ccreg 06-18-1996
REGULAR SESSION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
JUNE 18, 1996
The Schertz City Council convened in Regular Session on
Tuesday, June 18, 1996 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council
Chambers of the Municipal Complex, 1400 Schertz Parkway,
Schertz, Texas. The following members were present: Mayor
Hal Baldwin, presiding; Councilmembers Charles McDonald;
Joe Potempa; Earl Sawyer and Ken Greenwald. Absent:
Councilmember Timothy Swinney. Staff present were City
Manager Kerry Sweatt and City Secretary Norma Althouse.
Mayor Baldwin welcomed everyone and asked them to rise and
join him in the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag.
At this time, Mr. Sweatt announced the appointment of a
new Police Chief, Jerry D. Smith, who was in the, audience.
Mr. Smith comes from Humble, Texas and his appointment
will become effective June 26th. After Mr. Sweatt gave
some background information on Mr. Smith, Mayor Baldwin
welcomed him to the City of Schertz and wished him well in
his new position.
#1 HEARING OF RESIDENTS: Those citizens wishing to
speak on agenda items (other than public hearing items) or
items not on the agenda, will be heard at this time.
No one had signed up to speak.
#2 PUBLIC HEARING: To receive citizen comments
regarding proposed improvements to streets and avenues or
portions thereof, and on other matters with reference
thereto in the Live Oak Hills Subdivision.
Mayor Baldwin introduced Jeffrey Kuhn, an attorney with the
firm of Fulbright and Jaworski, who represents the City of
Schertz. Mr. Kuhn reviewed the process that would be
followed for the public hearing.
Mr. Kuhn advised that on May 7, 1996 Council adopted
Ordinance No. 96-M-13 which declared the necessity to
improve streets in the Live Oak Hills Subdivision, Phase 1
to protect the health, safety and welfare of the citizens.
Council also adopted provisions of Chapter 3.13, as
amended, of the Texas Transportation Code which provides
for the levy of street assessments. Council also
established the methodology to impose a fair and equitable
assessment based upon front foot rule, against each lot in
the subdivision, to ensure the amount assessed does not
exceed the enhanced value of contemplated improvements.
Mr. Kuhn went on to say the Council then adopted Ordinance
No. 96-M-15 on May 21, 1996 which accepted the cost
estimates for the contemplated street and drainage
improvements as prepared by McCrary and Associates and
reviewed and approved by the City's Engineer, Ford
Engineering. The cost estimates established a cost for
-305-
each street improvement and the amount to be assessed
against property owners and a portion of the responsibility
for the payment of the assessments between the property
owners and the City. The Council, in this Ordinance,
established an assessment rate of $92.96 per linear front
foot of residential footage. Council also directed that
the City Secretary publish a notice of the public hearing
to appear on three separate dates in the City's legal
newspaper. That has been accomplished. Council also
directed the City secretary to mail notice of the public
hearing to the address of each known owner of real property
in the subdivision and that also has been accomplished.
The purpose of tonight's public hearing will be to levy the
special assessments and receive testimony establishing that
the assessments are fair and equitable.
Mr. Kuhn swore in Mr. Don McCrary of 323 Bree~port, San
Antonio, Texas. Mr. McCrary is a registered Professional
Engineer in the State of Texas and 'a registered land
surveyor and has 25 years of experience in design and
construction management of drainage and street projects.
Mr. Kuhn said if there were no objections, he would like
to qualify Mr. McCrary as an expert. There were none.
Mr. Kuhn then asked Mr. McCrary to summarize some of his
activities and Mr. McCrary explained he and his associates
typically do considerable design work for developers and a
lot of the work they are doing currently is in the City of
Schertz. They were retained by Mr. Ron Wood to provide
those services for this planned improvement. They will be
doing the planning of the design work and the construction
monitoring of the improvements when they take place.
Mr. Kuhn asked Mr. MCCrary if he is familiar with the
City of Schertz and the City of Selma and all the State and
federal rules and regulations that concern the development
of this area. Mr. McCrary replied yes they are and as a
matter of fact, they are involved with four or five
subdivisions presently being built in the City of Schertz.
Mr. Kuhn then asked Mr. McCrary to explain the
methodology used to come up with the cost estimate for the
street assessments. Mr. McCrary commented there is
currently a subdivision plat for this area which pretty
much dictates the geometry of how the lots and streets have
been laid out. One of the things that is a bit peculiar
about this particular subdivision plat is there were no
arrangements for drainage when it was originally planned.
They took the plat, as it existed, and planned and routed
some drainage facilities improvements along the northwest
side of Wiederstein Road which will require a fairly
substantial drainage channel. From that they took the
measurements of the length of the streets (the curbs,
sidewalks, etc.), and combined those figures with the
historical data they have compiled routinely from all the
other projects regarding prices and quantities and came up
with the final construction numbers for this project.
-306-
Mr. Kuhn asked if some of the properties are currently in
the floodplain and Mr. McCrary replied there are a number
of lots with no facility to handle drainage through and
around the subdivision. Mr. Kuhn then commented, that
accordingly, the drainage improvements will benefit all the
lots in Phase 1. Mr. McCrary confirmed that all the lots
that will not be used for the drainage channel will be
above and outside the floodplain. Mr. Kuhn asked Mr.
McCrary if, in his professional opinion, the drainage
improvements are required to develop this subdivision. Mr.
McCrary replied yes they are.
Mr. Kuhn asked if Wiederstein Road is the only access to
the subdivision and Mr. McCrary replied it is currently
the only platted roadway. Mr. Kuhn then inquired if
improvements to Wiederstein Road are necessary to gain
access to the other streets and Mr. McCrary answered the
improvements to both the drainage and Wiederstein Road are
required for access to the remaining lots. Mr. Kuhn asked
if it's fair to say that without improvements to
Wiederstein Road, it will defer benefits to all the other
lots in Phase 1 of the subdivision. Mr. McCrary thought
that was a fair assessment of the situation.
