2020 02 27 WS MinutesMINUTES OF THE REGULAR WORK SESSION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BAYTOWN FEBRUARY 27, 2020 The City Council of the City of Baytown, Texas met in a Regular Work Session on Thursday, February 27, 2020, at 5:39 P.M., in the Hullum Conference Room of the Baytown City Hall, 2401 Market Street, Baytown, Texas with the following in attendance: Robert C. Hoskins Council Member Charles Johnson Council Member David Himsel Council Member Chris Presley Council Member Brandon Capetillo Mayor Rick Davis City Manager Ignacio Ramirez City Attorney Leticia Brysch City Clerk Keith Dougherty Sergeant at Arms Mayor Capetillo convened the February 27, 2020, City Council Regular Work Session with a quorum present at 5:39 P.M., all members were present with the exception of Council Members Betarmurth and Alvarado who were absent and Council Member Presley who arrived at 5:57 P.M. 1. DISCUSSIONS a. Discuss any or all of the agenda items on the City Council Regular Meeting Agenda for February 27, 2020, which is attached below. Mayor Capetillo presented the item and asked that the staff give council an overview of any items on the agenda that need clarification and/or discussion. Planning and Community Development Services Director Tiffany Foster gave an overview of Consent Item 6.k regarding updates to the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG). Mrs. Foster noted that the CDBG program has been in place for the about 40 years and has been very successful; however, she noted that as time has passed, the construction costs have changed and values in Baytown have increased. In order to deal with these increases, the staff is requesting that the Council consider increasing the maximum amount from $60,000 to $100,000; she noted that this amount has not been increase since 2010. Mrs. Foster also noted that the because the staff has not been able to get contractors to build 1100 square feet homes for the current price of $60,000, and they researched other cities, new City Council Regular Work Session Minutes February 27, 2020 Page 2 of homes in the RIZ, and looked at other programs that are similar in scope and noted that mean amount came in at around $100,000, which is what the staff is recommending in the updates. Mrs. Foster further noted that the last two homes in the program have been completed and noted that the costs came in at an estimated $97,000. She further noted that there are five houses that are waiting in the pipeline to allow for the change to take place. Mrs. Foster also noted that there are two smaller changes in guidelines: (1) is the increase in the time flame to finish the construction of the homes from 60 to 90 days and (2) some cleanup on the property maintenance and related codes. Mayor Capetillo encouraged cooperation with other agencies and partners to help with revitalization and infill throughout the City. In response to a question from Council Member Hoskins, Mrs. Foster noted that for the first five years after the completion of the time, the City has a lien on the property and staff keeps up with the homeowners during that time, after that time, the City enforces its codes for the upkeep and maintenance of the property. Interim City Engineer Matt Johnson gave an overview of Consent Items 6.b - f related to updates to the traffic schedules for speed limits, no parking zone, and stops signs. Mr. Johnson noted that the first three items on the agenda relate to the codification of temporary speed limits of • Santavy Road — 35 MPH • Hunt Road — 40 MPH • San Jacinto Boulevard — 40 MPH Mr. Johnson noted that the proposed ordinances put these temporary speed limits in place in order to have enough time to complete speed zone studies, it allows time for traffic to settle and collect more data to make a recommendation for the permanent speed zones. Mr. Johnson noted that the fourth item relates to the place of no parking zones new cluster mailboxes, in order to stop the parking of vehicles in front of cluster mailboxes, and to allow enough room for people to access their mailboxes and their driveways. Mr. Johnson noted that if the ordinance is in place, the City can then place signage or markings request; additionally, the Police Department would then be able to write tickets in response to complaints. The last item related to traffic concerns the placement of traffic controls in the Allenbrook neighborhood by placing stops signs at the end of Edgebrook Street and Allenbrook Street. He noted that this item was a citizen request, supported by a member of council. Assistant City Manager Nick Woolery gave the Council an overview of the item related to the DR Horton proposed development presentation. He stated that DR Horton is looking to develop in Chambers County MUD #3 at 1-10 and SH99, which is a core entryway into the city. He noted that they will be presenting what they would like the development to look like, and are seeking Council's input and feedback. City Council Regular Work Session Minutes February 27, 2020 Page 3 of Mr. Woolery noted that the Council has a copy of the City's current MUD Policy and asked if there were any questions. Council Member Johnson noted that the company in question developed Goose Creek Reserve and he was not very