Loading...
Min 04/20/2004 321 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Wichita Falls, Texas Memorial Auditorium Building April 20, 2004 Item 1 The City Council of the City of Wichita Falls, Texas met in regular session on the above date in the Council Chambers of the Memorial Auditorium Building at 8:30 o'clock a.m., with the following members present: Bill Altman - Mayor Johnny Burns - Mayor Pro Tern Arthur Bea Williams - Councilors Linda Ammons - James Esther, Jr - Michael Norrie - Harold Hawkins - James Berzina - City Manager Bill Sullivan - City Attorney Lydia Torres-Ozuna - City Clerk Mayor called the meeting to order. Item 2 Reverend Mary Cantrell, Shepherd of Hope Church, gave the invocation. Item 3 Mayor announced the Clean Community Poster Contest Winners and presented awards to the winners as follows. Primary: (WalMart and McDonalds Gift Cards) 1s' Place— Mrs. Putthoff's First Grade Class from Notre Dame Elementary 2"d Place— Kaitlynd DeWolf, Ben Milam 3`d Place— Katy Spruiell, McGaha Academy Secondary: (WalMart and McDonalds Gift Cards) 1 s' Place—Shawn Ramos, Zundy Junior High School 2"d Place— Nia Dorado, Zundy Junior High School 3rd Place —Caitlain Hart, Zundy Junior High School Grand Prize Winner: (Bicycle) Jessica Ayres, Kate Burgess Elementary Mayor recognized Public Works/Public Utilities for receiving the Watermark Award, which is a statewide award combined from American Water Works Association and the Water Environmental Association of Texas. The first award was for"Use Water Right, Have Water Left" Magnet Campaign — Magnet Award; and the second award was for"Greasy Gremlin" radio and television spots. Mr. David Lehfeldt, Utilities Operation Manager, accepted the awards. Mayor recognized Chief Harold Lindsey for their"Operation Santa Clause" Project, formerly known as "Toys for Tots", which raised $15,000 worth of bicycles and $15,000 worth of toys. The Firefighters received the Jefferson Award, which is presented by Washington, D.C. in recognition of organizations that make Christmases better for so many children. Firefighter Holzer informed that they operate year round and make a big push in October and encouraged everyone to participate in this worthy effort. The Jefferson Award was turned over to the City to be exhibited in a place of honor. 322 Item 3 continued Mayor recognized the Red Hat Society members and proclaimed April 25, 2004 as "Red Hat Society Day in Wichita Falls". Mrs. JoAnn Bentley, Queen Mother of one of the local chapters, along with other Queen Mothers and members of the Red Hat Society accepted the proclamation. Mrs. Bentley informed that they have 25,000 registered members and they just meet for fun. Mayor proclaimed April 24, 2004 — May 1, 2004 as " National Infant Immunization Week in Wichita Falls". This is a prevention effort against childhood diseases and the theme is Act of Love. Teressa Barrington, RN, Immunization Charge Nurse for the Health District accepted the proclamation. Mayor proclaimed April 20, 2004 as "Equal Pay Day in Wichita Falls", and urged citizens to recognize the full value of women's skills and significant contributions to the labor force, and further encouraged businesses to conduct an internal pay evaluation to ensure women are being paid fairly. Accepting the proclamation were Mrs. Edwina Wight, BPW President, Mrs. Melodie Berry, President Elect, Mrs. Dee Batley, Past President, Keri Orsak, Treasurer, Keli McCord, Recording Secretary, Evelyn Lucus, Community Services Chair, Barbara Lingle, Legislative Chair, Rita Vokes, Public Information Chair, along with other members. Item 4 The Minutes were approved with the following addition. Councilor Williams requested that the City Attorney verify the accuracy of the statement made by Mr. Garry Higgins in Item 8c regarding car washing being illegal except at car washes. Item 5a Moved by Councilor Williams that the February 26, 2004 minutes of the Civil Service Commission be approved. Motion seconded by Councilor Esther and carried by the following vote. Ayes: Mayor Altman, Councilors Williams, Ammons, Esther, Norrie, Burns, and Hawkins Nays: None Item 6a A proposed ordinance was presented amending Chapter 14, Animals, of the Wichita Falls Code of Ordinances, in its entirety. Moved by Councilor Burns that proposed ordinance be passed. Motion seconded by Councilor Williams. Mrs. Barbara Clements, Director of Health, informed that for several months the Health Department reviewed the existing ordinance. We focused on changes in three areas — 1) Rabies control to strengthen the provisions there, 2) Improve conditions under which our animal control ordinance must carry out their duties, and 3) To address concerns from the Staff and from the citizens in areas related to public health safety and public nuisances. She described the procedures taken during this lengthy review. The Board of Health considered the ordinance proposed by staff and agreed with the majority but there were some differences. Staff's proposed ordinance is presented as Version A and the Board's proposal is presented as Version B. Mrs. Clements pointed out the areas of agreement and then addressed the areas of disagreement. She mentioned that one of the strongest changes that they were in agreement with and made was the vaccination requirement for animals that are in the impound facility. Rabies is a very unforgiving illness and is fatal. Councilor Norrie mentioned the setback requirement on keeping of livestock and asked for background information. 