Travis County Commissioners Court
October 26, 2004
Item 12
Number 12-a, consider and take appropriate action on proposed fees for the
review and inspection of subdivisions within Travis County and amend the f.y.
'05 general budget. And 12-b, consider and take appropriate action on the
creation of three new positions in transportation and natural resources department
to perform review and inspection of sub subdivisions within Travis County,
effective April 1, 2005.
>> judge, I just was give ann note where we do have a stake
stakeholder here that I think would like to address t.n.r. And the Commissioners
court with regards to, you know, the fees and what exactly that means. So
I think if you wouldn't mind letting us know what your concerns are. Were
you aware that --
>> Commissioners, my name is hank smith. I知 representing
the home builders association of greater Austin. We have been looking over
some of the backup material and some of the information regarding the increased
fees. We've been talking about the fees for several months now. We had a meeting
probably six weeks ago to two months ago between the city of Austin and Travis
County where we looked at everybody's combined fees with the single office.
At that point in time, Travis County presented these fees to us. For the most
part the same as they are in your package. The city of Austin also had a proposed
fee structure. They were coming down in some of their fees as a result of
what was going on and we were trying to get a handle on what the combined
impact was good to be, net increase or decrease. And it was difficult at that
point in time to try to discern whether it was a net increase or decrease.
So we all left the meeting thinking we were going to come back together again
at some point in time and be able to evaluate what the net impact is between
the county's increase in their fees and the city adjusting their fees. At
the same point in time, the city and county are working through the development
agreement. I知 not up to speed on what the status of amending the local agreement
between the city and county. I know it's been talked about the last few weeks
between the city and county.
>> it's been adopted.
>> I know it was on last week's agenda. I don't know whether
these affect the adoption of that agreement or not. What I would like to do
is just have a couple of weeks of time to sit down and go over what the city's
review fees have been, what -- if they've adopted anything, what the county's
reviews and what that impact is. You look at some of the review fees and some
of them are fairly steep. I didn't get a complete printout, but if you look
at, for example, short form plat applications if you are in the desired development
zone, there's no rfm fees. It's increased to 150 per plat and $1,298 per lot.
It wouldn't be unusual for an engineering fee for this type of project to
be at that same amount or less. If we can get $1,500 per lot in an engineering
fee, that's usually a pretty good fee on some of these subdivisions. We're
looking at the county review fee for street and drainage being 1298, which
is nearer the engineering fee, then the city adding on to that their review
fee for environmental, water quality, utilities, and then they are doing the
inspections so you have the inspection fee on top of that. And what I don't
have a good handle on and I don't think the home builders association does
is the total impact between the combined city and county fees. We are mainly
asking for a few weeks time to sit down with all the parties and figure out
what that impact is at this point. Because these are some pretty steep increases.
The amount of activity is greatly increased. The good thing is development
does seem to be coming back. There are a lot more homes going on the ground.
I think the city and county do need more staff, but increasing some of the
fees to the amount they are talking pw-rbgs that's going to come out of the
homeowners pocket, increase the cost of housing in Travis County. If you raise
a fee by $1,000 a home and you do at the beginning, that may represent a $3,000
or $4,000 increase in the kofs housing on some of these homes and that will
put people out of the market of being able to come in and buy a home in certain
sectors. So before we do that, I wanted to make sure we've looked at everything
real close.
