Loading...
2016 11 10 WS Minutes MINUTES OF THE REGULAR WORK SESSION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BAYTOWN NOVEMBER 10, 2016 The City Council of the City of Baytown, Texas met in a Regular Work Session on Thursday, November 10, 2016, at 5:38 P.M., in the Hullum Conference Room of the Baytown City Hall, 2401 Market Street, Baytown,Texas with the following in attendance: Brandon Capetillo Council Member Robert Hoskins Council Member David McCartney Council Member Chris Presley Council Member Terry Sain Council Member Stephen DonCarlos Mayor Rick Davis City Manager Karen Horner Assistant City Attorney Alisha Segovia Deputy City Clerk Keith Dougherty Sergeant at Arms Mayor DonCarlos convened the November 10, 2016, City Council Work Session with a quorum present at 5:38 P.M., all members was present with the exception of Council Member McCartney who arrived at 5:52 P.M. and Council Member Renteria who was absent. 1. DISCUSSIONS a. Discuss the City's continued litter abatement efforts, strategies and plans. This item was not discussed. b. Discuss proposed update of the land use assumptions, capital improvements plan and impact fees. City Engineer, Jose Pastrana presented the item and stated that he recommended changes to the land use assumptions, capital improvements plan (CIP) and impact fees with the intent to add some additional projects to the CIP, particularly that of the San Jacinto Boulevard Project, as well as, to adopt the maximum allowable recoverable impact fee rates. He stated that the connections were the following: Wastewater Impact Fees: Existing Adopted Fee=$1,918.99 Maximum Assessable Fee=$2,437 Difference of= $518.01 City Council Work Session Meeting Minutes November 10,2016 Page 2 of 7 Water Impact Fees: Existing Adopted Fee= $324.47 Maximum Assessable Fee=$1,087 Difference of=$762.53 Mr. Pastrana stated that per council's request from the last meeting, the staff compiled data related to the water and wastewater impact fees of surrounding cities. He noted that with the two exceptions of Webster and McKinney, the City of Baytown is lower than all of the other cities noted in the survey. He also noted that Webster is a land locked city with only 10,000 people and McKinney has an extreme population growth which is why their unit cost is much lower. During further discussion, City Manager Davis stated that when an impact fee is determined there really is no such thing as a maximum impact fee, there is simply an impact fee. He noted that some council choose to only charge a portion of that impact fee, because they erroneously believe that by lowering the impact fee it will translate into savings to the home buyer, which is not the case because a house is going to sell for what a house is going to sell. He stated that others believe that lowering the fee will attract home builders; however, the quality of home builder that the City is attempting to entice to build in our city is not the type that takes the impact fees into consideration when deciding whether or not to invest in our community. City Manager Davis stated that staff is trying to bring serious and high quality builders into Baytown and not the type that will come in and throw something together. He stated that every dollar shy of the impact fee represents a burden to our taxpayers because the project still has to be done; therefore, the determination is whether the developer is to be responsible for contributing to the degree that they need to in order to pay for the expansion of our infrastructure that is a product of their development. He stated that recommendation before Council is to accept the study and set up a public hearing to consider the adoption of the land use assumptions; capital improvements plan(CIP) and impact fees. City Manager Davis stated that this is a process that staff undertakes every few years to stay current on the impact fees, but according to the numbers are behind as they have not been kept up with for some time. He noted that this would be a good time to catch up on such fees as there are some critically important projects that will need funding in the near future with Baytown being one of the fastest growing cities in the Houston Metro area. City Manager Davis stated that he, the Mayor and other members of staff met with a number of home builders that were either building or interested in building in Baytown and they seem very receptive of the information related to the impact fees. He stated that it is the case with most high quality professionals that know that they need to pay their portion of infrastructure expansion; they insist that the fees be calculated by a professional, that they are not arbitrary, but fair and consistent and that we utilize those fees indeed for the construction of new infrastructure to accommodate their development. He further stated that the last thing expected is for the City to change the rules in the middle of a development which is not the intent, as the proposal is that these new fees be imposed on developments that are not already in our process and therefore, would only apply to new developments that come in after the new fees are adopted. Additionally, City Manager Davis stated that this was for informational purposes only and not for Council to make any decisions on. City Council Work Session Meeting Minutes November 10,2016 Page 3 of 7 Council Member Presley inquired that if a development was vested in the development process and have already submitted their letter of availability paperwork to the City, is not the City contractually obligated to honor the existing fees and not the new fees. In response to Council Member Presley's inquiry, City Manager Davis stated that what staff wants to do is if