Loading...
Min 10/07/1997 1 Wichita Falls, Texas Memorial Auditorium Building October 7, 1997 Items 1 & 2 The City Council of the City of Wichita Falls, Texas met in regular session on the above date in the Council Room of the Memorial Auditorium Building at 8:30 o'clock a.m., with the following members present: Kay Yeager - Mayor I Don Johnston - Councilors Dan Shine - Angus Thompson - Bill Daniel - JW Martin - Harold Hawkins - James Berzina - City Manager Greg Humbach - City Attorney Lydia Torres - City Clerk Mayor Yeager called the meeting to order. Invocation was given by the Reverend Mike Rucker, Bible Baptist Church. Item 3 Melissa Jensen, Parks Department, was honored as Employee of the Month for the month of October. Mayor presented her with a plaque, City pin, transit tickets, dinner tickets, and a check. Mayor Yeager proclaimed the month of October as "National School Bus Safety Month" in Wichita Falls and urged everyone to obey all traffic laws especially those that relate to school buses. Mayor expressed appreciation to the Mr. Ike Gibbs from Laidlaw and to the school bus drivers. Item 4 No one signed up for public comments. Item The Minutes were approved as distributed. Items 6a-8a Councilor Hawkins requested that Item 7c be brought down to the regular agenda. Councilor Johnston requested that item 7d be brought down to the regular agenda. Moved by Councilor Martin that the consent agenda be approved with the exception of Items 7c and 7d. 2 Items 6a-8g cont'd. Motion seconded by Councilor Shine and carried by the following vote. Ayes: Mayor Yeager, Councilors Johnston, Shine, Thompson, Daniel, Martin, and Hawkins Nays: None Item 6a RESOLUTION NO 144-97 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE JOINT FUNDING AGREEMENT WITH US GEOLOGICAL SURVEY FOR OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF STREAM FLOW AND RESERVOIR CONTENT GAUGING STATIONS Item 6b RESOLUTION NO. 145-97 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE CONTRACT WITH WILLIS, GRAVES AND ASSOCIATES, INC. FOR WATER AND SEWER COST-OF-SERVICE AND RATE STUDY Item 6c RESOLUTION NO 146-97 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A CONTRACT WITH WORK SERVICES CORPORATION FOR SERVICES PROVIDED BY VOCATIONALLY HANDICAPPED PERSONS Item 6d I RESOLUTION NO 147-97 A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE CONTRACTS WITH SEVERAL COMMUNITY SERVICE ORGANIZATIONS AND ORGANIZATIONS THAT PROMOTE THE CONVENTION AND TOURISM INDUSTRY; FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT THE MEETING AT WHICH THIS RESOLUTION WAS PASSED WAS OPEN TO THE PUBLIC AS REQUIRED BY LAW Item 6e RESOLUTION NO. 148-97 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO SUBMIT A GRANT APPLICATION TO THE CORPORATION FOR NATIONAL SERVICE FOR THE 1998 MARTIN LUTHER KING DAY PARADE AND PRAYER BREAKFAST Item 7a RESOLUTION NO 149-97 RESOLUTION TO ACCEPT THE HAMILTON PARK TENNIS COURTS PROJECT AND AUTHORIZE FINAL PAYMENT TO DUKE CONSTRUCTION Item 7b RESOLUTION NO. 150-97 RESOLUTION TO ACCEPT THE REHABILITATION OF LIFT STATIONS 3 AND 29 PROJECT AND AUTHORIZE FINAL PAYMENT TO WICHITA CONTRACTORS, INC. 3 Items 8a-8a Minutes of the meeting of the following boards and commissions were received. a. Planning and Zoning Commission, August 13, 1997 b. Board of Electrical Examiners, August 14, 1997 c. Wichita Falls-Wichita County Public Health Board, August 22, 1997 d. 413 Sales Tax Corporation, September 4, 1997 e. Commission on Human Needs, September 15, 1997 f. Library Advisory Board, September 23, 1997 g. Wichita Falls Park Board, September 25, 1997 Item 7c RESOLUTION NO. 151-97 RESOLUTION TO ACCEPT AMENDED FINAL ESTIMATE FOR THE ARIZONA INTERCEPTOR PROJECT AND AUTHORIZE AMENDED FINAL PAYMENT TO ATKINS BROTHERS EQUIPMENT COMPANY, INC. Moved by Councilor Martin that Resolution No. 151-97 be passed. Motion seconded by Councilor Hawkins. Councilor Hawkins wanted to know how the figures could be changed in the contract without a change order. Mr. Bonnett explained that it was a unit price contract and when units change then those unit prices are applied against the units in question and that establishes the actual completed amount. Councilor Hawkins asked if it was an error in the estimate of work to be done. Mr. Bonnett replied that it was all underground and could not be seen and that will either increase or decrease the price, it was not an error. Motion carried by the following vote. Ayes: Mayor Yeager, Councilors Johnston, Shine, Thompson, Daniel, Martin, and Hawkins Nays: None Item 7d RESOLUTION NO. 152-97 RESOLUTION TO ACCEPT THE HEALTH DEPARTMENT REROOF PROJECT AND AUTHORIZE FINAL PAYMENT TO LYDICK-HOOKS ROOFING COMPANY Moved by Councilor Thompson that Resolution No. 152-97 be passed. Motion seconded by Councilor Johnston. Councilor Johnston asked if there were any leaks in the roof. Mr. Bonnett responded that there were a couple of leaks and those were corrected. The Architect recommended that - the project be accepted. The contractor has a bond and will be required to come in and address any additional drips that may occur. It is a one year hard warranty but the roof materials have approximately a 15-20 year guarantee. Motion carried by the following vote. Ayes: Mayor Yeager, Councilors Johnston, Shine, Thompson, Daniel, Martin, and Hawkins Nays: None 4 Item 9a ORDINANCE NO. 96-97 ORDINANCE APPROPRIATING FUNDS RECEIVED FROM THE FEDERAL AVIATION Moved by Councilor Martin that Ordinance No. 96-97 be passed. Motion seconded by Councilor Thompson and carried by the following vote. Ayes: Mayor Yeager, Councilors Johnston, Shine, Thompson, Daniel, Martin, and Hawkins Nays: None Item 9b ORDINANCE NO. 97-97 AN ORDINANCE REZONING THE NORTH PORTION OF LOTS 1-A & 2, BLOCK 28, FOUNTAIN PARK SECTION 18-B, WICHITA FALLS, TEXAS FROM SINGLE FAMILY-1 RESIDENTIAL TO GENERAL COMMERCIAL ZONING; FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT THE MEETING AT WHICH THIS ORDINANCE WAS PASSED WAS OPEN TO THE PUBLIC AS REQUIRED BY LAW Moved by Councilor Daniel that Ordinance No. 97-97 be passed. Motion seconded by Councilor Shine. i Mr. Dave Clark informed that the United Store will be constructing a new building and during that time the area adjacent to them will be used as temporary parking. When the construction is completed the old building will be demolished, and the area used for temporary parking will then be used for part of a drainage water retention area. Councilor Hawkins asked if the area fronting on Fairway has a drainage ditch in the back. Mr. Clark replied that there is a drainage ditch that goes east and west, parallel to Kell, which is a separation between the commercial uses as being proposed here and the residential use. Councilor Hawkins asked if there will be any fencing requirement on the south side of that drainage ditch to insure a buffer zone between the commercial and residential. Mr. Seese stated that fencing will be required and he believes that the requirements in the Zoning Ordinance will be satisfied with the fencing that is already there. Mr. Clark stated that the fencing requirements would be according to the Zoning Ordinance and would be the buffering between two land uses which would be required regardless of the development that would occur along Fairway. The commercial property will be required to have a separation to meet the requirements on its own. They will be required to put a fence in there, but not along Fairway. Melvin Anderson, 4100 Del Rio, lives across the street from this property and would like to see the City do something about the water run off. It has become a real problem every time more concrete is poured out there. The water gets up on his driveway every time there is a big rain. He requested that an engineering study be done before Council votes on it to determine what the water runoff is going to be over there. He and his neighbors have the same problem because the water runoff is not being handled. Mr. Clark stated that Council recently passed a new ordinance that requires zero runoff, in the sense that whatever runoff comes from a property before development must not change