Loading...
Min 06/15/2004 362 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Wichita Falls, Texas Memorial Auditorium Building June 15, 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 Arthur Bea Williams - Councilors Linda Ammons - James Esther, Jr - Charles Elmore - James Berzina - City Manager Bill Sullivan - City Attorney Lydia Torres-Ozuna - City Clerk Ray Gonzalez - Absent Michael Norrie - Absent Mayor called the meeting to order. Item 2 Reverend James Zug, Highland Heights Christian Church, gave the invocation. Item 3 Mr. George Casper introduced Mr. Fernandez, a representative of Ringling Brothers - Barnum Bailey Circus. Mr. Fernandez invited everyone to attend the Ringling Brothers - Barnum Bailey Circus. He mentioned that this was the 134th Edition of the Barnum Bailey Circus and they had not been here in 55 years. He provided detailed information about the circus and the ticket costs. Mayor proclaimed the week of June 14-19, 2004 as "Maskat Shrine Oil Bowl Week in Wichita Falls" and encouraged everyone to support the children of North Texas and Oklahoma by attending all these activities. Potentate Bill Baumgartner and Shriner Mack Terry accepted the proclamation and provided information about the 67`h Oil Bowl football game, the All Star basketball game, the Hall of Fame banquet, and the parade. He informed that half of the proceeds stay in Wichita Falls and the other half go to Oklahoma Children's Medical Society. Mayor, assisted by Councilor Williams, recognized graduates of City employees and presented them with a small gift and certificate. Mayor informed that Councilor Gonzalez was of town and Councilor Norrie has an injury, which prevented him from being at today's meeting. Item 4 The Minutes were approved as distributed. 363 Items 5a-5b City Manager gave a briefing on the items listed under the Consent Agenda. Moved by Councilor Esther that the Consent Agenda be approved. Motion seconded by Councilor Williams and carried by the following vote. Ayes: Mayor Altman, Councilors Williams, Ammons, Esther, and Elmore Nays: None Items 5a-5b Minutes of the following board and commission meetings were received. a. Library Advisory Board —April 27, 2004 b. Wichita Falls Traffic Safety Commission — May 5, 2004 Mayor took Item 7c out of order and considered it at this time. Item 7c ORDINANCE NO. 47-2004 ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WICHITA FALLS, TEXAS, GRANTING MIDWESTERN STATE UNIVERSITY A WAIVER FROM THE WATER RESTRICTIONS CONTAINED IN SECTION 106-186 OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES, PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE; FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT THE MEETING AT WHICH THIS ORDINANCE WAS PASSED WAS OPEN TO THE PUBLIC AS REQUIRED BY LAW Moved by Councilor Esther that Ordinance No. 47-2004 be passed. Motion seconded by Councilor Ammons. Howard Ferrell, Midwestern State University, spoke in favor of this ordinance and noted that the need was similar to when the Dallas Cowboys were here. The Final Four NCAA Soccer Finals will be held here in December and we will water only those fields in preparation for that event. Motion carried by the following vote. Ayes: Mayor Altman, Councilors Williams, Ammons, Esther, and Elmore Nays: None Item 6a A public hearing was held on the City of Wichita Falls Public Housing Assistance (PHA) Plan. Mayor declared the public hearing open. Mr. Matt Benoit informed that this is an annual procedure associated with operating a Section 8 Housing Program. The Section 8 Housing Program is a provision of rental subsidy for people to rent open market apartments with a federal subsidy and the City administers that program. It is largely based on their income. This involves passing a 5-Year Assistance Plan, which covers the broad aspects of the program whether or not we intend to receive vouchers, what the maximum payment is for each bedroom size. We also have an Administrative Plan that covers the day to day operations of the project from the time people apply to the program until they transition off the program and everything in between. Mr. Benoit stated that at this time staff is not recommending any modifications to either of the documents for several reasons. HUD, who gives us the money to operate this program, has made us aware that they do intend to make modifications to the program specifically some budget reductions. As these budget reductions become clearer to us we may need to bring back both of these documents for review and approval once we understand what those cuts will be. 364 Item 6a continued For example, if we need to make modifications in the payment standards for each unit, which is a function of the PHA Plan and HUD, it allows us to reduce some of the administrative guidelines that would be a function of the Administrative Plan. At this point we are not proposing any changes because we are expecting some to come in the next quarter. The second reason is that our efforts have been focused on attracting landlords who would be willing to rent to Section 8 participants. That was not entirely a wasted effort but we did find that people who are willing to rent to Section 8 are doing so and those that are not are making a conscious decision. Other options discussed with staff were two modifications that could be made that would allow our current owners to be happy and comfortable with the program. One is to deal with those people who do not pay their portion of the rent and second is to deal with those people who cause damages or unsanitary conditions to a unit. We worked through some processes to begin implementing that and have done so. At this time we are trying to find out how big a problem this is and how many people are going to be affected. Right now in the Administrative Plan there is specific authority to remove people from the program for these offenses, but what is not in the Plan is specific termination or a suspension period. If participants are removed from the program they can reapply and sit through the waiting list of up to 8 months and get back on the program. Right now we are trying to find out what impact this would have if we actually enforce this rigorously then we can come back to Council with some specific recommendation in terms of a long-term suspension period or final termination from the program. Right now what we are doing is removing them but we cannot stop them from reapplying. Mayor noted that what Mr. Benoit was talking about was the administrative aspects of the program, which would be the public hearing that we have following this one. Right now what we are simply talking about is the Public Housing Assistance Program and we are in the fifth year of a five-year plan that we have to annually review and next year we have to review the whole plan and consider adopting a revised plan. At this time staff is not recommending any changes in the previously adopted 5 year plan just an annual renewal of that plan. Councilor Ammons asked for the number of vouchers and Mr. Benoit informed that we are currently authorized 989 and we currently have about 950—960 people on the program. Part of the reason we like to stay at that number is because we have about 30 vouchers outstanding for people looking to rent units. Councilor Ammons asked if there was a shortage of housing for Section 8. Mr. Benoit informed that since the last time he came before Council on this issue, the Woodview Apartments that opened up have been a tremendous help to us, as well as the Ridgeway Station Apartments. There is also speculation about the Casa Manana Apartments. Since the last time the situation is a lot better and there are things that could make it even better. We do have a shortage of single- family units. For the most part, in the apartment area there are plenty to select from but there are not as many houses to rent under Section 8. Mr. Dave Clark reported that occupancy is up. In the past the Public Housing Authority had a problem with their occupancy rates and that has been improved through their efforts to lease that up. They have also converted some units to other uses. He added that we do have a pending application for Greenbriar