Travis County Commissioners Court
September 8, 2009,
Item 22
Number 22, consider and take appropriate action on fee increase proposals by the transportation and natural resources department, including a, assessment of fees for Travis County storm water program program and development review costs; b, increases in on site wastewater fees for fiscal year 2010; and c, proposed park fees and refund policy.
>> we had laid out before the court last Tuesday any number of different fee, new fees and revised fees.
and -- and hoping that -- that they had a chance to look at them over the week and come back and determine how much, if any, of that you want to go forward with.
we normally pushed a public hearing a couple of weeks out to get public input.
so at this point we are really just trying to gauge how much fee increase, what type of fee increases you might want to go forward with.
and we have the storm water fee, as you remember, that's a brand new fee that was authorized by the legislature during the last session that has three component parts to it.
it has a fee for review of new development, a general drainage fee that applies to all parcels in the unincorporated area and then you have a -- then you have a fee applied to -- to homeowners associations that are in charge of -- of storm water facilities that need to be reinspected.
then you have separate, you have a set of fees, proposed fees, fee policies that deal with parks and then finally have one dealing with the on site sewage program.
part of our issue is that we typically don't look at our fees every year.
so we get behind in terms of how much we expect to recover from those fees.
in some cases we haven't done that in over five years.
this may not be the best year to do it.
but at the same time we thought that we need to bring this before the court, at least for some consideration.
>> in looking over this, there's a list of -- seems like we have been talking about the -- about the storm water regulations for -- for a good -- maybe couple of years, kind of preparing us for -- for this step that finally comes through.
and it sounds like we need to comply.
the question is should we go ahead and do it this time around?
i would say that it's probably a necessary step for us to take.
>> I don't know if any of you all saw shoal creek, the -- the day that it rained further north it was jumping its banks and I am concerned that -- that storm water runoff is going to be a very big deal when it does start to rain.
we have determined about 60% of the benefit from -- from our storm water program would -- would be down to the public at large, and so we have -- we have tried to establish it in such a way that we calibrated it so that we have full cost recovery on those aspects that really are -- that really are totally to the benefit of the developer and then calibrated an additional fee that covers the -- the roughly 60% that is -- that is public benefit.
have we -- have we ever established any policy with regard to our other fees?
as to how much should be subsidized by the general -- by general revenue versus the fee collection?
>> I don't think there's any adopted policy that the court has adopted.
maybe in cases some years ago we talked about 100% cost recovery, we have never done that.
we certainly have talked about full cost recovery from the lake parks.
probably have not done that or if we did we did it for a short period of time.
ultimately that eroded, also.
with inflation.
i don't think we're at 100% cost recovery on any of our fees, but I'm pretty sure the court did not adopt any formal policy to do so.
>> so we tried to -- to -- are we on a -- do we have any policy with regard to -- to a -- a regular revisit or any kind of indexing of our fees in order to keep current with the level of -- of subsidy that we do provide?
>> we do not have any policy, either, about -- about how frequently we have examined fees.
or -- or indexing.
we haven't done that, either.
>> well, joe, can you just lay out I guess as far as the public -- the public is here -- let's talk about fees.
and when we are talking about storm water fees, we are actually talking about recovering our cost of service that will be provided.
also to make sure that we -- that we momma sure that the quality of our water is -- is also protected and of course there have been other counties -- that we make sure our water is protected and.
>> bexar county and other counties that have been utilizing this particular program as structured.
would you basically lay out to the public what we are talking about as far as money-wise as far as this fee under this particular scenario that you are suggesting.
>> I'm going to let tom or john do that.
>> thank you.
>> I actually prepared a couple of slides in your backup material.
if we can get this up there.
this is -- this shows the development fee increases relating to storm water.
and so you can see that for a residential a permit, it would go from 37 to $50 if it was a less than one acre side.
going for more than, 37 to $105.
residential b which relates more closely to floodplain matters, the existing fee is higher and the cost, because we're dealing with looking at the -- the impact on a waterway, that would be close -- properties in the floodplain.
the cost is higher.
so those costs are higher.
non-residential a and b, which is typically commercial development, the fees are -- go from 78 to either 395 or -- I'm sorry, from 341 to 560.
in this case, we looked at the typical fee because there's a fee schedule based on the valuation of the property.
a couple other development fees.
for utilities, there -- we propose no fee increase for -- for road cut utility.
this would be where they are slicing down the road.
if they are slicing through the right-of-way, these linear projects could carry runoff if they are not controlled properly.
the driveways similar the fee increases that you see here are higher with the rural approach rather than curb and gutter which has less storm water.
finally the residential subdivision fees, in which case we are only proposing the storm water fees for the extra territorial jurisdiction.
i'm sorry, outside the territorial jurisdiction of Austin.
in this case, we -- we have the city of Austin who does storm water reviews as part of the single -- single office review.
