HomeMy WebLinkAboutDecember 5, 2011 Agenda
AGENDA
CITY OF DENTON CITY COUNCIL
December 5, 2011
After determining that a quorum is present, the City Council of the City of Denton, Texas will
convene in a Special Called Work Session on Monday, December 5, 2011 at 11:30 a.m. in the
Council Work Session Room, 215 E. McKinney Street, Denton, Texas at which the following
item will be considered:
NOTE: A Work Session is used to explore matters of interest to one or more City Council
Members or the City Manager for the purpose of giving staff direction into whether or not such
matters should be placed on a future regular or special meeting of the Council for citizen input,
City Council deliberation and formal City action. At a Work Session, the City Council generally
receives informal and preliminary reports and information from City staff, officials, members of
City committees, and the individual or organization proposing council action, if invited by City
Council or City Manager to participate in the session. Participation by individuals and members
of organizations invited to speak ceases when the Mayor announces the session is being closed to
public input. Although Work Sessions are public meetings, and citizens have a legal right to
attend, they are not public hearings, so citizens are not allowed to participate in the session
unless invited to do so by the Mayor. Any citizen may supply to the City Council, prior to the
beginning of the session, a written report regarding the citizen’s opinion on the matter being
explored. Should the Council direct the matter be placed on a regular meeting agenda, the staff
will generally prepare a final report defining the proposed action, which will be made available
to all citizens prior to the regular meeting at which citizen input is sought. The purpose of this
procedure is to allow citizens attending the regular meeting the opportunity to hear the views of
their fellow citizens without having to attend two meetings.
1. Receive a report, hold a discussion and give staff direction regarding the
accomplishments of the City Council Committee and Citizens Committee on Denton
Property Maintenance Code Issues, and the continuation or conclusion of these
committees.
2. Receive a report, hold a discussion and give staff direction regarding supplemental street
funding.
C E R T I F I C A T E
I certify that the above notice of meeting was posted on the bulletin board at the City Hall of the
City of Denton, Texas, on the ________day of ___________________, 2011 at ________o'clock
(a.m.) (p.m.)
____________________________________
CITY SECRETARY
NOTE: THE CITY OF DENTON COUNCIL WORK SESSION ROOM IS
ACCESSIBLE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT.
THE CITY WILL PROVIDE SIGN LANGUAGE INTERPRETERS FOR THE HEARING
IMPAIRED IF REQUESTED AT LEAST 48 HOURS IN ADVANCE OF THE SCHEDULED
MEETING. PLEASE CALL THE CITY SECRETARY'S OFFICE AT 349-8309 OR USE
TELECOMMUNICATIONS DEVICES FOR THE DEAF (TDD) BY CALLING 1-800-
RELAY-TX SO THAT A SIGN LANGUAGE INTERPRETER CAN BE SCHEDULED
THROUGH THE CITY SECRETARY’S OFFICE.
AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET
AGENDA DATE:
December 5, 2011
DEPARTMENT:
City Manager’s Office
CM/DCM/ACM:
George C. Campbell, City Manager
SUBJECT
Receive a report, hold a discussion and give staff direction regarding the accomplishments of the City
Council Committee and Citizens Committee on Denton Property Maintenance Code Issues, and the
continuation or conclusion of these committees.
BACKGROUND
For the past six years, the City has worked on updating the property maintenance codes for the
community. Since 2008, staff has worked with a Council Committee, Citizens Committee, and
residents and rental property owners to address issues and codify them into the new “Denton Property
Maintenance Code.” From the onset of this task, the Council Committee’s mission was: “to improve
the quality of life and standard of living for all citizens, and set to accomplish its mission through a
collaborative process whereby city staff, Council and citizens of our community would evaluate our
existing codes to determine the need for modification and/or adoption of new codes relating to
property maintenance issues.” The final“Denton Property Maintenance Code” adopted by the City
Council on May 11, 2010, accomplished this mission by placing all property maintenance related
information into one document; added language that allowed staff to address certain complaints from
residents; and formatted the document so that it was easier for citizens to read and understand.
Council Member Watts, Chair of the Council Committee on Property Maintenance Issues, has asked
for a work session to discuss the continuation or conclusion of the Council and/or Citizens
Committees. Below is a brief timeline synopsis of the accomplishments on this issue.
In 2005
, when the City attempted to address the revision of the property maintenance code
language, that attempt was met with resistance from certain sections of the community.
In April, 2006
, theDenton City Council asked the Denton Chamber of Commerce to conduct
an assessment of the City’s property maintenance issues. The Chamber asked the 2006-07
Leadership Denton Class to adopt this issue as their class project, and the class conducted a
non-scientific survey of the community’s thoughts on this issue.