Apartments, which should hear in July if they obtained low income tax credit funding and we also have some hope about the Casa Manana Apartments. Councilor Esther commented that there are apartments that we do not have too much problem with because these are units owned by people who have an obligation to make sure that the areas around those units are well taken care of. But when you get to residential areas we have a problem because of the fact that we are moving people into an area where people are trying to take care of their homes. We need to have something to be included in the program that requires the landowner or person renting to put equipment there so people using this program can help keep the neighborhood clean. He added that people are putting their barbeque pits in the front yards and that takes away from the intent of the program. We are trying to encourage people to be good homeowners but this along with not cutting their grass gives the Section 8 Housing Program a bad name. Mr. Benoit stated that they would look into that. Councilor Williams asked how many people would be affected by the concerns about rental share and damage? Mr. Benoit replied that at this point we have 14 participants total -4 for non- payment of rent and 4 for damages or unsanitary conditions and 4 for both. Councilor Williams felt that there were already things in place that would require them to mow their lawns and not put their barbeque pits, sofas, etc., on the front porches and yards. I don' t think it is a matter of not having 365 Item 6a continued the mechanics to do it; it is a matter of the landlord enforcing it. They do not loose their right to evict based on violating certain terms and conditions of the rental. It is just a matter of enforcing it. They need to recognize that just because you are a landlord that rents to Section 8 tenants does not mean that you completely forget that houses are interspersed in regular neighborhoods. Mr. Benoit concurred. Under the Section 8 Program when you have a voucher and rent a unit it is not a contract between the City and tenant; it is all between the tenant and the landlord. The only contract that exists is between the City and the landlord that basically states that they will pay a part of the renter's rent. The housing quality standards speaks largely to inside stuff with the exception of paint on the exterior and lead base issues, there is nothing with respect to the mowed grass. That is something that we may well have to look at. Councilor Williams stated that public housing, which is not managed by the City, can take Section 8 clients and in some instances they have. We need to stop calling them projects and just call them houses. Councilor Ammons mentioned that in their lease contracts it does say that the tenant is responsible for the yard or the landlord is responsible. You cannot make people do what they do not want, but you can evict them once you have that in the lease. People are going to be people. Councilors Williams said that it does not have anything to do with being on Section 8. She reiterated that the landlord has to enforce the lease. Mayor stated that the vast majority of people on Section 8 are good responsible citizens; they just happen to be in a low-income status. If you take the figures 14 out of 950, either that rate is lower than what I think you will find in the private market as far as difficulty or else we are not enforcing it. I would expect that the quality of people in Section 8 overall is just as good as in private rental. Councilor Esther commented that in any given situation you have responsible people and they are going to make sure that they have the necessary contractual arrangements with the residents to make sure that the property owner maintains the property. You do have some negligent people but there are some bad land owners, absentee landlords. You have some bad property managers and these are people who are managing other people's property and they do not go out and check. Mayor agreed but said it was irrespective of whether they are Section 8 or not; it is a small percentage of irresponsible owners. Councilor Esther said that his concern was that the Program is designed to assist people in how to become, eventually, land and property owners and in doing so the program is supposed to provide a situation of encouragement. Moving people in and not really helping them and allowing some absentee landlord or some bad property manager to give those people a bad name is wrong. If possible, we should encourage the property management firms who have property and are being negligent to address their contractual agreements. Councilor Williams stated that we can encourage them but we cannot legislate it. I think that statements like Councilor Esther has made today serve as notice to them that at least we want to look at it, and the only way we can do it is through Code Enforcement. Councilor Esther said that this is an election year and every time we get to this type of situation next thing you know I hear a lot of negativism and I want to make sure that those who are taking part in these programs know they have an obligation to assist us and make sure that this program works. We have more people sitting back and when something goes wrong they look at the tenants rather than at the people who own the property. This is happening all over the country. If you have something and want to lease it, help those people to make sure that they will comply with the laws that are in the books. Mayor called for additional public comments. There being none, Mayor declared the public hearing closed. Item 6a 1 RESOLUTION NO. 78-2004 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WICHITA FALLS, TEXAS, APPROVING AND ADOPTING THE WICHITA FALLS PUBLIC HOUSING ASSISTANCE (PHA) PLAN; FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT THE MEETING AT WHICH THIS RESOLUTION WAS PASSED WAS OPEN TO THE PUBLIC AS REQUIRED BY LAW 366 Item 6a(1) continued Moved by Councilor Esther that Resolution No. 78-2004 be passed. Motion seconded by Councilor Williams and carried by the following vote. Ayes: Mayor Altman, Councilors Williams, Ammons, Esther, and Elmore Nays: None Item 6b A public hearing was held on the City of Wichita Falls Section 8 Rental Assistance Program Administrative Plan. Mayor declared the public hearing open. Mr. Matt Benoit informed that the Administrative Plan doctrines for the staff how the program is administered, from the time people apply to the practices of putting them on the waiting list to briefing them about the their responsibilities when they go out to get their voucher to when they get their voucher. In addition, the process we have to go through once they find a unit to rent and their obligations while on the program and transitioning off the program. He went over the budget cuts that he mentioned under Item 6a relating to the Public Housing Administrative Plan. The Department of Housing and Urban Development allows reducing some of our administrative burdens such as not having to do inspections on units every year and not having to certify a person's income every year. Those kinds of modifications would have to be made to the Administrative Plan if we chose to adopt them. With respect to our initiatives to help people understand the need to pay their part of the rent and to keep the units clean, sanitary, and free of damages, we are simply looking at it. It would be an amendment to the Administrative Plan should we decide to recommend to you a suspension or full termination from the Program. However, at this time all we are doing is removing them from the Program but they can get back on the waiting list if they want. Councilor Williams wanted to know if we could make sure that the full of the contract is honored and adhered to by addressing those landlords who are participating in the Section 8 Plan but have taken a blind eye to the tenant adhering to the contract. If that happens the landlord is breaching their contract with the City. She added that we would have to have the proper documentation. Mr. Benoit stated that we would have to look at that. He informed that one half of the people on the program are paying half the rent and we are paying the other-half. If the landlord decides they want to do that they are essentially renting the unit for 50%. We will look into that to see if that is a way we can capture that. He agreed that it would have to be documented. Mayor called for additional public comments. There being none, Mayor declared the public hearing closed. Item 6b 1 RESOLUTION NO. 79 -2004 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WICHITA FALLS, TEXAS, APPROVING AND ADOPTING THE SECTION 8 RENTAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM ADMINISTRATIVE PLAN AND THE FAMILY SELF-SUFFICIENCY ACTION PLAN; 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. 