after development. Therefore, runoff capacity must be taken care of through detention or whatever other design means. Mr. Bonnett explained that there are two factors. The area that is being built on will have a requirement of zero impact. It will not make the problem any worse but it will not make it any better. Any given year, you have about a 20% chance of the storm channel jumping out of the channel flooding the street and the property. It is a problem which 5 Item 9b cont'd. we are aware of and we know how to fix it. It is a question of waiting for dollars. Mr. Anderson commented that he wanted the City to fix the problem before it gets out of hand. Motion carried by the following vote. Ayes: Mayor Yeager, Councilors Johnston, Shine, Thompson, Daniel, Martin, and Hawkins Nays: None Item 9c ORDINANCE NO. 98-97 AN ORDINANCE WAIVING SECTION 4220(I), OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, GOVERNING THE PLACEMENT OF A CARPORT IN THE FRONT SETBACK AT 4516 ALAMO DR.; FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT THE MEETING AT WHICH THIS ORDINANCE WS PASSED WAS OPEN TO THE PUBLIC AS REQUIRED BY LAW Moved by Councilor Shine that Ordinance No. 98-97 be passed. Motion seconded by Councilor Johnston. Mr. Dave Clark mentioned that Council had considered change of an ordinance that would allow the City Planning Commission the authority to rule in these type cases, and they have expressed a desire to have Council reconsider this change. Motion carried by the following vote. Ayes: Mayor Yeager, Councilors Johnston, Shine, Thompson, Daniel, Martin, and Hawkins Nays: None Mayor asked Council members if they wished to have the request from Planning & Zoning Commission on the next Council agenda. It was a consensus of the Council that Staff prepare a draft ordinance to be discussed at the next Council meeting. Item 9d ORDINANCE NO. 99-97 AN ORDINANCE APPROPRIATING FUNDS APPROVED FROM THE TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY AFFAIRS (TDHCA) FOR THE EMERGENCY SHELTER GRANTS PROGRAM; FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT THE MEETING AT WHICH THIS ORDINANCE WAS PASSED WAS OPEN TO THE PUBLIC AS REQUIRED BY LAW Moved by Councilor Thompson that Ordinance No. 99-97 be passed. Motion seconded by Councilor Hawkins. Councilor Johnston asked if an amount needed to be included in the Ordinance. Mr. Clark replied that the amount which should be included is $82,866. Moved by Councilor Johnston that the amount of $82,866 be included in the ordinance in the appropriate place. Motion seconded by Councilor Thompson and carried by the following vote. Motion on the original ordinance as amended carried by the following vote. 6 Item 9d cont'd. Ayes: Mayor Yeager, Councilors Johnston, Shine, Thompson, Daniel, Martin, and Hawkins Nays: None Item 9e ORDINANCE NO. 100-97 ORDINANCE WAIVING APPENDIX A, SUBDIVISION 9(B)(2)(a) OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES WITH RESPECT TO PLACING CURB AND GUTTER ON THE WEST SIDE OF BARNETT ROAD ADJACENT TO THE EAST LINE OF LOT 1, BRADLEY ADDITION Moved by Councilor Martin that Ordinance No. 100-97 be passed. Motion seconded by Councilor Johnston and carried by the following vote. Ayes: Mayor Yeager, Councilors Johnston, Shine, Thompson, Daniel, Martin, and Hawkins Nays: None Item 9f A proposed ordinance was presented waiving Section 27-30 of the Code of Ordinances with respect to placing sidewalk on the west side of Barnett Road adjacent to the east line of Lot 1, Bradley Addition Moved by Councilor Martin that proposed ordinance be passed. Motion seconded by Councilor Hawkins and failed by the following vote. Ayes: None Nays: Mayor Yeager, Councilors Johnston, Shine, Thompson, Daniel, Martin, and Hawkins Item 9a ORDINANCE NO. 101-97 ORDINANCE WAIVING APPENDIX A, SUBDIVISION SECTION 9(B)(2)(a) OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES WITH RESPECT TO PLACING CURB AND GUTTER ON THE SOUTHEAST SIDE OF STATE HIGHWAY 79 ADJACENT TO THE NORTHWEST LINE OF LOT 1, BLOCK 1, DEFORD ADDITION Moved by Councilor Martin that Ordinance No. 101-97 be passed. Motion seconded by Councilor Thompson and carried by the following vote. 'Y1 Ayes: Mayor Yeager, Councilors Johnston, Shine, Thompson, Daniel, Martin, and Hawkins Nays: None 7 Item 9h ORDINANCE NO. 102-97 ORDINANCE WAIVING APPENDIX A, SUBDIVISION 9(B)(2)(a) OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES WITH RESPECT TO PLACING CURB AND GUTTER ON THE NORTH SIDE OF OPPORTUNITY DRIVE ADJACENT TO THE SOUTH LINE OF WORK SERVICES CORPORATION TRACT Moved by Councilor Thompson that Ordinance No. 102-97 be passed. Motion seconded by Councilor Hawkins. Mr. Bill Parker informed that the County owns the property on either side and leases to Work Services Corporation who plans to build a storage garage which will require platting. The platting requirement will then trigger curb and gutter requirement. There is an existing parking lot on the right side which does not lend itself to being turned into a public street. Because of that the only way that curb and gutter could be put in would be construction of the remainder of the street by the City. Therefore, we recommend waiver approval. Jerry Bettenhausen, Work Services Corporation Executive Director, asked that waiver be approved. Motion carried by the following vote. Ayes: Mayor Yeager, Councilors Johnston, Shine, Thompson, Daniel, Martin, and Hawkins Nays: None Councilor Johnston commented that the street needs to be addressed as to whether this is going to be a street or not; it needs to be resolved rather than left for some future action. We are encroaching on that street and in effect we are saying that it is not going to be a street; we have a parking lot or driveway on it anyway. We need to do something about closing it and discuss with the County what to do about the land. Item 9i A proposed ordinance was presented amending Chapter 31 of the Code of Ordinances which regulates vehicles for hire. Moved by Councilor Martin that proposed ordinance be passed. Motion seconded by Councilor Shine. Mr. Robert Powers explained the proposed changes to this Ordinance and mentioned that the majority of changes are housekeeping issues. He informed that the committee is recommending fee changes to cover administrative fees and to purchase equipment to streamline the process. In addition, age requirement for the special service vehicles has been deleted. Also, a section has been added to the special service vehicles that the special service vehicles franchise can be sub-designated to serve medical-related, rehab, elderly and disabled or just a general special services transportation. This will allow the designation of franchises and what population is being served. Moved by Councilor Martin to amend the Ordinance by increasing the insurance to $100,000 single bodily injury or death, $300,000 multiple bodily injury or death, and $50,000 property damage. Motion seconded by Councilor Johnston. There was a concern that the increase of insurance might be somewhat burdensome in addition to the licensing fee increase. Councilor Daniel suggested that this be tabled to allow franchise holders the opportunity to review what the additional insurance cost would be. Discussion ensued. 