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