Mr. Kuhn asked Mr. McCrary, for the record, to establish
what other governmental entities will be involved in this
review approval process. Mr. McCrary explained the
primary review agency will be the City of Schertz. The
City of Selma will get an opportunity to review the plans
and be aware of what's going on. State and federal
agencies will also be involved, one of which is TNRCC.
There will possibly be others.
Mr. Kuhn asked Mr. McCrary if, in
opinion, development will not occur
improvements. Mr. McCrary replied, in
opinion, that statement is correct.
his professional
without these
his professional
Mayor Baldwin asked if there are any
subdivision that will have houses on only
Mr. McCrary replied that in Phase 1 all
have houses on both sides of them.
streets in
one side of
the streets
this
them.
will
Mr. McDonald inquired who
used for drainage and Mr.
by Ron Wood.
has ownership of the lots being
McCrary replied those are owned
This concluded inquiries to Mr. McCrary by Mr. Kuhn, but
Mr. McCrary was asked to remain until the conclusion of
the public hearing in case there were more questions.
Mr. Kuhn then swore in Mr. Ed Ford of 10927 Wye Drive,
Suite 104, San Antonio, Texas. Mr. Ford is a Registered
Professional Civil Engineer and a professional public land
surveyor. Mr. Kuhn said if there were no objections, he
would like to qualify Mr. Ford as an expert. No one
objected.
-307-
Mr. Kuhn asked Mr. Ford to briefly explain some of his
activities on this project. Mr. Ford indicated he had met
with McCrary and reviewed the cost analysis and the
preliminary conceptual plan. The area they're talking
about is Phase 1 which is west of Schertz Parkway. The
quantities and material they have come up with are very
normal. This is a preliminary cost analysis and as the
design actually takes place, the cost will change, but it
will be very nominal. At such time as the project goes
into bid, they will know the true prices. As far as what
has been submitted and reviewed, everything is very normal
to the industry standard and design. Mr. Kuhn asked Mr.
Ford if, in his professional opinion, the assessment of
$92.96 is fair and equitable. Mr. Ford replied yes it is.
Mr. Kuhn then asked Mr. Ford if, in his professional
opinion, the contemplated improvements are of substantially
equal benefit to all the lots in the subdivision. Mr.
Ford replied yes they are.
Mr. Kuhn then asked Mr. Ford to explain historically why
development has not occurred previously in this area which
was platted in 1963. Mr. Ford related he has been
employed by the City of Schertz for 18 years to review plan
specifications and this development has come up numerous
times. The problem they have in the area is there is no
potable water or access to potable water for drinking or
household use. There is surface water in the area and it
is accessible by water well. The cost of putting in the
well and the cost of going through the treatment
requirements becomes insurmountable for an individual.
There are no septic systems in this area. The size of the
lots are not acceptable for septic systems and a water
well. For the City to issue a permit, a combination of
lots would have to take place and conditions met that would
facilitate potable water along with a septic system. Mr.
Ford said it is his understanding that to this date, a
building permit has not been issued. It was not a
subdivision that was put in when you had the requirements
that the City has today for water, wastewater, streets,
curbs, gutters, sidewalks, fire hydrants, etc. He thinks,
ultimately, that is what the City would like to see for
this subdivision.
Mr. Kuhn asked Mr. Ford if, in his professional opinion,
development is likely to occur in this subdivision without
these improvements. Mr. Ford answered development will
not occur without these improvements.
Laura Bedford of 1826 Summerwood, San Antonio asked if the
$92.96 includes water and sewer or are they just talking
street improvements and drainage. Mr. Ford replied just
street improvements, curb and gutter and drainage. The
water and sewer is separate.
Mr. Sweatt explained the water/sewer would be a separate
item proposed to be installed by the subdivider through an
arrangement with the City which does not involve an
-308-
assessment, but the City would collect a pro rata share of
the cost of installing the line over and above this
estimated cost. The developer's engineer has prepared
estimates for that and they are calculated to be
approximately $4550 per lot. Mayor Baldwin clarified that
fee is payable only at the time the owner wants to build on
the lot. Mr. Sweatt remarked the water and sewer charges
are only based when a connection is made to the system.
The developer needs to put the water/sewer in now so they
can proceed with lot activity. The individual lot owner
would not be charged with those fees until they made
connection to the line.
Ms. Bedford observed that sounds like it will require
tearing up the streets to put in the water/sewer. Mr.
Sweatt assured her the main lines would all be installed at
the time of street construction.
Mayor Baldwin, saying they need to go ahead with testimony
from the appraisers and from Mr. Wood, asked the audience
to hold off. Some of their questions will probably be
answered during that time. If not, they can ask their
questions following the testimony.
Mr. Kuhn swore in Mr. Albert Minn of 301 N. Austin
Seguin, Texas. Mr. Minn is a State certified general
estate appraiser. Mr. Kuhn said if there are
objections, he would like to qualify Mr. Minn as
expert. No one objected.
At this time, Mr. Kuhn introduced Mr. Minn's appraisal
report as a matter of public record. Mr. Minn was then
instructed by Mr. Kuhn to summarize his activities
regarding this project.
st. ,
real
no
an
Mr. Minn reported they looked at the Live Oak Hills
subdivision which consists of l70 lots. There are 8 lots
being used for drainage, so they appraised 162 lots using a
value per front foot along the streets. The appraisal goes
two ways. The first involves appraisal of the property in
its current condition. The second involves getting sales
of various properties in the area similar to these and
coming up with a value based on that. Once they have those
two values, they go in and use the current value of the
property and add the new improvements (streets and
water/sewer) and see that that number is going to be less
than total market value of the property.
Mr. Minn stated the value he came up with is currently out
there and can be found on page 30 of his report. There
were four sales he picked up that had an average sales
price per front foot of $21.00, $17.00, $17.00 and $32.00.
You adjust it for time, location and size and in his
opinion, the current total is around $30.00 per front foot.
For a 70'10t, that means $2100 and for a 75' lot $2250.