79 -2004 be passed. Motion seconded by Councilor Ammons and carried by the following vote. Ayes: Mayor Altman, Councilors Williams, Ammons, Esther, and Elmore Nays: None 367 Item 6c A public hearing was held on hazardous structures. Mayor declared the public hearing open. Mr. Dave Clark informed that property owners are notified of structures in need of major renovations or demolition. They are given an opportunity to respond at this public hearing to the notice, but we hope that they would come in before getting to this point. If you do determine that demolition is in order then the owners have thirty days to remove the structure or after that period of time we may be in a position to award a contract to complete that removal ourselves. After that a lien is placed on the property. Mayor called for comments regarding these properties Joan Riddles, Riddles Realty, 205 East Central Freeway, addressed 1408 34th Street. She informed that the property is in the hands of Centex Home Equity. We received the notice on June 6, 2004 and we have boarded and secured the property and are cleaning it up. Centex is asking for a delay until they can get to Wichita Falls to work on this problem. They are currently taking bids for everything. The building was secured over the weekend. Mayor asked how long they would need to present a plan and obtain a building permit. Mrs. Riddles replied that approximately 60-90 days. Councilor Elmore asked for the estimated renovation cost. Mrs. Riddles replied that they are in the process of obtaining that and it would probably be cheaper to demolish, but until they find that out they do not know. We have had an offer of$2000 to demolish and remove everything. We are just going through the proper channels to get the permission to get the money. Mayor stated that historically it has been the position of the Council to try to preserve property and not have property torn down commensurate with our responsibility not to allow hazardous structures because of the attendant risks that exist in the community. We have had people come before us in the past and we can at least give you an opportunity as long as the property is properly secured to either tear down the building or obtain a building permit. Mayor asked Mr. Clark if he had any objection to this. Mr. Clark mentioned the Restoration Permit, which is a special permit that maintains the conditions of demolition action and provides the owner an opportunity to rehab the structure, but if they do not do that within a timeframe and make continued progress, the City maintains the right to demolish. I would strongly recommend that if you allow additional time to obtain a building permit or time to demolish that this property be maintained on the demolition list and allow for a Restoration Permit. Reza Vafaiyan, 701 N. Eastside, Pertex Interprises, Inc., spoke on the properties at 1801 Britain and 1803 Britain. He said he was in jail and had not been notified that this was coming before the City Council. He said he had begun work on the property in April. He added that vandalism has occurred. Rita Miller, Code Enforcement, informed that notices were sent to the property owner and published in the newspaper and posted on the property. Mr. Vafaiyan stated that he wanted to bring those structures up to minimum housing standards, which would cost them about $10,000 with him doing the labor. He asked for a two- month extension to rehab the units. He said that he had pictures that were being developed that show the improvements on the four units and he would need two months to rehab. Mayor told Mr. Vafaiyan that he lacks credibility. The water was disconnected six years ago on one unit and two years ago on the other unit. You have a long history in the Municipal Courts of this City and a reputation in this City of being a "slum landlord". You have had years to fix these houses and have made no efforts to do so and I have no empathy for you whatsoever. I would say that if you can be here by 10:30 a.m. and bring us pictures or movies that show substantial improvements to these properties I would be willing to wait. Absent that I would not be willing to give you the benefit of any doubt. Andy Lee, 1410 Grant Street, spoke on the property at 1307 Buchanan. I am representing the Parkey Family, previous owners of 1307 Buchanan, which is known as Buchanan Terrace. Neal Parkey and his wife formerly were the owners of the property and are on the specific deed right now. They have been working on this for some time. They went through bankruptcy proceedings in the courts and the property was stayed as they had already obtained a demolition permit. Subsequently, action was held up regarding bankruptcy proceedings. The property has a court appointed deed going into the loss on Buchanan, Inc. It has not being finalized yet because the trustee of the Northern Bankruptcy Court passed away. Subsequently, we cannot obtain the 368 Item 6c continued deed on the property and the financing. Presently the owners have submitted plans, which are under plan review now, from Echols and Associates, Architects out of Dallas. Neal Parkey has had some discussion with Bobby Teague and Building Inspection. There are some outstanding issues regarding plumbing riser plans that are being worked on with a local contractor. There is a general overall statement on the plan regarding the project that is to come forward and there will be other details that will come in regarding plan review on specifics within the project. This is a building in Floral Heights Addition and the intent of the Corporation is to convert the structure into five residential condominium lofts with ownership. They encountered difficulties during their demolition process because they uncovered other things that had to be done such as convert it to plans, mechanical and structural engineer reviews, etc. Typically a plan review takes approximately ten days to two weeks. It is a work in progress because requirements come up as they review the plans. He gave an overview of the plan design. We are at the stage of finalizing the deed and getting the financing in place. Final clean up of the property is in progress. Mayor asked if sixty days was long enough to obtain a building permit and Mr. Lee replied that it was. Mayor stated that the sixty days would be contingent upon obtaining a building permit and payment of back taxes. Mr. Lee agreed noting that it is a component of the financing. Councilor Elmore asked how long it would take to secure ownership of the property. Mr. Lee stated that they hope to obtain a deed within thirty days, and hope to move forward with the plan review. Mr. Clark gave a history on the building. The roof blew off one year ago and there are only slats there; there is no roof structure there. It was cleaned up but we have great concern because it has no roof structure and no windows. Some time back demolition work began on the interior. You can see the conditions from the photos; there is a lot of trash on the ground. He added that four notices to clean up were sent out, all of which were ignored. We hear monthly from the adjacent property owners and people who live in the neighborhood who would really like to have something accomplished with this structure. It has set in this state for about ten years now. We suggest they be issued a Restoration Permit so that we are assured that this is accomplished. Mayor asked if the building was secured. Mrs. Miller informed that they