>> hank, let me say, I mean I hear what you are saying. I
have continued to ask what real effect is this going to have on the cost of
service. And i've always felt like, I mean especially given that the city
has continued to tell us, even though I think that they did show us something
where there was some decreases in some of their fees because of the fact they
weren't going to be doing some things, but it has has been glaringly cleared
to me you really don't want them messing with their fees. That's fine. I even
told them I can understand why you say that. Then we come along also and I
think from joe's department what we are also trying to do now is recapture,
if you will, you know, all of the cost of what it really takes us to operate
and to do and to take things on that we are going to take on and given that
we're trying to do this single office, I mean it was -- you know, I would
have been really surprised had we not shown that there were going to be some
increased fees out of this. Now, I suppose -- I mean I知 a little, you know,
in question as to how we can get to this point, and again we find that industry
is not happy. I知 happy to give -- to sit back and give a couple more weeks
to weigh, in but at some point in time I really want the people at the table
to really sign off and say, okay, this is where we need to get because if
we don't do this, I mean we're going to be back and forth. And I know there's
been some steam lost, if you will, over this and probably for the reason that
everybody is just sort of punch drawn from it all. Just about the time you
think that you've got something figured out, I mean everybody goes back, and
I mean I can see where t.n.r. And joe just says, good, I think we're about
to get there because of the enormous amount of time that it's taken us for
-- to get here. Now, if -- I can get comfortable with a couple more weeks
if I really think in a couple more weeks that we really are going to get back
and say here's where this is. Unfortunately, what I feel like is going to
happen in a couple of weeks, is that somebody is going to have to either we're
going to get back in and start renegotiating with the city knowing what they
are going to tell us. I mean there's nothing ambiguous about what we have
continued to tell you about messing with our fee structure. So I知 -- I知
in agreement to do that, hank, if you will tell me that you guys are really
going to stay on top of this.
>> okay.
>> i'll ask for that from the court.
>> what impact would it have on our ability to get the job
done, joe? Would two weeks matter to us or --
>> well, for every week we delay, there's less revenue to
be certified within this year. That revenue goes to pay for the positions
that do the work of reviewing these plats. So at some point there's a downside
in terms of just being able to pick up the responsibilities that we have already
agreed to take on as a result of the adopted interlocal agreement. Is two
weeks going to kill us? No, it's not. Because the county is now going to be
required to review plats below its cost, then I would have to ask how long
the positions that we are going to rely on to do this review to be paid for.
If not my fees. I don't think we ever promised the stakeholders that we would
not increase the fees. We said we will charge what we have to charge, our
direct costs, and if those goes up, those go up. And so -- and there's nothing,
quite frankly, I can do about the city's fees. I mean we went to that point,
we backed off, we're not going to go there again, I suspect. So -- and we
hired an outside consultant to look over this information so you are assured
that this wasn't t.n.r. Padding the books. So I知 a little frustrated at this
point, tkpweus, of coming to the point of adopting the fees, which we rely
on to pay for positions to be thinking that we're going to go into negotiating
what those fees might be. That's my only concern.
>> well, joe, I hear your frustration and I feel some of
it and I知 sure that hank does as well. But you know what this really gets
back to? I mean it really gets back to what should we have done to begin with
given that we got pushed in a corner again with you know what, we don't interpret
1445, we didn't think that fees were any part of this deal. All knowing that
-- I mean we didn't expect the industry to come up and say, okay, well, I
mean we're just going to get our heads beat in here by the time we look at
this fee structure. And given if we know that we've got one partner in this
deal that basically just said we're not going to do that, I mean I知 back
to the same thing that we did -- that I said five months ago, you know what
you need to do, you need to go to arbitration. Everybody was like oh, we don't
want to go there. I respected that. I realize arbitration is expensive, it's
contentious, it's whaefrplt but unfortunately the partner that we have in
this continues to play hard ball with us and we always seem to be the ones
-- I mean I知 certainly in favor of trying to recapture whatever we've got
to do with regards to inspection, and I would think that the industry would
expect that the county, you know, needs to look at that and understand that.
But I知 not -- I知 not in favor of just saying, okay, well, I mean we're fixing
to get caught between a rock and hard spot here and we're the ones, again,
the county is going to be the ones that look like the guys that aren't participating
in, that aren't playing in this thing.
>> can we get your review done in one week?
>> it more depends looking at the city information as well
and I don't know how long it's going to take -- it would probably take more
than a week to sit down and compare the two. At one point the city came to
us and the county came to us and had two typical projects and what the impact
would be. We asked several questions and then we all kind of left that meeting
and it just kind of fell apart. Nobody ever got back together again to follow
up to see answers to those questions or try to come up with a better solution.