-309-
Mr. Minn mentioned if you go to page 36 of the report you
will find four sales. Again, you adjust for location, the
amount of front foot and the depth, and he concluded that
$250 per front foot would be the typical sales price with
improvements. For a 70' lot that means it's worth $17,500
and for a 75' lot $18,750.
Mr. Minn indicated that on page 38 is where they try to
put all this together. Again you will see the values in
current condition and the improved values. Based on the
City's ordinance and the costs from Greggs San Marcos and
from MCCrary and Associates, the onsite water/sewer comes
out to $63.02 per front foot and 90% of the paving and
drainage, and 100% of the curb and gutter comes out to
$92.96 per front foot. You will have a total cost based on
these two figures of $155.98 per front foot. Then you need
to compare the current condition of the lot plus the City
assessment ($155.98), and when you add those together and
you have the current condition, the City assessment and
market value of the 70' lot is $13018.60 and the 75' lot is
$13,948.50. Looking at improved lot sales ($17,500 and
$18,750), they see there is margin in between the market
value and the current conditions with improvements added.
Mr. Minn stated, in his opinion, the special benefits are
not increased above the enhanced value of the property.
Mr.
being
per
be
and
into
Kuhn wanted to make clear that the only assessments
levied tonight are the street assessments for $92.96
front foot. The water/sewer assessment of $63.02 will
handled separately between the City and the developer
will only be payable at the time the lot owner taps
the system.
Mr. Kuhn briefly reviewed the fact the lots as they exist
today are worth approximately $30.00 per front foot. Based
on information provided by the engineers that the
improvements and assessment rate is approximately $92.96
for streets and drainage and for water/sewer is
approximately $63.02, that totals approximately $185 per
front square foot. This is comparable to other City of
Schertz lots in compliance with the Code that have an
approximate market value of $250.00 per front square foot.
Mr. Kuhn asked Mr. Minn if, in his professional opinion,
that information is correct and Mr. Minn replied in the
affirmative.
Mr. Kuhn swore in Mr. Ron Wood of P.O. Box 700253, San
Antonio, Texas. Mr. Wood is a general partner and
developer for Live Oak Hills Subdivision, Phase 1. He has
been a builder/developer for over 20 years. Mr. Kuhn
asked Mr. Wood to summarize his activities so far on this
project and Mr. Wood reported they have acquired 93 of the
170 lots in Phase 1.
Mr.
will
Wood
Kuhn asked Mr. Wood if, in his op~n~on, these lots
not develop without the proposed improvements. Mr.
replied he doesn't know how the lots could develop
-310-
without the improvements. There's no
electric, telephones or streets. There's
You can't get a building permit because the
enough for septic tanks. Nothing has been
33 years.
water, sewer,
nothing there.
lots aren't big
done there for
Mr. Kuhn asked Mr.
improvements are made,
replied absolutely.
Wood if, in his opinion,
development will occur and Mr.
the
Wood
Mr. Lee Gilpin of 122 Shearer Hill Blvd., San Antonio
asked Mr. Wood if he is the sole owner of the proposed
subdivision. Mr. Wood replied he is the general partner.
Mr. Gilpin then asked who the other partners are and Mr.
Wood answered the other partners are the owners who put
their lots into the partnership. Mr. Gilpin asked how
they were encouraged to do that and what priCe did Mr.
Wood offer. How far did Mr. Wood go and how far did he go
through with it? Mr. Wood replied they went through with
it for 93 lots. Mr. Gilpin then wondered how many offers
Mr. Wood made in which he changed everything agreed on and
didn't go through with it. Mr. Wood admitted they did not
purchase Mr. Gilpin's lots. Mr. Gilpin said that was
because they changed everything agreed on. Mr. Wood
indicated, as with several lots, they had a contract with a
price on it, but chose not to close on them.
Mr. Charles Eddleman of 4822 Winthrop, San Antonio asked
about the background and experience of Mr. Wood in
developing lots of this nature. Mr. Wood stated he had
been a builder and developer for over 20 years. Mr.
Eddleman remarked that when he purchased his lot many years
ago, the developer was going to give him water and other
things of a similar nature then. Thirty-three years later
he is still somewhat apprehensive about what is going to
occur. How does he know the same thing will not happen
again? Mr. Wood explained the difference is the other guy
was selling lots and in this case they are buying and
partnering lots and they have a tremendous amount of money
invested in the project.
Mr. Eddleman then asked about the lots in the floodplain.
How will they be handled? Mr. Wood answered he had no
idea. Mr. Eddleman then wondered if when the road is
built in the back area, would it just go to a certain point
and be stopped. Mr. Wood asked if Mr. Eddleman was
talking about the streets that go off to the side, but Mr.
Eddleman was talking about Wiederstein Road. Mr. Wood
answered yes, they will just go to a certain point and
stop.
Laura Bedford (address given previously) asked Mr. Wood
what he plans to do with the 93 lots he owns. Is he going
to develop them as homes? Mr. Wood replied they are R-2
Single Family residential lots. They will be developed as
homes.
-311-
Ms. Bedford then asked for an explanation of when the
water/sewer lines will go in. Mr. Wood informed her they
will go in before the streets are paved. Ms. Bedford
wanted to make sure they weren't going to tear up new
streets to put in water lines. Mr. Wood told Ms. Bedford
the City is overseeing this project and he doesn't think
they would let them do it that way.
Mr. Eddleman asked if the timetable is to have this
developed by next spring and Mr. Wood replied they sure
would like to. Mr. Eddleman asked if it would be a
similar situation as Ashley Place. Will Mr. Wood be
selling the lots to be built on? Mr. Wood answered that's
correct. He is not going to build. The reason is that if
you're selling lots to other builders, you have an unfair
market advantage because you got your lots at cost and
you're not selling to them at cost. It's diffic?lt to get
other builders to buy your lots if you're competing against
them. .
Mr. Eddleman asked if Mr. Wood ever had a failure and Mr.
Wood replied no he had not.