have a chain link fence around the property but there is a space between the building and the chain link fence that people can get in and out of. Councilor Esther asked Mr. Lee if he was going to actually be involved in this project. Mr. Lee stated that he would be involved up to the building permit stage and the plan review. Mayor asked if they could get that property secured. Mr. Lee replied that they could and would do that right away. Councilor Williams expressed concern about buildings that are open and become shells. With the winds we have they are much more dangerous than closed-in structures because the wind tends to blow in them and create movement. I would want them to get that secured in terms of entry and something needs to be done about closing it to reduce the wind force. Mr. Lee stated that probably the first plan would be to restore the roof. Mr. Clark suggested a Restoration Permit. They would need to move ahead with it and something needs to happen fairly quickly. I would hope that they are moving along with some kind of construction within the next couple of months. Mayor said that we need to stay consistent where possible with the 60-day time frame when we can on these properties. Legal needs to check out the bankruptcy and see how it comes into play to make sure that the automatic stay is not still in effect because it may affect our ability to do anything. City Attorney stated that they litigated that particular issue just last year and basically the law says that because it is a health and safety concern that type of automatic stay does not guarantee that we cannot proceed forward. What we have done and what we recommend to do is have the bankruptcy court lift that stay before we proceed with any demolition. We would need to check that on our end. Mr. Lee stated that he would get the necessary information to the City Attorney on this matter. Maria Villegas, 1200 34'h Street, interpreted for Mr. Guilfredo Ayala, 1224 34'h Street. He is the owner of 1613 - 141h Street and he requested additional time to put the windows in and the roof. Mayor asked if the house was rehabitable. Bobby Teague, Building Inspection, informed that it is burned pretty badly and it would cost more to rehab than to demolish. 369 Item 6c continued Councilor Williams stated that there is a lot more that is needed for that, and asked if Mr. Ayala had financial withal? Mrs. Villegas replied that he has enough to put in the roof and the windows but he cannot afford to remodel it completely. Councilor Williams asked what the cost would be. Mr. Teague replied that it would cost tens of thousands of dollars. It would take quite a bit of work to get it rehabbed. Councilor Williams stated that it might be better to rebuild. Is he in a position to rebuild? Mrs. Villegas stated that only a part of the structure is in real bad condition. Mrs. Miller informed that it is not secure. On December 10 he was issued a permit to remodel. Mrs. Villegas said that Mr. Ayala was asking for a six-month extension. Mayor stated that if we issue additional time it would not be six months. Mrs. Villegas stated that he purchased this after the fire. He wants to rent or sell it. Councilor Williams asked if he was financially able to rehab it? Mrs. Villegas replied that at the present he could only rehab the outside. Bruce Ramoser, 414 Ohio, spoke in favor of demolishing the structure at 408 Ohio. He has had a lot of problems with hobos/transients, trash, waste, etc. out there and requests that this structure be demolished and cleaned up. He owns 410 Ohio, which is adjacent to 408 Ohio. Mayor asked why it had taken this long to get this property before Council, noting that he said this tongue in cheek because the viewers need to know that our staff cannot get around to every property in town. If you have dilapidated or hazardous or dangerous property near you, you need to let Code Enforcement know about those structures so that they become aware of them. In this instance this is an absolute disgrace. Water was disconnected 16 years ago and seems like it has taken quite a long time to get it to Council because someone did not see it. Mr. Clark informed that, particularly in commercial structures, the venturing into commercial structures and the potential problems there are all over the City. It comes down to prioritization and community reaction. When folks like this really complained about this I think we paid much stronger attention and initiated this action. There are others and we could go pretty far with demolition depending on the capabilities to do that. We have to prioritize particularly in commercial as well as in residential as to the things that need the most attention immediately City Manager commented that most if not all of the money we use is to demolish and this money comes from CDBG funds. We have known for some time that to venture into the commercial area is going to be a very expensive undertaking but it is one that because of the progress we have made in the residential areas that I think we are more willing to entertain now financially. If you want there to be a stronger commitment than that we would be willing to do that as well. Mrs. Miller added that with commercial property it would be a higher cost because of the asbestos requirements. LeRoy Cleaver, 1612 Red Fox, owner of 503 Bonner. He has been working on this property to repair it. He informed that it was inspected and the inspector thought it was worthy of being repaired and I believe that as well. He asked Council to give him a few days to prove that the property is worthy of repairing. He asked for a week or two to repair the structure. Mr. Teague informed that the structure has quite a bit of fire damage and it was painted over with white paint so it is difficult to see the extent of the fire damage. Mayor asked Mr. Cleaver what repairs he had done. Mr. Cleaver replied that he has repaired the right side. I did not know I would have a chance to repair it so I let it sit. I think that people who do not know much about repairing that the inspectors should be aware of that and inform the people about their options. Mayor asked if he intended to do the work himself or was he going to hire someone to do it? Mr. Cleaver replied that he was going to hire someone to do it. Mr. Teague informed that plumbing and electrical repairs are needed, which would require contractors to do that work. Mr. Teague will talk with Mr. Cleaver about the requirements and explain the cost involved in repairing this structure. Mayor called for additional public comments. There being none, Mayor declared the public hearing closed. City Council recessed at 10:20 a.m. and reconvened at 10:55 a.m. 370 Mayor reopened the Public Hearing on hazardous structures. Reza Vafaiyan, owner of 1801 and 1803 Britain, showed the pictures he mentioned earlier of the work he had done on his properties. Mayor asked him if Pertex, Inc. had the money to rehab these structures. Mr. Vafaiyan replied that he had no problem in obtaining the money to rehab these structures. He asked for ninety days to raise $10,000 to bring the structures up to minimum standards. Mr. Teague noted that plumbing alone for these units would probably take $10,000 to repair. Mayor called for additional public comments. There being none, Mayor declared the public hearing closed. Item 6c 1 ORDINANCE NO. 44-2004 ORDINANCE CLOSING PUBLIC HEARING AND FINDING CERTAIN BUILDINGS AND/OR STRUCTURES TO BE DANGEROUS; COMMANDING PROPERTY OWNERS TO DEMOLISH SAID BUILDINGS AND/OR STRUCTURES WITHIN THIRTY (30) DAYS OF THE DATE OF THIS ORDINANCE AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY; FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT THE MEETING AT WHICH THIS ORDINANCE WAS PASSED WAS OPEN TO THE PUBLIC AS REQUIRED BY LAW Moved by Councilor Williams that Ordinance No. 44-2004 be passed. Motion seconded by Councilor Ammons. Mr. Dave Clark explained the difference between a Restoration Permit and a Building Permit. Under a Restoration Permit with demolition action remaining in place the property owner would have the right to repair the property based on a time frame and paying serous attention to that time