Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008-07-01-10:00AM-WORKSHOP~1 pT E: O F... r ~ yam.. ~ Q" ~ - - _ -BRAZOS COUNTY BRYAN, TEXAS NOTICE OF MEETING AND AGENDA BRAZOS COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COURT WORKSHOP SESSION THE COMMISSIONERS COURT OF SRAZOS COUNTY WILL MEET IN A WORKSHOP SESSION ON TUESDAY 1 JULY 2008 AT 10:00 A_M_ IN THE COMMISSIONERS COURTROOM OF THE BRAZOS COUNTY COURTHOUSE, 300 E_ 26T" STREET, SUITE 1. IS, BRYAN, TEXAS_ I_ Call to Order 2_ Discussion of Development rules 8c regulations for brick stone mailboxes, culverts, and driveways_ 3_ Adjourn "the Brazos County Courthouse is wheelchair accessible. Handicap parking spaces are available. Al y request for sign interpretive services must be mad' two business days before the meeting. To make arrangements call (979) 361-4702. Office of the County Judge - 300 East 26- S. Suite 4 Bryan, Texas 77803 - Fax: (979) 361-4503 z~ 7.3 1 of 24 COMMISSIONERS' COURT WORKSHOP SESSION July 1, 2008 The Commissioners' Court of Brazos County, Texas met in a Workshop Session on Tuesday the 1St of July, 2008 at 10:00 a.m. in the Commissioners' Courtroom in the Brazos County Courthouse, 300 E. 26th, Bryan, Texas, 77803, with the following members of the Court present: Randy Sims, County Judge, Presiding; Lloyd Wassermann, Commissioner of Precinct 1; Duane Peters, Commissioner of Precinct 2; Kenny Mallard, Commissioner of Precinct 3; Carey Cauley, Commissioner of Precinct 4; Karen McQueen, County Clerk; absent Attached is a list of the citizens and officials in attendance. Attached is a transcript of the meeting. Vol I D Page 7 2 of 24 BRAZOS COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COURT Development of Rules and Regulations for Brink/Stone Mailboxes, Culverts and Driveways Julv 1St, 2008 Tape begins mid-sentence. Sims: ...coming to our workshop today, Tuesday the 1" of July, 2008 and 10:04. We'll start the meeting at Commissioners' Courtroom, Brazos County Courthouse. I will call this workshop to order and the item to be discussed is a discussion of development of rules & regulation for brick/stone mailboxes, culverts, and driveways. For those of you who want to speak, we are recording it so give your name and your address. Each time you want to speak, give your name again so we can identify who it is that is making the comments. We do have some challenges out there that we need to try and rectify for the safety of the driving public plus for the homeowners that would like to put different types of entries to their homes. With that in mind, we can start out with anyone who...John, the spokesman. Duncum: John Duncum, 26055 Female: 2154. Last Commissioners' Court, you asked Commissioners Mallard to lead the prayer and in that prayer he prayed earnestly for rain and it was a blue sky today, there wasn't a cloud in the sky. A friend of mine came in from Abilene and as he drove the Commissioners precinct, he came through and absolute torrential rainstorm. Now my request is that either Commissioner Wassermann fine tune his praying or pray the summer with Commissioner Mallard. We need rain in our precinct. Mallard: I wish I could take credit for that. Duncum: Thank you, Judge, for having this workshop and we just want you to know that as developers and as taxpayers, we really desire to do a quality job in the subdivisions that we do, in all of the developments that we do in the County and the City. We are not trying to shortcut anything and, in fact, I think that we probably... speaking for most of the developers... we probably go a little beyond in what we have to do because we want our developments to be the pristine developments of the area, not just the County. But we want to have that reputation. Some of us develop in this County and other Counties and we're pretty jealous of our good Vol I Page 75 3 of 24 reputation and the appearance of our subdivisions. I still drive through my subdivision that I did several years ago just to be sure they're keeping it up. It's just the pride of most developers. So we are really very concerned about doing good, so we thank you for giving us this opportunity for doing this workshop and to kind of give you a format of what we'd like to do. Chuck Ellison has represented most of us from time to time and we've kind of leaned on Chuck to be our spokesperson and to lead our discussion. All of us may participate in that but we've come here in a very collaborative spirit and we hope there are some good answers to what we're talking about and appreciate your working with us, the engineers, and whoever else that we'll be talking with today. Ellison: Good morning. My name is Chuck Ellison and my address is 2902 Camille Drive in College Station. I too want to thank the Commissioners for this opportunity and making this arrangement for us to be able to have this workshop to try to resolve this ongoing issue. To set it in context a little bit, let me try to describe sort of what has happened; the Commission passed an amendment to it's regulations in 2005 which prohibited concrete drives in the County's right of way. So when homeowners wanted to connect from their driveway to the County right of way, there was a prohibition against that being concrete. And also that mailboxes needed to be moved back from the right of way by five feet. Now I'm sure that there are reasons for doing that and we as developers have no objection to how that is done. The problem is our homeowners and homebuyers don't want to put in asphalt. They want to put in concrete. In the subdivisions that I've represented, we have inserted specific prohibitions in the covenants and conditions... the deed restrictions if you will... prohibiting either a violation of a County ordinance or specifically saying you can't put concrete drives there. The problem is that the homebuyer wants it and a homebuilder wants to please his customer and so irrespective of what we tell them, sometimes we show up the next day and it's concrete. We are trying to do what we can to get them to enforce the ordinance. Where it really comes home to us is that we are trying to get our roads accepted for maintenance by the County. As you probably know, once we develop those roads in accordance with the County's regulations, there is a period of time where we have a bond up and it's two years and then we can have those roads considered for adoption by the County. Our last correspondence from the County offices has been that `...we're not going to inspect those roads until these driveways are not concrete and these mailboxes are moved back...". Basically, they are saying, `...we expect you to enforce the rule that we've made...'