the developer is financially invested in the project, the City does not want to change the fees and alter their situation. Council Member Presley inquired if the City would work with a developer regarding such fees if after the Council holds the public hearing and adopts the new fees, and a developer comes in afterwards having already worked with their bank and wants to do a master plan. Mayor DonCarlos responded to Council Member Presley's inquiry and stated that at that point the development would not necessarily be in the process with the City and would not be considered an existing development, so they would get the new fees. Council Member Presley stated that he understood the need to update the impact fees and come time for consideration that he would vote yes to the proposed impact fees,but notes that instead of looking at 4-6 cities in north Texas as comparable that we should survey those surrounding cities to see where we are in comparison to them because he believed the City of Deer Park had no impact fees at all, the City of LaPorte has no or a very minimal impact fees, and that Mont Belvieu has an impact fee of $1,180. Additionally, he stated that his intent is to keep the City of Baytown competitive with its surrounding competitors and recommended that if possible to go up in smaller increments on the impact fees and not double as proposed. City Manager Davis noted that the reason staff did not survey these cities is because their infrastructure is not comparable at all to that of Baytown, which is complex and extensive. Mr. Pastrana stated that the Council could adopt anything between the current fee and the maximum allowable amount. City Manager Davis further noted that although Council does not have to adopt the maximum allowable amount being proposed they have to understand that with that decision the margin not covered by the impact fee is covered by tax payer monies in the general fund, which becomes a burden on those tax payers that are not participating in the development of the project. City Manager Davis further stated that this is a policy decision of the council and staff neither condemns it nor extol it,but will move forward as the council direct. Council Member Hoskins stated that he agreed with Council Member Presley on the importance of knowing what other cities in the Gulf Coast area were charging as their impact fees, in order to gage where Baytown ranked amongst them, as these fees could have an impact on where a developer will decide to invest. Council Member Capetillo stated that according to his understanding, the impact fee was not a huge factor in whether or not a high quality builder would develop here as these cost are passed onto the buyer; however, the additional survey would be good to know. The Council and staff discussed the impact fees for large subdivisions that are developer driven versus a single family home that is being built by the homeowner, and noted that there's no difference in the impact fees themselves as every development whether large or small impacts the water and sewer system in some way. Planning and Development Director, Tiffany Foster stated that the fees are based on the size of the meter and noted that a single family residential will have a 5/8's meter; therefore,would pay the lower impact fees. City Council Work Session Meeting Minutes November 10,2016 Page 4 of 7 During further discussion, City Manager Davis stated that staff would bring council back information related to the impact fees of surrounding cities,but wanted to caveat that Baytown is kind of an island based on its location, its size and with a very complicated infrastructure. He stated that the projects are what decide the impact fees and because the projects being proposed are going to happen, a decision as to how they're going to be funded is necessary. Mr. Pastrana noted that although the cities like Texas City, Deer Park, LaPorte, Conroe and Katy did not have impact fees, they do have charges through other mechanisms. City Manager Davis also noted that these cities could have decided against impact fees for a number of reasons, such as they didn't feel it was worth the expense or they didn't have as many large projects as we do, etc. Council Member Hoskins stated that he would like the information to at least gage where they want to be as it relates to the fees, and maybe consider not increasing the fee to the maximum proposed amount,but something in between. Council Member Presley stated that he was ok with the proposed increase, but wanted to make sure that the City was comfortable because once fees are raised they don't come down. Council Member Sain stated that since it's been a while since the last time that the fees were raised, this was a good time to consider this fee thoroughly in order to catch up to where it should be. City Manager Davis stated that the numbers being proposed are exactly what it cost to connect and accommodate into the city's infrastructure and are also based on a study and are not arbitrary. Additionally, he stated that what is adopted is a policy decision of the council and will be supported by the staff 100%. Mayor DonCarlos stated that currently, the City has an estimated 20,000 households with an estimated 25% increase in that amount underway, and there are very few cities that can say that they are in the same situation; League City, yes, but not LaPorte, or Deer Park. He stated that Mont Belvieu, is growing, but not at Baytown's level as most of the development is in the county and not in the city limits of Mont Belvieu. Additionally, he stated that Baytown is growing rapidly to the north of the city, which means that there will be lots of line extensions that will need to be built, which