323 Item 6a continued Mrs. Clements informed that last year there was some discussion as to how you might interpret the language in Section 14-420 as it exists in the current ordinance, especially in regard to the interpretation or definition of"enclosure" or"fence". There was no change in the way the Department carried out looking at that situation. There was no change in the way setbacks were measured. Setback is measured from the fence line where the animals go to the neighbor's house, and where they reside must be a 200-feet setback. Councilor Ammons wanted to know what happens when somebody has a five-acre lot and sells a lot and builds within the 200-feet setback. Is there a provision when permitted that they cannot build within the 200-feet setback? Mrs. Clements informed that if the condition was there before then they would not be required to meet that setback. City Attorney concurred that if they build and encroach in that 200-feet setback they are in violation. Mayor clarified that the wording amendments don't change the substance of the current ordinance. In fact, one sentence liberalizes the current ordinance that talks about enclosing a proper pen. The 200-feet setback has been in the ordinance for some time and those areas that were annexed were allowed to get a non-conforming use permit if they already had that situation existing. A non-conforming use permit is good as long as that person owns the property and does not change the nature of the use. If they sell the property, that non-conforming use permit does not apply any more. Mrs. Clements explained that the only non-conforming permits in the Animal Control P Y 9 Ordinance are those that were established during the time of annexation. There was a 30-day period allowed, which by Ordinance expired July 4, 1998. You had that time period in which to apply for a non-conforming use permit and that has been a subject of discussion through the years from the time we annexed. As with most zoning laws that non-confirming use permit does not transfer with the sale of property and sometimes property owners that are selling property may not always be forthright with that. Councilor Williams clarified that the last person to come into that area who builds next door to one that is non-conforming cannot cry foul when they build 100 feet from the fence line because the people next door were exempted because of non-conforming use. Mayor added that to the n that a hardshipcomes u the could always come to the Council for a waiver if some extent p� Y Y unusual situation should occur. Basically, we changed the wording to clarify but the intent is not to change any of the Ordinance in that regard. It should not change the operation of people who have horses. Mayor questioned prohibition of giving away of animals, Section 14-150(c), in regard to charitable events where they give animals away. The wording would make it illegal for them to give animals away at charitable events. Mrs. Clements explained that the intent was to prevent the giving away of animals that may have rabies unknown to the owner. It is difficult to find these type of owners when animals are given away in parking lots, etc. and no paper work is transferred, however, there could be an exemption written in for certain situations if the Council desires that. It was intended for the public areas where these animals are given away. Councilor Williams brought up tags and licenses and expressed concern regarding notification for the need of a license. Mrs. Clements informed that this provision had been in the Code for about fifty years, but there are people who are not aware they have to have a license. Veterinarians are aware of this and will inform their customers when they bring their pets in for a vaccination, and they will inform them that there is a license, which can be issued by veterinarians. Licenses are tied to the vaccination record. City Council recessed at 9:45 a.m. and reconvened at 10:05 a.m. Discussion on Item 6a continued in regard to the items where Staff and the Health Board are in agreement. David Brock, 1819 Hines, stated that he would like to have flea markets be exempt on the sale of animals. He suggested that Council adopt the rules that Bowie Trade Days use on the sale of animals. Mayor informed him that is included in Section (b), with the requirement that they have a rabies certificate. 324 Item 6a continued Mr. Brock stated that there is a change in the definitions. He commented that traditionally "enclosure" could be a barn or structure to house animals. Mayor stated that this is a broader definition than the current law. Mr. Brock expressed concern that the section giving warnings was eliminated and he suggested that the wording be put back in. Mayor informed that the current wording is permissive even if it is stricken from the ordinance. Mr. Brock was concerned that this might be misinterpreted in the future if it was not in the ordinance. Mr. Brock asked that the 200-feet setback be clarified, and suggested that the setback be reduced to 100 feet if property owners agree. He has a problem with not being able to graze his pastures. There is no definition of"kept" or "maintained" and he would like to see this addressed. City Attorney clarified the definitions of"kept" and "maintained". Staff has taken the opinion that a fenced-in area if within 200 feet is in violation. Mr. Brock was taken to court on that and found in violation of that section. We have gone back to attempt to clarify. It says that if you have animal(s) fenced in within 200 feet of an adjacent residence you are in violation. The intent of this clarification is to try to resolve Mr. Brock's specific issue as to what that meant. We have tried to clarify it to read in conformance with how we have enforced this ordinance against Mr. Brock and anybody else. Councilor Hawkins understood Mr. Brock's problem and he is in violation of a law we have enacted but now we have it so restrictive that a person cannot even with the consent of his neighbors run animals. We need to allow a non-conforming permit requiring approval of the citizens whose property is within 200-feet of the perimeter. Councilor Esther asked what would happen if someone got permission from their neighbor for grazing and the neighbor sells. Mayor stated that it would depend on how the ordinance was written but that could be provided for in the ordinance. Councilor Hawkins stated that this goes back to what the City Attorney said if someone builds within a permit area, knowing the condition existed then. Mayor stated that it is just a matter of how it could be written. Troy Kyle, 2352 Wellington Lane, suggested that the non-conforming use permit be changed so that the people living there prior to the annexation be allowed to obtain one since they did not know about the permit. He agreed with Councilor