8 Item 9i cont'd. Mayor called a point of order on the amendment before the Council which needed to be voted on. Councilor Martin called for the question. Councilor Shine asked that the franchise holders be allowed to speak to the amendment. Councilor Martin withdrew his call for the question. Claudio Ramirez, Jr., 2401 McNiel, Manager All American Cab, mentioned that franchise holders have a single limit policy of $175,000. Councilor Martin felt that it should be $300,000 for a single limit policy minimum. Councilor Martin stated that there would be very little additional cost because the cost is built into the basic. Mr. Ramirez said that they could bring their insurance up to that amount. James Fields, 1440 Tanbark, owner Special Disabled Transport, said he agreed with the insurance increase, but wanted to know how soon it would go into effect. Council informed that the ordinance goes into affect thirty days after it is adopted. Motion on the amendment carried by the following vote. Ayes: Mayor Yeager, Councilors Johnston, Shine, Thompson, Daniel, and Martin, Nays: Councilor Hawkins Councilor Johnston suggested changing the procedure by having the applicant begin at the Police Department instead of the City Clerk's Office. He asked the basis for the fee increase. Mr. Powers stated that initially it will be to purchase new equipment. Councilor Johnston felt the fee was a little stiff to pay for the equipment only. Mr. Powers stated the primary reason is for the equipment and also for administration services. The increase in the fees is because of the time consumed and the increase in the cost to the city. Mayor asked what fees are charged by other cities? Councilor Daniel commented that, historically, charges like these have been increased to cover the costs of administration of whatever permit is issued. Chief Schlieper stated that we were trying to recoup administration costs of the application process and maintaining those applications. The increase is for the entire process ' of purchasing the equipment and for administrative costs. As far as receiving the completed application first at the Police Department, we could do the background check and send them to the City Clerk, however, we can not immediately do this as it will take more work and it could take days to complete the process. Councilor Johnston commented that we were trying to recoup our losses and we want to reduce their cost of having a driver run around to get a permit. Claudio Ramirez, Jr., 2401 McNiel, stated that the chauffeur permit increase would hurt their company because their company pays up front for these persons' permits, and are reimbursed by the applicant. However, there are times that these persons do not come back and the company is out of that money. He suggested a $5 increase instead of $15, and he also agreed to the other proposed increases. James Fields, 1440 Tanbark, stated that he preferred to keep the current procedure of beginning at the City Clerk's Office and then going to the Police Department. Moved by Councilor Shine to increase the chauffeur permit fees from $10 to $15. Motion seconded by Councilor Johnston and carried by the following vote. Ayes: Mayor Yeager, Councilors Johnston, Shine, Thompson, Daniel, Martin, and Hawkins Nays: None Councilor Martin suggested a single limit policy of$300,000. Moved by Councilor Daniel to table adoption of the proposed ordinance until next week to allow franchise holders an opportunity to contact their insurance providers on the suggested increase. Motion seconded by Councilor Hawkins and carried by the following vote. 9 Item 9i cont'd. Ayes: Councilors Johnston, Thompson, Daniel, and Hawkins Nays: Mayor Yeager, Councilors Shine and Martin Item 9j ORDINANCE NO.103-97 ORDINANCE MAKING AN APPROPRIATION OF $7,485 TO THE GENERAL FUND FOR ADDITIONAL GRANT REVENUE RECEIVED FROM THE TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE CONTRACT ACCEPTING SAME Moved by Councilor Thompson that Ordinance No. 103-97 be passed. Motion seconded by Councilor Johnston and carried by the following vote. Ayes: Mayor Yeager, Councilors Johnston, Shine, Thompson, Daniel, Martin, and Hawkins Nays: None Mayor suggested that Item 9k be moved for discussion after Item 9n. Item 91 ORDINANCE NO. 105-97 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WICHITA FALLS, TEXAS, APPROVING FUNDING OUT OF THE 4A SALES TAX REVENUES IN THE AMOUNT OF $400,000 TO BLUE CROSS AND BLUE SHIELD OF TEXAS FOR PHASE 1 OF THE BLUE CROSS AND BLUE SHIELD RELOCATION TO 2215 SOUTHWEST PARKWAY; FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT THE MEETING AT WHICH THIS ORDINANCE WAS ADOPTED WAS OPENED TO THE PUBLIC AS REQUIRED BY LAW Moved by Councilor Martin that Ordinance No. 105-97 be passed. Motion seconded by Councilor Thompson. Mr. John Gavin informed that this was the first successful job creation program as a result of the quarter cent economic development sales tax. Blue Cross is a world class employer, and we recommend that Council approve Committee's recommendation to provide $400,000 incentives to Blue Cross Blue Shield for their facility. This will be the total amount for their request. They will invest over $4 million in the old Food Emporium building and employ a minimum of 200 with expectations to go to 300 employees. This incentive is significantly less than other cities are paying on a per job basis. We expect a minimum two year pay back to the entire city, county, and schools property tax income; in less than four years to the City in property tax sales tax income. Mr. Gavin stated that their communications and negotiations with potential job creations have to be secret because these employers will not deal with us if they run the risk of it becoming public knowledge. The association with BCI has enabled us to deal with prospects outside the public forum, and that is the only way we can achieve them. George Witherspoon, 4429 McGaha, stated that being a businessman he hates to see money spent as an incentive to bring business in. We did not ask for an incentive nor was one offered, I was just proud to be in business in Wichita Falls. Motion carried by the following vote. 10 Item 91 cont'd. Ayes: Mayor Yeager, Councilors Johnston, Shine, Thompson, Daniel, Martin, and Hawkins Nays: None Mayor informed that Item 10a and then Item 9m would be taken up after the recess. City Council recessed at 10 a.m. and reconvened at 10:25 a.m. Mayor announced that she had been requested to move Item 10b up before Items 9m. 9n and 9k. Item 10a RESOLUTION NO. 153-97 A RESOLUTION REVERSING THE APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A LIMITED RESTAURANT AT 2601 HARRISON STREET, WICHITA FALLS, TEXAS, AND REVOKING THE PERMIT; FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT THE MEETING AT WHICH THIS RESOLUTION WAS PASSED WAS OPEN TO THE PUBLIC AS REQUIRED BY LAW Moved by Councilor Martin that Resolution No. 153-97 be passed. Motion seconded by Councilor Johnston. Mr. Steve Seese informed that this is a double-pronged issue, first the conditional use permit for the limited restaurant and secondly, opposition to the limited restaurant is in the wording change or creation of the limited restaurant concept in 1994. In 1994 Staff recommended to Planning & Zoning to adopt a definition allowing for a limited restaurant. Priorry to that time the only restaurant allowed in town was "a restaurant", which could be anything. There was a lot of discussion with Planning & Zoning about the need to break out definitions and create something which was a little more neighborhood friendly and address concerns of the neighborhood. By placing a limited restaurant, under the auspices of requiring a conditional use permit, before Planning & Zoning they would have oversight before granting such a permit. We changed the definition July 21, 1997, and I believe the argument about the amended definition is that we struck out the wording requiring installation of a grease trap. The reason that wording was struck out is that we discussed this with Building Inspection and they were of the opinion that even if they wash a spoon in there, if it is a commercial operation they are going to be required to have a type of grease trap. When Mrs. Connolly made application for this limited restaurant, Building Inspection said they would be required to have a small under-the-counter type of grease trap, which has limited functions. Planning & Zoning has heard this two different times and both times voted in favor of the applicant. First time they heard it for conditional use permit and voted in favor, and after that time some neighborhood residents wanted to appeal Planning & Zoning's decision because they had not been notified. We found that they had not been notified, therefore, we decided that it go back to Planning & Zoning, and make sure everyone had been notified. After much discussion, Planning & Zoning voted in favor of the applicant. Staff continues to stand behind the definition that we recommended