can and should be put through the substandard structure program. She noted that with the limitation in staff and resources staff has to prioritize which structures are going to be put through the process first with the understanding that target goes to the ones that are the most dangerous. Mrs. Foster stated, in response to an inquiry from council regarding the abandoned property program, that this program encompasses commercial buildings, as well as, residential structures that have been ordered boarded by the Municipal Court. Council then discussed the possibility of expanding the abandonment building program. Mr. Williams noted that this is a good program that is very labor intensive and in order City Council Work Session Regular Meeting Minutes October 27, 2016 Page 4 of 8 to expand its scope, they would need more staff and resources because it would be very difficult to undertake these additional duties with the existing work load and resources. The Council discussed the possibility of demolishing structures that have been foreclosed on because of owed taxes. City Attorney, Ignacio Ramirez stated that the City did not have the authority to demolish a structure simply as a trustee as there are other taxing entities that have a vested interest in the properties. During further discussion, Mr. Williams stated that it seemed that the Council was looking at expanding the code enforcement activities across the City to ensure that there is a minimum standard for structures. He noted that this type of activity is very labor intensive that would require the allotment of additional staff, time and resources, in order for it to be successful and really make a positive impact on the City. Mrs. Foster noted that they have been successful in addressing the substandard structure issues by dedicating one full time employee on this program alone. She further noted that by moving this one (1) employee from conducting any other duties, the staff has identified some areas in which they are falling short and will need additional resources to handle the processing of inspections and plan reviews. Mrs. Foster stated that they are currently undertaking a full review of what resources will be needed in order to meet the needs associated with these duties. Mr. Williams noted that the one (1) substandard enforcement officers works on an average of 37 cases at one time, while the one (1) code enforcement officer works on an average of 70 -75 cases at one time. Additionally, Mr. Williams noted that the staff is at capacity and cannot take on additional duties and maintain the same high quality of work without support and resources. Mayor DonCarlos suggested that staff post signs or in some way inform the public when it begins the substandard process with a home, so that they are aware that the City is looking into their concerns which has to go through about a four (4) month process. In response to Mayor DonCarlos's suggestion Mrs. Foster stated that staff could add signage to the property when it begins the substandard structure process. City Manager Davis stated that staff will continue to review this process, to follow the law and work to eliminate the blighted and substandard structures of our city. b. Receive update of the land use assumptions and capital improvements plan. City Engineer, Jose Pastrana presented an overview of the capital improvement plan (the "plan") and related impact fees (the "fees ") and changes and updates needed for moving forward. Mr. Pastrana stated that the plan and fees are typically updated every five (5) years in accordance with Chapter 396 of the Local Government Code; however, nothing precluded the Council from updating these items at any time. He stated that the City is looking into updating the plan in order to add some additional projects, particularly that of San Jacinto Boulevard. He stated that the components related to the updating of the plan and fees are as follows: City Council Work Session Regular Meeting Minutes October 27, 2016 Page 5 of 8 • the service area for the City is the entire city, parts of its ETJ and other surrounding areas that we plan on annexing in the future; • the service unit is defined as household connections; • the land use assumptions must be analyzed, in order to identify what is projected to be built in the service area (residential, commercial, apartments, etc.); and • a capital improvements plan or list of projects that are projected in the area. Mr. Pastrana stated that the land use assumptions and the service area are used to identify the number of service units, which are then used to develop appropriate projects to service the area in question, such as lift stations, water lines, etc. He stated that the City is only allowed to recover about 50% of the cost of the project through the use of impact fees. He noted that a service unit is defined as the standardized measure of consumption attributable to an individual unit of development, which in the City's case is a household connection that has a standard water meter of 5/8" x 3/4 ". Mr. Pastrana stated that land use assumptions are not going to be changed this time around, but should that be the pleasure of the Council in the future public input would be required in order to change it. He stated that only the capital improvement plan and the impact fees are being changed at this time, whereas, public input was not required. The Council reviewed maps that identified the 2013 wastewater impact fee growth for capital improvement plan to the proposed 2017 plan, and identified the proposed additions to the plan as the following: • San Jacinto Boulevard 2.0 MGD Lift Station & 12 -inch Force Main • John Martin Road 21 -inch Wastewater Line • John Martin Road 18 -inch Wastewater Line • San Jacinto Boulevard North Wastewater Line • San Jacinto Boulevard South Wastewater Line and • John Martin 8 -inch Wastewater Line The Council reviewed maps that identified the 2013 water impact fee growth for capital improvement plan to the proposed 2017 plan, and identified the proposed addition to the plan as the following: • 12 -inch Water Line Along San Jacinto Boulevard Lastly, Mr. Pastrana went over the proposed impact fees for water and wastewater, which are as follows: Wastewater Impact Fees: Existing Adopted Fee = $1,918.99 Maximum Assessable Fee = $2,437 Difference of = $518.01 City Council Work Session Regular Meeting Minutes October 27, 2016 Page 6 of 8 Water Impact Fees: Existing Adopted Fee = $324.47 Maximum Assessable Fee = $1,087 Difference of = $762.53 Mr. Pastrana stated that these impact fees are fair and are in