. We want to enforce those Vol 110 Page 7 te 4 of 24 rules. The County has good and valid reasons for having the rules. Our problem is we don't have the means by which to enforce it. All we can do is to sue those homeowners that have bought in our subdivisions. The problem with that is they're our customers ...or sue those homebuilders. We don't have the police power, the right to go out and enforce those. So the idea today was to try to come up with some mechanism that collaboratively with the Commissioners' Court and with the developers we could come up with some ideas that we could bat around and maybe figure out how we can enforce those without us having to sue them or, God forbid, sending a letter out to all those violators and saying, "We're bringing our dozers through on Friday and we're going to tear up your concrete drive. And we're doing that because otherwise, we can't get the roads inspected." And we don't want the roads to start going downhill by just not maintaining them but we're spending money now after this two years maintaining roads that we had hoped and planned to be accepted by the County. So there are kind of three big issues; the first one is mailboxes being five feet from the right of way. The second one is headwalls. What I mean by headwalls is there is a bar ditch that runs from the edge of the pavement and in the County's right of way and that's the drainage channel. And for people to cross that drainage channel they need a culvert. And that culvert is sized by the County and then installed by the homebuilder or the homeowner and then paved over the top of that. Many homeowners want to make the ends of that culvert flat and I think that represents a danger to somebody who's traveling at a high rate of speed on a road if they were to veer off the road and hit one of those headwalls. It would be much more of a safety issue. So the issue is how can we flatten those headwalls. In most of our subdivisions, we absolutely require that anyway. We think thats the right thing to do. And then the last thing and probably the more tricky issue is the concrete drive over the culvert and should that be asphalt or should that be concrete. So kind of setting those three things as the agenda, let me start by saying ...and I'm going to let the homebuilders or developers here correct me if I'm wrong or add to what I'm saying if I fail to say something. The mailbox issue is pretty simple and we can easily and have been easily doing that by just making a little apron off of the right of way and moving that mailbox back. That gets it far enough off of the right of way so that it doesn't present a safety issue for somebody traveling at a high rate of Vol 110 Page 177 5 of 24 speed, veering off, and hitting a stone mailbox. Which I, by the way, have personal experience with because after twenty years of living in my house, I just repaired my brick mailbox in front of my house and less than a month later a lady ironed it out and we had to rebuild it again. So I understand the concern. I think that is a very simple thing for us to do and I think that we're all doing that. I think that the same is true with regard to the headwalls. At least in the subdivisions that I'm aware of, we are insistent that those headwalls be tapered so that if a car were to hit them they would hit a tapered wall and then go over it rather than hit a flat wall. Sims: They take flight. Ellison: That's right. Hopefully, they're not going that fast but at least they would go over the top of it rather than bank into it. So, have I pretty well articulated what I think I've heard? Those are easy. Our challenge comes with the concrete drives over the top. We're happy to say it must be asphalt. Our problem is that it is an issue that homeowners are not willing to accept. And we've had homebuilders and homeowners just say to us, flat out, "I'm doing concrete because asphalt is too expensive to repair and it takes too long." So I guess the question is this ...and the best thing to do is to try to get some dialog back from the County side and that is...what is the problem with concrete? If we can articulate what that problem is then we have some thoughts and ideas about how we might be able to enforce that. But in order to come up with good creative solutions we have to know exactly what the problem is so we can identify the solutions. So I guess the question that we have is...certainly we understand headwalls, we understand mailboxes, that is no issue ...the question is concrete over the culvert. Can we get a dialog going about what has caused that ordinance to come into existence? What is the problem that we're trying to resolve? Sims: To answer your question, yes; Richard, would you like to speak to that, please? Vance: Yes, I'll be happy to. The biggest problem we run into is not at the time but it's usually seven to ten years down the road depending on soil conditions that the culvert tends to rust out. And then they come in there and all of a sudden it's holding water and the Health Department calls us and says, "Hey, we have a location that is holding water, it has mosquitoes, etc." We have to go in there and remove that concrete. And we can do that with a backhoe if it's asphalt. But with the concrete, with rebar in it, then we have to get a jackhammer and go in there and break it out. Not only does that create a problem for us, it creates a problem for Vol 11D Page '18 6 of 24 the homeowner because it may be a several days job to break all of that out to go in there and then you have to re-pour the concrete. So he is not going to be able to get to his garage for three or four days or maybe a week. And then he is going to be upset. But that is the main problem we're having plus the fact that we just did a subdivision that was gravel. And when they poured out to the roadway, they're not all equal. Some pour it further out than others so then we have to go in there when we re- build the roadway and cut off that driveway even down through there so the road will be straight. And so we need to match that concrete driveway. Your road equipment... there is no way we can take and...without cutting off that driveway ...that we can just go in there with a blade and rebuild that road. But that is our problem; the concrete is just an immovable object so to speak and somewhere down the road it's going to influence the owner of that home and he's going to be very, very unhappy with who happens to be on the Court at that point in time and be unhappy with us also. Of course, the developer will be long gone. Our theory is the fact that you can tell them what size house they can build, how many square feet, you can tell them what kind of fence they can put up...why can't you tell them what