Travis County Commissioners Court
October 20, 2009,
Item 1
>> number 1 is a public hearing to receive comments regarding fee proposals by the transportation and natural resources department.
including, a, assessment of fees for recovery of Travis County storm water management program and development review costs; and b, increases in on site wastewater fees for fiscal year 2010.
this scheduled only for a public hearing today, no action today.
>> move to open the public hearing.
>> second.
>> all in favor?
that passes by unanimous vote.
>> good morning, anna bolin, Travis County t.n.r.
and tom webber and stacy
>> [indiscernible] and john white Travis County t.n.r.
i'm going to let john and tom speak very briefly, give a little quick oversight on the proposed storm water piece and then we'll just give a quick oversight on the -- on the proposed septic piece.
>> in a sentence, I think that I'll defer to tom.
>> good morning, Commissioners, judge.
>> good morning.
>> for the record, tom webber with t.n.r., environmental quality program manager.
these fee proposals, which we've laid out to you previously, would -- would have an increase in fees to help support our new storm water management program with the authority we receive from the legislature.
this doesn't -- this doesn't -- this does not anticipate adding additional staff to the county.
this would -- this would actually fund existing staff from the new source of income or revenue.
a few quick things that we've -- we would like to emphasize here.
what we were trying to do is put more of the cost burden on persons who receive services from the county.
rather than on the general public through the general property tax, taxes that are paid annually.
it's worth pointing out in terms of development fee, they haven't been increased in many years.
for instance, the onsite wastewater fees have for the been increased since the mid 1990's and the -- the other development fees have -- were increased most recently in 2004 with just a five percent increase.
in almost all instances, where we make proposals that have kind of a graduated or sliding fee schedule, we have smaller increases for the less significant projects.
with -- with an eye toward having a lesser impact on the general public or the persons less -- less able to pay higher increases.
we -- since we last met, we did post the information for the general public on the county's website.
and that's still up there.
so that people who are interested in viewing that can look at that information.
and we also sent this information to people, particularly in the development community, that we know would be interested in these fee increases.
i think I will close with that.
>> I will just add one element here.
with respect to the storm water fees, there really are three different kinds of fees much one is related to development review services.
a second fee is a fee targeted specifically for that service.
a second fee not generally associated with development services but are rather something that are applicable across the entire county.
that's a general fee agreement sheet.
finally there's a direct service fee for the review and inspection of storm water structures that are constructed on new subdivisions and new commercial developments and it's -- it's basically an annual fee to make sure that these things are being properly inspected and maintained.
this is not an all or nothing proposition for you.
you can pick and choose among these.
and we're going to be hearing comments, I'm sure, from folks about each of these fees.
>> part b on the septic fees, as tom said, they haven't changed since the mid 1990's.
what t.n.r.
is proposing is a 10% increase across the board to pay for our costs.
although the fees haven't changed from the 1990's, the costs to provide those fees has increased.
we only recover program-wide about 50% of what it costs us, less than 50%, actually.
in addition, we are proposing to restructure some of the fees so that the larger systems that require more staff time for review and inspection pay accordingly.
that will be $50 for every 500-gallons per day over 500.
just to give you an idea, you could do up to a 7 bedroom house for 500-gallons a day at our -- at our fee, at our normal fee.
in addition, we are proposing two new fees 2,000 county-wide, that's a lot of folks,
>> we are starting the electric colecal code changes, parkland dedication, emergency services, tree ordinances, impact fees for roadways, utilities, schools, transportation issues, all of those are great fees, none are huge amounts on their own but all add to the cost of housing.
you start adding all of them adding up, you can add 10 to $20,000 for the cost of a new home.
that does get to be very exorbitant puts a lot of people out of the housing industry.
one part that I want to look at, the way you are setting up a storm water program.
it's not clearly defined for us, I invited t.n.r.
staff to come talk to us and try to clarify what that storm water program is going to look like.
one thing that I have noticed the way it's set up, have homeowners associations maintain ponds in residential areas.
the city of Austin went down this path as did tceq, back when it was the water commission years ago, they have all gotten away in that as a mechanism of funding this.
homeowners associations are not sophisticated organizations for the most part, a lot of communities, they are volunteer organizations, not paid to be there on the board.
when you start telling a mom or a dad who is volunteering and meeting once or twice a month that you want to build a swing set over here or you want to cut the grass and the pond, generally they are going to say I would rather build a swing set than maintain a pond over here or fix a fence or plant new landscaping somewhere.
they're going to do what it takes to maintain their association rather than maintain a pond that they don't understand what it is or how it works.
then you get into an enforcement situation.
if you start sending letters saying you are up for violations, fines, penalties, we're going to send our attorney over.
suddenly you find board members saying I've had enough, I'm a volunteer, I quit.
now you have an association with nobody running it, nobody maintaining it.
that's what the city of Austin and state of Texas found, it doesn't work on a volunteer organization to maintain these structures.
it may be more money on the association long run.
but the county maintaining these ponds through some type of licensing agreement or some other type of mechanism will make a lot more sense than trying to rely on an hoa to set that up.
that's a concern that I've got.
we send you a letter -- sent you a letter.
we're not opposed to the increases, we understand them.
it's the timing.
one of the most times to increase these, phase those in may make sense over the next couple of years rather than making it all up at one time.
with that I will leave roberto make comments.