Hawkins` suggestion that if they could apply for a permit regardless of when they moved in and if the neighbors agree. Kenneth Blevins, 4000 Sandy Lane, raises quarter horses and has not had any complaints in thirty years. Even if I want to sell my property later, which would probably be used for animals, it would create a hardship. City Attorney stated that if he did not come in within the thirty days he is in violation of the Code today before any changes are made. Non-conforming use process allows and recognizes that that property does not meet City requirements. Non-conforming use processes are aimed at some point getting those properties in compliance with City regulations. As long as he keeps his property recognizing he was there before we annexed him, he is allowed to continue the use of that property. The intent of non-conforming uses is to get property in the city limits in compliance with the same set of rules and regulations; otherwise you have two sets of laws that apply out there. If you do not take some affirmative action to get rid of those non-conforming uses based upon changes that happen, you will continually have two sets of rules out there, one that applies to certain annexed property and one to the core city limits. Mayor stated that the ordinance we are looking at today does not change the current ordinance and it has been in effect for several years. Councilor Hawkins mentioned that Staff action is complaint driven. Jacquelyn Worthy, 1919 Hampton Road, expressed concern with those who have animals within the 200-feet set back and wanted to know how this ordinance was going to affect that type situation. How can you move the setback 200 feet when you have only so much land? Councilor Williams replied that the area she is talking about has been in the City limits longer than the area that is annexed but when they purchased, there was a lot of land and they proceeded to use it for animals. Even though it falls into a different reason than annexation I think whatever we do for those in the annexed area in 1999 we need to make sure that the same things exist for those people because they thought they were legal. No one is complaining because they are in the same situation. William Davey, 2550 Wellington, stated that if he had to be 200 feet from his neighbor's house he would not be legal and there is something that is not right about that. 325 Item 6a continued Odell Barnes, 921 Reynolds Lane, stated that if Council approves this ordinance he is going to lose 200 feet off the front of his lots. I would like to see it not be disturbed. Mayor stated that this is the first time this has come to the Council and many of us have not read the proposed changes. It is very likely we may not enact something today. At this time the Council transitioned into the areas of difference of opinion between the Staff and Health Board. Mrs. Clements explained how the ordinance is applied to animals at large, specifically licensed cats. An area of difference exists in regard to the number or animals that can be kept routinely and under certain permits. The Health District Animals feels that animals at large in general should be under the control of its owner, and we feel that is part of being a responsible pet owner. Animals at large present concerns in the area of disease transmission and we have heard concerns from citizens. The issue of controlling strays is much more efficient if you do not have to determine who is legal and who is not. Both Versions A and B recommend a change in the ordinance. Version A prohibits all cats from running at large on properties other than their owner's property. It does allow for consent from another property owner to be a defense of that animal being at large. Councilor Williams expressed concern regarding having to put a cat on a leash at all times because it could cause its death. Mrs. Clements explained that this definition was changed to reflect that the cat would be controlled by a person or is restrained by some physical means like a cat carrier or held by the responsible person if they are off their property. Version B allows for licensed and neutered cats to run at large on their owner's property in all public places, except for schoolyards and parks, and on any property that the owner has obtained permission for the cat to roam. Mr. Roy Ressel said that the only issue he wanted to speak on is rabies, which is what he is more involved in on a daily basis. Recently we have been having a positive rabies case every week. We have no idea what is going to happen with the rabies population here in our City or the County. Between these two issues, animals running at large or confined, we should try to reduce the animal population to eliminate the possibilities of more rabies exposure on animals running at large. If we agree that these licensed, vaccinated, spade animals are allowed to run at large in Wichita Falls we are increasing the possibility of rabid animals coming into contact with this type of animal. I would contend that along with the other committees involved with public health, if we all confine our animals we would reduce the risk of rabies exposure to animals in town. Mrs. Clements clarified that Mr. Ressel was referring to reducing the number of cats if an animal is spade or neutered. When people vaccinate their animals including their cats that takes care of the rabies concern for that animal. Dr. Kathy Sultemeier, Veterinarian, Health Board Member, stated that she did not have a personal interest in this. Stray cats are the biggest concern of the staff, not the owned, licensed ones. The concern that has continually been cited by the staff over the past eight months is rabies control. However, for a cat to be at large it must be current on its rabies vaccine and wearing a collar with proof of its city license and rabies. In the past two years there was only one cat that was positive with rabies and that cat was in Clay County and not vaccinated. Rabies control should not be an issue with owned licensed cats. We would agree that there is a significant rabies concern with wild cats that receive no vaccinations and those should be picked up by Animal Control. She