line with how impact fees are supposed to be assessed, which is to identify the cost of the impact to those that are undertaking the development and not anyone else. He further noted that he would recommend the approval of the impact fees as presented. Council Member McCartney inquired as to how the determination was made that the impact fees being presented were fair. Mr. Pastrana stated that the proposed fees are in line with the requirements laid out under state law on how to calculate impact fees. Council Member Presley stated that the City did not have impact fees until 2006 and inquired how these types of projects were dealt with prior to 2006. Mr. Pastrana stated that prior to 2006; the City subsidized the costs of development projects through taxpayer monies in its general fund. City Manager Davis stated that there is sometimes a feeling from councils that they are stimulating residential development by subsidizing their impact fees. He noted that in his discussions with developers, they have noted that it is unlikely that any cost savings associated with impact fees is passed along in the home prices, and that homes are always going get as much as they can out of each house. He stated that on the other hand, every dollar that we go under the impact fee price; it required to come from some other area of the budget as a subsidy. He noted that there is no question that the infrastructure projects in questions are going to be completed; the question is how we are going to pay for them. He stated that if the project is being necessitated by growth, then the fee that is delivered to us by Kimley -Horn, or any other consultant for impact fees represents the developers' share of those costs. City Manager Davis advised the Council that there is no fluff in the proposed fees and if they do not approve the whole price, they must subsidize the fees through some other place in the budget. He further stated that if the Council desires to see that impact fee lower, an option is to scrutinize the project lists and see what can be postponed or removed from the list because that is the basis for the fee. Council Member McCartney inquired as to why these fees were not raised incrementally throughout the years instead of all at once. Council Member Presley stated that many of the projects on the list were not developer initiated, but were instead started by the City itself, and we are now asking developers to help pay for projects that we initiated internally. City Manager Davis stated that this is not exactly the case, because if not for the land use assumptions, the land growth that we are seeing in our community, these wouldn't be our projects and further noted that these are not developer driven projects as much as they are developer necessitated because we have to grow our system in order to allow for more people to move in. City Council Work Session Regular Meeting Minutes October 27, 2016 Page 7 of 8 Council Member Presley stated that the argument could be made that the road projects are necessitated by the City's traffic issues and that the City should burden some of the cost for these developments because of bad planning. Deputy City Manager Bottoms stated that the City is paying for the cost of the building of San Jacinto Boulevard and what is being discussed at this time are the utilities, which is a separate item. Deputy City Manager Bottoms noted that the building of San Jacinto Boulevard was what spurred this plan update because when the plan was last updated, the City was not contemplating its construction and also stated that the City is looking for funds to build the water utilities for the road, in which impact fees is an appropriate mechanism to do so, but it has to be on the approved list. City Manager Davis clarified that impact fees do not pay for the entirety of the cost for the project and that the City certainly contributes a fair share of tax dollars toward the completion of critical construction projects. Mayor DonCarlos stated that the impact fees are only 50% of the costs of the project; therefore, the City already subsidizes 50% of the project costs and further stated that the question is, do we want to subsidize more. Mr. Pastrana stated that part of the comparison submitted to Council is that they can choose a fee anywhere in between. Council requested that staff undertake a survey of the impact fees of surrounding cities. Deputy City Manager Bottoms stated that it is difficult to compare Baytown to some of the surrounding cities as many of them are much smaller and don't have as much infrastructure or are not growing as fast. He further noted that Deer Park and LaPorte have one wastewater treatment plant and Baytown has four; they don't have a water treatment plant and Baytown is about to have two; however, Pasadena might be a good comparison city. Deputy City Manager Bottoms noted that there is no action item for the Council's consideration on this item yet, but was an introduction to the Council and the public of what is going to come before them soon. The Council voiced that they are surprised at such a large increase in the impact fees. Mr. Ramirez stated that part of that 300% increase in impact fees is that the last time this came up Council decided not want to do the max amount and are now playing catch -up. Deputy City Manager Bottoms noted that this is what would happen again and the situation would only get worse. Council Member McCartney stated that he had been a council member for eight and half years and he did not remember being asked to increase impact fees and further inquired if it was necessary to raise the fees. City Manager Davis stated that the impact fees analysis allows the Council to decide what additional growth cost the City in terms of infrastructure and every dollar below that limit means that we have to pull those dollars from somewhere else. Additionally, City Manager Davis stated that this is a philosophical thing that also has a perceived inequity on the part of people who don't believe they need to be paying for private development improvements. C. Discuss the youth board member positions. This item was not discussed. e. Discuss any or all of the agenda items on the City Council Regular Meeting Agenda for October 27, 2016, which is attached below. This item was not discussed. City Council Work Session Regular Meeting Minutes October 27, 2016 Page 8 of 8 2. ADJOURN With there being no further business to discuss, Mayor DonCarlos adjourned the October 27, 2016, City Council Regular Work Session at 6:30 P.M. Leticia Brysch, City Clerk a s City of Baytown CO %" ,