initially. At the insistence of the opposition we placed it back on the agenda for Council's oversight on Planning and Zoning's actions on this. Councilor Martin asked why the area was increased from 1200 to 1700 square feet. Mr. Seese replied that the amended definition for limited restaurants says 1200 square feet, and does not designate gross or net floor area. What we did was take a more logical approach by taking the areas occupied by people, whether employees or restaurant guests. We focused in on actual floor areas of the use itself. A lot of the same people will be using the same areas, such as restrooms, bus areas, etc. Also, there is nothing that would prevent them from catering. It is difficult to manage catering or to define catering. Mr. Seese mentioned several issues which were discussed by Planning & Zoning, as well as the historical uses of that area. He stated that they are taking a more rational approach to what actual requirements are, based upon historical use. 11 Item 10a cont'd. Councilor Hawkins expressed a concern with applying 1200 square feet requirements to 1700 square feet area. He suggested that either the ordinance be changed or pass a waiver on the 1200 square feet. Mr. Seese commented that there was nothing magic about the 1200 square feet; I think the concept was to keep it small, and the only logic is that it was used in the Zoning Ordinance before. Councilor Hawkins said that the biggest concern in that area is the parking. Mr. Seese stated that there is enough parking. Councilor Thompson asked if the neighborhood would be better off with or without this and would the neighbor's investments still be protected if we proceeded with this. Mr. Seese replied that from a land use decision, we would still back this decision, it is a good land use for the area in this neighborhood. There are sufficient controls placed in here and there is sufficient oversight by the Planning & Zoning Commission to address the negative impacts. There was a concern about the garbage, odors, flies, rodents, etc. which would affect the neighborhood. Mayor commented that there was discussion of changing the definition of limited restaurant and the fact that it was not given a broad enough review. Mr. Seese walked through the process. It was concluded that this was standard practice, and nothing out of the ordinary or unusual was involved in the changing of the Zoning Ordinance. Councilor Johnston felt that we are getting away from what the original definition of Limited Commercial was for. We may need to go back and look at the definition of Limited Commercial. When we voted for the new definition of a restaurant in that area, I took it to be a 1200 total square feet area and not just limited to the serving area. Lynn Connolly, 2300 Farrington, applicant for conditional use permit, presented facts about her tea room, and addressed concerns mentioned by Council. Offensive Odors are unfounded; they already exist. Our restaurant will have a minimal impact on this. We have no food frying equipment; we will serve light cuisine. Fumes emitted will be minimal. Exhaust system will be vented at the top of the building and will be conveniently hidden behind a three foot wall. This system will be higher than others in the neighborhood, therefore odors will likely be detected first from the residences. We have a small grease trap under the sink which is cleaned on a regular basis and refuse is securely and efficiently disposed of. Wet garbage will be tightly secured in plastic bags and kept inside the building or in the refrigerated area and removed periodically. Dry garbage will be disposed of in tied plastic bags which are put in a 55 gallon container with top outside the restaurant on a metal rack which is off the ground. We have limited hours and footage, and are not allowed to sell alcoholic beverages. Proposed hours for lunch will be 11 a.m. to 2 p.m. Monday through Friday. Staff will be there before and after those hours, however, no earlier nor later than during normal business hours. Guest seating is for 48, and our parking plan meets City's parking requirements. Mr. Connolly added that their limited space cannot impact the neighborhood as much as a social event at the Woman's Forum or a religious service at Fain Presbyterian Church where several hundreds are in attendance. Not being able to sell alcoholic beverages will protect from any bar being established. The cost of putting in a full service commercial kitchen is not feasible because seating space is not available to off set the cost. We are asking to exercise our right of choice to practice free enterprise within the laws of an existing building and appropriately zoned. Our restaurant will have a positive affect in the City and in the area. We hope to preserve and revitalize the historical integrity of this building. I ask that Council uphold the recommendations of the Staff and Planning & Zoning Commission. Rebecca Reeves, 2621 Harrison, spoke in favor of the applicant, and referred to other cities which have similar restaurants in neighborhoods. It would be a plus to have a limited restaurant in that area. Marilyn Stafford, #8 Waverly Place, owner of the building, spoke in favor of the applicant, and said she has had positive response and no negative criticism. I believe it is going to be an asset. The issue of the availability of parking was discussed and Mrs. Stafford believed there would be ample parking. Bobby Schaaf, 2417 Dartmouth, spoke in favor of the applicant. He informed he was one of the original developers of Downing place. He provided background on Downing Place and the area in which the limited restaurant is located. This corner is not normal for residential, 12 Item 10a cont'd. and it has always been very unique. He hopes that the area and the restaurant will not be stymied. William Swan, 2009 Speedway #2, spoke in favor of the proposed resolution. He mentioned that a position paper was presented to the Council. He referred to the Zoning Ordinance and stated that the property in question had received a limited restaurant designation and is protected primarily through zoning. The only way to have a restaurant there would be to change the zoning from General Commercial to Limited Commercial. He mentioned the changing of the definition various times which allows the preparation of food, and he feels that significantly changes the nuisance factors involved in the operation of this restaurant. He felt if this was allowed it would have a negative impact on their quality of life lamb and on their property values. He believes the home owners' interests have not been maintained. The reason they were in opposition to those changes was that the adjacent home owners were not aware of what was happening. Any process that would allow a major change in a Zoning Ordinance of that nature is flawed. Jackie Spraggins, 2009 Speedway #1, spoke in favor of the proposed resolution. She mentioned that a petition signed by twelve property owners was attached to the position paper. She represents twelve property owners and listed the following as their objections: 1) Negative affect on their quality of life and property values; 2) Health hazards and offensive odors; 3) Proximity of the property site is too close to three residences; 4) Parking is questionable; 5) Unwanted noise and increased traffic; 6) Increase street parking which is dangerous; 7) Catering conflicts with the law; 8) Non-conformance because of private parties, which could set a precedent as to future permits in the area; 9) Hours can be expanded and alcohol can be brought onto the premises. We do not object to the applicant personally; we do not think that a restaurant is compatible in this neighborhood. Mrs. Connolly commented that change is very scary. I have lived with a restaurant in my neighborhood when I lived in Dallas, and they do not devaluate a property. She contacted several commercial realtors and they have been unable to provide examples of where a restaurant has devalued property or adjacent property. If you have a negative concept of something it is very difficult to overcome that. I