kind of driveway to put in...in the deed itself. Sims: And enforce it. Yes. Vance: At that time. Because later on...like I said... what we see is what's going to happen seven to ten years down the road. And when you get so many of these in, we don't have enough people to even begin to start breaking all this concrete out replacing these culverts. It's a major problem for us. It would help by going to your PVC type pipe. That would help except, again, the extension of these out into the roadway varies. So we would still have to be able to cut back on the driveway itself. Where it may be six inches, it may be two feet, depending on how far out they bring those driveways. In Forest Lake Estates we just ran into that where we spent a great deal of time cutting out driveways... for that reason. Duncum: Could the latter problem... which I think we call understand... be solved with the engineering... of course, that doesn't effect us on asphalt roads because they're set and they're straight and they're done before we put any concrete in...but in the engineering for gravel, could those be set somehow? And (inaudible) done to solve that problem? Vance: Well, you can set it back a foot and but what is the difference between one foot and say ten feet? Vol ho o Page -71 7 of 24 Duncum: There would be a good bit of difference from the homebuilder's standpoint. You could still run your gravel ...you were talking about gravel streets. I don't know if any of us are doing gravel streets. Male: None of us are concerned about that. Duncum: In fact, I didn't know that the County would even allow gravel streets. Vance: We don't any more. Duncum: So that may not be a... Vance: But still, when they come out there, you've got this crew out there and they don't have a surveyor out there that goes the same distance on each one of those driveways if you'll look at them. And they're going to go onto an asphalt roadway anyway so whether it stops at the County right of way line or whether it doesn't, I can't see the major difference other than you have two different contractors that you're going to have to have with one for concrete and one for asphalt. Bayliss: The builders say it's a lot more money. I think Carey can testify to that to that ...to have two separate. Arnold: We're having a County wide problem, not just a subdivision problem but a County wide problem. Not just asphalt street but we've got I don't know how many miles of gravel road so we're having to address a County wide problem also. McClure: My name is Mike McClure and I reside at 5100 Koppe Bridge Road. May I offer a suggestion and I know we've talked about it in the past and I can't quite remember what all we said but the use of concrete pipe would solve the rusting out of the galvanized pipe issue. Especially in these ETJ areas that are going to be absorbed in the future by the City. They are making us put in concrete pipe. That's what they want to use. Well, I wonder if that's not the proper application here. If that would help. Vance: If you could put in concrete pipe that would be fine. Again, we need to stop it at least probably two feet before it reaches the surface of the road itself. Because you still have your base and sub-base underneath that, that you have to get to whenever you're rebuilding that roadway. McClure: You're talking about over the top of the pipe is your concern ...the materials over the top of the pipe. Vol 110 Page 3-0 8 of 24 Vance: Tying into the roadway itself. In other words, you need a distance in there. McClure: Ok. Where you would prefer the asphalt as a little transition piece where you don't have the concrete right on the edge of your roadway. Vance: Exactly. Arnold: See, we have a three foot shoulder on there that if we ever go in and rebuild that road, we're going to be reprocessing that three foot shoulder. McClure: So it's the extended base that you're talking about? Vance: Yes sir. Yes sir. McClure: I think something like that could be worked out in the detail or you can still use concrete and put in a construction joint at the three foot point where it's easier to remove it. Bayliss: And that's a good idea. Vance: We've asked some people to do that, to be quite honest with you. We see them laying that out and we've said, "Could you put in a construction joint on either side of it?" We come back and they didn't do it. It doesn't get to the crew that's doing the physical work. Ellison: That's the problem we're having too. We tell them to do it and try to enforce it. I guess one question I have is how will the County enforce this ordinance in areas that are in the subdivisions? Vance: It's a problem for us...just to put it mildly. Ellison: So we have the problem whether it's in the subdivision or... Sims: No. It's County wide, Chuck. Ellison: So the enforcement issue exists in subdivisions and out of subdivisions ...we can only control what's in a subdivision. So it seems like to have a good policy, it needs to overlay the whole County. I don't know what a good method is but I'll just throw them out there. Duncum: Why don't you throw them out because we talked about this. Ellison: The first one is...I talked to Tina Snelling about that and I've not met Tina, is she in here? Vol 110 Page 31 9 of 24 Snelling: Here. Ellison: Hi Tina, very nice to meet you. And one of the things that I suggested was that what happens in cities is that when you grant this permit, you find some way so that the person can't take occupancy of the home unless the permit has been satisfied. Because that is being issue says, "No concrete, mailbox sitting back." And she said, "The problem is we don't really have another level of permit above that. In the City they have what is called the `Certificate of Occupancy'. If they don't issue the Certificate of Occupancy, then people don't have the right to go in and take the home. In the County, we don't have a Certificate of Occupancy. The permits that we do issue are, number one; the on-site sewer permit, the septic system permit and number two is; a flood plain permit that says the property is not in a flood plain. So I wondered if there was a way that you could say, "We're going to give you conditional approval of the sewer permit, for example, the septic permit ...but we're not going to actually issue the permit, we're going to give you something preliminary to that that says we've looked at your plan you'll get the permit. But we're not going to issue it to you until after we've looked at your driveway to see if it conforms to the requirement of the driveway permit. And if it doesn't, they don't get septic. Now that's one idea. Another idea, to address what Mr. Vance said was as it happens in the City ...if they