>> right.
>> so outside the e.t.j.
the fees would go up as is shown here for the series of permits that are -- that are described.
and -- and so those are the development fees.
the second -- the second fee that joe mentioned was the storm water maintenance fee.
these would typically -- this is a brand new fee, so there's no before and after.
there is no fee now.
so -- so we're proposing a $300 initial fee, this is when we are accepting a -- a subdivision's roads or -- or the -- the project is done and it's ready for people to start buying or selling and buying houses.
so the structures on site would be $300 apiece.
also for commercial development, $300 apiece.
and then an annual renewal, so we could track this with the -- with the appropriate officials in the homeowner association or commercial tract, make sure that ownerships haven't change and things like that over the years, they are reminded of their responsibilities here.
i described last week the reinspection fee as -- as a cost of having to come back out there, if things weren't done right.
the first time in terms of maintaining the pond, and a permit transfer.
general drainage fee is the third one.
i think it's -- it's easier just to look in your backup material in terms of -- of what the fee -- what the fees would be.
we lay out three -- three scenarios.
and -- and as I described on this slide, we're looking at a progressive fee that tries to tie to the impact of -- of a project on drainage.
>> the reason why I asked you that was just for the benefit of the public, you know.
we -- we come here weekly and -- and we -- you may be on the agenda one week and next week you back on or whatever.
but someone may have missed the opportunity to know exactly what we're talking about.
i wanted to make sure that we capture as much of that interest, as far as what the public have, as far as actually to go through that again per se.
and -- and so that's what my concern and -- and so -- but anyway, let me ask you this question, also.
since I have you.
your attention.
and that is since we are in a single office situation with the city of Austin, as far as -- as far as looking at the -- at their particular storm water program within their corporate limits, of course, then outside the corporate limits we will have jurisdiction as far as this particular fee structure is concerned, and I guess -- I guess my question is -- on this establishment of the same type of criteria, the same type of setting, single office situation with other cities, because we have more than one city here in Travis County, other than Austin, will those particular storm water programs, if adopted by a city, trump what we are doing here now?
in other words, we kind of just have to back out and then go outside as far as an example with this --
>> Commissioner, I think what we will do is we will probably negotiate that case by case.
>> okay.
>> with the city of Austin -- would the city of Austin keep in mind that within the e.t.j.
we will still be using the -- the -- the single office.
and the fees are -- with respect to storm water are not impacted there at all.
it's only outside the city of Austin's e.t.j.
with all of the other jurisdictions we will have to negotiate this case by case exactly how we're going to divvy this up.
>> okay, okay.
i just wanted to get that kind of laid out a little bit.
all right.
thank you.
so we're on 22 a.
if not let's go to 22 a.
storm water management program.
let's just take it in the order they are posted, okay.
what table should we look at for this?
you have the backup that was dated sent 3rd?
september 3rd?
>> uh-huh.
>> I am looking at September 8th backup.
should I pull the other one?
>> yes, for September 8th.
attachment a, table 1, lays out the storm water fee increases.
in order to comply with the law, what would it cost Travis County?
>> well, the law requires -- first of all, the -- the basic law requires us to ism implement the program.
the amendment allows us to charge a fee that would offset the charge of the program.
>> what will the program cost?
>> the program as we have it structured is about $700,000, roughly.
that's -- as of now in our current fund, general fund, we have the f.t.e.'s approved for that and what we are talking about doing is offsetting those costs with fees.
>> okay.
>> so right now that's the general fund expenditure.
with 0 revenue.
>> that's right.
>> support.
>> so if we implement the -- if we adopt the proposed fee, what additional revenue do we anticipate?
>> depends on how much of those fees -- three pieces to it.
if you want to cover all of it, we would implement all three pieces.
if you wanted to implement just the one that has to do with the development review, that's about a quarter of a million.
>> yes.
>> and -- go ahead, tom.