frame. For example, Council may allow them 30 days to obtain the Restoration Permit to provide the information, the plans, and whatever is needed to do that. After which another 30 days could be imposed to indicate the commencement of substantial work towards construction. At the end a Certificate of Occupancy would need to be obtained. The difference between this and a building permit is if those steps are not completed within that time frame, demolition can occur and that would mean every step along the way. The steps being the following: 1) obtain permit, 2) a measure of substantial progress, 3) completion within timeframe allotted by Council. Mayor suggested that these properties be discussed and if Council wants to require a Restoration Permit that with regard to each property that the terms for each property be set out and have the City Attorney write the wording for an amendment as set out by Council. Mr. Clark suggested the following. Thirty (30) days to obtain a permit, and work should begin immediately. Thirty (30) days after the permit is obtained there should be a measurement of substantial progress. Ninety (90) days or 120 days for the completion date. One exception to the completion date is the Buchanan Terrace if Council chooses do to do something there because it is a larger scale project and it may require some additional time. City Attorney commented in regards to the bankruptcy issue relating to the Buchanan Terrace property. He advised Council to proceed on as to what they want to see done as though it were not in bankruptcy. If it is indeed in bankruptcy we will have to go back to the Bankruptcy Court and have the stay lifted before we could proceed anyway. Moved by Mayor Altman to amend the proposed ordinance as follows: The following properties will remain on the demolition list. Property#1 —408 Ohio; Property#3 — 1613 14' Street; Property#4— 1310 31 n Street Property#6 —713 Fort Worth; Property#7 —400 Eastside, Property#9 — 1801 Britain, Property#10—1803 Britain; 371 Item 6c(1) continued and that: Property#2 - 1307 Buchanan: Be allowed an extension with the provision that the property owner must obtain a Restoration Permit with scheduling of sixty (60) days to obtain the Restoration Permit, and six (6) months to get substantial completion of necessary repairs, and must obtain a Certificate of Occupancy within one (1) year. This property will be moved to Section 1 of the Ordinance under Repairs for inclusion in Exhibit A. Property#5 — 1408 341h Street and Property#8— 503 Bonner: Both were allowed an extension with the provision that property owners obtain a Restoration Permit with a time schedule to include thirty (30) days to obtain a Restoration Permit, sixty (60) days for substantial completion of repairs, and 120 days to obtain a Certificate of Occupancy. These properties will be moved to Section 1 of this Ordinance under Repairs for inclusion in Exhibit A. Motion seconded by Councilor Ammons. City Attorney clarified that those days were not cumulative; each of those 30 days, 60 days, 120 days, and one-year period begin effective today. Motion carried by the following vote. Ayes: Mayor Altman, Councilors Williams, Ammons, Esther, and Elmore Nays: None Item 7a ORDINANCE NO. 45-2004 ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WICHITA FALLS, TEXAS; MAKING AN APPROPRIATION TO THE SPECIAL REVENUE FUND FOR GRANT FUNDING RECEIVED FROM THE TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A CONTRACT ACCEPTING THE SAME, FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT THE MEETING AT WHICH THIS ORDINANCE WAS PASSED WAS OPEN TO THE PUBLIC AS REQUIRED BY LAW Moved by Councilor Williams that Ordinance No. 45-2004 be passed. Motion seconded by Councilor Esther and carried by the following vote. Ayes: Mayor Altman, Councilors Williams, Ammons, Esther, and Elmore Nays: None Item 7b ORDINANCE NO. 46-2004 ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WICHITA FALLS, TEXAS, MAKING AN APPROPRIATION FROM THE TAX INCREMENT FINANCING (TIF) FUND IN THE AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED FORTY THOUSAND DOLLARS ($40,000) TO NORTH TEXAS VISIONS OF WICHITA FALLS (VISIONS) FOR STAFFING AND OPERATIONAL PURPOSES AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A CONTRACT; 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. 46-2004 be passed. Motion seconded by Councilor Esther. 372 Item 7b continued Vicky Crump, 1417 Cambridge, Director Downtown Wichita Falls, spoke in favor of this ordinance. Motion carried by the following vote. Ayes: Mayor Altman, Councilors Williams, Ammons, Esther, and Elmore Nays: None Item 7d ORDINANCE NO. 48-2004 ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WICHITA FALLS, TEXAS, AMENDING IN ITS ENTIRETY, SECTIONS 6700 THROUGH 6799, KNOWN AS THE SIGN REGULATIONS, ZONING ORDINANCE, APPENDIX B OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES; FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT THE MEETING AT WHICH THIS ORDINANCE WAS PASSED WAS OPEN TO THE PUBLIC AS REQUIRED BY LAW Moved by Councilor Elmore that Ordinance No. 48-2004 be passed. Motion seconded by Councilor Ammons and carried by the following vote. Ayes: Mayor Altman, Councilors Williams, Ammons, Esther, and Elmore Nays: None Item 7e ORDINANCE NO. 49-2004 ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WICHITA FALLS, TEXAS, MAKING AN APPROPRIATION TO THE SPECIAL REVENUE FUND FOR GRANT REVENUE FROM THE FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION FOR PHASE II AIRFIELD IMPROVEMENTS AT KICKAPOO DOWNTOWN AIRPARK AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT ACCEPTING SAME; FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT THE MEETING AT WHICH THIS ORDINANCE WAS PASSED WAS OPEN TO THE PUBLIC AS REQUIRED BY LAW Councilor Esther stepped out of Council Chambers. Moved by Councilor Ammons that Ordinance No. 49-2004 be passed. Motion seconded by Councilor Williams and carried by the following vote. Ayes: Mayor Altman, Councilors Williams, Ammons, and Elmore Nays: None Item 7f A proposed ordinance was presented amending Chapter 26, Article VIII of the Code of Ordinances regarding wrecker businesses. Moved by Councilor Williams that proposed ordinance be passed. Motion seconded by Councilor Ammons. Mayor asked that the change in the rate structure be explained. 373 Item 7f continued John Vasquez, Technical Services Coordinator, explained that the larger SUVs are above the weight limit for what is considered a light duty tow. There is a medium duty pull and it has been defined as a vehicle that is greater than 10,000 pounds GVW (gross vehicle weight) but less than 16,000 pounds GVW. With that addition of the medium pull, we are proposing a $90 rate for the medium pull. Mayor stated that the current ordinance provides for a charge of$75 as a base charge for light duty wreckers. What change is being made in that regard? Mr. Vasquez replied that there was a conflict in the previous ordinance; light duty had a $75 flat rate and heavy duty had a $120 per hour rate. That was an oversight when we drafted the original ordinance. It should have read a per hour rate instead of a flat rate because it is the time for the truck. Although we have extra time incorporated into the ordinance the $75 is for the truck and not for the person. It should have been a per hour rate rather than a flat rate. Mayor commented that the Council passed it as a flat rate and now we are changing it to an hourly rate. You were not here when the ordinance was originally passed and the Council may have intended to make it a flat rate as opposed to an hourly charge. Mr. Vasquez informed that he was here when the ordinance was passed. Approximately a year ago it was presented as a flat rate and it was an oversight; it should have been an hourly rate. If Council wants to keep it as a flat rate that is council's decision. Mayor asked him to explain how the hourly rate would work. Mr. Vasquez explained that a wrecker might be there longer than an hour but they may not need additional people; however the wrecker would be tied up for over an hour. The first hour is included in that rate. Councilor Esther returned to Council Chambers Mayor asked what