As noted by Matt Stiles in the Chronicle’s City Watch Blog, I review the council agendas each week for items of interest and post here. The reason he said I do this “occasionally” is because last September, I suspended these reviews owing to time pressure, and only resumed doing them last week. To save time, I no longer post the entire agenda, but cherry-pick the most interesting or potentially controversial items. Sometimes I’ll select items that aren’t necessarily controversial, but point out directions or trends in our government, as I do tonight with the first item. Certainly, I might miss the significance of some seemingly minor item this way; if you notice something, bring it to my attention in the comments and I’ll endeavor to update the article prior to the meeting.
A big thanks to Matt for acknowledging my prior work, and kudos to the Chronicle (of which we are often critical, here at blogHOUSTON) both for creating the City Watch Blog and allowing him to do that.
Once again, readers are cautioned that I delete what I judge to be extraneous text, and often paraphrase in order to make the legalese a lot more readable. Such deletions may accidentally result in a key omission; if you wish to read the original text, please follow this link to the currently posted agenda. Here’s hoping Matt’s efforts will cause the full backup to the agendas to become available to everyone in the future. Until then, we’ll just have to review it for you, so onward below the fold, fellow citizens!
Items #1 through #4: Since the City of Houston isn’t able to provide adequate police coverage despite rising revenues, several neighborhoods and businesses in Council district A have sought approval to contract with the Precinct 5 Constable’s office for additional patrols in their area. Those organizations will pay the entire cost (not listed) of one deputy to spend 80% of his time in the contracting area. The groups are Cypress Creek Hospital, Colony Crossing HOA, Gessport Patio Homes of Fondren SW HOA, Braeburn Valley West Civic Association. That a hospital feels the need to pay legal “protection money” indicates just how bad things have gotten on the southwest side.
Item #8 is to approve paying for replacement of almost four miles of 4-8″ water mains in the Scarborough area. Item #9 is for about five miles of 6-12″ water mains in the Corder area; #10 is for nearly two miles of 66″ trunk lines in the Greens road area; and #11 is for relocation of two miles of 30-48″ water mains to accommodate expansion of the Katy Freeway. Normally I’d pass on these, but included them due to the relevance to this recent item. Also, as Matt Stiles pointed out on the Chron’s blog, this helps readers grasp the scale on which the city has to work.
Item #19 is a “devil in the details” item; it authorizes the Department of Developers (c’mon people, we need a better name for the HCDD!) to create a variant of TIRZs called a Multi-Family Revitalization Zone. This appears to be a local implementation of the statewide Texas Low Income Housing Tax Credit (“LIHTC”) program. Within designated areas containing a high density of apartments, developers can apply “for financial benefits for revitalization, rehabilitation, or reconstruction of such project. All projects will be subject to comprehensive underwriting standards. Preference will be shown for projects located in a designated MFRZ which reduce density, concentration or blight, or which serve the homeless.” Wait! I thought we were trying to increase density, to support light rail? And wouldn’t the effect of this be to shift the property tax burden away from apartment owners, toward single-family homeowners and state taxpayers? There are two designated zones at this time, but nothing prevents the addition of more:
- From Forrest Park Cemetary, SE along I-45 to Hobby Airport and Winkler Dr.
- Generally South of Braes Bayou and north of Bellfort, between Fondren and Gessner
Item #20: The “lemonade stand” ordinance, as Matt speculated on the City Watch Blog. Exempting such “kiddie ventures” does appear to be the intent, but bureaucracy has to have its day: you and your child will need to file a written request for waiver, including your hours of operation and location, plus receive a food safety brochure from the department. What’s next? Permits to sell Girl Scout cookies? My concern is people trying to take this exemption and run with it, as the “mobile food vendor” exemption has led to the proliferation of permanently emplaced vehicle or trailer-based vendors, complete with permanent gas and electrical connections. Being exempt from most health inspections has led to an absurd number of such vendors. For what it’s worth, city health inspectors generally won’t eat at such establishments, but whether that’s professional judgment or pique is up to the reader to decide.
Item #24: Five-year lease extension for the GHCVB to run the Visitor’s Center in City Hall, at a rate of $9.12 per sq.ft. I wonder if we are seeing where Mayor White got the leverage to oust Jordy Tollet?