have a public utility easement or a public right of way and you want to put landscaping... and you've seen landscaping in those public rights of way and it's not all done by the City, some of them are done by the subdivisions that adjoin them ...they have to get what is called a private improvements in a public right of way permit, PIP. Private Improvements in a public right of way. What it basically says is this permit says you get to install your driveway in our right of way but if it doesn't conform, when we come in to tear it out and maintain it, we don't have to put it back together. If it doesn't conform, we don't put it back together, it's left up to you. So when we got to that maintenance point down the road where we need to redo the culverts or we need to grade the shoulders of the road, if the homeowner hasn't complied with this PIP permit, we just go in there as a County and do what we need to do and leave the problem as it is. And we can clearly say, "You didn't comply with your permit." Mallard: What about second and third generation homeowner? Ellison: The permit actually runs with the property. Sims: Like a deed restriction, it runs with the property. Vol t i c Page 8a 10 of 24 Mallard: At some point somebody is going to cry, "Foul.", I'm clueless. Because we don't have any way to alert each new homeowner, "Oh, by the way, your driveway is not in compliance." Ellison: Right. Bayliss: Couple it with the cement or plastic pipe then the frequency, if ever, of the problem arising would not be as great. I think we could couple it with one of those two things and allow the cement driveways to continue to occur with a longer lasting culvert and there probably won't be as many problems in the future. Mallard: Not as often. Duncum: I'm really kind of asking the lawyers this questions because I hear what your saying about there's no way that will work with somebody on down the line. If you're in a Homeowner's Association, it shows up in the title and the title company (inaudible) has certain obligations to notify people through Homeowner's Association. Could that be tied into the same kind of thing so that when you have it on a recorded instrument. Ellison: The homeowners are on constructive notice of those permits because they're public record. I think the issue is enforcement of those. I don't know enough about this so somebody will have to tell me but the County has regulations about the septic systems and how often they get maintained and how long those permits expire. Would it be an idea to say, "Let's make that driveway permit good for seven to ten years ...or whatever we think the maintenance is going to be and then we'll reissue it. We'll come out and take a look at it." I'm just thinking off the top of my head. None of this is (inaudible), there's no question about it. Sims: Can I make a comment about this. I want to put it in context here. Number one, we have developers that are trying to satisfy builders because they're wanting to buy land from the developers to put in either spec houses or customs... whatever the case may be. And then you have builders that are trying to satisfy homeowners out there. I'm not taking any sides whatsoever but I'm just saying ...then the County has to do all of the enforcement. Well, you guys don't want to lose customers by having too many restrictions out there but, yet, this is one that is required by you. And these people up here have got to look that taxpayer in the eye and try and accommodate them. They don't want to have to tear their mailboxes out. The don't want to have to tear this strip of concrete out at their expense so that we can put in a new pipe. But I thought deed restrictions can be enforced. Vol 110 Page 93 11 of 24 Ellison: You can enforce them the same way the County would enforce by filing a lawsuit. So it puts us in the position of filing lawsuits against our customers to enforce rules... Sims: Which you don't want to do. Ellison: The same reason you don't want to do it. Sims: Right. Absolutely. Ellison: And the reality of it is we are happy to put those deed restrictions in there. We are happy to try it every way we can to enforce the requirements. But in government, private citizens aren't given police power. And police power is the way government enforces it's rules. So you have the natural ability as a government to enforce these rules. You can issue a ticket. You can do any number of things without having to go down and file a lawsuit. That's the problem that we're having. For the same reason that you don't want to sue or go to those taxpayers and tell the, "You've got to take that out.", we don't want to because they're our customers. They're you're voters. Sims: That's right. Ellison: I mean at the end of the day we've all got the same problem. That's why we're here and trying to come up with a great idea that joining our combined efforts, maybe we can find a way to get that done. Cauley: Why can't you when you're platting this subdivision... plat the road and you would know how far you can put your mailbox and what have you? Ellison: The engineer. Cauley: Yeah. When you plat it out then you will know that you can only go so far because you're going to have a problem if you go beyond that particular point. The other point is concrete or metal. I don't know which one would last longer but at some point, they're all going to have to be replaced. That would put an undo hardship on the County to do the concrete. Duncum: Mr. Cauley, one of the things that we committed on ourselves today before we got here was that we're not trying to put any cost on the County. Whatever happens, if we have to do some other kind of fee or whatever it is, inspection fee, whatever it takes to work out this problem. We want to solve that problem for the County as well as for residents. Vol It) Page g 12 of 24 The Judge is right ...we'll be gone after a while... hopefully to another subdivision. We want to look back on that other one and show people that this is what we did and it's good. But we're not trying to put the burden on the County and that's really the whole purpose of our being here is we think we can work out methods. It may get down to the attorneys trying to figure out the legal aspects of this as long as we can figure out the physical aspects of this to enforce it. And try to enforce it in a way that causes the least kick back from voters. Those voters are our customers and so we're not interested... Cauley: What is the life expectancy of a metal culvert? McClure: Can I handle that one? It kind of varies depending the soil, the PH, and the resistivity of the corrosiveness of the soil. Metal can last 15 to 30 years. The concrete, though, is a much