the change was. Mr. Vasquez replied that it was an oversight in the original ordinance, which should have read a flat rate instead of the $75 for the truck not the person. Mayor commented that we are now changing what Council intended to be a flat rate. Mr. Vasquez stated that it was an oversight on their part and it should have been an hourly rate. Above that first hour then you would start charging for additional time for that wrecker to be on the scene while the scene is being cleared and getting ready to remove the vehicle. Mayor stated that the way the Ordinance is currently worded is $75 /hour. That means that if they are there an additional 20 minutes they cannot charge another $75 because it does not say "a part thereof'. Is that the intent? Mr. Vasquez replied that the intent is that it be prorated after the first hour. Mayor asked who determines that hour or portion thereof when they are involved? In their billing does the wrecker company determine how long they are out there? Mr. Vasquez replied that a signature of the officer on the scene determines it. Mayor asked in regards to what they are able to bill for, what happens from the time they leave the scene until they put the vehicle somewhere. Mr. Vasquez replied that in those instances most likely it is going to come to our yard if it is an impound because that is when we are being charged for it. Mayor asked about a consent tow and Mr. Vasquez informed that we are not involved in consent tows. Mayor asked who determines how much time it takes. Mr. Vasquez clarified that a police officer is not going to be involved in a consent tow. Jody Wade, office located at 201 East Scott, informed that the City does not control consent tows. The price is between the customer and the wrecker service. The officer on the scene signs off on non-consent tows. Non-consent tows go to the City impound yard and are signed off by either a police officer or by the city official, either central services personnel or Mr. Vasquez' personnel. Mayor pointed out that definitions on page 5 define 'wrecker company' as a person but "person" is not defined as including a partnership or corporation; it is only defined as a person. Mr. Vasquez said that they could amend that. Mayor suggested that they ask for the names of shareholders and that they list lien holders as well. Mayor referred to the new Section (f) and stated that the way this is worded the permit would be null and void if only one partner changes or if a corporation stockholder changes. He asked if that was the intent. Mr. Vasquez replied that that was not the intent. Mayor referred to Page 8 and asked if the intent was that the maximum fine under any circumstances was $500? He noted that many of our ordinances provide that each day shall be a separate offence. City Attorney stated that that should be added. 374 Item 7f continued Mayor referred to Page 16 paragraph (h) towing fees studies and asked if this was something new and if it was voluntary. Mr. Vasquez replied that it was new and became effective July 2003, which was after the Council had adopted the last Ordinance. Once a city regulates non- consent tows they must have in their ordinance a procedure whereby a towing fee study at the request of a wrecker company in the City may request a study be done on the current charges. He added that this is mandatory. Mayor asked if it was mandatory that the City Manager have the authority to increase the fees up to 25%. Mr. Vasquez replied that it was not; that is something that can be handled by the City Manager instead of bringing it back to Council. Mayor stated that the ordinance was not clear on how much the city manager could increase the rate from the original ordinance or from the current rate. Mr. Vasquez said they could clean that up. He asked if Council would prefer to leave it to the sole discretion of the council or the city manager? Mayor thought that it should come back to the council and that a public hearing be held when rates are raised. Councilor Williams stated that when you are talking about a rate study it only presupposes that the only thing that you can do is a rate increase. City Attorney noted that that section could be deleted; State law does not mandate it. Consensus was to delete paragraph 4. Kevin Callahan, General Manager Collins Motor Company, 1200 Scott, stated that the only rate increases allowed in the past 25 years have been through council and they have been arbitrarily raised and lowered. Apparently this was a problem statewide and legislature appropriated legislation to have mandatory rate studies done. The rate studies are not something that are set in stone. It varies in what is asked for as far as cost increases. These have to be proven before a rate study can be given; it is not an arbitrary thing. The intent of the councilor on the committee with them and those on the committee was to leave any rate increase to the city manager's discretion as to the percentage. I think that a return to the council every time for a percentage increase of 2% or 3% is a great amount of work to get a city ordinance done to give us that 2% or 3% increase. And historically we have never been able to get that. The ideal is to keep us in a living wage situation that we can live by. Under the current law any person not just a wrecker owner or driver can facilitate a rate study. I think that it would be simpler to have one person look at it to determine whether it is justified or not and keep a 5% or 10% structure in there to allow for cost of living. Councilor Williams asked if somebody could ask for a decrease. Mr. Callahan replied that that was quite possible. City Manager commented that the part that might be more disturbing is the 25%. It does not have to be 25% it could be less. Mayor noted that the question is whether we want the rates determined by the city manager or the council. Mr. Callahan stated that he would urge Council to consider the history of their businesses in getting rate increases from the City the past 25 years. It has consistently stayed in the $50-$75 range and I have not seen an abuse. We would appreciate having a set way of having a cost of living increase without having to change an ordinance because it takes 3-5 years to get it done through an ordinance. Maybe we could have something in this ordinance that would streamline the rate structure that would make it a little simpler. Councilor Williams would like to see some sort of governor put on there 'that within a certain period of time' and we are talking about more than one year. Not necessarily have it go up 50% in one year but conceivably say that if someone did it closer to 25% one year and next year it couldn't be that. Mr. Callahan did not think the 25% was an unreasonable amount. Mayor suggested tabling this, and said that he would appoint a Council subcommittee to review this. Mayor referred to page 18 (b) 'City Impound' and noted citizen complaints that when a vehicle is released they have to pay $15. Mayor asked why we don't make it the day after it is released? Mr. Vasquez informed that that was set by statute. Mayor asked about inventory forms and Mr. Vasquez informed that we have two—one at the scene and one that goes to the Police Department impound yard, and we do another one and compare them before the wrecker driver leaves. 375 Item 7f continued Mayor referred to Page 20 (8) Felony or misdemeanor of moral turpitude. Councilor Williams suggested including weapon offenses. Mayor said he had a concern on the hourly rate vs. flat rate but that is controlled. Mr. Vasquez referred to Page 27 (Sec. 27-779) Fuel Surcharge and informed that Jody Wade checked with other wrecker owners and came up with that fee. City Attorney stated that there would have to be a discussion about price benchmarking to determine how this was going to be handled. Jody Wade said that wrecker owners had discussed this and since the last rate increase fuel has gone up 50-60 cents. Moved by Councilor Williams that proposed ordinance be tabled. Motion seconded by Councilor Elmore and carried by the following vote. Ayes: Mayor Altman, Councilors Williams, Ammons, Esther, and Elmore Nays: None Mayor stated that he would appoint a subcommittee and would attempt to put this back on the next council agenda. Item 8a RESOLUTION NO. 80-2004 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WICHITA FALLS, TEXAS, AWARDING BIDS FOR TWO GRAZING LEASES AT LAKE KICKAPOO FOR A FIVE-YEAR PERIOD BEGINNING JUNE 1, 2004 AND ENDING MAY 31, 2009; 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. 