am a person of very high integrity and I take to heart the concerns of the neighborhood. , Mayor asked for a point of clarification if the use of this building is changed does it go back to Planning and Zoning? Mr. Seese replied that it would. Councilor Hawkins asked if Planning was going to propose a change in the Zoning Ordinance regarding the 1200 square feet. Mr. Seese replied that personally, he would like to take out the 1200 square feet because there are some other conditions that allow Planning & Zoning to place limitations on the floor area. Mr. Seese asked if Council had received a petition from the opposition. He cautioned that the applicant had submitted a petition to Planning and Zoning which they advised was not official because it did not go through the proper channels. Councilor Johnston asked if they plan to remove the restriction that food be primarily consumed on-sight. Mr. Seese replied that it has never been considered before, but if that is Council's direction, he will have to take it back to Planning & Zoning for a recommendation. Mayor stated that during this process it has been determined that the grease trap is more of a Building Inspection issue than a zoning issue. Mr. Seese concurred and added that he believes grease traps are becoming more of an issue in this City. Councilor Daniel stated that he has no concerns about Mrs. Connolly running a first class operation. However, the zoning process is set up, specifically with regard to conditional uses, to deal with situations when there is a question where a use is not a permitted use, but a conditional use. The process is set up to allow people to voice their opposition. I do not think it is the Council's responsibility to question if the property owner is making a correct judgment or if their property valuation will be affected, it is up to them. It is not the Council's right or responsibility to force conditional use in a neighborhood; the system is set up to allow it to happen if they want it to. The question for Council is if the process has been served and if the neighborhood wants it or not. Mr. Seese thought that there is sufficient protection within the permitting process regarding the uses. Planning & Zoning can address any concerns Council may have. Mr. Clark commented that ordinances are not absolute, when it comes to interpreting you have to 13 Item 10a cont'd. make an interpretation of what is and is not included. Do you try to accommodate projects, and what stance does Staff take? Mayor reminded Council that they had challenged the staff to be citizen-friendly and work with people to make things happen, and that is what Mr. Clark and Mr. Seese have been doing. They have tried to follow what Council has laid out as goals for the Staff, the Council and the City. Motion carried by the following vote. Ayes: Councilors Johnston, Shine, Thompson, Daniel, Martin, and Hawkins Nays: Mayor Yeager Item 10b RESOLUTION NO. 154-97 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AMENDMENTS TO AGREEMENTS WITH JOHNNY SIMMONS AND JACK ALSUP TO LEASE AND MANAGE THE HAMILTON PARK AND WEEKS PARK TENNIS CENTERS Moved by Councilor Martin that Resolution No. 154-97 be passed. Motion seconded by Councilor Thompson. Councilor Hawkins asked if going to one person is saving $10,000. City Manager replied that was true. The only change in this amendment is to update the minimum wage to comply with the new rate. Glenn Jamison, Recreation Superintendent, informed that we would lose the total revenue which is currently being brought in. We feel it is going to be a 50% loss of Weeks Park Tennis Center if we go to one center operating both. Annual revenue is $13,000 and the annual net loss is $10,000. We propose that by operating under one pro we would bring approximately $6,500 in revenue which is a reduction from $13,000, however we would only be paying about $6,300 to staff the facility at the reduced operation hours. Councilor Daniel commented that if there was only one pro, people would gravitate and use that pro for lessons. It provides a broader range of instruction service and provides a little competition. For $10,000 we have not really taken Mr. Murphy to task as to how much things cost in the Parks & Recreation Department. This is a quality of life issue, not a dollars and cents. Mayor asked, if on the reduced operating hours, that center would be closed on weekends? Mr. Jamison replied in the affirmative. That is what the proposal is. Weekend play is almost nothing at those centers except for tournaments, and we would be open on those weekends. Mayor stated that we need to take a long look at the quality of life and take our recreational facilities into perspective before curtailing our hours of operation when it is not costing us a great deal, and also in closing down a facility on the weekends unless it becomes cost ineffective. This is a quality of life issue and we need to take a long hard look about curtailing the hours operation. City Manager suggested that it be left as it is, with two pros, until there is a vacancy and look at it then. Betty Heatherington, 4405 Martinique, said she was delighted to hear that Council was concerned with the quality of life issue because our town slights our youth in so many ways. The gym facilities are really lacking in this town. It is very disturbing that this has come up to do away with this facility. People go to Weeks because of the pro. Weeks seems to be in line with Hamilton. We urge you not to cut the hours or delete the pro at Weeks. City Manager stated that he was tired of hearing that this City does not have recreational facilities. We are loaded, but the difference is that we have private organizations providing it and that is a blessing. I think we are getting a bad rap because we do not have the 14 Item 10b cont'd. City of Wichita Falls logo on some of these things. The facilities are still there and I would put us up against anybody else. Mayor clarified that the only change is an increase in the minimum wage. Motion carried by the following vote. Ayes: Mayor Yeager, Councilors Johnston, Shine, Thompson, Daniel, Martin, and Hawkins Nays: None Councilor Hawkins stated that when there is an opening in the pro position that Council does need to look at it at that time to see if they want to continue with two pros or one. Item 10 RESOLUTION NO. 156-97 RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PROPOSED BUDGET FOR THE NORTEX 9-1-1 COMMUNICATIONS DISTRICT FOR THE PERIOD FROM OCTOBER 1, 1997 THROUGH SEPTEMBER 30, 1998 Moved by Councilor Martin that Resolution No. 156-97 be passed. Motion seconded by Councilor Daniel. Councilor Martin asked why the need for two Explorers. Mr. Gary Young, 9-1-1 Representative, informed that they do the addressing for Wilbarger and Wichita County as a part of administering the 9-1-1 System. The District Board of Managers determined that the Explorer was an ideal vehicle for doing this type of work and it is also for safety purposes. ,r Also, ground clearance has been a concern to us and these vehicles can handle that. We purchase these through Houston-Galveston Area Council of Governments which gives you a fleet rate. Councilor Martin suggested that he check with the Purchasing Department to see about purchasing them through the City of Wichita Falls. Councilor Martin asked for an update on the use of cellular phones and 9-1-1. Mr. Young stated that the equipment they have in place would receive any new information if it was available. The FCC passed a Docket last year that is a three phase docket which makes it mandatory that by the year 2000 it will give the location within a certain number of meters to a tower, right now it just goes back to the tower. That phone could be hitting that tower from anywhere, but they will isolate down to within X number of meters of the tower by the year 2000. The first phase was to send out the tower information to the answering location and we are already doing that. In order to comply with he FCC Docket the telephone company central offices have to be digital but the Wichita Falls office is analog. None of the