Mr. Potempa asked Mr. Wood to name some places where he
had built homes. Mr. Wood listed local locations of
Northcliffe Country Club Estates, Scenic Hills, and
Greenshire. He has developed subdivisions in and around
Georgetown, Texas and Round Rock, Texas. Also he has
developed and built in Indian Creek, Dove Springs, Foxwood,
Smithwood and Georgian Village.
Guy Covington of 9507 Lantana, San Antonio asked when the
street construction is scheduled to start. Mr. Sweatt
noted the tentative schedule calls for completion of the
legal documents once the Council has completed this
hearing. The earliest possible date they could solicit
bids would be October 16th and bids would be opened in
November of 1996. They are, of course, approaching a
non-construction period of time because of the temperature.
It's not likely final paving would be completed until
spring. A lot of the preliminary work, base work,
water/sewer lines would be completed, but not the final
paving until spring when the temperature is more
accessible.
Mr. Covington then questioned if each side of the street
shares half of the assessment. If so, the mathematics are
wrong. Mr. Sweatt, saying it is nine-tenths of the total
estimated cost divided by the total amount of frontage of
all the lots in the subdivision, deferred to the engineers
who made the calculations.
Mr. MCCrary reiterated each lot owner will pay $92.96 per
front foot for each lot. Mr. Covington said the paper
shows back of curb to back of curb and that's doubling.
Mr. MCCrary pointed out that's the width of the street and
has nothing to do with front footage. Mr. McCrary further
-312-
explained they estimated the cost of the street (the width
being 30') and measured the curb, the base, the asphalt and
the sidewalk and totaled the cost to build that and then
divided that number by the length of the street. If you
divide it by two you get the cost of the front foot. ~he
width of the street has nothing to do with the front
footage.
Mr. covington.
misnomer. Mr.
dimensions and
was calculated.
felt the statement on the paper was a
McCrary took the time to draw the
to explain to Mr. Covington how the cost
While this was going on, Mr. McDonald pointed out nothing
will happen until Mr. Wood puts the money in the bank.
Mr. Covington questioned when the assessment will occur.
Mr. Kuhn related that the next step, once the public
hearing is closed, is to prepar~ the plans and
specifications and have them reviewed by the City's
engineer and adopted by City Council. Once the plans and
specifications are prepared, they will go out for bid. The
construction bids will come in and if those bids are
consistent with the cost estimate, then the City Council
will actually file the assessment as part of the property
records. If, for example, the cost estimate comes in at
less than $92.96 per front foot, Council will hold another
meeting and alter the assessment to something less than
$92.96. It cannot exceed $92.96. The assessment does not
have to be paid until the work is completed and the City
accepts the work. The assessment can be paid in a lump sum
or in three equal annual installments. The installments
will bear interest of 8%.
James Harris of FM 1518 and Schaefer Road asked if someone
is going to oversee the creative accounting. Is that going
to be covered here or sometime later? Do you have to pay a
10% interest? Michael Spain told Mr. Harris the maximum
rate, by Statute, is 8%. Mr. Harris mentioned he had
gotten a copy on Monday and it showed lOt. Mr. Spain
admitted that was an error. After further questions by Mr.
Harris about the accrual of interest, Mr. Sweatt explained
it is payable in full at no interest or if paid in three
installments, it's at the rate of 8%.
Mr. Harris wanted to make sure he understands the interest
accrues on the day of acceptance and you have ten days to
pay the first installment.
Mr. Eddleman asked if you pay the assessment
within ten days, then there is no interest.
answered that's correct.
in
Mr.
full
Kuhn
Mr. Kuhn, as a matter of courtesy, asked Tom Anderlitch,
the City's financial advisor, if he had anything to say,
but Mr. Anderlitch had nothing to add.
-313-
At this time the testimony portion of the public hearing
was closed.
Mr. McDonald, saying he had some misunderstanding about
what happens if the lot owner fails to pay and a lien
against the property is filed, asked who owns the lien.
Mr. Spain answered assessment certificates will be issued.
Those are junior to tax liens, but they can be enforced by
the owner of the certificates. The owner of the
certificates will be the developer, but if the assessment
is not paid on the due date, then the owner of the
certificates could enforce collection of the assessment.
Mr. Eddleman verified those are the normal steps and Mr.
Spain replied that's correct.
Mr. Harris asked if the City will get involved.
won't be hiring a lawyer to foreclose will th~y?
won't own any of these lots unless the owner wants to
it to the City. Mr. Spain commented the owner of
certificates may ask the City to contract to help with
collection process. That decision has not been made by
Council. It would be normal in the assessment process
the City that issues the certificates to be involved in
collection process, but it's not required.
They
They
give
the
the
the
for
the
Mr. Harris noted it says you are, in fact, going to pay
your assessment to the City. Has that been changed? Mr.
Spain explained the City issues the certificate and then
the certificate is issued to the contractor and assigned to
the developer. The developer will own the certificate.
The certificate will be payable to the City or their
representative and they believe that will be the developer.
Mr. Harris then asked if the City pays the developer or
whoever owns the certificate. Mr. Spain replied whoever
owns the certificate and they believe that will be the
developer. Mr. Harris asked if the owner of the lot will
know who owns the certificate and Mr. Spain replied they
will receive a bill.
Mrs. Jean Smith of 130 Lee Street in Seguin, Texas asked
if they have not sold their lots and are assessed, are they
responsible. Mr. Sweatt answered if they own the lot,
they are responsible. Mrs. Smith asked who owns the
certificate and was told the developer owns it. She
questioned if he still owns it even though he has not
bought her lot. It was explained to her that the developer
owns the certificate which is the assessment, not the lot.
Mr. Sweatt went on to say the assessment sets there as
lien against her property until it is paid. If she were to
sell her property, the lien would have to be satisfied.
Mrs. Smith asked if she still has the option to sell her
lot anytime she wants to and was told yes she does have
that option.
Carol Bedford
commented she
according to
of 1826 Summerwood, San Antonio Texas
bought her lot in 1967 for $l032 and
the tax roll, is now worth $1750. She's a
-314-
widow on a pension and what happens if she can't come up
with a lump sum or with three payments. Mr. Kuhn advised
Ms. Bedford that the owner of the certificate could make
special arrangements with her. Ms. Bedford asked what
happens if they don't and want to foreclose on her. Mr.