>> the judge and I were there. And we all kind of thought,
okay, well, I guess we're kind of getting there. But there were --
>> that was the last meeting. And, you know, part of these
fees, there's an increase almost three-fold on the per lot cost nor non-city
of Austin e.t.j. Projects. I think a lot of what's happening for the first
time in a long time the county has done a of service stud acknowledge seen
what it really costs to run their department. Even without having 1445 and
1204 issues come up, they've realized they have not been charging enough to
recoup what they are doing and we're seeing a combination of a lot of things.
Ten years of no increase in fees that are suddenly coming to the table. Let's
do a cost of service. We've asked for that, the stakeholders have asked for
that, we've got the results. And we're seeing for ten years we have not raised
fees and costs have gone up incrementally. So now it's not enough to cover
our costs of doing the program regardless of 14545 and 1204. I think there's
a combination of a lot of things. And we need to get a better handle on them
and look at them. Cost is service is what it is. If the cost of service says
these are the fees appropriate, I don't think we have any choice but to live
wit. But when they are informationing with information we produced that raised
a red flag saying wait a minute, why are you charging more to review what
it is I知 charge to go produce. There's something fundamentally wrong when
we start looking from that aspect.
>> here's my frustrations since year all being frustrated.
>> I知 not us from sraeutd.
>> I don't think the problem is on the county's side. I think
we have been seriously undercharging for all those years and until we did
a cost of study service, it's like golly, gee, boy howdy, we need to make
our adjustment. And I think what's frustrating is that our side of the ledger
has been beyond open and you are seeing the direct costs. And if we don't
-- if we don't keep the fees at what's proposed, and if we need another week
or two to just have clarity, have people to work through the numbers, I知
fine with that. Two weeks is not going to kill us. But at some point we do
have to make a decision because either joe has to undercharge, which means
the general taxpayers are subsidizing somebody having affordable housing,
or joe hires fewer people to do the job to save on the dollars there and that
impacts the service delivery.
>> probably has the same impact on the home buyer.
>> or maybe worse in terms of time is money.
>> I agree.
>> so it's really tough when we're being incredibly open
about what our numbers are. I don't think we're going to get a point of knowing
whether the city needed to be lowering its fees more than they are doing.
>> I think also need to look at the consequences of raising
the fees at the level we're doing. These are significant increases. I agree,
I think a lot of it is not just 1445 and 1204, but we did an analysis, an
outside auditor came in and looked at the real costs and we're way out of
line with the real costs.
>> if there's a courtesy two weeks for people to --
>> I think courtesy is one week, isn't it? I would be willing
to do one week, but I think two weeks is a little much. Especially all the
time that we've spent on the issue. And i've sat through a lot of it.
>> believe me, we've sat through a lot of meetings as well.
>> i've gone through the frustration, but I think I知 passed
that and I知 ready to take action here.
>> I知 not going to be here next Tuesday.
>> a week is common courtesy.
>> well, the only -- and I respect that, Commissioner. I
mean all of us are at that point. But I guess you really get me to a spot
where if I look at somebody and say what do you really need, there's no use
putting you in a spot where you really can't come back in a week and know.
>> right.
>> and I know that if you have to go to the city to start
getting some information, a week is not enough. But I would say that the farthest
that I would be willing for us to go out, hank, would be two weeks. I realize
that -- and at that point, Commissioner, I won't -- I won't be looking to
go any farther than that. I mean I think it's -- I mean to me it's time.
>> right.
>> to do this deal. And if in two weeks the cold, hard truth,
hank, is, you know what, we've looked at this thing and sometimes when you
look at things, I mean you kind of get something to rise to the level that
this thing has, I mean there are consequences that come about that you go,
man, I wish I wouldn't have asked for that. I mean because that's really what's
happened here. I mean everybody has really gotten put, you know, between --
or on a spot where let's see what this thing is. And the clerk says, I mean
let's get costs. And let's find a way to take care of these things so we don't
have to take it out of the general fund. If I could just, you know, ask, I
won't ask for any more than two, but I don't think you can get your information
in a week.