>> okay, yeah.
right.
for the -- for the development fees, we -- in a typical year the estimate playing of revenue would be -- estimation of revenue would be $279,000 roughly.
we're not in a typical year, of course.
now the program -- the program costs are around 205 to $210,000.
so -- so our revenue estimate exceeds what we would need with -- to fund our current program for development reviews.
so -- so there is some flexibility to -- to either propose this being -- this being some $70,000 higher, get public input, and then come back maybe with some of them reduced where we hear a lot of concerns.
or we could -- we could go forward today with -- with a smaller increase for -- for each of these as another alternative.
>> all right, I'm still having a hard time finding what you just said about the fees.
what page should I be on for that?
>> this is -- it's a page -- it's page 5 that looks like this.
>> all right.
i don't have a page 5.
>> okay.
>> are we at the September 8th, 2009 memo.
>> we submitted some revised information late last week.
>> it's attachment a, table 1, right?
it's attachment a, table 1 as well.
>> mine is blank.
mine should not be blank, right?
>> well, judge, I have --
>> I see -- there's -- I'm just going to give you this.
>> I have the September 3rd memo, that's on that attachment 1.
i mean -- I mean a.
>> always take care of the court mr.
webb.
>> [laughter] now, now, it makes a little bit more sense, huh?
>>
>> [laughter] so this shows the total estimate of revenue in the bottom right.
as well as -- when we show average existing fee, that's the fee that would support the development services program.
currently support the -- the storm water program.
so -- so we're not starting from zero.
>> so average fee existing -- this is a program storm water management is a new one, there are no fees.
but there are existing fees on what?
>> on each of these permit types to support the development, permitting program.
>> okay.
on a, on our agenda, what part of this should I look at?
-- the two gray columns, going from 37 to $50, going from 27 to 105 for instance on down, so it's -- so it's the difference in -- in fees between those two gray columns.
>> okay.
so the new fee represents the storm water management part that we add to -- to what we have done historically.
>> that's correct.
>> and so the new fee would cover both of them basically.
>> yes.
>> okay.
one or two more questions I will be done.
this totals 278, but the new -- the new storm water implementation caused in excess of $700,000.
>> costs.
>> in portion is only for that new development.
the new development comes in, this should would be the additional revenue that we would collect, charge a review fee for the new developments.
this fee does not account for the drainage fee, it would be collected county-wide on all parcels on an annual basis.
so that -- that's the larger cost of the program, only a portion of this $700,000 program are we -- are we allocating to new development.
that's not part of this table.
>> okay.
22 a.
on the agenda.
>> development fee.
>> the -- the -- we -- we -- item a on your agenda is the increase in -- the increase for storm water, which are three parts in your right hand is one of those three parts.
which is the development fee increase.
>> where are the other two?
>> if you are -- in your backup, we have -- we have the storm water maintenance fee.
the backup in your table shows.
the general drainage fee is -- is -- in the backup that you received for September 1st, it's -- it's shown in table number 4.
that's the general drainage fee.
i think there's -- I think part of the -- part of the confusion here is that -- is that the table numbers are different between what we gave you for the September 1st agenda versus the September 8th agenda.
in the back updated September 1, table 4.
>> it's got $1.6 million lower right hand corner.
so I should read table 4 and table 1 together.
>> you could add both of them together --
>> I'm just trying to understand how -- a.
to --
>> table 1, table 4, then the table on storm water maintenance fees, which -- which is in -- which is also in the backup, you are really looking at three --
>> okay.
the third table is number what?
>> I'm afraid to give you a number.
in table -- in table --
>> can I make a recommendation judge, table this until the afternoon, let us come back with one table.
because I think there's confusion going on right now because of the multiple backups and perhaps too much information.
one sheet of paper that makes it fair and clear on what we are asking the court to do, ask you to adjourn on this item, come back with much more clarity.
>> some of this real easy, I thought the refund policy was -- was -- did that get more complicated over the weekend?
i guess we could come back in the afternoon, visit with joe real quick.
>> okay.
>> something about labor day that -- that -- .
>> this afternoon or next Tuesday.
>> let's try this afternoon.
i really think that -- we have got all of the -- we have too much information here and we haven't summarized it well enough for the court to just see the a, b, c real clearly.
>> okay.
unless there's objection we will plan to call up number 22 in its entirety this afternoon.
and you are hoping before executive session or after?
>> before.
>> all right.
that's -- that will be real close to 2:15 p.m.
2:30.
>> we'll be ready.