tandem offices in Texas are digital; they are all analog and they will have to make some major changes to comply by the year 2000. For information purposes, the City of Wichita Falls answers about 700 cell calls per month. Councilor Johnston asked for the number of employees and mileage. Mr. Young replied that they have four employees and average about 20,000 miles per year per vehicle. w Sidney Smith, 2811 City View, former Exectuive Director of 9-1-1. We accept the cellular calls and it is programmed to show mobile phone verify location. He hopes that the City approves the budget. You are getting the biggest value for your money. This is one of the better districts in Texas and probably one of the best in the nation. Motion carried by the following vote. Ayes: Mayor Yeager, Councilors Shine, Thompson, Daniel, and Martin Nays: Councilors Johnston and Hawkins 15 Item 1 Oe RESOLUTION NO. 157-97 A RESOLUTION SUPPORTING THE COMPOSITION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE MERGED HELEN FARABEE ROLLING PLAINS MENTAL HEALTH MENTAL RETARDATION CENTER, AND APPROVING AMENDMENTS TO THE BYLAWS TO ACCOMPLISH SUCH REPRESENTATION; FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT THE MEETING AT WHICH THIS RESOLUTION WAS PASSED WAS OPEN TO THE PUBLIC AS REQUIRED BY LAW Moved by Councilor Thompson that Resolution No. 157-97 be passed. Motion seconded by Councilor Johnston. Moved by Mayor Yeager to amend this resolution to include verbiage to the effect that the City does support this with this proposed makeup of the board as long as the proviso is included that the proportion be looked at on an annual basis so that at some point it will be reflective not only of the population but of the number of cases served by the Helen Farabee Center versus the outlying counties. Motion seconded by Councilor Martin. Councilor Hawkins stated that we objected when the makeup of the board was six to three, now we are saying that we will support a change five from another county, three from Wichita City/County, one from another county with Wichita Falls City/County approving it. Is this a six three makeup, and if we opposed it before why would we approve it now? Mayor replied that she had written a letter to all involved in the negotiations informing that we were not happy with the six three makeup. I received one response from the Mayor of Graham. There is no way that Wichita Falls City/County combined can change the vote, because each county has one vote, and we are on the short end of a 19-2 vote to begin with. I think if the Council chooses to vote no to this resolution, essentially, the merger is dead. I strongly believe that the merger should go forward. County Judge has proposed that the City appoint two members and the County one. Councilor Thompson said he would like to see that the resolution reflect that the City would appoint two and the County would appoint one. Mayor requested that the wording reflect that jointly Wichita Falls/Wichita County will have three members two of which will be appointed by the City . Councilor Hawkins asked if there was a possibility that Helen Farabee merge with another county. Mayor stated that the minimum perimeters that the State is looking for is a service area of 200,000 people, and before the proposed merged area was around 300,000 people, including Wichita Falls and Wichita County. The more people in the service area the stronger it will be. Rod Adkins, Acting Exectuive Director of Helen Farabee Center, concurred and added that the basis is that there has been a tremendous change in how TX MHMR finances services. It is not on a per capita basis it is on a case rate methodology. There has also been an impact in terms of managed care and is forcing community and State MHMR centers to have to look at serving larger populations in order to be financially viable. If this merger does not go through, you are going to see a difficult time maintaining a 200,000 population in this area. That does not mean that Helen Farabee will go away. The population in Wichita County is 127,000. Mayor interjected that the current population break as it was distributed reflects a 5-4 composition of the board. The case load breakout reflects that the composition of the board should be 5-4. Again, when you are trying to make a compromise and you have two votes, it is very difficult to get anything done. Councilor Hawkins asked if there was a chance that Rolling Plains in order to have access to Helen Farabee would want to come in with us. Mr. Akins stated that he was not sure and Council would have to see what their sentiments are. I would hate to have this merger tied up over one trustee. We have a chance to develop and expand the services here in Wichita Falls and Rolling Plains. Also, I do not know what would happen with the $1 million transition money. City Manager asked if once in a contract like this, is there a way out? Mr. Adkins replied that it can from the standpoint that two years from now, Wichita County or any county can go back before TX MHMR and petition to join another community MHMR Center. But they want to make sure it makes sense from a regional and service delivery standpoint. City 16 Item 10e cont'd. Manager asked if all these counties put their money into this operation. Mr. Adkins replied that they put in local in-kind match with some cash, but majority is in-kind match. Mayor asked that if this merger goes through would the Helen Farabee Board still exist?. Mr. Adkins replied that the Helen Farabee Board would not exist as of September 1, the merger date; you would have a new nine member board of trustees. Mayor commented that in essence the Helen Farabee Board is offering up all their physical facilities to this merger. Mr. Adkins stated that what you are looking at doing is expanding the current community center plan that Helen Farabee is operating under and changing the configuration of the board of trustees. Councilor Hawkins stated that he could not see why we would want to give up all the strides we have made to get the Helen Farabee Center where it is and give it all up to be controlled by people who are not in Wichita Falls or Wichita County. He suggested veto power for the three members appointed by Wichita Falls/Wichita County. Mr. Adkins commented that if we do not merge we would all lose. Additional discussion and questions followed on unwind provision, expansion of community center plan, board representation, and current local funding to Helen Farabee Center. Several Councilors felt they needed additional information and more time to consider this. Moved by Councilor Thompson that this be tabled until next Council meeting. Motion seconded by Councilor Hawkins. Mayor informed that the next meeting on this will be October 17 which is prior to our next Council meeting. I would assume that if we do not act prior to that the whole process is at a standstill. Mr. Adkins stated that the TX MHMR would meet November 10 to consider the merger approval. Mayor added that there were other things that would have to happen from this other group prior to that November meeting. Mr. Adkins said that the Rolling Plains will go away September 1, 1998 and we will look elsewhere for a merger. Rod Brennan, Helen Farabee Representative, stated that Council had already approved the merger and all you are hung up on is whether the board is 5-4 or 6-3. If you pull out of the merger there will be no Helen Farabee Center by September 1. 