Changes in ORDINANCE 581-Y-2023 - (Fence Ordinance)

[council3_rubal]

Fellow Councilmembers,
I would like your feedback on the following proposed changes to ORDINANCE 581-Y-2023

reference: https://library.municode.com/TX/Universal City/ORDINANCES/Code_of_Ordinances?nodeId=1244195

Reason for Change:
Fence maintenance and fence repair remain an issue within our City for not only the aesthetics of our neighborhoods but also the safety, security, and privacy of our residents. Prior councils have made efforts to streamline our fencing ordinance and expressed concerns regarding the repair or maintenance that alters the fence-to-ground clearance allowing for stormwater runoff.

The suggested ordinance change below preserves the concerns of the former Councils and simplifies the definition of allowable fence repair for our residents to be “in-kind” repair and replacement. That latter removes arbitrary rules for the number of pickets or posts, reduces the burden and permit expense for residents, and encourages fence repair. It simplifies the definition of allowable fence repair. Finally, it removes some of the time burden for inspections for which our City now contracts services permitting the more efficient and effective use of Development Services staffing.

Thank you for your consideration in supporting the changes below. Your feedback is appreciated.



Changes in ORDINANCE 581-Y-2023

II. Sec. 4-5-71. – Fence requirements.


Definition 2: Change from:

Major Maintenance. The following shall be considered
‘Major’ fence maintenance:

Change to:
“In-kind replacement of Existing fencing”: The following should be considered “In-kind replacement” of an existing fencing:
a) “In-kind replacement” of an existing fence; that is, the replacement fence will be in the same location as the previous fence and will be the same height, made of the same material, and provide the same fence-to-ground clearance

Delete (a and b)
(a) Repairing or replacing more than one (1) post anchored in the ground
(b) Repairing or replacing 17 or more pickets

Move (c) to paragraph (2)
(c) Repair or maintenance that alters the fence-to-ground
clearance allowing for stormwater runoff

Changes in paragraph (2) - add 3.
(2) Permits and Inspections
1. A new fence where one did not exist before
2. Modification to an existing fence not covered in
‘Minor’ or ‘in-kind’ fence maintenance definitions
3. Repair or maintenance that alters the fence-to-ground
clearance allowing stormwater runoff

Delete from paragraph (2).
(b) A permit, associated fee as identified in Chapter 1-4
Finance, and related inspection(s) shall be required
for ‘Major’ fence maintenance

Change (c)
(c) A permit, fee and inspection(s) shall not be required for
‘Minor’ fence maintenance or in-kind fence repair or replacement.

 

[council4_vaughan]

I will support any change that gives the homeowner more freedom over their fence. No permit should be required for any of it.

 

[council3_rubal]

Last evening Mr. Cassata presented data that the City gained a TOAL of $2800 in permit fees (114 inspections) for residents repairing 2 or more post or more than 17 pickets of fence. He failed to report the offsetting City cost for these inspections! He also failed to identify the cost the City incurs for contract inspectors during that period because he does not have enough staff for inspections.

Councils vote to the motion to eliminate the $25 permit fee for inspections for in-kind fence repair/replacement that does not change stormwater drainage patterns was:

For to eliminate permit fee: 2 votes (Rubal and Bulman)
Against elimination of $25 permit fee: 3 votes (Goolsby, Fitzpatrick, and Putt)
Absent: Vaughan

I have requested information about the actual offsetting City expenses to do these 114 inspections and will present this information on this Council forum when available.

 

[council3_rubal]

Fellow Councilmembers,

See the attached data provided by Mr. Cassata. I thank Mr. Cassata for his time in preparing these data.

The data were updated to include City Cost for 117 $25 fence permits for the report period (11/1/23 - 10/29/24).

City revenue from permits was $2,925.
The city cost for the permitting and inspections was $ 3,374.02. A deficit!

NOTE, however, these costs are conservative since >55% of inspections have NOT been completed, and data for City Inspector and 3rd party inspector salaries are NOT included yet for 65 of the 117 inspections.

In attached Yellow: Indicates permit paid for but inspection not scheduled and permit not closed out.

If the 65 inspections were done by city employees, that would add another $647 to cost (not including vehicle cost), and if the inspections were done by 3rd party inspectors, it would add $3,250 to the inspection cost.

Therefore, using data provided by our City, the City DEFICIT for the $25 fence permitting for the report period would be between $1,095.77 to $3,699.02.


In light of this information, I ask the Council to reconsider this issue!

 

[council3_rubal]

Fellow Councilmembers,

Last evening's Council meeting, in which the mayor prevented a discussion of the "in-kind" fence repair permits, which do not change fence, location, construction, or runoff water flow with evidence given that inspection cost provided by the City far exceed City revenue from this permit is problematic. I respect that my prior motion before the Council did not receive the Council's support (vote 2:3), however, the Council was unaware of the magnitude of the City cost for these inspections at that time. The cost of inspections for "in-kind" fence repair far exceeds City revenue from permitting. I encourage the Council to discuss the cost of "in-kind" fence inspections with Mr. Cassata. I encourage the Council to provide an incentive for "in-kind" fence repair that will improve the aesthetics and safety of our community and save our City money.

 

[council4_vaughan]

Bernie, I agree we are upside down on fence permits and should just get rid of it.

But we are upside down on purpose. Previously we wanted to remove the fence permit altogether. We didn't have enough support on council to do that. The best we could get was to reduce the permit from $85 to $25. This helps the resident a little. It also means our costs will exceed revenue. That was a trade off we expected.

I think current council has made up their mind and we will have to accept that decision.