>> I like that optimistic, positive approach there, joe.
any problem with that?
let's call it up this afternoon.
>> thank you all.
>> thank you.
now, we have been asked to postpone item no.
33.
until next week.
that's 33 a and b.
Now, that was an easy item compared to another one that we need to take up next.
that one is number 22.
joe gieselman says that we need to revisit it.
by the way, when we go back into executive session to discuss the other executive session items, we will carry number 36 back in with us for further discussions with the legal counsel.
22 is to consider and take appropriate on fee increase proposals by the transportation and natural resources department.
including a, assessment of fees for recovery of track storm water management program development and review costs, b increases in onsite wastewater fees for fiscal year 2010, and, c, proposed park fees and rerefund policy.
>> thank you.
>> we're going to do this one page at a time.
>> okay.
>> we have prepared one page for each fee.
so we're trying to really make it straightforward summary.
we're going to start once again with the storm water.
and tom will walk you through the proposal.
>> okay.
microphone on?
okay.
so the one-pager, you'll see that -- that we have subdivided this into roman numeral i, ii, iii, for the three fees relating to item 22 a.
the first one is -- is the more confusing of the three.
in that we're proposing both an increase to the existing development fee of 10% and then an additional fee to cover the storm water program costs.
so you will see in that first table, you see the permit type, and then you see the existing fee, where there is a fee schedule, we put the typical fee in there, sort of the median or average.
we show then the 10% increase that would be to support the development services costs that have never been fully recovered.
and then we show the new storm water fee.
and those fee increases would -- those additional fees are -- are to fund the storm water costs that are not recovered at all presently.
and then on the right column, you can see the new fee.
so -- so we put -- I put an asterisk in there on the -- on the final five rows to show that -- that for these residential subdivision permit applications, we're only proposing to have those increases outside of the Austin e.t.j.
so it would be throughout Travis County's unincorporated area, except it will not apply in the Austin e.t.j.
that is from what we've discussed a little bit earlier about a -- about a -- about a single office that does review and the city of Austin doing the storm water reviews in that area.
and then there's also an additional fee -- there's a different fee scheduled altogether for development fees.
the storm water program costs, as we mentioned, for this piece of our program is $205,000 per year.
the storm water fee would -- would yield approximately $279,000 per year in what we're calling average or typical year of economic activity.
>> so the average cost and the average yield are based on the average year not a year like the one we're having.
>> the -- the yield would likely fluctuate a lot more.
the -- our storm water costs are --
>> pretty static.
>> they are pretty steady, especially considering that staffing costs are the same this year as last year in our operating costs kind of within budget.
>> so our costs are likely to remain at 205,000 when whether it's a busy year or a light year.
>> that's correct.
>> so who would pay the fee now?
>> this fee would be paid by those persons who are submitting an application for the permit types listed there.
so -- so a residential a permit, a residential b, utility permits, driveway permits and then the -- the series of permits that you get for a residential subdivision and then commercial development applicants.
>> so we think that developers would pay the fee directed to the county, but they would pay us that cost on to -- to customers, basically.
>> that would likely be the business model.
>> I guess a single homeowner would probably wonder whether he or she would be hit directly, would the answer to that be probably not, but indirectly, yes?
through your developer or --
>> if -- we actually ransom numbers to try to -- to determine for -- for what I would call an affordable or sort of an average sized house.
we ran the numbers on how you would apportion the costs.
when an application comes in, it might be for a whole plat that might be a multitude of lots.
when you subdivide that back to a lot by lot cost, we came up with a -- with an approximate cost of $82.
so -- extra.
so about -- it would be the -- about the cost of three gallons of paint for that type of average or sort of affordable sized home.
>> okay.
>> joe, we are not accustomed to seeing fees -- fees that would exceed our costs.
or am I mistake place.
>> no, you're right.
>> typically there would would be some subsidy.
>> sometimes when we talk about it, when we start the fee, but I don't think we've ever charged a -- charged 100% cost recovery fee.
>> okay.
but is it true that if we exceed our costs here, in all likelihood we will fall short in some of the other fees.
>> we are currently, yes: some substantially below our costs.
>> let me ask you, may I -- may I ask a question inside that question?
sure.
just inside this chart, am I reading this correctly?
that the existing fees would their 10% increase do not represent the cost recovery on those fees before you add on the swmpc?
>> correct.