>> I'm robert
>> [indiscernible] incoming vice-president for government relations for the home builders association.
i'm going to try to continue hank's outreach philosophy.
we always want to be engaged with you, always want to have an opportunity to discuss and hone these sorts of proposals.
just to which add to this, during the legislative session, we were engaged in a lot of discussions with you all on authorizing legislation for this fee increase.
we still have I guess we have questions as to what -- what the program is going to be going down the road in terms of storm water management.
and so right now we kind of feel like there's a -- there's a proposal now pretty much to move in I think staff said this is really a revenue, there's no current proposal to change the program, it's just a matter who pays for it.
so it's kind of moving from general fund into more specialized an impact on that, one big gulp is pretty significant for the impacted stakeholders which really are homeowners and home builders which is why we're here.
i would like to have more discussion on you, what you envision, any changes in your programs as you are going down the road, to try to work with phase-in on the fees, so we don't have a significant jolt for our industry.
frankly for homeowners who if I understand correctly at some point if this is adopted will start getting a bill in the mail from y'all.
i'm sure that that prospect is going to generate all sorts of e-mails and phone calls to you all as well.
we would just like to work with you.
hopefully partner with you to roll-out the change in each structure.
thank you for your time.
>> any questions for mr.
cleveland or mr.
smith.
>> judge, I have a question.
one of the questions that I have -- you did mention that the different entities that you deal with, city of Austin, lcra and others, you mentioned the fee increases that they are imposing.
my question to you is have you had a chance to sit down with them and discuss what you are discussing with us this morning as far as the phase-in and if so, what has their response been as far as your conversation with them as far as -- any entity that you have had to deal with.
>> right.
we've had the same conversations with the city of Austin, with lcra and so forth.
sometimes the cities will go ahead and implement these regulations, sometimes they delay them, sometimes they continue to see if they can't work to find a workable solution.
a good example is going to be the energy conservation code that came up last year with the city of Austin.
they wanted to completely redo the energy conservation code they brought us in as a stakeholder early on.
initially we were opposed because of the increased cost in fees.
working with them, we came one a solution that worked for both our association and our members and the home building community and worked for the city of Austin and have met all of their criteria.
when they announced the fee increases, new energy conservation code, we were standing at the dais right behind them saying we fully support this.
yes, it's going to be an increase in fees, but yes it's reasonable, it's the right time, it's the right thing to do, this is how we're going to roll it out.
we do have conversations with everybody, it's our desire to work with the entities and come one a proposal we all agree with and can stand behind you when they get increased.
i think it rolls out much better that way.
when we can go to our membership, this is the right way to do it, this is the time to do that.
that's kind of the way we want to move forward.
>> thank you.
>> mr.
smith, mr.
kleman, I am mindful of what you say about this being a very difficult time economically for the nation, for our area as well.
although thankfully we're in a better position than almost any other place in the country.
that's not to say there aren't folks who are out of work and folks who are struggling to maintain their mortgage payments and their hoa payments in addition to the mortgages.
in considering a -- a phased rollout of these fee increases, one thing that -- that I am also mindful of is that -- is that home sales will be a leading indicator of economic recovery whereas property values and therefore property tax revenue will be a lagging indicator.
since home values are based on the January assessment in -- for the next year's tax revenue.
so in consideration that we are subsidizing from general revenue, which is almost entirely property tax, I would like to have a deeper conversation with you all about the type of face in, in recognition, that home sales will recover faster than our general revenue stream and property taxes.
while I hear what you are saying that the home builders are suffering, tax revenues are also appropriately down during an economic downturn.
>> I agree, they are down because of the housing industry for the most part.
i think one leads to the other, we want to make sure when we come out of it, we come out in the right direction.
don't try to delay coming out of this recession that we're in, coming out of the home building industry, help promote that as rapidly as possible.
the quicker we can get back to building homes in this community, the quicker tax revenue is going to come back and the quicker everything is going to come back.
that's what we're concerned about not putting the brakes on that process by raising fees in different areas.
>> right, we are interdependent.
>> yes.
