Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006/04/29-Minutes-City Council CITY OF FORT WORTH, TEXAS CITY COUNCIL SPRING RETREAT APRIL 28—29, 2006 INTERMODAL TRANSPORTATION CENTER 1001 JONES STREET FORT WORTH, TEXAS Saturday,April 29, 2006 Present: Mayor Mike Moncrief Mayor Pro tem Chuck Silcox, District 3 (left at 12:20 p.m.) Council Member Salvador Espino, District 2 Council Member Becky Haskin, District 4 (arrived at 11:05 a.m.) Council Member Jungus Jordan, District 6 Council Member Carter Burdette, District 7 Council Member Kathleen Hicks, District 8 (arrived at 10:35 a.m. and left at 12:20 p.m.) Council Member Wendy R. Davis, District 9 (left at 12:20 p.m.) Absent: Council Member Donavan Wheatfall, District 5 City staff: Charles Boswell, City Manager Libby Watson, Assistant City Manager Joe Paniagua, Assistant City Manager Marc Ott, Assistant City Manager Dale Fisseler, Assistant City Manager Richard Zavala, Acting Assistant City Manager David Yett, City Attorney Marty Hendrix, City Secretary Fernando Costa, Planning Director Guest: David Rusk, Urban Policy Consultant from Washington, D.C. and Mayor of Albuquerque, New Mexico from 1977 to 1981 Other individuals in attendance included the Department Heads or Assistant Department Heads and certain City staff support. The Fort Worth City Council Spring Retreat was called to order by Mayor Moncrief at 10:10 a.m. on Saturday, April 29, 2006, in the Meeting Room of the Intermodal Transportation CITY OF FORT WORTH CITY COUNCIL SPRING RETREAT APRIL 28—29, 2006 (SATURDAY) Page 2 of 10 Center, 1001 Jones Street, Fort Worth 76102. Council Members Hicks and Haskin arrived later in the meeting. An Elected Official's Perspective By David Rusk, Urban Policy Consultant from Washington, D.C. Mayor of Albuquerque, New Mexico from 1977 to 1981 Planning Director Fernando Costa introduced the speaker, David Rusk, Urban Policy Consultant from Washington, D. C., and former Mayor of Albuquerque from 1977 to 1981. Mr. Costa advised that Mr. Rusk will discuss the importance of linking Central City revitalization to the control of suburban sprawl, from the perspective of a former mayor. The pertinent issues include the use of primary, secondary and higher education as a resource for economic development. Discussion will also include the use of annexation as a tool to promote orderly growth. (Council Member Hicks arrived at the meeting.) Mr. Rusk presented Issue No. 1 —In Age of Sprawl; annexation is the best urban policy. He reviewed a chart showing what the City of Fort Worth would be like today if it had remained within its 1950's city limits. He showed the New Fort Worth vs. "Old Fort Worth" by municipal territory, population, percentage population change; capture/contribute ratio, Black population percentage, Hispanic population percentage and Anglo and other population percentage. The chart also showed the poverty percentage and the Fair Share of Poverty Index. It also showed the average household income and metro household income and the total household income and the municipal bond rating. He stated that the projections for "Old Fort Worth" are best case projections. He added without fiscal and economic strength brought through annexation, "Old Fort Worth" would probably have suffered greater business disinvestment and middle class abandonment. During Mr. Rusk's presentation, Council Member Espino interjected that he feels there needs to be a clarification on the number of Hispanics living in Fort Worth. He stated that he feels there are undercounts on the number of Hispanics living in the Central City area. He added he feels that the North Central Texas Council of Governments under estimates the population loss in certain central city neighborhoods. He feels they are not properly estimating the number that lives there. In discussion on annexation, Assistant City Manager Marc Ott pointed out that there are different rules in other states that make it more difficult to annex land. CITY OF FORT WORTH CITY COUNCIL SPRING RETREAT APRIL 28—29, 2006 (SATURDAY) Page 3 of 10 Council Member Espino brought up issues of annexation of land that had poor streets, cookie cutter subdivision, etc. He questioned whether it is counter productive to add a new area with substandard development and premature street failures. He also spoke about the use of a moratorium on development and how to balance it. Mr. Rusk presented an overhead showing that the inner-city neighborhood activists sometimes argue that older areas are neglected in favor of newly-annexed areas. He stated that the reality is: 1. Many new subdivision facilities are developer-financed per city requirements; 2. Big, "elastic" cities tax wealthier new neighborhoods in order to maintain adequate public service and renovate aging facilities in older, core neighborhoods. He added that "inelastic" cities often are tax-base starved and cannot support services and facilities. Council Member Espino talked about the recent bond election and issuance by the City and two years later there is a need for more money. He then brought up the sales tax issue and that currently this law is not helpful for Fort Worth as all of the sale tax revenues are going to certain uses and there is no additional percentage available to address transportation needs. He felt the Texas Legislature needed to get a dedicated revenue stream for roads. Council Member Davis talked about the realty issue. She brought up the lack of flexibility to force developers to put in the streets or upsize them. She stated that in the green- field sights of the City they are attracting a lower level of