better product in my mind. In fact, you still have some concrete conduits from the Roman Empire that they are still using. And, in fact, that is the reason that most cities have gone strictly to concrete with more recently (inaudible) put the plastic ...HDPE, High Density Polyethylene Pipe. And we're using it and some of the reason is that it has the same flow characteristics as concrete. Whereas corrugated metal is a rougher interior. So it doesn't have quite the same capability flow. Sims: Let me ask a question on that; if you don't seal those joints of those concrete pipe, they'll start to separate and that creates a real problem over a period of time because that soil dries out and it expands and contracts and expands and contracts. And that is a difficult thing because I know back in the yesteryear, we use to have mostly concrete culverts and I'd see water squirting right straight up out of them when floods would come down that road. Bayliss: What about the plastic pipe? McClure: Well let me answer his question first; the trick is in the bedding of the pipe. If you install it properly and put the plastic in the joints. Arnold: The gelcoat? McClure: Yeah, that product ...then they work great. I've seen a lot of installations but you say a good thing; the inspection of it is an issue. You have to make sure it's put in right. Bayliss: What's the life expectancy of the plastic? Vol Na Page 85 13 of 24 McClure: Well, we haven't had them in the ground long enough to know. Of course the salesmen tell us they're as good as concrete. But both Cities are allowing us to put it in up to 36 inches in diameter. But we're bedding them with a cement sand type of product. They are stout when you put all of that around it. Vance: One of the major problems that he brought up though is if we can't catch them to get them to put the proper surface whether it's concrete or asphalt or whatever... then how in the world are we going to catch them to get them to bed them properly? McClure: Don't give them a conditional permit. Vance: Well, who's going to be out inspecting it? See, that's the problem. Who's going to inspect these things to be sure it's bedded properly. You get into these real deep heavy clays and it starts swelling and shrinking, those joints will break. And it takes special equipment to handle those bigger concrete sections. You can't just do it with a hand crew. You've got to have a piece of equipment there. You have to have equipment there to handle that huge concrete pipe. So it may be more difficult to even do that than it would be just to put in concrete. Bayliss: As Chuck and them said; we don't want to have any undo cost on the County and through an inspection process the plastic pipe can be verified or the concrete pipe. Charge $100.00 or $200.00 fee that can be used to go out there and inspect afterwards to get their final permit. Because one thing that the homeowners... they want the cement so they can make the choice to pay a little extra for that. In Peach Creek, a builder built two with the asphalt and they sat there and didn't sell it for months and months and months. Then he said, "To heck with it." And the asphalt was already tearing up while it was still for sale. Then he came in and put the cement in and the houses immediately sold. So a combination of a conditional permit, a small fee, and the expansion joints to meet his needs will, I think, be a suitable answer for both parties. Sims: So you're talking about an impact then? Bayliss: So he can have the money for somebody to go out there and inspect it to make sure it was done right. Ellison: More of a permit fee. A right of way permit fee. Sims: More like impact fees. Ellison: You can call it what you want to; a fee is a fee is a fee. Vol 110 Page 14 of 24 Sims: That's all I'm asking. Bayliss: A fee to make them do what they're supposed to. Ellison: Long story short is...and I think where that has liability if I were sitting in your chair is not only does it take care of the problem in the subdivisions but it takes care of the problem out of the subdivisions where you're still going to have the problem but nobody else is there to help you enforce it. In the subdivisions, we're eager to try to get it enforced because we want to because yall are holding our road maintenance up. So we're definitely ready to get something done. But outside of our subdivisions where people are joining onto your roads, there's no mechanism for enforcement unless we come up with something like that. So it seems like a good broad policy that makes some sense. It seems to me. I'm not suggesting that it's the right answer but it certainly deserves some consideration ...I urge. Vance: One of our problems would be having enough inspectors to go all over Brazos County and they can tell you that you can drive by one day and there's nothing there. Two days later, there's a concrete driveway there. You have to be right on top of it at the time. Even developers have a problem staying on top of it, much less us trying to police the entire County. That's our problem. We don't have the same laws the Cities have. We've only got laws that the State tells us we can do. So we don't have the same laws. Ellison: I guess it boils down to this; the County wants these rules but the County doesn't want to enforce these rules. And that's just ...it's putting it off on us and hold the maintenance of our roads over our heads is just the part that's not fair. And so we're appealing to your sense of fairness. We want to be helpful. We want to do everything we can. If it's paying an additional fee so that we can hire inspectors that can drive around and check and then say, "We're not issuing this permit until it is installed correctly." I think that has some other appeal to the County because you've got other projects that a trained, qualified inspector could assist you with. Cauley: I was going to ask how is it unfair? You're building a house, it's your project, and you're making the money off of it. Ellison: Well, and the County is making a pretty good tax revenue too though, sir. Cauley: Yeah. I know. Vol I10 Page ~ 7 15 of 24 Male: And we're not building the house. Cauley: What are you doing? Male: We're selling lots. Ellison: We make money on the lots. Your point is well made and that's why we're here wanting to try to do it. But we're losing money every day that yall aren't taking the road maintenance because we didn't plan it in the price of that lot to maintain that road in perpetuity. Cauley: Maybe you could put it in there. Schultz: Joe Schultz, 3208 Innsbruck, College Station. None of the people who are breaking the rules are here today. None of your homeowners are here. They're the ones