is very expensive. City Manager Davis noted stated that it is important to keep in mind that San Jacinto Boulevard is an integral part of this housing expansion to the north as it is being built to accommodate that growth to the north. Additionally, Mayor DonCarlos stated that none of the home developers that they spoke to in their meeting seemed in anyway negatively impacted by the proposed impact fees. Council Member McCartney stated that he wanted to make sure that the city maintained its competitive posture in the older parts of town, because all of those older folks are paying for projects in the newer part of town, which once again makes it more difficult for people in the older parts of town to make the numbers work. He further inquired as to what's going to be done to help these older areas of town get some much needed growth if they're outside of the Empowerment Zone. Mayor DonCarlos stated that council might want to look at the older areas of town to give them a break as it relates to infill; perhaps a separate program. Council Member McCartney asked if the city could setup separate impact fees based on geographic areas. In response to Council Member McCartney's inquiry, City Manager Davis stated that the city could City Council Work Session Meeting Minutes November 10,2016 Page 5 of 7 not have different impact fees for different areas of the city, but there could be a program that allows for other incentives to help with economically depressed areas. The council discussed the substandard program and its ambitious work at tearing down old and dilapidated buildings to make room for nice homes. Mr. Pastrana noted that if a home has been demolished, there's already a connection for the water and sewer at that location; therefore, if anyone builds a new home of said property they would not have an impact fee. Mrs. Foster further noted that the only cost for an already existing connection would be if the homeowner decides to upgrade to a larger size meter. Council requested that the additional cities be surveyed and presented at the next work session. c. Discuss an ordinance amending Section 18-93 "Sidewalks," Section 122-91 "Cement or concrete work," and Section 122-97 "Installation of drainage culverts", of the Code of Ordinances, Baytown, Texas, to establish standards for sidewalks, to update the standards for concrete work, and to revise the cost of drainage culvert installation. Mrs. Foster presented the agenda item and stated that in 2012, a requirement was added in the Building Code(the "Code")to require all developments to install sidewalks, and as a part of said requirement, developers were allowed to pay into a fee, if there were no there sidewalks in adjacent land within 80% of the area within 300 feet. She stated that the proposal is to clarify when sidewalks are required and when they are not. Mrs. Foster stated that one of the items being added is that any new development being platted or has been platted since 2012, include sidewalks; therefore, all of the new subdivisions will require and have new sidewalks. She stated that the second item requires all residential structures in any zoning district with the exception of Heavy Industrial (HI) should provide a sidewalk and there will be no allowance for them to pay into a fee. She stated that any non-residential (commercial) in any zoning district with the exception of HI, will be required to provide a sidewalk if they have 30% increase in their gross floor area or impervious surface, so they are expanding the building or 5,000 square feet of area, whichever is greater. She noted that the reason that HI is being excluded is because ideally you do not want your pedestrians walking through a heavy industrial area. Mrs. Foster stated that currently, the Code does not allow for exemptions,in which the new Code does include, such as an exception for areas that do not have enough room or space in the right of way(ROW) for residential development. She stated that there are areas where people are coming in, platting land inside the city limits to build a residential structure and there is just not enough room in the ROW to install a sidewalk as a lot of these have the large drain ditches. She stated that a person can also get an exemption if he/she is an existing property owner that's being platted for residential inside the city limits, where less than 80% of the existing homes in your area do not have a sidewalk, in which an example of this exemption can occur in the older areas of the city whereas someone came in to build a new home in an older area and they're the only home with a sidewalk. She stated that another exemption is if another governmental agency does not allow the sidewalk; such as TxDOT who does not allow sidewalks on the feeder roads along I-10; however, in the city's current ordinance, there's not an exemption that allows Salt Grass to install a sidewalk on the I-10 feeder. Mrs. Foster stated that the City has been able to work with Cheddar's and Salt Grass to allow for pedestrian ways to be installed and not necessarily City Council Work Session Meeting Minutes November 10,2016 Page 6 of 7 sidewalks within the ROW. She stated that if there are planned public improvements that staff is aware of that are in design or planned out in a ROW or corridor, as well as, know that staff is going to come back and remove the sidewalk in order to install utilities or widen the road, a granted exception is determined by the City Engineer. Mrs. Foster stated that the other pieces to this ordinance being considered are in another chapter and deals with the technical aspects of the sidewalks and curb work. She stated that staff wants to require that all new sidewalks be at least five (5) feet wide, as