mentioned that another issue was traffic safety in that cats cause traffic accidents, however we have seen no verification that this is a significant problem in Wichita Falls. If the wildcat population was dealt with and trapped this situation would decrease. The issue of enforcement also continuously comes up. It is easier to enforce the law if there are no cats at large. Is that a good enough reason to change the life styles of numerous residents of Wichita Falls? If Animal Control feels that cats are nuisances, why not follow up with the nuisances instead of letting them go?We would hope with the new ordinance and cooperation of the veterinarians that more cats and dogs would be licensed in our City. She pointed out that with the expanded nuisance definition, all a person has to do is inform Animal Control that they do not want that cat on their property. They do not have to prove anything. She stated that one of their concerns is that Council may not be aware of how many people would be impacted with these ordinances. We feel that the Public Health Board has provided Council a workable proposal. Mayor asked about people with allergies to cats and cats on someone else's property. Dr. Sultemeier responded that she had just stated that if the cat is not allowed on someone's property it would be picked up. If we can neuter these animals it would address several problems. 326 Item 6a continued Councilor Williams commented that having a cat next door may not be the problem. The squirrels are more dangerous on streets than the cats. Dr. Sultemeier informed that they had contacted other cities and obtained copies of their animal ordinance and eight of thirteen still allow cats at large. She suggested that we check to see why it is working in these eight cities. Linda Tingle, 1011 Westerly Place, has an outdoor cat and wanted to know how this ordinance was going to affect her. Councilor Williams stated that she would be legal if she is on her own property. City Manager stated that we get complaints that people do not want cats on their property. Under the current Ordinance if a cat is permitted and tagged there is nothing that can be done. Under the new ordinance, either version, even if a cat has credentials and is traced on property where it is not wanted it could be picked up by Animal Control. The other thing is how to deal with the burden of proof. We have a difficult task if that cat is freely roaming and if we see it crossing the street we may be able to determine it is a stray. Councilor Williams agreed that the cat should be picked up if they are on property where they are unwanted. I just do not want to go along with any unnecessary physical restraints on cats. Councilor Hawkins stated that by adopting Version B of the ordinance we would have that and could address Councilor Williams' concerns as well as staff's concerns. Assistant City Attorney Kinley Hegglund explained the burden of proof. Version A is different from Version B. Version A is different because the difference of prosecution is on the property owner to show that the cat had permission to be on the property. In Version B it would be up to the City to prove that the cat did not have permission to be there. Animal Control would only go to the address where the complaint initiated and not to other addresses. Dr. Sultemeier clarified that Version A prohibits all cats running at large and Animal Control can pick up any cats they see at large. That is an issue we have and would like to have that addressed. The tamed cats that are licensed is our concern. We need to clarify if cats can be at large. City Council recessed at 11:30 a.m. and reconvened at 11:50 a.m. Discussion on Item 6a continued. Mrs. Clements informed that the second area of differences is the number of animals. Version A— Is what is allowed in the current ordinance: a pet fancier's permit is required for four to six animals; a hobby breeder's permit is required for four dogs and/or cats; aggregate number of dogs and cats is three (four or more would require a permit). Version B — Pet fancier's permit is required for five to eight animals; a hobby breeder's permit is required for five to eight dogs; aggregate number of dogs and cats is four (five or more would require a permit). The issue of vicious dogs was discussed and it was noted that state law does not allow discrimination under different type of breeds of dogs; however, there is a section in the Code addressing "vicious dogs". Dr. Sultemeier stated that the Public Health Board passed the proposed animal control ordinance presented to Council with all members present, and only one abstention. Fourteen veterinarians were contacted to represent pet owners in Wichita Falls. Do we have a right to limit the number of cats if there is no nuisance or public health hazard? Numbers do not equate to nuisance problems. To get a permit of four or more it requires a bi-annual inspection. She noted that 33% have four or more animals as surveyed on a four-day time frame by all veterinarians. You are affecting a large number of people with this ordinance. Health Board has researched these issues for the past eight months. Of the 33% we do not know how many are pet owners. This 33% does not include all pet owners in Wichita Falls. Dr. Joe Worster, 2201 Avondale, Veterinarian, stated that there is a changing demographic. If you look at pet ownership it is not unusual to have two cats and two dogs in one household. This is significant in terms of total population and that is the reason for the change. He questioned why 327 Item 6a continued the number of animals was a public health issue. Nuisance is the problem and that should be the issue not number. Nuisances should be first then numbers. He clarified that nuisance is the waste, odor and noise. Mayor stated that there is no way to rewrite any of these versions today and if we table this issue it has to come up at the next Council meeting. He suggested that the motion and second be withdrawn. He can appoint a Council subcommittee to work through these issues and bring back to Council. Councilor Burns withdrew his motion and Councilor Williams withdrew her second. Mayor will appoint a