that are...the developers are not breaking the rules. You're not going to get the people that are breaking the rules in here because they signed a permit and they haven't complied with it. So I don't know how you engage those people without hitting them in the pocketbook somehow. Mallard: I, obviously, inherited the mailbox issue to get started with so Gary and I drove around to look at that in other subdivision and what we noticed was where the homeowners are not putting in their own driveways after the fact. They had gavel and they're going in retroactively and putting these things in and actually building their culvert out into the road. They're putting these headwalls on the end of it that are building up. I guess it's pleasing to them to have that look and build their mailboxes up. So it's a continuous process and as subdivisions age then people move in and they'll upgrade the driveway and mailboxes and putting them out. One subdivision actually encroached on the road ...not on the edge of the road. So we're seeing that continuously so I think the situation with inspectors is something that we're going to have to do outside the development side of it. Because ten years down the road on older subdivisions that use to have just concrete bases and wooden poles and a mailbox ...now the next, or third, or forth homeowner moves in and they upgrade. They brick mailboxes in the new subdivisions and then they put them in. So how do we force a developer fifteen years after they sold out their development that they have to come back and deal with that? I see the inspector side of it as something we're ultimately going to have to get involved in. I know with Road and Bridge, I don't want to have to put them in because that's extra labor, extra cost to the tax payers. But I don't know that there's any way out of that. Vol //0 Page 89. 16 of 24 Bayliss: I agree with Mr. Mallard on that. And one other thing is if we come up with a more permanent whether it's the cement or plastic at least as fast as College Station is grabbing land ...if it's a thirty or twenty year product, as long he has his expansion joints to deal with the edge of the road, it's hard for me to believe that the culvert will be much of an issue, financially, for the County as long as he could fill out that little bit of edge right next to the road with that expansion joint in it. And so to do it with a more permanent product ...it will take yall out of the mix eventually because College Station is going to start grabbing them all anyway. I know that is kind of theoretical but I think it's something to consider in our thought processes on what our major issues are. If we take away the culvert issue by putting in a permanent product, give him his two or three foot expansion joint, then I think that work wise, we don't have as much work to do. Give you $100.00 or $200.00 or whatever it is to make sure that it is built with the expansion joint and the cement or plastic. Sims: It will help us inspect them without any charge to the taxpayers. Bayliss: Correct. And the homeowner wants a cement driveway so they'll pay the $100.00 or $200.00. Schehin: M.L. Schehin, (inaudible). I agree with him on concrete... getting these builders to put that pipe in right with the joints is going to be a problem. I think PVC is the answer to that. But then what I would do is when we get that permit like the green tag we get for our flood and everything... you charge that builder so that owner and everybody knows that he paid something and he's going to be inspected and he'll know it. And that's where you have to get their attention because we come back the next day and it's actually done. Sims: Just like we do. But Schehin, you're the one that came up with that impact fee the last time we talked and I kinda like that idea. Schehin: Well, it will help replace some of your other cost when you're going around doing stuff. Sims: I appreciate that. Snelling: What I have provided in front of you is really just a prototype, a sample that's based on things that I've heard as far as ideas about charging a fee. Sims: Identify that for us, please. Vol No v Page 1? 9 17 of 24 Snelling: It's Collin County Development Services and it basically requires the builder who is proposing to go forward on a home ...it puts the onus on them. They go through a more multi-layered inspection process. If you go to the very back page you'll see that they have four different inspection processes and they end up with the HVAC, electrical, 911, driveway/culver and there is room there to put your mailbox location as far as checking that. So it puts some self-reporting mechanisms on the builder. It also calls for an inspection process. And we could adopt both of those or one of those and put the onus ...to go back to the first page, in the middle there are fees there that have to be paid ...impact fees or whatever you want to call them. It's not a non-refundable fee. We had some discussion about maybe having a deposit put up until we get around to checking. The only thing about that is as you just heard ...some people are redoing their driveways after we go by and allow some time to pass. So I think the best recommendation and that's what this Collin County prototype is; is you pay a one-time fee. The homeowner is going to have to pay those fees, the builder is going to have to be reporting and we can modify this for some kind of inspection process. I know one of the things that Chuck and I were talking about was what kind of fee to set, what can you do with that fee and can you really hire an inspector? I think one of the things that I heard is that there is enough development going on here that the rate we set the fee, we could actually pay the salary of an inspector. So that is just something to consider and that's what this prototype was for. With your permission, I could get started working on something like that with Mr. Ellison and come up with something that is equitable for both sides and the builders and homeowners too. Mallard: So this says that the County is enforcing plumbing and electrical? Snelling: Yes sir, they are. Under their broad powers under the Health and Safety Code. Mallard: But I didn't know that Counties had that ability. Snelling: They do. I've noticed a lot of Counties are getting into that business. Cauley: They passed some legislation some time ago about Counties... Sims: Yeah, in '05. Peters: It has to do with Health and Safety. Cauley: Right. Vol //6 Page ! a 18 of 24 Mallard: I'm not necessarily wanting to do that, ok? Snelling: That's really all I had to say, Commissioners. Sims: Appreciate that. Thank you. Ellison: I appreciate your looking at something like that. I would