its already being requested in the commercial areas with there being no issues with compliance. She stated that while there's no pushback from the developers as it relates to the building of the five (5) feet sidewalks, there's a need to go back and clean up the language in the code. She further stated that staff wants to delete some of the technical specifications, like the expansion joint out of the code as they are trying to move on the direction of many other cities that have a technical guide in the code for all its developments. Additionally, Mrs. Foster stated that another item being changed is the allowance of mountable curbs or rollover curbs in residential areas with the recommendation of removing this from the code in order to have full six (6)inch standing curbs. The council discussed the history of the mountable curb, maintenance issues, potential damages and esthetics. Council Member Hoskins commented that the existing curb standards were substandard and needed to be corrected, to which Mrs. Foster noted that those changes are a part of the technical guide that is being proposed. Mr. Pastrana stated that they'll double check the technical guide to ensure that the appropriate rebar and other construction materials are adequate. Council Member McCartney stated that he would like the City to repair city sidewalks or put sidewalks in areas where they currently don't exist. Council Member Presley inquired if the city was going to require new commercial buildings to have a sidewalk even if there is no sidewalk around them. City Manager Davis stated that these new commercial buildings would be required to build new sidewalk per the code. Council Member Presley stated that the requirement to build sidewalks for commercial buildings in the Empowerment Zone ate away at the incentives, because they would be required to pay for city infrastructure. In response to Council Member Presley's statement, Mrs. Foster stated that on Texas Avenue, Defee Street and the surrounding areas is mostly completely built out to the property line and there are existing sidewalks now. City Manager Davis asked Mrs. Foster about what ability staff had to review special cases where it simply would not make sense to require the sidewalk. IN response to City Manager Davis' inquiry, Mrs. Foster stated that in this particular instance, the developer may appeal the decision of the Chief Building Official. In response to a question from Council Member Capetillo, Mrs. Foster stated that in the case of the Salt Grass Restaurant, they (Salt Grass) submitted a letter stating their special circumstances and the City is not going to force a development to build a sidewalk in a TxDOT ROW when TxDOT is saying that they do not want anything built on their ROW. She stated that the situation for Academy was different, as there was not enough room in their ROW for a sidewalk; therefore, they had to build some in the easement, in which everyone was fine with that solution as it maintained our pedestrian mobility. Assistant City Manager Troller noted that there are a number of issues related to pedestrian mobility, such as families and people in wheelchairs on the street because there are not sidewalks in these areas. City Manager Davis stated that the strategic plan (SPAC) has determined that this is a very big issue for our citizens and staff is trying to meet those directives. 1 City Council Work Session Meeting Minutes November 10,2016 Page 7 of 7 During further discussion, Council Member McCartney stated that if a commercial development comes into the Empowerment Zone, then the city should build the sidewalk for them as a part of the incentives, in order to spur development in this area. Mrs. Foster stated that if the council wanted to add this type of incentive to the Empowerment Zone, then that would be the best place to add that item and not in the code. Mrs. Foster stated that the last revision being presented related to the technical side of curbs and culverts were to revise the cost of installing the drainage culverts. She stated that currently, the code states that it is $12.00 per foot and the recommendation is to charge the customer exactly what it cost for the city to install these culverts, which is significantly higher than $12.00 per foot. Additionally, she stated that in the last fiscal year the city only installed eight culverts and while it is not a huge activity, the entire community is being subsidized when it is undertaken the cost of one person's culvert. Assistant Director of Public Works, Kevin Harvill noted that the cost for building the culvert should be $35.00 to $37.00 a foot depending on the materials and installation. He further noted that currently, the homeowner pays $12.00 a foot, plus the pipe and the delivery of the pipe, so the total cost to the homeowner is an estimated $1350; whereas, the new cost would be $2250. Additionally, Mrs. Foster stated that not only is the installation a good deal, the installation of a culvert impacts the entire neighborhood and the city's drainage system, so we want to make sure that it is done right. The council briefly discussed some of the open ditches throughout the city and plans to fill in ditches and other improvements without negatively impacting our drainage and flood mitigation capabilities. d. Discuss any or all of the agenda items on the City Council Regular Meeting Agenda for November 10, 2016, which is attached below. This item was not discussed. 2. ADJOURN With there being no further business to discuss, Mayor DonCarlos adjourned the November 10, 2016, City Council Regular Work Session at 6:27 P.M. F • INAL,ip AL—, .- le • , ,,. , • i 0 • eticia Brysch, City Cler ,0 r yI City of Baytown '4f 1 • •'Ps Iii' • _F ��