>> so even within this existing matrix, we are not achieving full cost recovery.
we are achieving it on -- on the swmp portion of it, but the portion that's existing c plus the -- existing fee plus the 10% increase is not a full cost recovery.
>> that's right.
>> that's correct.
>> this just happened coincidentally that we -- that the yield exceeds the cost.
>> yes.
because it's -- you are looking at the two together.
>> okay.
any other questions regarding number 1?
excellent job on the master chart y'all.
>> [laughter] second part?
>> okay.
roman number ii is the proposed storm water maintenance fee.
i think that I kind of went through this a little bit this morning with the slide.
but again this is modeled after the harris county program.
in fact I think these fee amounts are the same as when I last checked they were charging.
but -- but a storm water structure would be something like a -- like an outfall or a retention structure that needs to be maintained.
the -- the permit we have from tceq requires some level of -- of routine inspection to ensure that these facilities are maintained.
we don't anticipate that if someone came in for -- for, for instance, a single family residential development, just developing one lot, that they would have such a structure.
these structures are normally associated with -- with subdivisions or commercial development that has -- that have a fairly large footprint of parking lots and roadways and drainage.
and, again, I guess -- our existing and in the foreseeable future costs under our storm water management program is 82,000 a year.
because we couldn't initially collect this fee except prospectively, the fee wouldn't reach a revenue replacement or replacement of our costs with revenue until approximately year four.
>> with the first year being when?
>> the first year of implementation of this, which -- which if we assumed it was 2010, so it would be by 2014 that we would -- that we would reach 84,000.
>> okay.
questions?
>> all right.
>> okay.
roman numeral iii is the drainage fee.
now, in the backup material which we had three scenarios in there, or alternatives.
and what I decided to display here was just alternative, too.
it yields the least amount of revenue and -- and I sort of collected -- there's a lot of different property classifications that the state of Texas uses in the appraisal districts throughout the state use, it's fairly standardized.
but I sort of collected things into different groupings.
exempt properties like agriculture and universities, vacant lots, which is just what it says.
residential, multi-family, commercial and development, which includes condominium and properties, either under development, partially platted or in some -- in some way under developed.
some way being prepared for adaptation.
and then industrial utility.
we could -- we could -- through the appraisal district, collecting these -- this fee annually, we could with fairly low rates per parcel, we could collect quite a bit of money.
this -- this particular scenario we would collect about $905,000 a year.
i developed this as an alternative because if you recall, our total storm water management program cost is around 776,000, so if -- if the court was so inclined, assessing just iii could pay for the entire program rather than just the 60% of our costs that are general.
which is listed there as 489,000.
>> so this is our wiggle room, essentially.
>> yes.
is it y'all's -- strategy to -- to lay this out so that -- so that in -- when we do go to public hearing on this, as we hear about -- about the consequences of these fees, we can -- we can flex out in spots to -- to equalize for the consequences that people are complaining of?
>> I think -- I think the initial strategic just was to lay the cost where -- to the appropriate user group, to try to -- to put all of the costs on one group or another.
so I think just prorate according to where we believe the burden is.
i think that you will probably hear from every one of these sectors about fees, given the economy.
homeowners, businessmen, they are all -- they are all in the same place.
>> now, in regard to this third one, the $905,000 annual yield, is that based on the upper end of the range for multi-family commercial and development and -- well, multi-family and commercial development, I see a 30 to $100 --
>> for -- for simplicity, Commissioner, I group them, but -- but with -- within the multi-family, there's duplexes, triplexes, four or more, which would be more like an apartment building and so -- so $30 would be at the -- at the low end and $100 would be for the same apartment building.
>> so conceivably, just to get to -- get to break even, you could reduce them by roughly 40%?
>> that's correct.
>> okay.
>> now, if we have a public hearing on these, to be informative, wouldn't we have to indicate like when we say family -- we say multi-family, 30 to 100, wouldn't we need a few bullets to describe that range?
>> yes.
>> I mean, I don't know -- seems that we always have some sort of public hearing before we act on fees.
we sort of lay them out in draft.
then public input, provide an opportunity for that or opportunities and then take action.
i do think that if we move on these we ought to make it effective January 1 and provide an opportunity for public input.
>> I agree.
>> but what we've done in 1, 2, 3, is basically lay out three different options and you can have four positions when you come in, either don't do anything or pick one of these three.
is that right?
>> yes.
that's an approach that you can take, yes.
>> okay.
but the $750,000 that you mentioned this morning, that's the total costs we incur for storm water management?
implementation?