Kuhn indicated they would have that legal option. Mr.
McDonald told Ms. Bedford she could sell her lot after the
improvements are made.
Mayor Baldwin pointed out to Ms. Bedford that unless she
plans to move onto the lot, whatever the developer does is
going to vastly improve the lot value. That means if she
just can't pay the assessment, she could sell the lot.
Laura Bedford questioned the time allowed for the one-third
increments. Mr. Spain replied the first payment is due
within ten days after the City accepts the improvements.
The second installment is due one year later and the third
installment is due one year after that. .
Mayor Baldwin inquired
installment would be
spring of 1997.
when it was they estimated the first
due and Mr. Wood answered in the
Bill Hamm of Schertz (address not given) expressed concern
about the assessment. What happens if he's not in town for
the ten days. Will they fine him? What's the penalty if
it's not paid on time? Mr. Spain told Mr. Hamm the
penalty is interest on the interest. Mr. Hamm advised the
Mayor they should consider that some people are not here
for ten days out of the year. Mr. Kuhn remarked that as
has been done in other assessment programs, when the day
approaches for completion, the City has sent a courtesy
letter to the property owners letting them know the
progress and approximately when the project will be
completed. This gives the property owner some lead time.
Mr. Hamm, acknowledging he hears what Mr. Kuhn is saying,
asked if the Mayor agrees to that. Mr. Kuhn reminded Mr.
Hamm, for what it's worth, he provides legal advice to the
City. Mayor Baldwin thought the City would absolutely
agree to that. They would have no problem in sending out
notices 60 or 90 days ahead of time.
Mayor Baldwin asked Mr. Wood if the City knows, aside from
the 93 lots Mr. Wood owns, who the rest of the owners are.
Have they been contacted? There's no four or five lots
owned by a single person that has not been able to be
contacted? Mr. Sweatt indicated there is a lot owned by a
Mr. Charles Johnson who's address is unknown. Mr. Spain
verified that of all the lot owners who have an address and
who were notified of this public hearing, none came back as
undeliverable.
Mr. Harris declared that if you default, it is up to
owner of the certificate to take action and also
you've defaulted, the entire amount of the assessment
interest is due. Mr. Spain indicated that's correct.
the
once
plus
-315-
Mr. Harris then asked if the partnership will deposit all
the money in the Schertz Bank & Trust. Mr. Sweatt
answered that is true and then pointed out they will cover
this subject in a later item on the agenda. There will be
a deposit agreement with the developer that will require
the developer to deposit the cash sum of the total
estimated cost plus all the City expenses related to this
project.
Mr.
City)
though
saying
pay 90%
Harris then mentioned the fact the tax payers (the
will not be paying anything for this project even
they are collecting 100% of the money. Mr. Spain,
that's accurate, explained the property owners will
and the developer will pay the other 10%.
Mr. Harris then stated the City can invest that money,
draw interest and keep it. It does not go bac~ to the
partnership. Mr. Spain commented if the project builds,
then the earnings on that will be part' of the money the
City has to spend on the project. If the project does not
build, then the developer would get the money back plus the
earnings on it because the City won't have built anything.
Mr. Eddleman asked what guarantee the developer has that
he will get the money from the City. Mr. Spain answered
the funds the developer deposits will go in the City's
depository bank and be invested.
Mr.
taxes
paying
to the
Eddleman then mentioned he has been paying property
on the floodplain area at the same rate as he's been
on the other area. Mr. Sawyer advised him to talk
Appraisal District in Seguin.
A gentleman in the audience (name and address not
asked if there is a time limit on the development.
Baldwin replied not by the City.
Gilbert Hernandez of Route 3, Cibolo, Texas referred to the
single-family dwelling zoning designation and asked if that
will be single-family dwellings comparable to the
surrounding areas. Mayor Baldwin answered anything that
complies to R-2 zoning and meets all the setback
requirements will be acceptable. Mr. Greenwald pointed
out there are deed restrictions, but those are enforceable
by the homeowners and not the City. Mr. McDonald observed
he didn't think anyone would build a shack on an $18,000
lot.
given)
Mayor
Mr. Potempa related living in the area for 25 years and he
and Mr. Hernandez used to patrol the area. They know Live
Oak Hills was used as a dump and there was drug and other
illegal activity going on. He's looking forward to the
development, it will be a great improvement.
Mr.
will
Wood
Eddleman asked Mr. Wood what he anticipates the
be worth after the improvements are completed.
replied the appraiser spoke to that issue.
lots
Mr.
Mr.
-316-
Eddleman just wondered if Mr. Wood has greater aspirations
that what the appraiser stated. Mr. Wood answered he
thinks you're looking at the lots being worth somewhere in
the neighborhood of $23,000 at today's prices.
Mr.
City
Mayor
p.m.
Kuhn recommended the public hearing be concluded and
Council proceed with the adoption of the ordinance.
Baldwin declared the public hearing closed at 8:l4
#3 ORDINANCE: Consideration and approval of an
ordinance closing the public hearing on special benefits to
be received from proposed street improvements and on other
matters with reference thereto; levying special
assessments; providing for the issuance of assessment
certificates; ratifying and confirming all proceedings
heretofore taken by the City Council of th~ City of
Schertz, Texas, in connection with such street improvements
and the assessments with reference thereto; providing that
should any section or any part of any section of this
ordinance be held void, the remaining portions thereof
shall not be affected; making other findings and enacting
other provisions incident and related to the subject; and
declaring an emergency.