impressed with the end product. Mrs. Foster stated that said development started with Heritage Homes; however, the final development happened with DR Horton. She noted that this company has four levels of homes; the lowest is the Express Homes which is the lowest level and what is found in Goose Creek Reserve. Mr. Woolery noted that the intent of the discussion item is to gamer the City's consent in the next two meetings for the creation of the MUD itself. Council Member Hoskins asked why we were not doing a PID or PUD and why a MUD; and noted that in his recollection, Council was not in support of MUDS. Mr. Woolery noted that Council had already passed a resolution is support of the creation of this MUD with the legislation. Council asked what would happen if the City denied the MUD. Mr. Davis noted that the City does not have the option to create a MUD, only the legislation does that, the City can consent to it. He noted that the City agreed to no in -city MUDS, and recommended that the Council look at a possible policy change to allow for the takeover of MUD and turn them into PIDs. Council Member Hoskins noted that if the Council established the proposed MUD, that puts them into place for the next 30 years to be an island among itself; a PID, he noted, allows the Council to be a part of the development and to annex them in the future, but once a MUD is out there, the City cannot touch it for 30 years; and that MUD will deteriorate in the next 30 years, it will issue more debt and make it a burden on the City, should there be an annexation. Council Member Presley asked for the ramifications of Council saying no to the proposed MUD. City Attorney Ignacio Ramirez noted that if the Council does not consent, the developers can still create the subdivision, but not the MUD, so they will not be able to get the reimbursement capability. He noted that the developers prefer a MUD over a PID because in the PID, the City has the control more control, where in the MUD, they can have members on the BUD board and thus have more control. Council Member Presley asked how constrained is the City in the requirements, when the MUD would come into the city. Mr. Woolery noted that items such as amenities maybe, the outside of the houses, lot sizes and setbacks can be controlled through the development agreement, but there is no way to control the price point of the homes. Mrs. Foster noted that the Planning Department would not issue permits in a MUD, staff would just look at the site plan for coverage purposes and those kinds of things, but they can't do it on the homes themselves. Mr. Woolery stated that of the 90% of the developers that have met with the City, staff has recommended th PID option within the city limits and for the most part, they have pushed back because they don't want it. This proposed development is tricky because the city limits are a bit away from the actual development and it would be difficult to have an out of city PID with city utilities. Mr. Woolery further noted that from a staff point of view, they are trying to promote City Council Regular Work Session Mmutes February 27, 2020 Page 4 of 4 the in -city PID option, but they are getting a lot of push back, so it might be worth taking another look at the policy. Mr. Davis noted that the developer would have to go through the process of requesting annexation, and making it such that we could annex them. Mr. Woolery noted that if a person moves into am in -city PID neighborhood, there would be a PID assessment and City taxes and homeowners will not buy a house with a double tax. He stated that bottom line, Council's consent should be based on a very exceptional product and this is a development of 222 acres with 298 lots with 60, 50 and 40 size lots. Mr. Davis noted that this developer has to meet the standards of the county that requires a separation of 20 feet on each side of the house, and the current plans do not reflect those requirements. Mrs. Foster Tiffany stated that the developer has not given the staff anything with the level of details to see what the space is between the buildings. Mr. Woolery stated that the Council has to consider what it wants in its policy and some are philosophical in nature; such as, no in -city MUDS, does it make sense to have an out of city PID, do in -city PIDs makes sense and are there any policy complications to any of these options. He noted that the development being proposed on the agenda tonight is an out of city MUD and while note every developer is balking; however, some of them will walk and is Council ok with that. Council Member Johnson stated that whatever is decided the Council must be consistent and if someone does a subpar development, they should not be given them another chance. Mr. Woolery stated that the developer will present its plan at the regular meeting and noted that they have a self-imposed timeline to get the City to approve its MUD within the next four weeks, so be aware that is a lot of work to put development agreements together in such a short period of time. 2. ADJOURN With there being no further business to discuss, Mayor Capetillo adjourned the February 27, 2020, City Council Regular Work Session at 6:27 P.M. Leticia Brysch, City Cler City of Baytown = ti7's i tr 0F