>> I don't think so.
>> so that's what I would ask.
>> we need it kind of light next week anyway if we can.
>> can you live with that, Commissioner?
>> I guess I知 forced to live with it, huh?
>> we would like some time to just sit down and look at these
numbers with the city and county and see what the city is doing as much ago
tpheus. The county has been very open. There's a few adjustments, these these
are the same numbers the county has been presenting but we have to see what
the city -- if the city is coming down and they were coming down on some fees,
but we all left that meeting several months ago and thought we were going
to get back together and come to conclusions and that never happened.
>> but see I have to honor the job that our staff did with
the city staff.
>> sure.
>> and they did a really good job. And they stuck to it.
>> right.
>> and so I don't understand where you disconnected with
them and the work they were doing.
>> I think this has gone on for two or three years and I
think we all just got to a point where we've -- no one is being paid on our
side to do any of this work. We're doing this because we've lived in Austin
all our life and we want to see affordable housing. And there's a desire to
have that go through. It came to a point two or three months ago where we
thought we were done, there's been a lot of work done on the rules and regulations
and the processes, and all of that is changing as we speak. The city is going
through changes, the county is going through changes and you've got a lot
of things happening on a lot of direction. And the fee is one issue we met
several months ago, raised concerns, we thought we were going to get back
together and come to some conclusions and I didn't realize until I saw this
package a few days ago that the county was changing the fees at this point
in time. That may be my fault for not keeping up on this end, but that's kind
of where we left it was we all thought we were going to get back together
and come to conclusion on some of these issues and that didn't happen.
>> well, I知 ready to take action today.
>> can I get clarity on one thing? Has the city of Austin
adopted its fee schedules or not?
>> no.
>> that's where the change --
>> you know, they are legendary in terms of their meeting
schedule and, you know, it could be, hank, they could not act on this for
weeks if not months given their schedule.
>> I agree.
>> and the reality is is we've got to feel good and solid
and secure about our side of the ledger.
>> right.
>> and just our health insurance costs over the last three
months would just curl your hair like kimberly's.
>> I pay the health care costs for my employees. I understand
what you are talking about.
>> I think it's interesting. We entered this thing thinking,
well, get the city to justify its numbers and the reality is we've got the
boy howdy, we justified our numbers and --
>> right. And it's a big jump right now. At a point in time
we're starting to see things pick up again what we hate on to see is a fee
to go up to increase the cost of a house 4 thaw dollars or $5,000. It knocks
people out of the ability to come in and buy a home. Again, until we can sit
down and talk to the city and see what the city is going to do with a lot
of these --
>> in two weeks we may not have a choice. Yours is based
on a cost of service and I don't know that we have much of an argument other
than the fact it's been -- I think it's been subsidized for years and years
and no one has done anything bit. Now we know it's been subsidized and the
decision is do we step up and make this four-fold change in our fees because
we haven't done it in ten years.
>> well, it sounds --
>> again, the issue about the total impact is.
>> I think the city is where you can get some of these answers.
I知 satisfied that we did everything -- and -- [multiple voices] .
>> when the legislature gets to tourpbgs it will be the total
impact thing we need to discuss as much as anything.
>> we just and rediscuss and rediscussed. I知 ready to take
action today.
>> judge, I would move that we give two weeks and two weeks
and come back and make a decision on that two weeks and that --
>> two weeks?
>> drop dead two weeks? I can deal with a drop dead two weeks.
And it really has to be a drop dead two weeks.
>> I understand.
>> that's a second? Discussion? All in favor. Voting against,
Commissioner Gomez. We'll see you in two weeks.
The Closed Caption log for this Commissioners Court agenda item is provided by Travis County Internet Services. Since this file is derived from the Closed Captions created during live cablecasts, there are occasional spelling and grammatical errors. This Closed Caption log is not an official record the Commissioners Court Meeting and cannot be relied on for official purposes. For official records please contact the County Clerk at (512) 854-4722.
Last Modified: Wednesday, October 26, 2005 3:28 PM