>> that's correct.
that's been budgeted.
>> that's been budgeted already.
so there's a complete public subsidy for that amount.
>> that's right.
>> and that is something that we are mandated to do, whether we want to or not.
>> that's correct.
it's been stepped down from e.p.a.
to the state and from the state to the county government.
this program, mind you, is -- has been in effect in I think every urbanized area in the united states for a number of years.
so it's just now like a second tier of implementation that's going to county governments and probably smaller cities, I believe.
it's a -- it's a fairly well worn program throughout the united states.
maybe new to us, but it's not new elsewhere.
>> okay.
>> well, my motion would be that we put together a two page summary of impact.
lay the options out there.
and -- and post a public hearing.
>> how many weeks out?
>> I would give two or three weeks opportunity.
we are likely to support those who in the business of -- of -- of construction, right, residential, commercial construction --
>> they're aware of this proposal, the home builders association.
>> yeah.
so I would say give them -- once we -- do we need to approve the document itself?
>> it probably -- if you're going to have a public hearing, yeah, he ought to have the subject of the public hearing.
if this is what you watch to put out as the subject of the hearing.
>> I think some narrative should accompany that.
>> sure.
>> we ought to anticipate questions that will be asked and answer those.
>> judge.
i second the motion.
but you also mentioned something earlier, I think it's very critical, when we have a public hearing, that for the description of the multi-family deal to really be laid out and explained note-wise.
in other words, when someone does come in and attend the public hearing, they will see exactly what they mean by multi-family.
i think that's kind of a good point to -- to bring forth.
to that clarity.
>> we would have an opportunity to get the public input.
>> yeah.
>> the -- we are incurring substantial costs, anyway, we may as well try to get -- much of it covered.
>> yes.
descriptive thing that we may not be as clear.
>> anticipate the ones who are -- like the ones that we get now, you know, from time to time they come in and they're just working on their own family lot in trying to -- how do we reach all of those folks?
>> well, typically, you know, beyond the website and we can advertise on cable channel 17, we don't typically send mail or anything, but we do make sure like the associations that we know of that they have the information.
>> also put information in our permanent
>> [indiscernible]
>> okay.
>> I guess if we get any names, can you send something to them.
okay.
because those are the ones that I'm wondering, well, it will be a big surprise to them and they won't have seen it.
okay.
>> try to get out as much information as we can about it.
the other thing is for the average homeowner, where this fee may come into place, I believe it's a good idea for that homeowner to know exactly what the county has to do.
to receive this -- this fee.
sometimes --
>> January 1 effective date.
so they know when this will start.
>> that's what I would do.
and invite their input on which one of these options is best.
is there an engineering association that everybody has to long to or at least everybody is on a mailing list to get some of this information?
maybe that's a route we need to go.
>> do we want to see that list?
see if we want to add some --
>> just in case.
maybe I can go through some of the records in my office and kind of make sure that we have the right names in there to add to it.
that would help.
>> but key is that this would be in unincorporated areas only.
>> yeah.
>> not the e.t.j.
>> right.
>> not cities.
>> let me -- just to clarify, the -- the permits, the first several on this -- on this -- in this column, that would apply right now also in the e.t.j.
but the plat reviews, the ones with the asterisks at the bottom, would be outside of Austin's e.t.j.
>> okay.
>> just make sure that's clear then.
the others are already there, we're just proposing small fee increases, really.
okay.
any more discussion?
all in favor?
that passes by unanimous vote.
the next one is the on site sewage and wastewater fee.
>> stacy t.n.r., basically doing the same thing as on the permit development fees.
proposing a 10% increase across the board, restructuring some of the fees so that larger septic systems pay a larger fee just to give you an example, 500-gallons per day would do a seven bedroom house or smaller.
so we're talking really big systems.
we're also talking about adding a couple of new fees.
one for systems that have maintenance contracts.
there's a balance -- there's about 2600 systems within Travis County that require maintenance three times a year.
county staff has to track the maintenance reports and contracts, make sure they're -- they're there and -- and being done properly.
on average, per system, it costs the county about $16 a year.
over the life of a system, it costs the county over $300 a year.
just to track the maintenance.
the other fee we're looking at is --
>> reapplication.