1 do not think you can wait two weeks because in order to meet all the time tables that we have to meet, you have to have a new board appointed in place in January. In order to get it approved by TX MHMR you have to back up to their November meeting. You can table it if you like but the argument that Rolling Plains is going to go away in September and Helen Farabee will still be here is not true. We lost half a million dollars last year and we will not be in existence September 1998 if we do not proceed down this road. You will not have a Helen Farabee Center. City funds of $80,000 barely pays for one week of our expenses. I do not think that the Board is going to do anything that is going to disrupt the services to the consumers. We are in dire financial straits because we are very small and we need to get larger. Councilor Thompson withdrew his motion to table. Vote on the amendment made by the Mayor carried by the following vote. Ayes: Mayor Yeager, Councilors Johnston, Shine, Thompson, Daniel, Martin, and Hawkins Nays: None Moved by Councilor Thompson to amend the proposed resolution by adding verbiage in Section 1 Paragraph B to reflect that those members are shared jointly by Wichita Falls and Wichita County with two of those being appointed by Wichita Falls. Motion seconded by Councilor Daniel and carried by the following vote. Ayes: Mayor Yeager, Councilors Johnston, Shine, Thompson, Daniel, Martin, and Hawkins Nays: None 17 Item 10e cont:d. Vote on the Resolution as amended carried by the following vote. Ayes: Mayor Yeager, Councilors Johnston, Shine, Thompson, Daniel, Martin, and Hawkins Nays: None City Council recessed at 1:25 p.m. and reconvened at 2:10 p.m. Item 9m ORDINANCE NO. 106-97 AN ORDINANCE ANNEXING AN AREA GENERALLY REFERRED TO AS THE KOVARIK ROAD AREA; FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT THE MEETING AT WHICH THIS ORDINANCE WAS PASSED WAS OPEN TO THE PUBLIC AS REQUIRED BY LAW Moved by Councilor Martin that Ordinance No. 106-97 be passed. Motion seconded by Councilor Thompson. Mayor gave an overview of the steps taken by the Council and Staff in an effort to be better informed and prepared to make these decisions. Mayor also made a statement giving reasons for a need to annex in relation to the City Council goals which will guide us into the next century and provide a better quality of life for our citizens. Councilor Shine asked for a clarification in regards to the animals in the proposed annexation area. He asked if the resolution passes will there be a 180 day moratorium to comply with City Code. Mr. Clark informed that 180 days came from a Council discussion, and the section under that addresses the setbacks and the nature of some of the animals out there and it allows time to take a closer look at those. Councilor Shine asked if it was incorporated into the ordinance. Mr. Clark replied in the affirmative and added that it is in for both areas. Mrs. Barbara Clements quoted Article 6 as the section that addresses the animal requirements and setbacks. Councilor Johnston commented that up until today we could have made changes in the Service Plan by deleting areas but not adding areas, however, at this point we cannot. He asked if there was anything that cannot be changed. City Attorney replied you can change it to add additional services but not to delete services. But you cannot delete any land from the area. At this point Mayor opened the floor for public comments and the following persons spoke in opposition of annexation: Kirby Kellogg, Parkhill Road Retrofitting is unnecessary. Reason to annex should be the will of the people. This is a democracy and not a dictatorship. Be responsive to the will of the governed. Bill Evans, 493 Wellington Spoke to water issues and purchase of water lines in that area. Violation of basic principles. Consent of the governed motivates the world today. Why subject a small group of people to a governing body that they reject. Why not give them their Constitutional right and let them have their pursuit of happiness. When the rest of world is throwing off the shackles of socialism, extreme and excessive government it's all right that Wichita Falls is trying to put it on a small group of people by annexing them. We hold this principle very dear and I do not feel like it should be violated. There should be no need of the City that should justify overriding the consent of the governed. Woody Gossom, 1709 Hursh Representing his County constituents. Annexation is likely in five years and the City should wait until the need for annexation is apparent. Sewer services should be provided before development instead of waiting. Choice of not to annex will not hurt any of us at this point. Chip Hitchcock, 4305 Scottsdale It is not right because nobody out there wants it. 18 Item 9m cont'd. Cheryl Bourgoin, 6341 Kovarik Road Spoke to the Wichita Valley Water Supply contract and its provisions, and fire protection, right of City to annex and tradeoff. City Manager stated that all these areas had been addressed during the public hearings and the worksession. Council discussed the cost of the water contract and annual water billings. Councilor Thompson asked about compliance with State Law, and City Attorney replied that the City is in compliance with State law. There is a State statute that if the City wanted to, could extend water and sewer lines and then assess the cost to that by front foot charge to the adjacent property owners. However, the City has never done that. David LeBreck, 901 Main Street, Dallas, Texas, representing Mr. Bill Evans, stated that the Service Plan requirements do not meet the requirements of the law. These requirements were put in here so that governmental entities, cities, would require the same water and sewer service. If you do not provide the same water and sewer service that you provide elsewhere in the City you are going to have problems. City Attorney stated that we do not provide any tax dollars in our water and sewer utilities and I believe that is a major distinction. There are no cases which have interpreted our differing interpretations of requirements. All I can give you is my best opinion and our decision is defensible. City Manager stated that we have never said that we are not going to provide water and sewer services. It is a question of degree as to what that provision is. In the northern track we already provide water and sewer lines that are in the area. We have never said we are going to run lines to everyone's door. Mr. LeBreck said there were no current plans to provide a sanitary system in the area and statutes require that you provide it. City Attorney said that the Service Plan must include a program to initiate the acquisition or construction of capital improvements necessary for providing municipal services adequate to serve the area, and I think ours does. He expanded on this by providing examples. Councilor Daniel asked Mr. LeBreck if he has advised other cities who have had a similar situation to provide full water and sewer services. Mr. LeBreck said that he has not dealt with this exact situation, but has on limited annexation. What is the point of differentiation with our City Attorney. City Attorney said that there could be a legitimate difference of interpretation of requirements of the statute. I believe that you are providing the same level of services in these annex plans as you are to citizens currently residing in the City. Furthermore, you are providing all tax supported services immediately and are providing for the extension of water and sewer as is currently being done inside the City. There is no discrimination between the Service Plan for the people you propose to annex and the citizens currently residing in the City. City Attorney stated that he did not know of any city that annexes property and starts running water and sewer lines out to that area right away. There is no record of court cases. Mr. Dave Clark stated that Staff is recommending, in the annexation process, that we do not feel that Council should commit itself to the extension of water and sewer lines beyond its policy that it already has with citizens inside the City. Also, if in the future you see some value to extending those lines do that, but not as a part of the annexation agreement. Options of the landfill were discussed. City Attorney stated that the landfill could not be deleted because we could not get a legal description within the time frame to delete it. Councilor Shine said that the option to take the landfill out could be done if we had the legal description, however, the option today is that if we voted to annex, in order to get the landfill out we would have to deannex the forty acres. City Attorney said that if it became a problem in the future, we could give you that description and you could always deannex the area. Mayor added that we discussed at length the different options at our worksession and we were pretty well of the consensus that it should stay in because it would not add any additional regulations to the landfill, it would still fall under TNRCC, and we were all pretty satisfied. Councilor Daniel said his understanding was that the consensus was to leave the landfill in but that we did have a sensitivity to the operation of the landfill that it was a viable operation, important to the area and to the City. We asked Mr. Clark to look at some method in the zoning process to protect that operation. If we could give them some guarantee to continue operation and in return maybe they could give us a contract agreement that they are not going to develop the land for any other use other than a landfill. Councilor Martin agreed that with proper zoning it should be left in there. Councilors Johnston and Hawkins said that it was not their desire to include it in. Additional discussion ensued on the landfill issue. 