Loading...
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-