development and it is a growing trend. She added that these neighborhoods are not creating the tax base to serve the neighborhood. She pointed out that these are not wealthy neighborhoods. She added that they are being built poorly and loosing value. She spoke about the development in the Central City is rising and has higher values than the newer green field areas. She stated that the City is facing the challenge to do it well and get a handle on both of those issues. She stated her concern that if this is not accomplished the long term elasticity will not be there. Mr. Rusk spoke about providing education and municipal services and whether all of these costs had been included. He stated that no subdivision is going to pay for itself in 10 years. He stated that it has to be calculated to 20 to 30 years. CITY OF FORT WORTH CITY COUNCIL SPRING RETREAT APRIL 28—29, 2006 (SATURDAY) Page 4 of 10 Council Member Jordan stated that the growth is going to be there and it is a matter of whether it is going to be in Fort Worth or some other city. He spoke about if not Fort Worth then who or where. Mr. Rusk stated at the end of the day the point is to control the growth or capture the uncontrolled growth. He stated that the City has a lot more tools to work with than other cities. Mayor Moncrief stated the state legislature keeps taking away the City's tools and limits the quality of the growth. He advised of the different approach to annexations by the City and the challenges the City faces now. Mayor Moncrief advised of the new growth challenges and that they are putting in inferior infrastructure and the roads are being destroyed and they are only two years old and they need to be in good shape for a 20-year life. He pointed out that the City moved forward to set new standards that the developers will have to comply with. Mayor Moncrief pointed out the need for funding to address these issues. Mr. Rusk spoke about alliances that need to be formed to deal with the legislature and the formation of caucuses to get things changed. Mr. Rusk continued his presentation with a review of the Bond rating linkage for North Carolina League of Municipalities (2005) showing the bond ratings and elasticity scores of 185 principal central cities in metro areas of more than 250,000 residents. (Council Member Haskin arrived at 11:05 a.m.) Council Member Hicks spoke about the annexation issue and whether the City of Fort Worth is too big. She stated that after the next census there is a probability that the size of the Council needs to be larger. She stated that she worries for Council Member Espino and the differences that exist in his district and the need to have to respond to the new residents. She stated her concern is for the long term; what will the City look like and will the annexations work and benefit the City of Fort Worth. Council Member Davis stated that she did not mean by her comments that annexation is not a good idea. She added in order to be a vibrant city, the City needs to continue to annex and the City needs to make sure that the annexed area is of a quality and the City needs to set standards to accomplish it. She then asked about the Aaa bond rated cities and how what they are doing is different than what the City of Fort Worth is doing. She emphasized again that it is not just a matter of growing, but how the City grows. Council Member Espino pointed out that the retail and commercial areas are not in the new growth. He questioned whether throughout the county those communities promote CITY OF FORT WORTH CITY COUNCIL SPRING RETREAT APRIL 28—29, 2006 (SATURDAY) Page 5 of 10 commercial and retail development. Mr. Rusk stated that commercial and retail development usually come to the population areas and then to the work growth areas. Assistant City Manager Dale Fisseler stated that the City does not have much control in the ETJ; however the developments are built to a county's standards and the water service is at a lower standard than the City requires. He pointed out the standards are just different. Mr. Rusk asked about the possibility of Tarrant County adopting the same standards as the City. Mr. Fisseler stated the City needs to look ahead and deal with that issue. Mr. Rusk stated that he felt the City has got to get the county on board with the City standards. Mayor Moncrief emphasized that the county has no ordinance authority. Mr. Rusk stated that he understood that and pointed out that the counties should not have certain powers as they would be more powerful than cities. Mayor Moncrief pointed out the green field developments in the unincorporated areas and that the developers build the residential developments and then just leave. He stated that the county is left with all of the problems of that development and the homeowners have bought into those problems. Mr. Rusk posed questions to City Attorney Yett about the City's ability to have interlocal and intercooperative agreements that authorize cities/cities and cities/counties to share services, i.e., building inspection services. He stated that both parties have the authority to do the function. Council Member Espino spoke about the joint meetings with the School Districts of Keller, Fort Worth and Crowley. He suggested meeting with the Tarrant County Commissioners' Court after the May 13th election to look at these issues. He added he felt it would be good to have a meeting with legislators in a public setting. He pointed out the success of the joint meetings with school districts. He advised of interlocal agreements with the school districts. Mr. Rusk presented the policy implication list: 1. Fort Worth must be a strong ally of Texas Municipal League partners to defend state annexation laws against constant assaults. 