Council subcommittee to review the issues and concerns discussed today including non-conforming possibilities. City Council recessed at 12:20 p.m. and reconvened at 1:05 p.m. Councilor Hawkins was out of Council Chambers. Item 6b A proposed ordinance was presented amending Chapter 106, Article X, Code of Ordinances, "Grease Interceptors, Installation and Disposal of Waste". Mayor suggested that this proposed ordinance be taken to the Restaurant Association and then brought back to Council for action. No action was taken on this item. Item 6c ORDINANCE NO. 33-2004 ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE 33-2003 AT SUBSECTION 5.01, ENTITLED RIGHTS-OF-WAY FEE, TO UPDATE THE MONTHLY FEE FOR ACCESS LINE RATES; FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT THE MEETING AT WHICH THIS ORDINANCE WAS PASSED WAS OPEN TO THE PUBLIC AS REQUIRED BY LAW Moved by Councilor Ammons that Ordinance No. 33-2004 be passed. Motion seconded by Councilor Williams and carried by the following vote. Ayes: Mayor Altman, Councilors Williams, Ammons, Esther, Norrie, and Burns Nays: None Councilor Hawkins returned to Council Chambers. Item 6d ORDINANCE NO. 34-2004 ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WICHITA FALLS, TEXAS, AMENDING SECTION 90-64 OF THE WICHITA FALLS CODE OF ORDINANCES TO EXPAND THE HOURS OF CURBSIDE PLACEMENT OF CITY COLLECTORS; FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT THE MEETING AT WHICH THIS ORDINANCE WAS PASSED WAS OPEN TO THE PUBLIC AS REQUIRED BY LAW Moved by Councilor Ammons that Ordinance No. 34-2004 be passed. 328 Item 6d continued Motion seconded by Councilor Williams and carried by the following vote. Ayes: Mayor Altman, Councilors Williams, Ammons, Esther, Norrie, Burns, and Hawkins Nays: None Item 7a RESOLUTION NO. 56-2004 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WICHITA FALLS, TEXAS, REJECTING BIDS FOR THE PURCHASE OF 1250 GALLONS OF PERM ETHRIN-BASED ADULTICIDE MOSQUITO SPRAY (BIOMIST); FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT THE MEETING AT WHICH THIS RESOLUTION WAS PASSED WAS OPEN TO THE PUBLIC AS REQUIRED BY LAW Moved by Councilor Norrie that Resolution No. 56-2004 be passed. Motion seconded by Councilor Williams and carried by the following vote. Ayes: Mayor Altman, Councilors Williams, Ammons, Esther, Norrie, Burns, and Hawkins Nays: None Item 7b RESOLUTION NO. 57-2004 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WICHITA FALLS, TEXAS, AUTHORIZING THE PURCHASE OF 1250 GALLONS OF ANVIL 2 + 2 ADULTICIDE MOSQUITO SPRAY IN THE AMOUNT OF $44,687.50 FOR THE HEALTH DISTRICT'S VECTOR CONTROL PROGRAM; FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT THE MEETING AT WHICH THIS RESOLUTION WAS PASSED WAS OPEN TO THE PUBLIC AS REQUIRED BY LAW Moved by Councilor Hawkins that Resolution No. 57-2004 be passed. Motion seconded by Councilor Esther and carried by the following vote. Ayes: Mayor Altman, Councilors Williams, Ammons, Esther, Norrie, Burns, and Hawkins Nays: None Item 7c RESOLUTION NO. 58-2004 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WICHITA FALLS, TEXAS, TO AWARD BID AND CONTRACT FOR THE SCOTLAND SANITARY SEWER PROJECT PHASE III CWF 04-550-07; FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT THE MEETING AT WHICH THIS RESOLUTION WAS PASSED WAS OPEN TO THE PUBLIC AS REQUIRED BY LAW Moved by Councilor Hawkins that Resolution No. 58-2004 be passed. Motion seconded by Councilor Esther and carried by the following vote. Ayes: Mayor Altman, Councilors Williams, Ammons, Esther, Norrie, Burns, and Hawkins Nays: None 329 Item 7d RESOLUTION NO. 59-2004 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE SALE OF A 1,721 SQUARE FOOT IRREGULAR SHAPED PARCEL OF LAND LOCATED BEHIND LOTS 12, 13, AND 14, BLOCK 4, SHEPHERDS GLEN, WICHITA FALLS, WICHITA COUNTY, TEXAS; FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT THE MEETING AT WHICH THIS RESOLUTION WAS PASSED WAS OPEN TO THE PUBLIC AS REQUIRED BY LAW Moved by Councilor Hawkins that Resolution No. 59-2004 be passed. Motion seconded by Councilor Ammons and carried by the following vote. Ayes: Mayor Altman, Councilors Williams, Ammons, Esther, Norrie, Burns, and Hawkins Nays: None Item 7e RESOLUTION NO. 60-2004 RESOLUTION TO SUPPORT THE AWARD OF LOW INCOME HOUSING TAX CREDITS TO THE PROPOSED GREEN BRIAR APARTMENT COMPLEX IN WICHITA FALLS, TEXAS AT AIRPORT DRIVE AND BURKBURNETT ROAD; FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT THE MEETING AT WHICH THIS RESOLUTION WAS PASSED WAS OPEN TO THE PUBLIC AS REQUIRED BY LAW Moved by Councilor Esther that Resolution No. 60-2004 be passed. Motion seconded by Councilor Ammons and carried by the following vote. Ayes: Mayor Altman, Councilors Williams, Ammons, Esther, Norrie, Burns, and Hawkins Nays: None Item 7f RESOLUTION NO. 61-2004 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WICHITA FALLS, TEXAS, AUTHORIZING AWARD OF BID TO NORTH TEXAS DEMOLITION IN THE AMOUNT OF $3,449.00; DIRT WORKS IN THE AMOUNT OF $20,340.00 AND MOTE, INC. IN THE AMOUNT OF $24,540.00; FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT THE MEETING AT WHICH THIS RESOLUTION WAS PASSED WAS OPEN TO THE PUBLIC AS REQUIRED BY LAW. Moved by Councilor Ammons that Resolution No. 61-2004 be passed. Motion seconded by Councilor Williams and carried by the following vote. Ayes: Mayor Altman, Councilors Williams, Ammons, Esther, Norrie, Burns, and Hawkins Nays: None 330 Item 7q RESOLUTION NO. 62-2004 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WICHITA FALLS, TEXAS, AUTHORIZING AWARD OF BID TO LONE OAK LANDSCAPE IN THE AMOUNT OF $41,853.00; FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT THE MEETING AT WHICH THIS RESOLUTION WAS PASSED WAS OPEN TO THE PUBLIC AS REQUIRED BY LAW Moved by Councilor Ammons that Resolution No. 62-2004 be passed. Motion seconded by Councilor Esther and carried by the following vote. Ayes: Mayor Altman, Councilors Williams, Ammons, Esther, Norrie, Burns, and Hawkins Nays: None Item 7h RESOLUTION NO. 63-2004 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WICHITA FALLS, TEXAS, CONFIRMING A POLICY OF OUTSOURCING POLICE TRAINING OF NEW RECRUITS TO THE WICHITA FALLS POLICE DEPARTMENT TO