In April 2007
, the Leadership Denton Class presented the results of their survey to the Denton
City Council. Their study was based on data collected in the city from November 2006 through
January 2007.
In October 2007
, a City Council Committee was appointed by the Mayor to address the
property maintenance code issues. Council members Charlye Heggins, Chris Watts and Joe
November 2007
Mulroy were appointed to this committee and they held their first meeting in .
In an effort accomplish their task, the Council Committee appointed a nine member Citizens
Committee to work with staff and the Council Committee, and the Citizens Committee held its
March 2008
first meeting in .
November, 2007January 2009
From to , there were thirty (30) meetings held by these two
committees in working on this issue and citizens were given opportunities to give input at every
meeting. A page was created on the City’s website just for property maintenance issues, and the
agendas, minutes, draft documents and other pertinent material were posted on that page.
On March 3, 2009
, the Denton City Council adopted Articles I-XII, of a new Chapter 17
“Denton Property Maintenance Code” into the Code of Ordinances of the City of Denton.
However, Chapter 17 did not contain regulations related to substandard or dangerous structures.
The Council Committee, Citizens Committee and staff continued working on the substandard
or dangerous structures issues,
On May 11, 2010
, the Denton City Council adopted the merging of Articles I-XII of the new
Chapter 17, with Article XIII (substandard or dangerous structures) into the “Denton Property
Maintenance Code.”
On January 20, 2011
, a joint meeting of the Citizens and Council Committees on Property
Maintenance Code Issues was held to review five staff recommended revisions to the DPMC.
Four of the five ordinance revisions presented were approved unanimously by the membership
of the two committees. The fifth recommended revision, outside storage, was sent back to staff
with a request to simplify the language and abbreviate the length. The outside storage language
was simplified with input from the Citizens Committee.
On August 16, 2011
, the Denton City Council adopted the five recommended revisions to the
“Denton Property Maintenance Code.”
RECOMMENDATION:
None
PRIOR ACTION/REVIEW (Council, Boards, Commissions)
None
EXHIBITS
None
Respectfully submitted:
John Cabrales Jr.
Public Information/Intergovernmental Relations
Officer
AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET
AGENDA DATE:
December 5, 2011
DEPARTMENT:
City Manager-Administration
ACM:
Howard Martin, 349-8232
______________________________________________________________________________
SUBJECT
Receive a report, hold a discussion and give staff direction regarding supplemental street
funding.
BACKGROUND
New development or higher intensity use in a existing development generate additional traffic.
To accommodate this additional traffic certain improvements to the transportation system along
the property boundary of the proposed development or off-site to it may be required. The
proposed development then needs to pay for these necessary road improvements. This results in
exactions for road improvements per the Denton Development Code as described below:
1.Signal Cost Participation.
Any development that is within the vicinity of a street
intersection(s) that is planned to be a signalized intersection is required to pay its
proportionate share of the signal cost for that intersection. (Reference: DDC 35.20.2.M)
2.Perimeter Street Improvements.
Any development that abuts an unimproved street is
required to improve or reconstruct the street to current street standards per the Denton
Transportation Criteria Manual. This includes the dedication of ROW, and construction
of 25-ft (28-ft for arterials) of asphalt/concrete pavement, curb and gutter, and sidewalk.
Developments may choose the option of payment in lieu of construction upon approval
from the City Engineer (Reference: DDC 35.20.2.L.3)
New perimeter streets
3.. If an arterial or collector street is proposed by the Mobility Plan
near or within the boundary of the development or the development creates the need for a
new perimeter street, the development shall provide right-of-way dedication, pavement
width of twenty-five (25) feet plus required bicycle lane in the case of an arterial street.
Developments may choose the option of payment in lieu of construction upon approval
from the City Engineer (Reference: DDC 35.20.2.L.2)
4.Sidewalk.
Any development abutting a public street is required to construct sidewalk
along its public street frontage in accordance with the Denton Transportation Criteria
Manual. In some instances payment in lieu of construction is accepted (such as CIP road
construction project). (Reference: DDC 35.20.3)
5.Offsite Street Improvements.
Any development that generates more than 100 trips per
day may be required to cost participate in off-site improvements (such as Off-site right or
left turn lanes, pavement widening/reconstruction, pavement markings, signage).
(Reference: DDC 35.20.2.M).
6.Proportionality Assessment.
Developments that are required to construct any of the
above items 2, 3 or 4 above may request that a Proportionality Assessment be performed.