be happy to...and I know we would be happy to sit down and try to come up with something that addresses these issues and present it to you in some form that you could consider adopting or tweaking and then adopting. I think that the concept of this workshop ...our hope was to talk about the broad policy perspectives and what would you be willing to consider and then trying to take those broad policy perspectives and bringing them home into actual ordinances or regulations that can be enforced. So we are happy to do that. The mailbox is not an issue. The sloped headwalls is not an issue. The concrete drive ...we're finding the same thing that you're finding in that there is resistance from the homeowners to put those in. So our voters and our customers are telling us that we have to think of something different and that's what we're trying to do...is come up with the something different that would allow that to happen. I don't know how long you gave us for this but we want to be respectful of your time but something that we didn't ever talk about and I just thought about was what do we do about the existing situation? I mean those that are in current violation of the ordinance ...how do we fix those. Because what we don't want to do is send them all a letter saying, `In order to get these maintained by the County, we're going to have to come in and tear up your culvert.' That's going to create a firestorm that I don't think any of us want. I guess I'd like to hear what you're thoughts are about how we would deal with existing violations and maybe we can get engagement here from some of our folks on how we can do that. Bayliss: Actually (inaudible) what's to be poured over the next two weeks. We've got (inaudible) that process going on right now. We have a bunch to be poured in the next two or three weeks. Sims: I don't know. Richard, Gary, John, do yall have any recommendations? Arnold: On the current situation? Sims: Yeah, those that are in now. Vol 11o Page 9/ 19 of 24 Arnold: The people that put them in signed a culver application with our regulation on there. Vance: It plainly states on there that no concrete driveways in bold letters and underlined. And they sign them but they just ignore it. Smith: I'm Carey Smith, 1707 Grand Oaks. I don't think there is a person in this room that signed any of those applications. That's been off on the builders and the homeowners and I agree with what Richard is saying but we don't have any enforcement when these builders come up and they get one and tell the developer, "We don't care what that says. That permit says not to put concrete but we don't care. We want concrete and our homeowner wants it." So we're stuck with enforcing yalls regulations or yalls ordinance in yalls right of way. All we did was build a street and we got it accepted and platted. Now yall want us to maintain their driveways. Male: Because we don't own the road or that lot anymore. Smith: Correct. It's an enforcement problem. Vance: May I ask this; if it was put on the plat itself would that make any difference to help yall? Sims: No. Because it's in the deed restrictions, I'm assuming. Smith: It's in the deed restrictions to follow all County rules and regulations. Mallard: And the plat is as large as that sheet of paper and when the homeowner gets it, it's this big and they can't read it. They go to a title company instead of an attorney to advise which they can't because they're not in the lawyering business. Snelling: Commissioners and Judge, I was just going to say that however you want to look at this; yes, they are private individuals and it really is unfair from the County's perspective when you have your own council to do the enforcement. But at some point you have to consider the cost of even using your County Attorney's office for the prosecution resources when you could perhaps address this on the front end by having them pay a fee and go through some kind of inspection process. You don't clog up the courts, there's more judicial economy, there is less burden on your County resources too. Peters: I don't guess that there is a way for those folks that have already built those... whether it's a mailbox or concrete drive ...to go out and say, Vol 00 Page f 20 of 24 "You're going to have to pay a fee or we're going to take that thing out?" I know we're still dealing with the politics of.. . Snelling: I don't think we can do an ex post facto law where we charge a retroactive fee. Let me get back with you on the Constitutionality of that. But as far as going forward and enforcing our right of way laws, we can do that with the existing violators. I know we've had a brew-ha-ha over this 2005 regulation and some people feeling like that since you declared that mailboxes are 5 foot set-back or no concrete on the driveway over the culverts... prior to that time we're grandfathered because we did it our way. No, that's not true and I think I had previously informed some of the Commissioners and the Judge that review of the common law...the public right of way is public right of way. We have a duty... Sims: It still belongs to the County. Snelling: That's right. So before 2005, we were always under the duty but for lack of enforcement to sniff out the violators and perpetrators of the mailbox and culver crimes to enforce it. We were supposed to be having them removed. In 2005 when we passed that limitation about the mailboxes and the culverts what we were saying is, `We are granting a limited right of access in the public right of way.' So it's always been the County's and it's been the County's duty to enforce. Ellison: That would be an interesting legal debate between Tina and I which I would love to engage in because it would help us both learn a little bit more about (inaudible). But let me just say that we're not here to try to force that down yall's throat. We're here to try to find a solution to the problem that is practical and effective to accomplish the result. And I don't know how much of a burden it would be to try to go back and enforce existing violators. I think that that's ...what we're trying to avoid in some circumstances is creating a hornet's nest from getting stirred up. And I'm not sure if that would do it but I am ready to sit down and with Mr. Vance and Mr. Arnold and Ms. Snelling ...and I know some of our other folks are...and try to draft up something that is a reasonable compromise. I know you guys have to think about the fiscal aspects of that but we're prepared to pay enough of a fee so that it has revenue or cost neutral effect on the County. That's not the issue. We need to get those rules enforced. We have, as we've said, safety concerns. They have clear maintenance issues. The rules are well intended. It's just who is having to enforce them. That's where we're getting all the resistance. And so we're ready to try to help any way we can and try to draft something up that will work. So I just ask you to commission, to allow, us to go try to draft it up after we hear a little bit from you as to what you're thoughts are about what we said today. Vol II0 Page q3. 