VERNON COLLEGE; FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT THE MEETING AT WHICH THIS RESOLUTION WAS PASSED WAS OPEN TO THE PUBLIC AS REQUIRED BY LAW Moved by Councilor Williams that Resolution No. 63-2004 be passed. Motion seconded by Councilor Esther. George Ohmstede, K-Mart Drive, addressed some issues so that the Council would have all the facts. He addressed the Police Academy training versus Vernon Regional Junior College training. Some concerns that he mentioned were attracting the best possible qualified candidates, training the officers properly and paying them while in training with budgeted funds, preventing law suits by providing hands on training and observation, and officer safety. Councilor Williams referred to the Police Department training that took 5 months and 1 week, and Officer Ohmstede's statement about the opportunity they have during that time to discover any problems that exist. She asked if the criteria for making those determinations was something that could be uniformly applied to everybody that goes through that so that it is not applied on a whim. In other words you use the same sort of checks and balances for everybody when you are determining if they are having some problems. It is not based on the fact that you don't like an applicant's attitude. Officer Ohmstede replied that the same criteria is used for everybody and it is not based on the applicant's attitude. What we are talking about is what is going to help an officer do his job, such as command presence, handling force issues. Everything is uniformly applied. Councilor Williams asked if that was done initially or at the point that you get them for the second phase, which would be the two months. It sounds like you are saying that even within the 5 months and 1 week you are going through this training. Officer Ohmstede replied that it was an on- going process. We see them everyday and the way it is now we currently have a lateral academy to see what they need. We have 8 weeks to put them in that situation and make a very quick determination of whether they could handle that or not. There is not going to be very much time to identify those problems and go on; that is going to happen in the Field Training Officer Program when they are out there with the citizens rather than with us, which in my opinion could end up in law suits. Mayor stated that they still have to satisfactorily perform during that Field Training Officer Program. He also noted that the same basic classroom materials are used and tested on, therefore, officers all over the State could obtain that classroom teaching anywhere. Officer Ohmstede agreed, however, stated that that is classroom teaching, and we go beyond that and provide hands on training in order that the trainees understand the practical applications. We can spend a little more time to address problem areas. 331 Item 7h continued Councilor Hawkins asked if they had any objections to having someone who attended a Vernon Academy to be on our Police Force. Officer Ohmstede replied that they do not. Councilor Hawkins commented that we are laterally hiring persons from the Sheriff's Department that graduated from Vernon. Officer Ohmstede concurred. He said that his concern was that they were not going to be able to fill the number of vacancies that they are going to have coming up in this manner. Vernon has an academy that is six months long and it takes us 11 months to get someone out on the street. Councilor Williams said that based on what Councilor Hawkins just said that is what we are doing. They are trained at Vernon and then we get them for the mini academy to teach them on the finer points that the Police Department wants done. Office Ohmstede agreed, but noted that in six months they only got two. Councilor Williams stated that that has nothing to do with the academy, it has more to do with the two aspects of the training. She asked what brings on only getting two officers in six months? Officer Ohmstede replied that we are not getting quality candidates. Councilor Williams asked if they are a bonafide officer and leave a previous employment in good standing, why couldn't they just go through the mini academy and become police officers? Officer Ohmstede said that they can, we have that in place and that is what we are doing. Councilor Williams stated that other than that period of time when you really need to get them to make sure they are doing the things you want done and that they understand being a police officer in Wichita Falls, some baton use, mace use, some pepper spray use, and even stun gun use, those things that have nothing to do with the academic training, explain to me how that is not going to happen if Vernon does the academic portion and you do all of those other things. Officer Ohmstede replied that it is the concepts not the academic training; you can read a book and learn how to do something, but actually putting that into practice is a little more difficult. Councilor Williams asked if it couldn't be done in the two months? Officer Ohmstede replied that they did not know, that is what they are currently doing, and that is why he does not understand the reason for this resolution to say let's ship it out there before giving us a chance to find out if it is going to work or not. Councilor Williams commented that one class cannot determine if it will work or not; we need to give it a chance. Mayor stated that the reason this resolution was before Council today was because there seems to be a lot of concerns as to whether we are going to try it or not, but we are going to try it, for a reasonable period of time if Council adopts this resolution, and at some point and time Council can pass a resolution changing this. Officer Ohmstede expressed concern that once something is passed it is that much harder to un-pass it. Councilor Ammons informed that Lubbock uses both types of training. Chief Coughlin provided Council with handouts. He said he wanted Council to be sure that they understood what is happening. He was frustrated that information was not being put out accurately and that was his main concern. He explained the training and hours involved, noting that