Staff performs this assessment to establish the percentage of the Development’s
proportionate responsibility for the construction of the public improvements. If the
development’s proportionate share is less than 100 percent of the estimated construction
cost, then payment in lieu of construction can be made by the developer. (Reference:
DDC 35.3.12.C).
Staff uses the Mobility Plan, Connectivity Plan, current CIP project information, and the
Transportation Criteria Manual along with the DDC requirements to assess road exactions for a
proposed development. In applying the road exaction ordinance embedded in the DDC, staff has
found several deficiencies as listed below:
•
Payments from the developer are specific to project location only. So the funds can only
be used for any road improvements at that specific location.
•
Due to this specificity, City has over $2.3 million collected over time tied to specific
locations. Use of these funds is not allowed until a city funded CIP project is constructed
in that specific location. If a CIP project is constructed then these funds can be applied to
the CIP project. Also, there is a 10-year time window within which these funds have to be
used otherwise the funds revert back to the developer.
•
Due to the road exactions tied to specific locations it leads to Roads/Sidewalks to
Nowhere construction.
•
Unnecessary road transitions from the expanded road section along the frontage of the
development to tie to existing roads are required
•
The exactions are inherently inequitable: If a development is occurring on a TxDOT road
or an already Improved Street then the developer can end up with no road exactions.
However, if the street is classified as Unimproved Street, then the developer has to
improve the perimeter street on the frontage of the development to current city standards,
and pay for any signal cost participation. Depending on traffic generated there may be
additional improvements required based on the Traffic Impact Analysis.
•
Off-site improvements are tied to traffic generation threshold based on a TIA for larger
developments only, even though traffic generated from a smaller development project
would still use off-site road capacity.
•
The exaction process does not yield what the dollar amount of the exaction will be until
later in the development process when plans are developed to determine the construction
quantities. It is therefore not predictable for developers
•
Due to the exaction process not yielding costs until later in the development process it is
difficult to do due diligence
•
Piece-meal approach & negotiations are inherent in the current road exaction process
•
As discussed above the exaction process does not allow pooling of funds. So the funds
collected may/do sit for years until a CIP project is proposed by the city for the particular
location.
•
The current exaction process does not allow City to capture value of excess capacity in
existing street from developer if the street is classified as an Improved Street, and the
developer does not have to improve the road.
Due to the above noted limitations in the current DDC, staff has looked at other options of street
funding resulting from development projects. The various funding options and other exaction
processes are listed below:
•General Obligation Bonds
•General Budget (Maintenance)
•4A/4B Funds (Economic Development/Rail & Transit)
•Special Districts (TIF, TIRZ, PID, MMD, TRZ’s)
•Special Tax Funds
•State and Federal Funds
•Grants
•Road Impact Fees
•Developer Contributions
•Road User Fees
Except for the Road Impact Fees and Road User Fees, City generally uses the above listed
methods for funding of road CIP projects and for street maintenance. The Road User Fees are
.
also referred to as Street Maintenance, Transportation Utility, and Transportation User Fees
This fee isa charge levied by a city for maintenance of street facilities, and it is a monthly fee
added to the utility bill. The Road User Fee is not directly defined in the Texas Local
Government Code. There is no current legislation or case law supporting this fee. It has been
applied indirectly through the storm water MS4 program, whereby, the street has been defined as
an integral component of the drainage watershed. Currently in Texas only the cities of Austin
and Bryan have the Road User Fee.
In addition, except for the Road Impact Fees, all of the above listed funding methods do not
directly address exactions for road improvements to account for traffic generated from a
proposed development. How does the Road Impact Fee compare to the current DDC exaction
process? What are the advantages of using a Road Impact Fee? Some of these positive and
negative aspects of using Road Impact Fee are listed below:
Allowable by state law
Alleviates burden of constructing new facilities on existing tax payers.
Allows recoupment of projects costs already constructed which contain oversized or
excess capacity.
Allows for implementation of key system improvements over piece-meal approach.
Provides up front knowledge of the exact fee to be imposed.
Fairly charges based on system impacts.
Allows for pooling of funds.
Establishes rough proportionality.
Allows clear identification of developer credits.
No more piece-meal negotiations
It is applicable only within the city limits
There is a cost to implement
Impact Fee updates are required every five years by state law
There are administrative requirements to manage the program
As can be seen from the above listing of advantages of a Road Impact Fee, its application is even
handed to small as well as large developments, and thereby inherently a fairer method of
applying road exactions. The impact fees are collected based on a single family equivalent
(SFE), and a small or large project can be broken into a collection of SFE’s in terms of its traffic
impact on the transportation system. It establishes rough proportionality, provides up front
knowledge of exact fee, and thus makes it easier to do due diligence. Allows for pooling of funds
to be used for projects within the defined Service Area, and allows recoupment of the city
investment in excess road capacity from developments.