Mayor Baldwin introduced an ordinance and read the caption
as follows:
ORDINANCE NO 96-M-21
AN ORDINANCE CLOSING THE HEARING ON SPECIAL
BENEFITS TO BE RECEIVED FROM PROPOSED STREET
IMPROVEMENTS AND ON OTHER MATTERS WITH REFERENCE
THERETO; LEVYING SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS; PROVIDING
FOR THE ISSUANCE OF ASSESSMENT CERTIFICATES;
RATIFYING AND CONFIRMING ALL PROCEEDINGS
HER.t..Lv~ORE TAKEN BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF SCHERTZ, TEXAS, IN Cv.....t.CTION WITH SUCH STREET
IMPROVEMENTS AND THE ASSESSMENTS WITH REFERENCE
THERETO; PROVIDING THAT SHOULD ANY SECTION OR
ANY PART OF ANY SECTION OF THIS ORDINANCE BE HELD
VOID, THE REMAINING PORTIONS THEREOF SHALL NOT BE
AFFECTED; MAKING OTHER FINDINGS AND ENACTING
OTHER PROVISIONS INCIDENT AND RELATED TO THE
SUBJECT; AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY.
Mr. Potempa moved to approve the ordinance as captioned
above. Mr. Greenwald seconded the motion, which carried
with the following votes:
AYES: Councilmembers McDonald,
Greenwald.
Potempa, Sawyer
and
NAYS: None.
At this time Council took a short break.
-317-
The meeting resumed at 8:l8 p.m.
#4 Consideration and approval of an ordinance
authorizing execution and delivery of a deposit agreement
with Live Oak Hills, Ltd. relating to proposed street
improvements and other matters in connection therewith;
and declaring an emergency.
Mr. Sweatt reminded Council a copy of the deposit
agreement had been included in their packets. As a result
of a meeting between the City Attorney's office and the
developer, there have been changes made to the proposed
deposit agreement. Primarily, the contract date has been
changed to November 20, 1996. That is the date when the
City would expect to award a construction contract. The
deposit date has been changed to October 16, 1996. That is
the absolute latest date on which the developer, would be
able to deposit his funds with the City. Mr. Spain
emphasized the City will not go out for bids until after
the money is deposited. Mr. Sweatt went on to say that at
this time, the deposited funds are estimated to be
$1,125,000.
Mr. Spain reviewed the fact the deposit date has been
changed to October 16, 1996 and the contract date has been
changed to November 20, 1996. If none of this happens by
January 8, 1997, then it all terminates. The blanks in
Section 2.01 have been filled in to show that the amount
required to be deposited with the City is $1,125,000 or
such lesser or greater amount that the City and the
Partnership agree by the deposit date to be the full
estimated cost of the improvements, which includes all City
costs. Mr. Sawyer observed it won't be lower unless
Council knows it and Mr. Spain said that's correct. Mr.
Spain further stated he has added a last sentence to
Section 2.01 which says the Partnership acknowledges that
the City will not solicit bids for construction of the
improvements unless the City and the Partnership have
finally agreed on the amount of deposit. It can't be less
unless the City agrees it's less - unless the engineer
tells the City that's the right price.
Mr. Spain commented the other change is what happens with
the earnings on this money. If the project is built, then
all the earnings on the money will go toward the project
and all City costs. If the project is not built, that
money plus the earnings gets returned to the Partnership
minus all City costs. That includes all the City's
out-of-pocket expenses such as publications, notices,
filing of liens, paying for the City's Engineer, paying for
Mr. Anderlitch's services, and paying for the attorney's
services to the extent the partnership doesn't pay
directly. There is a signed agreement with them to pay the
attorney fees directly.
Mr. Sweatt added the funds will be invested and all the
City costs will be paid from the funds and interest will be
-318-
earned. If, in fact, there is a greater amount of interest
and funds remaining upon conclusion of the project, after
all City costs and construction costs are paid, any
remaining funds will go back to the developer.
Mr. McDonald asked why the change in dates. Mr. Spain
answered the developer feels because of the market and the
economy he needs a little more time to deposit the money.
Again, the City is not obligated to do anything in terms of
the project until the money is deposited.
Mr. McDonald asked if the project will go away because of
the money and Mr. Spain replied that's always a
possibility. However, there are expenses being incurred at
this point. An example would be the engineering fees.
Mayor Baldwin introduced an ordinance and read the caption
as follows:
ORDINANCE NO. 96-M-22
AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING EXECUTION AND DELIVERY
OF A DEPOSIT AGREEMENT WITH LIVE OAK HILLS, LTD.
RELATING TO PROPOSED STREET IMPROVEMENTS AND
OTHER MATTERS IN c.u'.,.,,,,CTION THEREWITH; AND
DECLARING AN EMERGENCY.
Mr. Sawyer asked what is the nature of the emergency. Mr.
Sweatt replied so it will be passed on one reading only.
Initially it was to fit the time frame so the City could
get into a bid situation. Mr. Sawyer mentioned there's
now a different time frame. Mr. Spain said the idea was,
and they thought it important, that this be adopted at the
same meeting at which the assessments were agreed to.
Mr. Potempa moved to approve an ordinance authorizing
execution and delivery of a deposit agreement with Live Oak
Hills, Ltd. relating to proposed street improvements and
other matters in connection therewith; and declaring an
emergency. Mr. Sawyer seconded the motion, which carried
with the following votes:
AYES: Councilmembers McDonald,
Greenwald.
Potempa, Sawyer
and
NAYS: None.
#5 Consider and take action on revisions to Stage
III of Water Conservation regulations.
Mr. Sweatt advised they have a new booklet. It says on
the cover it is Exhibit 6A (Revised June 1996). If there
are further revisions in June, they would be 6B, etc. If
there are revisions in July they would be 7 and the
appropriate letter designation. This hopefully will
represent all changes and modifications to date.
-319-
Mr. Sweatt then started at the front of the booklet and
noted the changes that have been made. Under the Dear
Customer section they had earlier recited numbers of other
Ordinances that had been adopted since the original
Ordinance of 90-F-22. Simply as information they said this
was when it was passed and changed by various ordinances
through the June 18th date.
Under the residential designations, they wanted to point
out that residential watering deals with odd-numbered
addresses on Sundays and Thursdays, even-numbered addresses
on Saturdays and Tuesdays and deals with commercial
watering on Wednesdays and Fridays.