they are not over-training their police officers. We know what will and will not work in our community. We are shrinking our applicant pool because of what is being offered with VRJC training. This process has not saved the City money; it has cost the City more. He explained the academy timeframe and costs. He is not aware of any other city that does it the way we do. The only thing the law requires is that the Police Department, not the Civil Service Director, handle recruiting and everything to do with the process. Chief expressed concern that applicants were receiving incorrect information as to the salary and time involved in their training. Another concern was that VRJC instructors were not showing up to teach. Also, there was concern that some of the other students were inebriated when attending class. Chief stated that they are doing everything they possibly can to see that this program works. It was noted that this resolution was to clarify that we are outsourcing police training. It is a clear statement of what we are doing. Glen Barham, Copperas Cove, expressed concern regarding micromanagement. 332 Item 7h continued George Ohmstede III, 3001 Kemp, expressed concern about the safety of the officers and the need for the best possible trained officers. Lynn Ann Holladay, Piccadilly Street, expressed concern about the safety of her family and police officers, and micromanagement of Police Department. She spoke against outsourcing the police training. Frances Lennox, 4616 El Capitan Drive, expressed concern about the safety of our City, the allegations regarding VRJC instructors and students, and the need to allow the Police Chief to do his job. J. W. Martin, 1626 Christine, has nothing against VRJC but felt our Police Department was a par-military organization that is exposed to more discipline and correction than any other department of the City. He believes that without hands-on training we would miss cohesiveness and quality training. He felt that the rifle and fire range training should be used for the SWAT Team. Carey Venable, Bullington Street, expressed concern for police officer safety because of the minimum standard training currently in place. He also expressed concern about the micromanagement of the Police Department. He is not against this resolution or VRJC training but felt that they needed the Police Academy along with the VRJC training. Mayor asked Fire Chief Lindsey to give his opinion on the results of a similar direction with the Fire Department on training. Fire Chief Lindsey stated that he, as well as the training officer, were opposed to it but in our particular instance it is working and staff is satisfied with current training. City Council recessed at 3:20 p.m. and reconvened at 3:35 p.m. George Ohmstede informed that the Fire Academy goes to a day academy and they are paid and trained by their people and no one else. Charles Star, Box 432, Wichita Falls, spoke in support of the Police Chief and his Department and the quality of the Police Department and the quality of life they maintain in this City. Sidney Gray, 4612 Mistletoe, retired military, said he always depended on his experts to guide him in making the right decisions. There is a lot of experience in this Police Department that can guide us to correct training. They know what is the best route to go and we need to listen to them. Ron Piper, Cedar Avenue, asked Council to do a little research on what Chief Coughlin and other officers mentioned today about hands-on training. Mayor stated that we had not had enough time to work at this situation to see if it is going to work. City Manager asked that we give this training a chance and give him any ideas. If it is not working we will identify, adjust, and change it. Motion carried by the following vote. Ayes: Mayor Altman, Councilors Williams, Esther, and Burns Nays: Councilors Ammons, Norrie, and Hawkins Item 8a Councilor Ammons asked how much water the water park was going to use. Mr. Scott Taylor replied that it will be between 1.5 and 1.9 million gallons and they are recycling. Councilor Ammons referred to the ten-day notice on roll out carts. Her trash is picked up on Monday and if she puts her roll out cart on the following week on Wednesday night, her cart would 333 Item 8a continued appear to be out for ten days and she would be ticketed. Mr. Dave Clark informed that it is not a matter of ten days later; it is a matter of Code checking in between or complaints from neighbors that the cart never gets pulled in. Councilor Norrie felt that the Police Department issue was a huge communication problem. I am resolute and confident that it will be resolved. Councilor Esther suggested the following solution to the communication issue. You need to get your key staff together and identify the problems and come up with solutions and then fine-tune those efforts. A creation of awareness now exists and we are going to get something positive done in order to get cohesiveness. We must work collectively to council City staff and work collectively to make sure we use the tools of the future. Councilor Hawkins felt that some good had resulted from today's discussion. Police Officers can go away believing that if the present trend continues there will be a change made to insure that we do get police officers, qualified people, to do the job. Management will take a hard look at that and if change is necessary, going back to our police academy, we will not hesitate to do it. Councilor Hawkins asked staff to check the collection pond where North View Drive intersects with Missile Road. Motorcycles and 4-wheelers are still using that pond to ride on and are wearing down the grass. Councilor Hawkins also mentioned that there were private signs on the dam off 1-44 exiting on Missile Road. He asked if this belongs to the City. Mr. Taylor stated that it is not City property; it is a dedicated drainage easement. City Attorney stated that the question would be if it were the property owner's signs or somebody else's; the other question would be if it impacts drainage issues and if so, it should not be allowed. City Manager will look into this. Councilor Williams referred to the Police