>> we certainly appreciate the opportunity to have that further discussion.
also many different types of fees here, not like one slice fits all.
there may be different rollout depending on what that fee is, we're not saying it's treat them all the same.
let's sit down and look at each individual one and work with you to at least -- give us an opportunity to give you some input.
>> I was happy to receive the letter from the home builders association as well as the real estate council of Austin echoing an agreement that it is appropriate to raise these fees because the subsidy, the general fund subsidy of these county services has been increasing over the years.
i'm happy to be on the same page in agreement that that size of general fund subsidy is inappropriate.
>> it's much easier to swallow small increases every couple of years than waiting 10 years have a big jump in the fees.
where we're at it's been 10 to 15 years, we're having to see a much bigger jump, the timing is not a good time to have that come in right now.
>> mr.
pena.
>> good morning, judge, Commissioners, gus pena.
when I ran for city council in '96 and '97 talking about affordable housing, true blue affordable housing the last 30 years that I have been involved in politics and otherwise, I echo what hank and bob, bob and hank say about the fee increase, although it might be appropriate --
>> starting to sound like a morning radio show.
>> it's a Commissioners radio program, we don't have radio, we have t.v.
but anyway --
>> [laughter]
>> sorry.
losing my frame of thought.
i think what hank stated appropriately the cost rolls over to the potential buyers or the homeowners association.
what we're seeing right now are a lot of veterans that want to go through the veterans land grant or board in order to purchase a home.
what will this do to veterans that are not making enough money to pay for the mortgage and all of the taxes that are coming about, all of these taxing entities, especially the hospital district of which I was opposed to.
but anyway I would like to echo my support and the comments of these two gentlemen.
i'm not involved with them in any way, fact, shape or form.
but I do with all of the experience that I have in the last five years, I'm heavily involved in a lot of housing issues in the community.
believe me, judge Biscoe, I've talked to you about those issues before.
the shock and the horror stories of people being overtaxed and a lot of people not being able to afford, once over taxed cannot afford to pay their mortgages and tax bills.
i am the same way, smaller lumps, you know, bring the cultural shock down to an acceptable level if that is an appropriate term acceptable level, I don't know, but, you know, just it's appropriate.
but not at this time.
anyway, thank you all for hearing my --
>> gus, I hear what you're saying.
i've heard these other gentlemen speak, also, I'm also hearing staff, it's kind of a mixed bag type of situation.
how do we make sure there's something affordable, but on the other hand, we are providing services that have not been -- not become affordable.
it's out of sync.
so it had to be a common ground there somewhere.
i don't know exactly what it is.
but -- but I guess my question, though, to the gentlemen, what have you done as far as looking at -- now, I have -- I asked the question earlier, with the city of Austin, but collectively, you mentioned if -- if everyone is doing the same thing, of course, it would bring the prices down as far as affordability of a home, especially with the decrease of the phasing in of fee increases.
my concern is who has actually cooperated with the home builders association and said, yes, I think that's a good idea.
whosever is not, there's still a portion that need to be looked at.
i'm not saying we should do that, per se, but I think we need to flush it out, see what's what, what's level on the table.
right now I really do not know what's actually left on the table during this public hearing.
i understand what staff is doing and I -- who they can applaud because that's the whole point is that the services that we have to render is being subsidized by the general fund.
it continues to go up and up and up and up and up as this community grows.
it's nodated about it.
that service -- no doubt about it, that service continues to cost a lot of money.
how do we bring that down, also look at it collectively where everyone that is providing these type of services to the general public, are they actually willing to get on board to make sure that we keep the level of affordability down.
that's -- that's about where I'm at on that.
so hopefully you understand what my question there as far as the collective effort.
>> in response to that, you're right.
>> I was speaking to the gentlemen.
>> but in response to, that I didn't say that you were speaking to me, I'm speaking to you.
we don't know exactly what is on the table.
that's why in my past conversations, Commissioner Davis, I said include the public in your dialogue with the -- with the professionals because we don't know what is out there.
educate them.
an educated public is a more better public out there.
we will make better decisions and support the people that will make the decisions for them.
always inclusive.
>> I agree with you, gus.
>> we do have the same conversations with hays county, travis -- our jurisdiction covers at least 30 municipalities, hays, travis, Williamson, bexar and comal counties.
we have all of these conversations, including the lcra, state level, we follow all of those issues and have the same conversations with all of those entitys.
>> I'm concerned about Travis County, though.
that's my concern.
>> right.
>> mr.
priest?
>> I -- judge, Commissioners, morris priest for the record speaking on my own behalf.
is the mic on?
>> uh-huh.