Moving to page 2 under Swimming Pools, Hot Tubs and Similar
Facilities, originally under Stage I makeup for evaporation
was prohibited. We have changed that to permit it.
On page 4, under Stage II, they want to clarify watering
times. The hours of watering on Sunday would mean from
midnight to 10:00 a.m and from 8:00 p.m. to midnight.
That same schedule has been consistently carried out
through all the other watering days. An example calendar
has also been added.
Mr. Sawyer asked if the inspector will be out early in the
morning and Mr. Sweatt replied they generally rely on the
police service to do that early in the morning. Mr.
Sawyer then inquired if any violations on the part of
businesses have been reported. Mr. Sweatt answered yes
they have. Mr. Potempa asked what action is taken. Mr.
Sweatt replied if it's a first offense, they have passed
out a reminder and encouraged compliance. Mr. Potempa
wondered if any citations have been issued and Mr. Sweatt
answered he believes some have been issued.
Mr. Spain pointed out some errors on the example calendar
and Mr. Sweatt acknowledged those errors, but said that
applies to Stage II and has no bearing on Stage III.
Mr. Potempa noted no one waters on Mondays and Mr. Sweatt
said that's correct. Mr. Potempa asked if that's just
with a sprinkler system. They can use hand-held? Mr.
Sweatt answered hand-held can be used any time.
Moving to page 7, under stage III, in keeping with
Council's direction and in trying to coordinate our actions
and schedules with other large water purveyors in the area,
so television, radio and the newspaper is sending the same
message to all customers, they are changing from watering
twice in one week and once in the second week to one day
per week. The times of watering will remain the same (from
midnight to 10:00 a.m and from 8:00 p.m. to midnight), but
residential Odd-numbered addressed will water only on
Sunday, residential even-numbered addressed will water only
on Saturday and businesses will water only on Wednesday.
Mr. Potempa asked if that's applicable right now and Mr.
-320-
Sweatt replied yes, if this ordinance is adopted. Mr.
Sweatt mentioned that also on page 7, under Swimming Pools,
Hot Tubs and Similar Facilities, again the old rules
prohibited make up for evaporation of new facilities but
allowed make up for existing facilities. As a result of
some studies that were done in other states, it made no
sense to prohibit the filling of new facilities. Under
Stage III it is recommended that be allowed to be permitted
under both new and existing facilities.
Skipping to page 9, Stage IV A, the old rules show a
surcharge of $1.00 per 1,000 gallons for residential usage
in excess of 15,000 gallons. They propose to raise that to
17,000 gallons. The watering days (once a week) and hours
of watering will remain the same. The filling of new
facilities and existing facilities will be permitted,
however make up for evaporation only up to one inch will be
permitted.
On page II, under Stage IV B, Mr. Sweatt commented the old
rules show a surcharge of $3.00 per thousand gallons in
excess of l5,000 gallons usage. They propose to raise that
to 17,000 gallons. Watering at that stage would be by
hand-held only. Lawn sprinklers would be prohibited.
Regarding pools, hot tubs and similar facilities, the
make up for evaporation would continue up to one inch.
Mr. Sweatt mentioned that concludes all the changes.
These track that of the City of San Antonio as to the days
of watering. In various critical phases, the City of San
Antonio will have higher surcharges. They felt the
penalties was a decision the City Council would want to
make rather than following that of San Antonio.
Mayor Baldwin introduced an ordinance and read the caption
as follows:
ORDINANCE NO. 96-F-20
BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SCHERTZ,
TEXAS, PROVIDING THAT THE CODE OF ORDINANCES,
CITY OF SCHERTZ, TEXAS BE AMENDED BY REVISING
ARTICLE IV, MANDATORY WATER CONSERVATION, SECTION
19-96 (a); PROVIDING A REPEALING CLAUSE;
PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE; AND DECLARING AN
EMERGENCY.
Mr. Sawyer moved to approve an ordinance providing that
the Code of Ordinances, City of Schertz, Texas be amended
by revising Article IV, Mandatory Water Conservation,
Section 19-96 (a); providing a repealing clause;
providing an effective date; and declaring an emergency.
Mr. Greenwald seconded the motion, which carried with the
following votes:
AYES: Councilmembers McDonald,
Greenwald.
Potempa, Sawyer
and
-321-
NAYS: None.
*6
reading
in Dove
ORDINANCE: Consider and
of an ordinance regarding
Meadows Unit 4.
take action on final
traffic control measures
Mayor Baldwin introduced an ordinance and read the caption
as follows:
AN ORDINANCE
BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SCHERTZ,
TEXAS, PROVIDING THAT THE CODE OF ORDINANCES BE
AMENDED BY REVISING SECTION 18-32, STOP
INTERSECTIONS; SECTION 18-33, ALL-WAY STOPS;
SECTION 18-35, YIELD INTERSECTIONS; AND,
REPEALING ALL ORDINANCES OR PARTS OF ORDINANCES
IN CONFLICT.
Mr. McDonald moved to approve the final reading of
ordinance regarding traffic control measures in
Meadows Unit 4. Mr. Sawyer seconded the motion,
carried with the following votes:
an
Dove
which
AYES: Councilmembers McDonald,
Greenwald.
Potempa, sawyer
and
NAYS: None.
'7 Consider and take action on moratorium for
submission of requests for secured gated communities.
Mr. Sawyer stated he thinks this is a good idea. Planning
and Zoning's concern was that there were going to be a lot
of small gated communities.
Mr. Sawyer moved to approve a moratorium for submission of
requests for secured gated communities.
Mr. Sweatt noted the City Attorney has submitted
suggested wording (for the motion) the Council might
to consider. This will not affect any submission in
pipeline. Mr. sawyer agreed to amend his motion
include wording suggested by the City Attorney.
some
want
the
to
Mr. Spain stated this is a 90 day moratorium from tonight
on consideration of any more gated communities and would
not apply to any application underway that has currently
been presented to Planning and Zoning. It would preclude
the filing of any application during this period and the
consideration of any new applications during this period.
It would not, however, preclude Planning and Zoning from
considering an application already underway.