2. Fort Worth must actively execute five-year annexation plan 3. Fort Worth should consider enlarging scope of future annexation, wherever possible. CITY OF FORT WORTH CITY COUNCIL SPRING RETREAT APRIL 28—29, 2006 (SATURDAY) Page 6 of 10 Mr. Rusk presented Issue No. 2: Schools and neighborhoods in The Other Fort Worth. Mr. Rusk presented the Fort Worth Vision Statement as follows: "Fort Worth's public schools will produce well-rounded citizens and a skilled workforce to fill high-paying jobs in local businesses." He spoke about the problem is high-poverty neighborhoods lead to high-poverty neighborhood schools. Mr. Rusk presented the results of his study of 186 independent school districts in the five largest Texas metro areas from 1994 to 1996. He presented his findings as follows: Finding No. 1 Strong correlation (0.61) between socioeconomic status of pupils and TAAS pass rates Finding No. 2 No correlation between TAAS pass rates and a. total expenditures per pupil; b. classroom expenditures per pupil; c. pupil/teacher ratio; d. average years of teaching experience; and e. percentage of teachers with advanced degree. Finding No. 3 Low-income pupils learn best in middle-class schools with middle-class classmates Mr. Rusk reviewed a chart of the Tarrant County ISD's and the percentage of students that pass the TAAS tests. There was discussion on the education issue and the issue of older school facilities in the older and larger school districts. Council Member Espino talked about intervention on the front end and spending more time and money to avoid problems later on. Council Member Jordan indicated that it is his perception that this presentation and discussions are reinforcing the Council's discussion on diversity and supporting the concept to not have a concentration of low income housing in one area. He added by dispersing those types of developments CITY OF FORT WORTH CITY COUNCIL SPRING RETREAT APRIL 28—29, 2006 (SATURDAY) Page 7 of 10 throughout the City in all neighborhoods, it will provide for the diversity in all schools and in all neighborhoods. Mayor Moncrief recessed Council's Spring Retreat for lunch at 11:35 a.m. Mayor Moncrief reconvened the meeting at 12:20 p.m. (Mayor Pro tem Silcox and Council Members Hicks and Davis had left the meeting.) The discussion continued on the success of mixed income schools and the ability for the public's buy in on this approach. It was pointed out that the Council's discussion on creating a housing policy standard could also become a school policy standard in creating mixed income neighborhoods. Mr. Rusk provided information on a study of the Dutch who spent twice as much funding on their minority schools to try and address some of the problems being discussed and it still did not work. Assistant City Manager Joe Paniagua spoke about the issue of the "Robin Hood" bill for the funding of public education in Texas and the fact that there are still rich school districts and poor school districts. There was also discussion on whether the housing standards would address the education issue and the issue of private schools and that the City has no control over the use of private schools. Mr. Rusk continued his presentation with a review of the chart showing the big problem that middle class pupils are vanishing from city core public schools. There was further discussion on this chart and the impact on the City. Mr. Rusk advised middle class families are decamping to farther out suburban schools. He added that the rapidly growing Hispanic enrollment is largely low-income. He stated that the pool of Anglo middle-class children is steadily shrinking as Anglo family formation/birth rate falls. He showed the challenge is how to re-attract middle class pupils (of any race/ethnicity) back to core area schools. He then reviewed the magnet employer strategy. He advised that Fort Worth has many major employers (e.g., Harris Methodist, Cook's Children's Hospital), often located in older (poorer) areas. He pointed out that there are many single-parent or two- working parent employees that are faced with"latchkey" problems for their children. He stated that the solution is to set up "magnet employer" schools. He stated that the approach is that the ISD installs high-quality program; the City funds extra-long school day; CITY OF FORT WORTH CITY COUNCIL SPRING RETREAT APRIL 28—29, 2006 (SATURDAY) Page 8 of 10 enrollment policy: <50% neighborhood children (mostly poor); >50% employee children. He stated the result will be employees have children in day-long, high quality program; neighborhood children benefit from middle class classmates; local gentrification spurred. There was discussion on whether the better solution would be for a day long school with an extension of it for the pre K children and even create a collaborative effort with day care to accommodate new born children. It was pointed out that people are seeing the better school districts in the outlying areas and then moving to those areas. The point being that in their minds the Fort Worth School District is not as good as those outlying districts. There was discussion on the issue of whether the move to inner city living might address this issue. Mr. Rusk stated that it has to be a partnership. He talked about getting the big employment locations to get on board. He reiterated that the results will be that the employees have their children in day-long high quality programs; neighborhood children benefit from middle class