21 of 24 Snelling: One last little reality check; we've had a lot of people saying in the past that, "Well, you can go down the street and yall haven't made them move their mailboxes." So not only would it be a potential enforcement nightmare, but it could be political suicide as far as... Sims: Reality. Snelling: That's right. That's the reality check. It could be a very taxing enforcement issue and it may just be best to try to declare a policy where you go forward from now and just deal with it on a case by case basis as far as the existing violations. Peters: And I think that is probably what, when we passed that 2005, I think that is what the thinking was... `Ok, maybe from now on we're going to get this thing straightened out.', and it still hasn't gotten straightened out. We're still dealing with it. But I don't know if we can figure out a way to maybe move forward ...go from now forward. Duncum: To sort of bring this to a head; would it be agreeable with the Commissioners to just allow ...give your blessing to, if you will ...to Chuck and the County Attorney and representatives from the development community and Mr. Vance and Mike McClure to sort of work through all of these problems... starting with the very foundation problems and how can we, what is the deal on the culverts and just build up to try to develop a proposal to come back to the Commissioners with where we have reached some sort of agreement with some options. Is that a good way to... Sims: I think if we can get great minds together out there they can come up with a solution. And if you guys are willing to spend that kind of time and get with our County Attorney's office, Chuck, and start a dialog there. Certainly, it's going to have to come back to the Commissioners' Court for approval but you guys will be able to give us feedback as to where we need to go and whether we need to grandfather some of these in and just be done with it. What we're going to have to do is identify what we grandfather in and don't let the next generation come out there and do it all bad again. Duncum: As Chuck said, hopefully, this will extend beyond the subdivision that we're doing now to something for the entire County. Sims: That's correct. Vol //D Page q LJ 22 of 24 Duncum: Now we'd like to fast track this. We'd like to get on with it because we've got people who are sitting still in the water. So if you're in agreement... Sims: Do yall seen any reason... Cauley: I think we need to have Vance along with that group. Wassermann: I just want to say...and you've brought this up so very well this morning ...but I want the issue addressed of acceptance of those things that have already happened. And I want that to be expediently done too. I mean that has to be done along with projections of how we want to put this in place to enforce it down the line for the future. Because that's very important too because that is an issue that effects us today, right now, in retrospect. Both issues have to be addressed; what are we going to do with the past issue of acceptance of these roads by the County under maintenance agreement and how are we going to avoid these problems down the line. I'm willing as Road and Bridge liaison to set through all of this and give you my two cents worth. This is a big issue right now and this needs to be resolved and it needs to be resolved to everybody's benefit. Vance: One thing I'd like to say is if they could at least on those existing ones put a saw joint say two feet either side of the culvert where we could go in there when we get ready to remove those things, it would make it so much easier than us having to saw each one of those joints. It's time consuming and very expensive for us to have to go in there and do that and we don't have anywhere near the number of people required to maintain them in the condition they're in right now. It would kill us to have to go in there and do it. That's our problem. From a cost standpoint and the fact that the owner themselves are going to be extremely upset when we go in tearing his driveway out and he can't get to his garage ...as you can well imagine. I don't now who the Court will be at that time but ten years down the road, there are going to be some very unhappy people. That's all I have but I will be happy to meet with Chuck, or you, or anybody else to discuss this and see if we can come up with something that would help. Bayliss: So that's two feet or either of the center because I have some being poured this week and I'll go talk to them. Vance: Yeah. You know, something... Multiple input. Vol //0 Page 9S 23 of 24 Sims: Hold it. Ellison: I think you've given us enough information. Now we're ready to go get down in the weeds and try to sort this out. So I would just like to say again; thank you very much for taking time to hear us and think about what our concerns are and we'll do our very best. If I could ask permission; I'll get with Tina and Tina could I ask you to organize who you need to come from the County side and I'll organize who we need to come from the land owner side and then she and I will organize a meeting. Sims: Right. Ellison: And I think faster is better than slower because the sooner we get this done, the fewer exiting violations we'll have. Because until we get something in place to stem the tide, we're going to have people continuing to violate that... Sims: I am going to volunteer Commissioner Wassermann as a representative that I would like to have yall include. Ellison: Thank you very much. Sims: Thank you. Appreciate it. Tape ends. Vol NO Page U The foregoing minutes of the Commissioners Court meeting held July 1, 2008 have been examined and are approved in open Court this the day of 2008, in Bryan, Brazos County, Texas. Randy S County, Lloyd assermann Commissioner, Precinct 1 Duane Peters Kenny Mallar Commissioner, Precinct 2 Commissioner, Precinct Carey Ca ey, Jr. Commissi ner, Precinct 4 Attest: Karen McQueen County Clerk Ik Vol //0 Page A ~ BRAZOS COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COURT MEETING ON 2008 AT 94'eO 5tA(- Name (PLEASE PRINT) Or anization/D partment J-1-1 r L . bIA4c u'f^ 3v eqy~p G' c Z v ` V~V-k S Rc~aj nnA f~ f d id V-)y C ' ~k, lia 9~ P9 !e dL BRAZOS COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COURT 110 q9 MEETING ON 2008 AT 0