>> > yes, the reapplication fee, thank you.
we have about 2,000 systems in the county operating without licenses.
the purposes of this fee would be to -- to reissue the permits based on the actual cost or closer to the costs to reissue the permit and get the systems through the inspection, through the permitting process.
many systems out there, they are only lacking a final inspection.
t.n.r.
staff can't do the final inspection because the permit is expired.
and these homeowners feel that -- that it is burdensome to pay a full permit fee just to have a county staff member do the final inspection.
to produce these permits on an average year, staff costs are 634,000.
we recover less than 50% of what it costs us to -- to produce these services.
with the proposed fee increase restructuring and new fees, that would bring it up to 55%.
most local jurisdictions recover 60 to 65% of their costs.
when you say reinspection, we actually physically go to the septic system, observe it and I guess do all kinds of tests, whatever we do.
but we have to take a trip there, this is not sitting at the office and --
>> that's correct.
>> looking at paperwork.
>> comment?
so if we increase -- if we -- if we adopt this recommended increase, we simply go from a subsidy of 50% to roughly 45%.
>> that's correct.
>> and shift 55% of the costs to the consumer.
>> that's correct.
>> okay.
so if we had public hearings on these but we had public hearings on all of them at one time, would we separate the public hearings?
>> do it all at one time.
>> do I detect in your tone a dislike of these public hearings?
>> [laughter]
>> well, these are --
>> no interest in these.
>> > some of the same people would show up if you had a series of hearings, it would all be the same people.
except for the parks, perhaps, you might want to separate that out.
but this on site and storm water are so similar, you should get the same people showing up.
>> the last time we increased these fees was when.
>> 1990.
>> mid 1990's on the on site wastewater fees on development services permit fees was 2004.
>> so the same information applies to this effective January 1 and then we would have the subject and the narrative that goes with it?
>> I would.
and I would indicate on these fees like some of them were last increased in 1990.
>> that's correct.
>> the others last increased in 2004.
>> we can indicate which --
>> I would indicate that.
and I would have the -- I would have public hearings on these, too, and let's hear from my residents on them.
the subsidy is -- is already substantial and without a fee increase, I guess, over time it's likely to increase.
>> that's correct.
>> because of increased costs.
so ...
>> let me ask -- will we -- is the department contemplating scheduling an additional fee increase on these very large on site wastewater facilities, septic facilities, in -- in two years or three years?
because I'm -- I'm concerned that -- that our -- our subsidy will increase again over time, it appears that we would only be at 55% cost recovery with the fee increase.
>> we -- we can come back to court at the pleasure of court.
obviously, through inflation that's a yearly thing perhaps fees ought to be done on a yearly basis or every two years.
>> and I was going to add that -- that at the department we are looking to replicate the study that we did back in 2004 on our city of Austin development fees.
back then we adopted a separate fee sheet for the city of Austin fees, as we -- as we -- since we had formed a single office as a result of 1445.
and back then we had hired deloitte to come and help us go through all of our processes to -- you know, to try to establish a cost of service.
and we are proposing to -- to replicate that work in outside, department, to what at all of our fees, we were proposing to start looking at that in January.
>> that's great.
>> as a matter of policy, I think it would be a good idea for us to do.
no less than every three years.
measure I should bring the policy back to court --
>> thanks.
>> I just wanted to reiterate, in the -- in the text of explanation, you put with the notice, that I think it would be very -- very worthwhile to put what the current subsidy is on these and what we're moving towards in the comparables out there because most of people looking at this start from a knowledge base of zero, if they have a frame of reference, I think they will understand it better.
>> move approval of these fees.
>> second.
>> seconded by Commissioner Huber.
discussion?
all in favor?
that passes by unanimous vote.
now we're going to move to the park fees.
>> thank you.
>> [one moment please for change in captioners] ...
for these parks in back in fiscal year 2004.
what we're proposing is that we go on parks on Lake Travis, we go from a day's fee of $8 per vehicle to $10.
and a day use fee from -- at hippie hollow park from $10 to $12.
and then we would be suggesting an increase on an annual day use from $75 to $100 per vehicle.
and if you had a second vehicle in the family you could get a duplicate annual and that would go from $25 to $50.
we are not proposing any other fee increases for the athletic fields that we have and the other complexes.
we are suggesting a deposit proposal, and that is to implement a $50 refundable deposit on shelter rentals at the following Travis County parks.
that would be del valle, ben fisher, east metro, northeast metro, richard moya and southeast in webberville.
and to implement a $100 refundable at baldwin park and the mansfield dam pavilion.