Staff has taken a quick stab at how many Service Areas would be necessary to comply with the
state law requirement, and what arterial and collector streets, and signals and intersection
improvements could be eligible for Road Impact Fees. These are shown in Exhibits 1, 2 and 3. In
addition based on the cost to implement the Road Impact Fee by several cities in Texas, it is
estimated Road Impact Fees implementation could amount to $250,000- $300,000 in Denton.
The Road Impact Fees are currently in use by the several cities including many in the Metroplex
cities in Texas. Exhibits 4 & 5 show the cities where the Road Impact Fees are currently in effect
and the amount charged per SFE. The median Road Impact Fee amount charged is about $2,000
per SFE. For Denton, assuming Road Impact Fee of $1,500 per SFE; for 500 to 1000 SFE
growth, Impact Fee of $750,000 to $1,500,000 per year could be generated. As a reference, in the
last Fiscal Year there were 977 SFE connections for Wastewater Impact Fees.
There are some negatives to implementation of Road Impact Fees. These are described below:
•
Road Impact Fees are applicable within the city limits only. However the DDC is also
applicable to development in the ETJ.
•
Also, if a development is proposed on a road that is not included in the Impact Fee 10-
Year Capital Plan, how does the city assess and exact road impacts?
We looked at how Fort Worth modeled its impact fee implementation and how it can be used in
Denton. Based on the review of the Fort Worth Impact Fee Ordinance, and discussions with their
staff, the following method is used:
•
Fort Worth uses the proportionality assessment model that we also currently use to
determine rough proportionality for roads that are not included in the Road Impact Fee
CIP, and also for developments in the ETJ. This model then determines the proportionate
share of a development’s impact on the road system
•
Fort Worth runs this model for all roads not included in the Impact Fee CIP, and for
developments in the ETJ
•
Then, Fort Worth caps the maximum exaction to the 100 percent Impact Fee calculated
costfor the particular Service Area.
Use of the hybrid approach of impact fees and the rough proportionality model then covers the
entire area within the city limits as well as the ETJ. In addition, for the areas outside of the city
limits, where a new CIP project is not warranted due to not enough current traffic, it exacts a
higher dollar amount to construct the needed transportation infrastructure to serve a proposed
development.
The combination of Impact Fees and Proportionality Model use in DDC will allow for fair and
predictable assessment of road impact exactions, and “Growth paying for Growth”. It will allow
for revenue stream that can be pooled and applied to road improvements within a Service Area,
and not tied to a specific address location. This will allow a more predictable and efficient use of
the capacity related transportation dollars.
OPTIONS
1.Continue to implement the current DDC embedded transportation exactions
2.Direct staff to bring additional information on implementation of Road Impact Fees
3.Direct staff to proceed on implementation of Road Impact Fees
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends proceeding on implementation of Road Impact Fees
PRIOR ACTION/REVIEW (Council, Boards, Commissions)
None
EXHIBIIT
1. Impactt Fee Service Areas
2. Impactt Fee Road CCandidates
3. Impactt Fee Eligiblle Signal & IIntersectionImprovemennt Projects
4. DFW ccities with RRoad Impact Fees
5. Impactt Fee Benchmmarking
Respeectfully submmitted,
P. S. Arora, P.E.
DRC Engineeringg Administraator
Assisstant Directoor Wastewateer
rn
�
�
�
�_+
�I
� ��w°���=:�E�N��w��i
�'��m���
����'��'��.