Department issue. She hopes that those things that are going to be beneficial to the situation that do not have anything to do with the quality of training but are secondary issues that create problems for the smoothness of the training, can be done as quickly as possible. I think that is going to fall within the range that Jim Berzina, Jan Stricklin and Ken Coughlin come to some agreement on, and she hopes they can get together and quickly do something about it. Looking at the Chief's list, some of these things could be taken care of by putting them in writing and not leaving the interpretation up to somebody else. Councilor Williams mentioned that she had received complaints about the need for maintenance on the trees downtown. Property owners near them were supposed to maintain them. She asked staff to look into this. Councilor Williams mentioned that Mr. Darron Leiker is looking at some lighting situations she had brought to his attention. Councilor Williams asked the City Attorney to check into the accuracy of the statement made by Mr. Gary Higgins regarding washing cars. City Attorney informed that he had checked on Texas Commission Environmental Quality regulations and was told that there were no regulations relating to Mr. Higgins statement, and could find no source of that requirement. He wrote to Mr. Higgins but has not received a response. Mayor expressed appreciation to those who had appeared before Council today. Everyone comported themselves in a quiet, courteous manner. He thanked Council for their patience because it had been a long day. I look forward to going on from this point and creating a better city for the citizens of Wichita Falls Councilor Ammons asked about striping Professional Drive. Mr. Leiker said he would check and let her know. Item 8b City Manager informed that he will meet with Mrs. Stricklin and Chief Coughlin and will make some sort of initial report to Council regarding the police training issue. 334 Item 8c City Council went into Executive Session at 4:29 p.m. as authorized by Section 551.074 of the Texas Government Code, City Council reconvened at 5:30 p. m. Mayor announced that no votes were taken in Executive Session. Item 9 Several persons who spoke under Item 7h signed up to speak but were not present at this time. City Council adjourned at 5:31 p. M. PASSED AND APPROVED this 1 day of , 2004. _0 m WILLIAM K. ALTMAN MAYOR ATTEST: Lydia Torres-Ozuna City Clerk NOTICE OF MEETING Regular Meeting Of The Mayor And City Council Of The City Of Wichita Falls, Texas To Be Held In The City Council Chambers Of The Memorial Auditorium, 1300 Seventh Street, On Tuesday, April 20, 2004, Beginning At 8:30 a.m. City Council: Mayor William K. Altman - Councilors Arthur Bea Williams, Linda Ammons, James Esther, Michael Norrie, Johnny Burns, and Harold Hawkins. 1 . Call to Order. 2. Invocation: Reverend Mary Cantrell Shepherd of Hope Church 3. Presentations: 4. Approval of Minutes. CONSENT AGENDA 5. Receive Minutes: a. Civil Service Commission — February 26, 2004 REGULAR AGENDA 6. Ordinances: a. Ordinance Amending In Its Entirety Chapter 14, Animals, Of The Wichita Falls Code Of Ordinances. (City Council Bill #94A/94B) b. Ordinance Amending Chapter 106, Article X, Code of Ordinances, "Grease Interceptors, Installation And Disposal Of Waste". (City Council Bill #95) City Council Agenda Tuesday, April 20, 2004 Page 2 c. Ordinance Amending Ordinance 33-2003 At Subsection 5.01 , Entitled Rights-Of-Way Fee, To Update The Monthly Fee For Access Line Rates. (City Council Bill #96) d. Ordinance Amending Section 90-64 Of The Code Of Ordinances To Expand The Hours Of Curbside Placement Of City Collectors. (City Council Bill #97) 7. Resolutions: a. Resolution To Reject Bids For The Purchase Of 1250 Gallons Of Permethrin-Based Adulticide Mosquito Spray (Biomist). (City Council Bill #98) b. Resolution Authorizing The Purchase Of 1250 Gallons Of Anvil 2+2 Ulv Adulticide Mosquito Spray In The Amount Of $44,687.50 For The Health District's Vector Control Program. (City Council Bill #99) c. Resolution To Award Bid And Contract For The Scotland Sanitary Sewer Improvement Project Phase III CWF 04-550- 07. (City Council Bill #100) d. Resolution Authorizing The Sale Of A 1 ,7621 Square Foot Irregular Shaped Parcel Of Land Located Behind Lots 12, 13, And 14, Block 4, Shepherds Glen, Wichita Falls, Wichita County, Texas. (City Council Bill #101) e. Resolution To Support The Award Of Low Income Housing Tax Credits To The Proposed Green Briar Village Apartment Complex In Wichita Falls, Texas At Airport Drive And Burkburnett Road. (City Council Bill #102) f. Resolution Authorizing Award Of Bid To Dirt Works, Mote, Inc and North Texas Demolition For Demolition Of Hazardous Structures. (City Council Bill #103) g. Resolution Authorizing Award Of Bid To Lone Oak Landscape For Seedbed Preparation And Planting Of 100 Acre Tract Business Park. (City Council Bill #104) h. Resolution Confirming A Policy Of Outsourcing Police Training Of New Recruits To The Wichita Falls Police Department To Vernon College. (City Council Bill #105) 8. Other Council Matters: City Council Agenda Tuesday, April 20, 2004 Page 3 a. Discussion Of Items Of Concern To Members Of The City Council. b. Staff/Council Discussion. c. Executive Session: (1) Deliberate The Evaluation Of The City Council Appointed Officials As Authorized By Section 551 .074 Of The Texas Government Code. END OF TELEVISED SEGMENT 9. Comments From The Public To Members Of The City Council Concerning Items That Are Not On The City Council Agenda. RESUME TELEVISED SEGMENT 10. Adjourn. Wheelchair or handicapped accessibility to the meeting is possible by using the handicapped parking spaces and ramp located off the east parking lot on the Sixth Street entrance. Spanish language interpreters, deaf interpreters, Braille copies or any other special needs will be provided to any person requesting a special service with at least 24 hours notice. Please call the City Clerk's Office at 761-7409. CERTIFICATION I certify that the above notice of meeting was posted on the bulletin board at Memorial Auditorium, Wichita Falls, Texas on the day of 20 at o'clock (a.m.)(p.m.). City Clerk