Item #25: Yet another HCDD problem. The city council authorized a loan of $800,000 from federal HOME funds to Primrose 7 Ltd. to build a 280 unit apartment complex on Airline Drive. The developer was supposed to secure the funds with a bond, but failed (refused?) to do so. The project was completed without required city and HUD inspections, which made the use of HOME funds impossible; thus the city now has to find an alternate source. The Tax Increment Reinvestment Zone funds were tapped, meaning local taxpayers are now on the hook if this property fails. Some additional conditions regarding services to low income tenants have been imposed. Notable: the item was considered by the Neighborhoods Housing and Redevelopment Committee in 2005 and forwarded to the Council without recommendation. It was then re-reviewed by the same committee ten months later and forwarded with recommendation. This may indicate the council didn’t think much of the original terms, and forced those conditions to be added.
Item #26: Same song, second verse, for $1.5 million to Aldine-Bender Housing, L.P., for an apartment complex at 100 Aldine-Bender Rd. Looking at the timing of these projects, they had to have been cooked up by the HCDD in the last term of the Brown Administration or early in the White era. We may never know the full story of what went on in the city’s Housing and Community Development Department during this time. What we can’t tell, and what Mayor White has remained silent about is whether items like these represent an effort to make the best out of cleaning up the messes left over from Brown’s tenure, or if this is just more of the same. The recent removal of single- and multi-family housing from the Section 108 program and efforts to give tax breaks to apartment owners don’t seem to be positive indications.
Item #27: $225,000 contract to reinspect 1900 homes per HUD orders, due to deficient prior inspections. This is almost certainly due to the lead-based paint issues, another problem for which Tom Bazan has worked tirelessly to hold the government accountable. (Aside: why is it if you want the government to spend tax money on the poor, you’re an activist, but if you want to hold the government accountable for the money spent, you’re a nuisance?)
Item #28: Yes, another Housing debacle. The city and county loaned over $1,000,000 to a developer to rehabilitate low income property at 3939 North Freeway, but he defaulted on the first lien to the bank. Developer John Quinlan stepped in and bought the bank’s interest out, then cut a deal with the county and city that he’d follow the terms of property use set down by them if they’d assign their liens to him; in other words, surrender the right to foreclose on the property for non-payment. Once they did, he promptly used the county’s lien to foreclose on the property; however, he did so with a different company from which he bought the first lien. The city is now going to appropriate another $583,000 for further rehabilitation, and the county almost $200,000. In return, Quinlan will maintain the property for low- and very-low income residents.
Item #40: The newsrack ordinance and several motions pertaining to it. They’re trying to get the proliferation of these things under control, but there’s still some work to be done, as the rash of amendments would indicate. It’s unusual to see this many amendments before the council; either the ordinance wasn’t well thought out, or a lot of publishers are making their desires known. Or perhaps building owners?
Items held over from last week:
Item #41: Approval of the $43,870,000 budget of the Greater Harris Counter 9-1-1 Emergency Center. Two line items breaking down the budget are of interest: the first indicates that last week’s note about the cost might have been an apples-and-oranges comparison, but it’s still far more than Mayor Brown promised.
- The Operational budget totals $36.2M ; increased 1.7M compared to the prior year.
- Funding for 18 additional 9-1-1 call-taker positions at the Houston Emergency Center (HEC) and 8 additional positions at Harris County 9-1-1 Neutral Answering Point are included.
Wait! Last week they said the budget was $42,125,000. They’d better hurry up and pass it before inflation takes it past the $50 million mark! Of course, considering all the other costs that aren’t part of this budget, it probably already is.
Item #45: the Taxicab ordinance. Remember, no competing with Metro! In addition to the previously reported restrictions on pickup and drop-off, all routes for sightseeing buses must be approved by the Director, and he will make such alterations as he sees fit.
Item #49: The last item on the agenda isn’t one that excites the government employee (or taxpaying citizen) in me, but it does appeal to my techie nerd side, so I include it here for anyone else with similar interests. The Airport System is requesting $600,000 to apply a blast-resistant film to the large glass panes found at both airports. Reading the technical backup is like reading Popular Science — I found this especially interesting: “Win Tec employs a 12-mil Mylar, scratch resistant blast protection window film that is applied to the glass surface. But in addition, a chemical is applied to the glass which bonds with the glass, filling the pores of the glass and strengthening the surface area. The surface becomes significantly stronger and has been tested in blast conditions up to 29,000 PSI. An additional benefit of applying this product is that the glass surfaces would not have to be boarded up in the event of a hurricane. This technology was successfully tested at the HPD pistol range at the Police Academy by firearms instructors resulting in ballistics capability of resisting bullet penetration from .38 caliber, .357 magnum, .40 mm, and 9mm handguns. Additionally .308 Winchester rifle rounds were also fired at the target with no penetration.”
Ooooh, I want! No boarding windows during a hurricane, and it’s bulletproof?
That’s all for this time. See you next week!
BLOGVERSATION: Chonicle City Watch