Mr. McDonald referred to the fact
application is already underway and Mr.
correct.
Mike Lancaster's
Spain said that's
-322-
Mayor Baldwin asked if there's a reason we put a 90 day
time limit on the moratorium. Mr. Spain admitted that was
his suggestion, but he had added that if circumstances
warrant, Council could shorten or lengthen the time limit.
Mayor Baldwin then asked if they could just do it without
the time limit because Planning and Zoning is probably
going to come back to them when they want to end it and it
can just be ended. Mr. Greenwald reported Planning and
Zoning will probably come back to Council within 30 days
with a recommendation. They looked at it at their last
meeting and asked City staff for some numbers.
Mayor
Mr.
would
Baldwin asked what the recommendation would be and
Greenwald answered it would concern how many acres
be a viable development.
Mayor Baldwin admitted he's not really throwing the 90
out. Mr. Sweatt mentioned the other prong is
requirements for a gated community contained in the
now, with a couple of additions. The 90 days gives
City time to get through that process. It was agreed
keep the 90 days in the motion.
days
the
OOC
the
to
Mayor Baldwin
second. Mr.
said they have a motion and
Potempa seconded the motion.
asked
for
a
Before the vote was taken, Mr. McDonald expressed the
opinion he doesn't think the gated community being
requested by Mr. Lancaster should be approved. That is
not what we want in the City of Schertz. If he gets his
zoning change approved, he can put up a gate. Mr.
Greenwald pointed out that is not true. It has to be
approved as a gated community. It can be R-6 and not be
gated.
At this time the vote was taken and the motion carried as
follows:
AYES: Councilmembers McDonald,
Greenwald.
Potempa, Sawyer
and
NAYS: None.
#8 CITY MANAGER'S REPORT: Announced he plans to
attend the Texas City Manager's meeting in Midland, Texas
on Friday of this week through Tuesday of next week. Steve
Simonson will be the Acting City Manager.
#9 ITEMS BY COUNCIL: Mr. Potemoa: A. Referred to the
Health Department report and wondered why the City is so
lenient with it's business people. If they're violating
City ordinances, then let's fine them. Why not take
stronger action versus giving them a second warning? Mr.
Sweatt reported the Health Inspector's attitude has been
that if it's a life-threatening circumstance or a matter of
grave public health, they shut them down immediately. If
there are discrepancies, but not life-threatening
-323-
circumstances or matters of grave public health, he tries
to work with them.
Mr. Potempa asked why there has to be second warning. If
they don't comply after the first warning, shut them down.
Mayor Baldwin suggesting changing the rating on their
certification, for example from an A to a C.
Mr. Sweatt stated all he can say to that is the Inspector
is trying to work with the businesses and he thinks
shutting them down is pretty severe. Mr. Greenwald thinks
the Health Inspector has been doing a good job and is
trying to be fair to the businesses.
There was a brief discussion about this
Council feeling the Health Inspector is the
to know what violations are serious.
with most of
person trained
Mr.
City
that?
State
Potempa brought up the fact that'Health Cards
of Schertz requirement. What's the purpose
They're not required in San Antonio and it's
requirement.
are a
behind
not a
Mr. Sweatt explained the Health Inspector has told him
there are still certain conditions that con only be
determined through a physical examination. In San Antonio
the food operators are provided a class by the City Health
Department and the Health Department is set up to train
food operators. The City of Schertz does not have the
facilities or personnel to do that.
Mr. Potempa then asked what the City charges for a Health
Card and was informed they charge $2.00.
The fact Schertz still requires a TB Tine test was
discussed and Mr. Sweatt expressed the opinion he thinks
it was a mistake for the State to allow that requirement to
be dropped in light of the rise in tuberculosis. Mr.
Greenwald commented he thinks you will see the State bring
the requirement back.
B. Remarked he had a reading this afternoon at 6:00 p.m.of
107.6 degrees and reported it to KENS TV. They allow a
three degree tolerance on the computer and they reported a
temperature of of 104 degrees for the City of Schertz.
Mr. Sa~er: A. Reported receiving calls from people who
had read the Newsletter article about recycling and asked
him what the City is doing with the money. We should keep
the public informed. Mr. Sweatt mentioned one of his
concerns is what the contracted hauler will propose to
charge when the two-year contract expires. One of the
things Council suggested was to use some of the recycling
proceeds to buy the rate down. He's reticent to put that
in the Newsletter because of the message it sends to the
hauler. Mr. Sawyer suggested just saying the City is
keeping it in the bank.
-324-
B. Remarked Mr. Wofford, who came to the workshop, had a
good idea about putting the water conservation tips in the
Newsletter. Mr. Sweatt indicated those will be in the
next Newsletter.
Mr. Greenwald: Mentioned two sets of BVYA minutes will be
included in the next package. Speaking of BVYA, the air
conditioning compressor is gone. Someone cut the lines and
hauled it away. It is the second time this has happened.
#10 ITEMS BY MAYOR: A. Reported there was a Northeast
Partnership meeting last Thursday and they had a briefing
from St. Philip's College. They are planning to open
classes in the strip center next to the hospital in Live
Oak.
They are going to pursue the Wal-Mart situation as far as
it being used for a college campus in this area. If they
cannot do that, they are looking for a ,donor who has 100 or
more acres.
Mr. McDonald asked if it has to be in Bexar County and
Mayor Baldwin replied yes he thinks it does in order to get
the tuition rates.
B. Declared there is a Greater Bexar County Council of
Cities meeting tomorrow.
Before adjournment, Mr. Greenwald informed Council their
picture was in the VFW Newsletter. Mr. Sawyer mentioned
the Mayor's picture was in the Sunday Star regarding
sponsorship of the Miss Schertz Sweetheart contest.
#11 ADJOURNMENT: On a motion by Mr. Potempa, seconded
by Mr. Sawyer and unanimously approved, ,the meeting was
adjou=ed at ,,07 p.m. .?:It r
M~itY f Schert., Texa'
ATTEST:
~~~
City 'Secretary, City of Schertz
-325-