� ��" ���:�1 ��'�@
�4��1��i
�.l`�'��t
��l.��i"
���������. ����
��..."�11��'�`�il��
I���`� ��a���°tl�
�.,������ ��,����,
��t°�°���
���'����'1���
�i�Ai#����1��°
'��r�t�"1'��l ��'1��„�y�5
� �y�����i�E��
.�'��' 1 ���`
�w��°�a�����
����'����'�`l"�`�.���
�� w�.��������'`����
� � �r�°%��sxl�
�,.�'��11��i���
�,.� I �1,1
I�f ��ll�t��_����
����• ��° ��t�a.���l �
���°�������
���,`� �.�"i����ial5
�� � �� q�;t` �
�'a��-���°
� w � � � ,� � ,�a
e� � ��a � f :� a�,
� � � � � � � � �
� , s , ,, ,,, ,,, ,, ,.t,
r� �� �J ���J
i �4t 2 5� t S S l 3,
�sJ £r�s� t S 4 J ts
S s 5
i ) ( r , \ ( r s
� r 1 # � i ( . � 1 � �
,,:fS��i���i���i���i�lf�jf�t��jf�t��jf�t��j��j��x� ztxzft?fttfr�fi?ft?fttii}f�7fflfttii}f�7fflft}fri��r,lliiSi�li�Si�1i�1��1i�Si�li�Si�li�Sil�ili���1(t ��, ��F�Itfrrtt�� ttl�trt�sFr�t,ti�, ��1i�\����1i��1i�\i���1�����\������������$k �#��{(tt, (���({{�.3Lil��f9�,�{�3{t#��#f�f������ft �1lrr�. t�t(tr� ����r�t��ff���,�i,,�r��?��r,i
'��£�(£�(£�(£�'�f�t�� �I�Nrs�t�f�t�f�t�f�t�f�t�f���f�t�f�t�f�t�f�l�i�%�����������7���1��j1��j1��j1��j1��j1��jl��ji1����lQsl�sl�sl��r�t'�i�'��x �li�tl�li�ti�tl�li�ti��li�ti(t\ 11�c�IItl��s �z�,
������.
�� �t�����1 �t����� ��a�a�€„�������r�3�f�t�rxr{���4�t���\11��?�?�,����11i����������'�����������������5�t`����rs' fi�����������s��s��r'�����,�,�,�,���,�
����tt�t�y\�1��ti1#€�t�>����1��s s��ii��t��sjli,�t�;�##t ,5�,�1����{i'�i�i�it�littti111�(}����rtr«,����t�st����t��i�;,��f��t(t��1St1it'�'i�i��tz�t���l��tii��l�r�������tirf��," :
',��`��?�, �`„ ,i��t `t, ; �{{it, �0�ti(i(i(i(i(t(tiSN s ilt�t, �a, ,�, �"�a ._.���t�:
�
i ;
��5�fi t A, �}�,,; it51��} . -,.�1ir�, u� lii{tt k�ti��t�.`, ' 'It,��� ' >}t� .xti�,:���4z' � �i����'
— �
�j��t�i�t�61����,��'���S�SS�h����1���sf�l������t�}r �1�i�����r� i {,t�1�}���,'��„}�i1,��,�� t�.'.��s'�#�,'�i{t'��t'{�tt�������t;���h4s�'���i���
� ,�, ���5� ���, ����� ,.�9� �
�����. ,
t����{����f€}ti,(�lit�������?���t��s�,�;r11�,���sr�Q��i�s�t��fi��`�x ���15��'��������4���`€��$t����r�(t?,;������\'tt�� �� ����-��-
�'��ttr,`�rs`�t��������tikt�`��V��t1��tt�41�4�4���r��trm����,��}�4S}������4S��4S1�S�((�l� ���'���'���'{t�{{'��i�#�€���5'��r
,�� �,�� �s����'�S� ssssssssssssusssss � � , , sy < < < < < < < < < 1
s�.��t�11\�4�V��zt��t�, ��t� �tf7fnv� ��� «,�� m,.n �t{�5��?tm�3h�G, ttr«;l�,t�����t{��i : ........ t{s�� tt1���,,.
irr; �����, r. : ,����, �, ....: � �� ���
,\\�t1 ��h?rtt�, r,
�t�r����A t, t
�?Sitt����(i lt� ���t.i ���E ���l1��1�i�ttr}� �i{ �� r ,�iiYf?�i�(7t���X2�}i ��'�iS1+7,v���q.
���t}, : fi1r�?�rr�rri,rsi�iS�tl �f�` ��,�,;��; d,.,
,��}�}�it�t�i�11�1��1S1h�1S1�1�1�\�\�'i�11��1G�P�+��� �'�
t�t�it�t��'���i�il
�t�����, � G��3., , s� it�t�'��.._
°,'il�1�l������ts�lr�s�s� i�4����f�,'�N�(��,���{���fa, , �-
,„»I�1�1�r�t1t�I��1���1�f,�� ,ss�r���le���������������{ttttt�",
,�t��"��������ft�h��fj`.i�3=�i�1�1\�)��� ��
����,������z,�, `���; stt��,�,�����':
r�+l�U7lG11Ul�U7lG11Ul�U7lG11UI�����1!i�;ilit��
��ss'�i��t��t��`�t�b��'��t�l°�lly�:
���t,,�ltp}it�x�{�x�33��3��������zt�-
�_
�
,� r
, y,
�
�
�
+�. .
�:
�
r
r
�
�.
�
�'
M
�
,�
�
�
�
�
�.
r.
�:
� +