classmates; local gentrification spurred. Council Member Espino spoke about the magnet schools in the Fort Worth Independent School District. He stated that they are created by focusing on special interests. He advised of his learning experience in a magnet school and advised that Texas State Law restrict 50% of the neighborhood in the magnet school. He spoke in favor of specialized magnet schools for education. Mr. Rusk advised of the fact that there is no local tax base in the New Mexico schools; they are all funded by the state. Assistant City Manager Fisseler requested clarification about what the business community does in this regard. Mr. Rusk stated that they have a role and they should want to survey their own employees to see what their needs are and be willing to put money in the till. There was further discussion on the idea of charter schools. Mr. Rusk spoke about inclusionary housing, which does not include rental properties. He then reviewed what exclusionary zoning is: large minimum lots; large minimum sq. ft. and anti-apartment bias. He reviewed 135 cities and counties with inclusionary zoning and housing developments and pointed out that they must be mixed income limits. He advised that this approach was recently adopted by Frederick County, Maryland; Highland Park, Illinois; Madison, Wisconsin and that the State of Illinois requires 10% affordable housing in all 2,824 local jurisdictions. He gave examples of how this can be achieved. He talked about getting with developers and determining where are their needs and their profit margin. He stated that another approach is to provide free land so there is no land cost. Mr. Rusk advised that another approach is the use of zoning to provide for density bonus units. CITY OF FORT WORTH CITY COUNCIL SPRING RETREAT APRIL 28—29, 2006 (SATURDAY) Page 9 of 10 There was deliberation on how to avoid tipping the scale in the other direction. There was also discussion on the market rate housing and the affordable housing differential. Mr. Rusk spent time with the Council showing various pictures of affordable housing units that are inclusionary housing. He spoke about the actions of the Housing Authority to buy certain units for rentals. He pointed out that it has to be a win-win situation for the City and the developers. He encouraged the City Council to set a policy that is as win-win situation. There was considerable discussion on this issue. There was also discussion on the resale of affordable houses in these developments. Mr. Rusk stated that there was a limit to the number of years the house has to be lived in before it can be sold. There was further discussion on the design of the units and whether the City comes up with the design. Mr. Rusk indicated that the City did not do the design; the builders came up with those innovated designs. In further discussion, Council Member Espino brought up the school issue again. He indicated that he wanted to see a mixed income component in the City's core area. He stated that not enough people know about the quality of the programs that are available in the school district. Assistant City Manager Fisseler asked about the scale and incentives of inclusionary housing. He asked about the creation of MUD's in those urban areas and if the inclusionary housing could be done as part of that process. Mr. Rusk emphasized that inclusionary housing was done in the successful counties in the North for economic development purposes. It is an issue of working in areas where people are needed in the jobs and the need for housing for the lower income people. Mr. Rusk moved on to Issue #3 - Achieving Vision North Texas. He showed a chart showing the distribution of 4.1 million new residents in Dallas-Fort Worth area by 2030. He reviewed that chart. He also reviewed the chart on the distribution of 2.5 million new jobs in Dallas-Fort Worth area by 2030. He presented the transportation savings from polycentric model over business as usual trend. He reviewed the tools that the City of Fort Worth has inside the city limits. (exception: inclusionary zoning banned by Texas Legislature in 2005). He talked about the tools the City has to achieve goals outside the city limits, which are: • Extraterritorial jurisdiction • Annexation potential • NCTCOG control over major transportation investments CITY OF FORT WORTH CITY COUNCIL SPRING RETREAT APRIL 28—29,2006 (SATURDAY) Page 10 of 10 ■ Plus trend towards smaller,more "urbanite"household(singles, mingles, empty nesters) Mr. Rusk stated that"What Vision North Texas" assures that it is not: • Not a requirement • Not an effort to create a new level of regional government • Not a change toward regional decision-making • Not an overall land use or zoning plan for the Metroplex Mr. Rusk's last slide was Rusk: National experience shows to get from where you are to where you want to go, you will have to become all the things that Vision North Texas says it is not. What is most needed is change in political culture (particularly at state level) —toughest challenge of all. Wrap Up and Closiniz Remarks By Mayor Moncrief Mayor expressed appreciation to the speaker for his presentation and to hear about what he has seen in the rest of the county. He added that it is good to know what Fort Worth is doing right and what areas need improvement. With no further presentation or discussion, Mayor Moncrief adjourned the City Council Spring Retreat at 2:05 p.m. on Saturday, April 29, 2006. These minutes approved by the Fort Worth City Council on the 9t'day of May, 2006. APPROVED: /A LW Michael J. Moncrief, Mayor ATTEST: Marty Hendrix, ity Secretary