>> this is one example of why public/private partnerships failed and we see this in our transportation where our Commissioners court, our campo board, our city of Austin elected officials, all of those members on the campo board are listening to people like take on traffic, which is nothing more than the chamber of commerce and a road lobby.
this never-ending increasing funding at a time where we don't have money, this massive borrowing by government, when we hear road lobbyists or home builder lobbyists, this is why public/private partnerships don't fail.
the real issue that's driving up cost is borrowing.
the bond mortgage is a multi-layered reason why we have this enormous expense and taxation and enormous expense on these fees trying to find revenue, traffic is not a -- a revenue generating thing now, it's an economic engine thing.
this is the same example of time and time again what the public is dealing with, the people that have the elected officials ears are those that are contributors to their campaign.
so what -- I want the court and the public to realize is that the massive debt that we are under is in a large part due to the banking, housing, transportation issues and the people that we vote for, the only people they listen to are the ears of the people that's contributing to their campaigns.
and the road lobby, the housing lobby, all of these private partnership ventures, if this was a txi meeting, I'm sure citizens would be cut off after their three minutes.
so, you know, this is just something that I want to bring up.
the fame -- the failed aspects of public/private partnerships.
thank you.
>> thank you.
>> mr.
priest that three minute limit is only citizens communication, not the public hearing.
>> there is a difference.
>> right.
>> different attitude.
>> anything that we have not heard already?
>> yes.
>> yes.
>> judge, I wanted to just respond just a little bit to the concerns about acceptability or the impact to the citizens of the county.
and I guess one point on this would be that we did an analysis of what the typical application is that comes in for, say, a housing development.
and what we computed and this is in our website information is that for an affordable house that's basically on a quarter acre lot, in a -- in a platted subdivision, curb and gutter drainage, wastewater service, that the increased impact that would be, if it was passed on completely from the developer to the home owner would be approximately $82, that would be the increase in the cost of that typical affordable house of $82.
the other thing that I wanted to point out is that relating to the proposal for development fees and the multiple jurisdictions that are assess a fee, that we are not proposing an increase at all in the development fees.
for residential subdivisions in the e.t.j.
>> of the city of Austin.
>> of the city of Austin because of our single office process.
so you wouldn't see an increase from this as an impact.
the third and the last point that I will make right now is on the general drainage fee is that the proposal that we gave you that lays that out in -- in table 2 of your backup excluded a lot of different property classifications that would be most typically the average citizen.
these would be residential property classifications, it would be ranches and agricultural classifications.
so we're not proposing a general drainage fee on those type of properties.
>> what are the next steps?
that you propose?
>> I think -- we're looking for any direction that you might have to modify any of these.
i do think that one --
>> got to be posted at some point in the future.
>> yes: we would come back to you --
>> when.
>> as soon as you would like us to.
>> I'll tell you, tom, in my view, I don't see that the fees themselves need to be modified but a conversation about an appropriate phasing schedule for them.
and perhaps a discussion with mr.
cleman and mr.
smith regard to an appropriate phasing schedule.
in my view an appropriate phasing schedule would be one that looks at our economic forecasting and likely recovery of the homeowner -- of the home building industry.
because you're right this doesn't have a huge impact on the home buyer.
really it's a discussion of phase-in, in difference to the circumstance that the home building industry is in currently.
my understanding from at least the economic forecasts recent economic forecasts is that things are looking up.
so I don't see that the phase-in should be something long and drawn out, but something based on I think a credible forecasting of -- of the recovery.
also in light of the fact that home sales should be a leading indicator of recovery, not a lagging one.
>> Commissioner Huber?
>> yeah.
i would just like to build off a comment on what -- on what Commissioner Davis and several others have said here.
that is that we are looking at a deficit here not having raised these fees in a long time.
which basically means that the taxpayers are subsidizing the cost at the county because it's taxpayer money that goes into the general fund.
while I really strongly believe we need to do everything we need to support the rebound of the home building industry and that there is a balance there between the tradeoffs of where the money comes from in our economy, that we also at the county are looking and preparing for the uncertainty of the next budget year.
and when we're in a deficit mode of subsidizing these fees, and need to play catch up, I think that's something that we need to pay strong attention to because the taxpayer, the current taxpayers are basically subsidizing the new growth as it relates to these fees.
we need to find a level playing field there for the existing taxpayers as it relates to new growth.
>> did we say during the budget process when we would plan to implement new fees?
>> no.
>> okay.
>> so in response to my question, did the -- the answer seems to be when a court member wants it back on the agenda, you will put it back on.
what about further conversations with the -- mr.
smith and mr.
cleman.
>> absolutely.
>> absolutely.
>> we'll see you in about 30 days.
>> okay.
>> okay.
anybody else to give comments during this public hearing?
we'll have it on for action, follow-up consideration, probably in about 30 days.
okay?
move that the public hearing be closed.
>> seconds.
>> all in favor?
that passes by unanimous vote.
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, October 20, 2009 1:40 PM