>> the thinking there is that if you return the property to us in the condition that you got it, roughly, you would get your deposit back.
>> that is correct.
and we currently have a deposit for the east metro pavilion is $100.
what we're suggesting on the $100 refundable is that they are both pavilion facilities and we wanted to keep the fees comparable.
pavilions $100, shelters $50.
>> okay.
>> additional changes to the fee structures would be remove southwest metro from athletic field and concession building rental categories.
this got placed in there early on before we really developed
>> [inaudible] and we really don't fee that fee structure is necessary and putting in athletic fields or concession buildings there.
and to delete the general trailer use parking fee for loop 360, we already have a fee that covers that facility.
so this is a duplicate.
we would like to clean up our fee structure and remove that.
we're also proposing we put in mansfield dam, I reference mansfield dam pavilion.
the concession building we currently had a -- it's vacant, it's hard to get a concessionaire in there.
we ran a con investigation their for the first couple of years and we have not been able to get a replacement and the facility really could work as a pavilion for the public so the thinking is we would use it at another rental pavilion for public use.
and the last fee recommendation would be to change reservation fee at bob wentz to $10 which is in line for all our other reservation fees.
our facility reservation fees.
>> okay.
>> we are also recommending refund policy proposal and that would be proposed policy for park permits and we -- on this other sheet of paper that we handed out to you, we provided to you an existing policy which was passed by the court in 1996 at the top of the page, and halfway down the page we have a proposed policy for refund of park permits.
and we for the most part have used the primary elements of the original policy and that was that parks would provide refund to park permits for family emergencies, medical emergencies, nonresolvable or irreconcilable visitor complaints.
volunteer services of at least four hours in duration and significant services at no charge to the county.
and what we are proposing is that a user may -- the county may issue a voucher for one of these purposes or the county may also at the discretion of the parks division may offer a refund in lieu of a voucher.
>> when I -- when you give a refund, what form is it?
like a county check or cash or --
>> it would be a check.
>> so somebody at the park has a checkbook?
>> no, the intent with the vouchers is that if somebody had a family emergency and they came into the park and they paid a weekend full of camping and use fees, and Friday night they came in and started camping, they paid for their fees for the whole weekend and they find out they have a family emergency down in houston, it's only appropriate from our standpoint is that if they have to leave Friday night or Saturday morning, we prorate the difference to allow them to have a refund.
the intent with the voucher is that we would offer a voucher to them as a possible solution, and if a voucher doesn't work, what we're suggesting is that we could also offer a cash refund if they meet this criteria.
>> so we would have cash on hand.
>> it would go through the auditor's.
they would have to submit a request and it would be processed internally in the county and the check would be issued through the county after the auditor reviews and approves it.
>> can they get the voucher on site though if they chose that route or would that have to go through the process as well?
>> I'm not --
>> there is a process and if they ask for a refund in the field, we give them a sheet of paper which is a request form where they fill out the reason for their request and then they mail that in and then we would mail them the vouch ear what's the turn-around time on the voucher and on the refund?
>> well, I would imagine the voucher is going to be a lot quicker turn-around time than the refund.
refund is probably around 30 days.
in some situations, you know, especially for local residents, they are going to choose to go with the voucher.
if they are out-of-town visitors -- we have people that come from europe to the parks, not that they have a lot of refunds, but I would imagine they would rather have the cash in lieu of the voucher.
>> this vision I have of you sitting there with a bucket full of money --
>> well, it dogs say the division director shall track all vouchers so I will have a
>> [indiscernible] and come over and audit from time to time.
>> a bucket full of paper, not necessarily money.
>> can you tell us how often we've been requested to give a refund or a vouch senator.
>> just my best estimate is maybe a dozen in the course of a year for permits would be a probably very high estimate.
it isn't real often.
and my guess is at least 70, 80% of those would be resolved with a voucher.
>> okay.
>> is it y'all's recommendation that a public hearing on this should be at an interstate time or separate day?
>> -- separate time or separate day?
>> fees, yes.
in a separate hearing.
>> move approval.
>> second.
>> discussion?
all in favor?
that passes by unanimous vote.
>> set for public hearing.
>> public hearing.
this is one of those areas where we normally get quite a bit of input from organizations, so I would expect some feedback.
i know they would like the refund policy and fee reductions.
>> that is probably true.
>> okay.
thank you all very much.
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:
Tuesday, September 8, 2009 2:14 PM