80-2004 be passed. Motion seconded by Councilor Williams and carried by the following vote. Ayes: Mayor Altman, Councilors Williams, Ammons, Esther, and Elmore Nays: None Item 8b RESOLUTION NO. 81-2004 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AN INCREASE OF THE ANNUAL LEASE AMOUNT ON ONE (1) LEASE LOT AT LAKE KICKAPOO TO $1235.00 FOR A PERIOD OF FIVE YEARS BEGINNING ON OCTOBER 1, 2004 THROUGH SEPTEMBER 30, 2009; 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. 81-2004 be passed. Motion seconded by Councilor Williams and carried by the following vote. Ayes: Mayor Altman, Councilors Williams, Ammons, Esther, and Elmore Nays: None 376 Item 8c RESOLUTION NO. 82-2004 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGERTO ENTER INTO A FIVE (5) YEAR LEASE AGREEMENT FOR A PARCEL OF LAND BEING BETWEEN LOT 1A AND LOT 33, BLOCK C, LAKE KICKAPOO NORTH, ALSO KNOWN AS WILSON POINT, CONSISTING OF APPROXIMATELY 21,815.98 SQUARE FEET (0.50 ACRES); 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. 82-2004 be passed. Motion seconded by Councilor Williams and carried by the following vote. Ayes: Mayor Altman, Councilors Williams, Ammons, Esther, and Elmore Nays: None Item 8d RESOLUTION NO. 83-2004 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WICHITA FALLS, TEXAS, AWARDING BID AND CONTRACT FOR PHASE II AIRFIELD IMPROVEMENTS AT KICKAPOO DOWNTOWN AIRPARK; 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. 83-2004 be passed. Motion seconded by Councilor Esther and carried by the following vote. Ayes: Mayor Altman, Councilors Williams, Ammons, Esther, and Elmore Nays: None Item Be RESOLUTION NO. 84-2004 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WICHITA FALLS, TEXAS, AMENDING THE FISCAL YEAR 2003-2004 BUDGET OF THE 4B SALES TAX BOARD FOR THE PURCHASE OF A FIRE LADDER TRUCK; FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT THE MEETING AT WHICH THIS RESOLUTION WAS PASSED WAS OPEN TO THE PUBLIC AS REQUIRED BY LAW Moved by Councilor Elmore that Resolution No. 84-2004 be passed. Motion seconded by Councilor Williams and carried by the following vote. Ayes: Mayor Altman, Councilors Williams, Ammons, Esther, and Elmore Nays: None Item 8f A proposed resolution was presented awarding a bid to Computer Land of Wichita Falls in the amount of$40,320 for the purchase of forty-five computer workstations. Moved by Councilor Williams that proposed resolution be passed. Motion seconded by Councilor Ammons. i 377 Item 8f continued Mayor wanted to hear from Information Systems on why we were buying XP instead of XP Pro. No representative from the Information Systems Department was present at this time. Moved by Councilor Williams to table resolution until after lunch. Motion seconded by Councilor Esther and carried by the following vote. Ayes: Mayor Altman, Councilors Williams, Ammons, Esther, and Elmore Nays: None Item 8 RESOLUTION NO. 86-2004 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WICHITA FALLS, TEXAS, GRANTING EXTENDED RESERVATION PRIVILEGE TO THE SPECIAL OLYMPICS OF WICHITA FALLS FOR PRACTICE USE OF THE TWO SOFTBALL FIELDS IN TESCO PARK FROM 9:00 A.M. TILL NOON JUNE 19T" THROUGH OCTOBER 9T" 2004; FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT THE MEETING AT WHICH THIS RESOLUTION WAS PASSED WAS OPEN TO THE PUBLIC AS REQUIRED BY LAW Moved by Councilor Elmore that Resolution No. 86-2004 be passed. Motion seconded by Councilor Williams. Jack Murphy informed that the use was for Saturdays. City Attorney advised that the Section 1 be clarified to reflect that it is for Saturdays. Moved by Councilor Williams to amend proposed resolution by adding the words "on Saturdays" after"TESCO Park" in Section 1. Section 1 would read as follows: "Extended reservation privilege is hereby granted to the Special Olympics of Wichita Falls for use of the two softball fields in TESCO Park on Saturdays from 9:00 a.m. till noon June 19th through October 91h 2004. Motion seconded by Councilor Esther and carried by the following vote. Ayes: Mayor Altman, Councilors Williams, Ammons, Esther, and Elmore Nays: None Main motion as amended carried by the following vote. Ayes: Mayor Altman, Councilors Williams, Ammons, Esther, and Elmore Nays: None At this time the City Council went into Executive Session. City Council will consider Items 9a and 9b after Executive Session. Item 10 City Council went into Executive Session at 12:53 p.m. as authorized by Section 551.074 of the Texas Government Code. City Council reconvened at 12:56 p.m. Mayor announced that no votes were taken during Executive Session. Councilor Ammons was not in attendance following the Executive Session. 378 City Council recessed for lunch at 12:57 p.m. and reconvened at 1:35 p.m. Moved by Councilor Williams to remove Item 8f from the table. Motion seconded by Councilor Elmore and carried by the following vote. Ayes: Mayor Altman, Councilors Williams, Esther, and Elmore Nays: None Item 8f RESOLUTION NO. 85-2004 RESOLUTION AWARDING A BID TO COMPUTER LAND OF WICHITA FALLS IN THE AMOUNT OF $40,320 FOR THE PURCHASE OF FORTY-FIVE COMPUTER WORKSTATIONS; FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT THE MEETING AT WHICH THIS RESOLUTION WAS PASSED WAS OPEN TO THE PUBLIC AS REQUIRED BY LAW Mr. Dockery explained why they chose XP versus XP Pro. He informed that all of these computers include XP Pro but we failed to put that on the tabulation sheet but this price does include that. Secondly, the Mayor had asked why we had chosen Dell Optiplex and the process is that we ask for certain specifications and they respond to us with the business machines that they feel meet those configurations. When we ask for certain machines they come back to us with a response as to what their suggested machine is, and Dell Computer Corporation proposed to us the Optiplex. I have asked Ray Sanders to explain the differences and why the Dell Optiplex would be proposed as opposed to the Dell Dimension. Mr. Sanders informed that the Dell Optiplex is a computer that is built to stay more standard for a longer period of time. The Dell Dimension has a lot more power features built into it and it has multi media technology that we do not have any direct need for. The Dell Dimension is approximately $55 more per unit. The Dell Optiplex is a good long-term solution for our purposes. Mayor asked about the cost to go to four-year warranties as opposed to three-year warranties. We went to a 3-year warranty but I do not have that information with me. Mr. Dockery said that the amount of money we are spending to maintain these computers between the three and four-year window time frame is virtually nil and we did not think it would be financially advantageous to us to add another year warranty. Mr. Sanders commented that they try to get as much as they can from the machines they buy. Currently we are at a five-six year live span for those machines. He noted that these computers do have monitors. Councilor Esther asked about a graphics feature for Public Information. Mr. Sanders informed that they have graphic capabilities. Councilor Elmore asked how these compared to Hewlett Packard as far as capabilities. Mr. Sanders said that Dell bid more memory than the others and that is the only major difference. Motion carried by the following vote. Ayes: Mayor Altman, Councilors Williams, Esther, and Elmore Nays: None Item 11 was taken up at this time. Item 11 Moved by Councilor Esther to appoint Councilor Williams as Mayor Pro Tern Motion seconded by Councilor Elmore and carried by the following vote. Ayes: Mayor Altman, Councilors Williams, Esther, and Elmore 379 Item 11 continued Nays: None Item 9a Councilor Esther felt that the neighborhood meeting held by Councilor Elmore was very interesting. We want people to be aware of what they want the Council to do. We have three neighborhood centers available in certain areas of our City for these type meetings. You can contact the Center directors for any questions. Councilor Esther thanked Mr. Darron Leiker for addressing the lights that were previously requested. Councilor Elmore thanked the WFISD and City View I.S.D. for the tremendous support on the town hall meeting. We had some staff there and it was a good turn out. Next week we will be at City View High School. He expressed appreciation for the staffs support. Councilor Williams said there is a problem occurring with lots that we own when we start our spring-clean up. We cut the grass but whatever else is there is left. One in particular is the lot at 819 Elwood. The trees on the property line are becoming a problem and are obstructing traffic. We need to look at those lots that we are taking care of. At least once a year we should pick those things up, whether they are tree limbs, furniture, etc. that are on City lots and take them to the landfill. She asked staff to check into a situation where a garbage truck broke a large tree limb and did not pick it up; instead he threw it into an overgrown lot. Councilor Williams commented that Mr. Leiker had been doing a good job on helping them get traffic signals and lights. Mayor mentioned the Oil Bowl events and encouraged everyone to attend all or as many of these events as possible. They are very important to our community and to the Shriners because, they help burn victims and children. Also, there is an opportunity to see the Ringling Brothers - Barnum and Bailey Circus. Mayor mentioned that the Shrine circus would be here in November however it is different from the Ringling Brothers circus. He encouraged everyone to take advantage of opportunities this week. Mayor commented that he was very pleased that Councilor Williams has been chosen as Mayor Pro-Tem. The past two years she has attended meetings whenever asked. I am looking forward to working with her. She will make an excellent representative for the City. Councilor Williams thanked the Council for appointing her as Mayor Pro Tem. I will continue to do those things I have done in the past to represent the City, the Council, and the citizens. I appreciate your vote of confidence. Item 9b City Manager informed that he had appointed Mr. Ruben Warren as Director of Health. Mr. Warren has been with the Department for 34 years and has worked hand in hand for seven years with past Director Barbara Clements. Mr. Warren expressed appreciation for the opportunity to serve the City and the citizens of Wichita Falls. I consider it a challenge and a privilege. City Manager notified that there would be compost give away and Jeff Hogan will provide the details. Mr. Hogan informed that the compost give away would be this Saturday from 9 a.m. to 3 p.m. at the landfill on Wiley Road. The next give away will be September 17. For questions call Sanitation at 761-7977. Jack Murphy informed that the Parks Department is holding outdoor concerts at Lucy Park every Tuesday night at 7:30 and he invited everyone to attend. This Tuesday the entertainment will be Voda and the Crossroads. There will be 15 additional concerts with 380 Item 9b continued the last one to be held on September 28. Item 12 Mayor announced that no one signed up to speak under Public Comments. City Council adjourned at 2:00 p.m. PASSED AND APPROVED this day of , 2004. WILLIAM K. ALTMAN MAYOR ATTEST: (�)A,'(A )(�A Lydia Torres-Ozuna City Clerk 1 1 1 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,June 15,2004, Beginning At 8:30 a.m. City Council: Mayor William K. Altman - Councilors Arthur Bea Williams, Linda Ammons, James Esther, Michael Norrie, Ray Gonzalez, and Charles Elmore. 1. Call to Order. 2. Invocation: Rev.James Zug Highland Heights Christian Church 3. Presentations: 4. Approval of Minutes. CONSENT AGENDA 5. Receive Minutes: a. Library Advisory Board Minutes—April 27,2004 b. The Wichita Falls Traffic Safety Commission—May 5,2004 REGULAR AGENDA 6. Public Hearings/Resolutions, Ordinance a. Public Hearing On The City of Wichita Falls Public Housing Assistance (PHA) Plan. (1) Resolution Approving And Adopting The Wichita Falls Public Housing Assistance(PHA) Plan. (City Council Bill#130) b. Public Hearing On The City of Wichita Falls Section 8 Rental Assistance Program Administrative Plan. (1) Resolution Approving And Adopting The Section 8 Rental Assistance Program Administrative Plan And The Family Self Sufficiency Action Plan. (City Council Bill#131) c. Public Hearing On Hazardous Structures. (1)An Ordinance Declaring Certain Structures As Dangerous, In Violation Of Ordinance And Commanding Certain Action With Regard To Same. (City Council Bill#132) City Council Agenda Tuesday,June 15, 2004 Page 2 d. Public Hearing On Hazardous Structures. (1)An Ordinance Declaring Certain Structures As Dangerous, In Violation Of Ordinance And Commanding Certain Action With Regard To Same. (City Council Bill#132) 7. Ordinances: a. Ordinance Making An Appropriation To The Special Revenue Fund For Additional Grant Revenue Received From The Texas Department Of Health And Authorizing The City Manager To Execute Contract Accepting Same. (City Council Bill#133) b. Ordinance Making An Appropriation From The Tax Increment Financing (TIF) Fund In The Amount Not To Exceed$40,000 To The North Texas Visions Of Wichita Falls(Visions) For Staffing And Operational Purposes And Authorizing The City Manager To Execute An Agreement. (City Council Bill#134) c. Ordinance Granting Midwestern State University A Waiver From The Water Restrictions Contained In Section 106-186 Of The Code Of Ordinances. (City Council Bill#135) e. Ordinance Amending Sections 6700 Through 6799, Known As The Sign Regulations,Zoning Ordinance,Appendix B Of The Code Of Ordinances. (City Council Bill#136) f. Ordinance Making An Appropriation To The Special Revenue Fund For Grant Revenue From The Federal Aviation Administration For Phase II Airfield Improvements At Kickapoo Downtown Airpark And Authorizing The City Manager To Execute An Agreement Accepting Same. (City Council Bill#137) g. Ordinance Amending Chapter 26, Article Vill Of The Code Of Ordinances Regarding Wrecker Businesses. (City Council Bill#138) 8. Resolutions: a. Resolution To Award Bids For Grazing Leases At Lake Kickapoo. (City Council Bill#139) b. Resolution Authorizing An Increase Of The Annual Lease Amount On One(1) Lease Lot At Lake Kickapoo To$1,235.00 For A Period Of Five Years Beginning On October 1,2004 Through September 30,2009. (City Council Bill#140) c. Resolution Authorizing The City Manager To Enter Into A Five(5)Year Lease Agreement For A Lot Between Lot 1 A And Lot 33, Block C, Lake Kickapoo North,Also Known As Wilson Point, Consisting Of Approximately 21,815.98 Square Feet(0.50 Acres). (City Council Bill#141) City Council Agenda Tuesday, June 15, 2004 Page 3 d. Resolution Awarding Bid And Contract For Phase II Airfield Improvements At Kickapoo Downtown Airpark. (City Council Bill #142) e. Resolution Amending The Fiscal Year 2003-2004 Budget Of The 4B Sales Tax Board For The Purchase Of A Fire Ladder Truck. (City Council Bill#143) f. Resolution Awarding A Bid To Computer Land Of Wichita Falls In The Amount Of$40,320 For The Purchase Of Forty-Five Computer Workstations. (City Council Bill#144) g. Resolution Granting Extended Reservation Privilege To The Special Olympics Of Wichita Falls For Practice Use Of The Two Softball Fields In TESCO Park From 9:00 A.M. Till Noon On Saturdays June 19th Through October 9th 2004. (City Council Bill#145) 9. Other Council Matters: a. Discussion Of Items Of Concern To Members Of The City Council. b. Staff/Council Discussion. 10. Executive Session: (1)Consider Qualifications Of Possible Appointees To Position Of Mayor Pro Tern As Authorized By Section 551.074 Of The Texas Government Code. 11. Appointment Of Mayor Pro Tern End Of Televised Segment 12. Comments From The Public To Members Of The City Council On Items That Are Not On The City Council Agenda. RESUME TELEVISED SEGMENT 13. 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. City Council Agenda Tuesday,June 15, 2004 Page 4 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