19 Item 9m cont'd. Councilor Thompson commented that we have to look down the road five to ten years from now. I would hope that there would be some commitment made from some source that we could provide those services that would be adequate to meet the needs of that area. We need to rise above some of our concerns and look to what is best for the citizens of the City of Wichita Falls. Councilor Hawkins expressed concerns about absorbing additional services without additional personnel. Without providing full services to that area I am going to have to vote against It. Councilor Daniel felt voting for annexation is a down payment for deficit spending with the hope that it is going to reduce ultimate expenditures down the road and that is the only reason I can support it. If we do not go into these areas on an early basis the ultimate cost down the road will be astronomical and we are trying to prevent that. We need to plan for the future. I am going to take offense to what Mr. Evans said about socialism. We operate in a democracy in the State of Texas and the people in the areas that we are discussing have all the legal rights as we do as citizens of Wichita Falls under the State statutes. The State statutes are set up to provide that representation and they allow for annexation and they have the opportunity to vote on those statutes and to vote on the legislature that created those statutes. This is not socialism it is a democracy. We are those local representatives and I feel strongly that we are representing the citizens of Wichita Falls in an honest, straightforward ethical manner. Whether we are right we will know down the road. Hopefully through prayer and counsel we perceive some wisdom and we will make the right decision. Councilor Martin commented that the Council is exercising its Constitutional rights. As far as the fire and police out there, I am a firm believer that you will have better fire and police protection and better flood control. As far as increasing the property tax, the City does not have anything to do with raising property taxes, it is the Appraisal District that raises that evaluation. The Council is dedicated to giving those people out there the same rights and services under the same conditions as the citizens of Wichita Falls. Motion carried by the following vote. Ayes: Mayor Yeager, Councilors Johnston, Shine, Thompson, Daniel, and Martin, Nays: Councilor Hawkins City Council recessed at 3:45 p.m. and reconvened at 4:05 p.m. Item 9n ORDINANCE NO. 107-97 AN ORDINANCE ANNEXING AN AREA GENERALLY REFERRED TO AS THE KIEL ROAD/287 AREA; FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT THE MEETING AT WHICH THIS ORDINANCE WAS PASSED WAS OPEN TO THE PUBLIC AS REQUIRED BY LAW Moved by Councilor Martin that Ordinance No. 107-97 be passed. Motion seconded by Councilor Thompson. The issue of providing water to purchase for this area was a concern and was discussed at length. Mr. Bonnett showed and explained where the existing water lines are located and where they would be extended, if they are extended. He stated that the homes in that area can tie on to the lines. The following persons spoke in opposition of annexation in this area: John Ward, 5926 N.W. Freeway He spoke to the law and the lack of enforcement power and their recourse if services are not provided. Jerry Luke, 309 Cartwright 20 Item 9n cont'd. He mentioned that legislature is looking into the issue of cities annexing and not providing services. If we do not receive services, we don't want city taxes; we don't want to be annexed. The cost of putting in services now is cheaper, but you are not going to put them in now, therefore, it is going to cost you more when it is developed. Michael Dietrick, 3500 Kessler We share the same vision with the Staff. There is no development out there because there is no water. The impetus for development is not the regulations but readily available sewer and water. Modify the Service Plan to liberate the water lines out there and free up the capacity with the installation of a 150,000 gallon tower at the Allred Prison. Keith Dyer, 3409 Wellington Asked, if they develop their property and curb and gutter is installed, who is going to ago rebuild the roads. Mr. Bonnett replied that the policy is under review, but we do not know what will happen in the future. City Manager stated that the waivers deal with individual lots. Mr. Dyer asked about the Lake Arrowhead vision and what happened that they deannexed. City Attorney replied that it was a lengthy litigation and the Court ordered the deannexation. Mr. Dyer stated that he did not think those people wanted to be annexed either. Sidney Smith Government is created to protect and serve the people and not to control them. Use sales tax to put in water and sewer lines in this area. Councilor Hawkins did not believe that Council needed to annex this area to provide a lower water and sewer bill for the prison. Councilor Johnston stated that he did not see thesame development in this area as in the Kovarik Road area and cannot support this annexation. Councilor Martin said that we are putting the control of land use at risk. There is no orderly development outside the City because there is no control. For the future of the citizens of Wichita Falls it is our obligation to protect them to proceed with this annexation. Councilor Shine felt that we were going to have to make a commitment on water and sewer in this area, at least from the major trunk line. Unless Staff can give me some assurances that we are going to give them water, I cannot see voting to annex this area. Councilor Martin stated that the tower had been discussed previously, and Council agreed that if the capacity is needed that we will build that tower. City Manager informed that our hesitancy is that we do not know what the Criminal Justice is going to do with the prison expansion. They may opt for the tower or the line. We do not believe we should do both. If we built the tower they may not sign off on that. Council's concerns regarding the water issue were discussed at length. Several Councilor's did not feel that it was urgent that annexation take place today. City Manager stated that the urgency is that we have looked at an area of land which we feel has potential for development and that is why we are at this point. Councilor Daniel said that we should get ahead of the development and put in some controls, zoning, so that when it does develop the City is proud of it. However, if there is no water, there is no development. We need to commit to water now. Mr. Dietrick informed that they have had contacts to develop in that area, but it does not take them long to find out that the City of Wichita Falls in its present status will not sell them water for anything except residential, unless it is a big plant. Right now we are limited to residential. As it stands today there is a great need for services. If you do not improve the Service Plan in the area of public works then vote against it. City Council recessed at 5:50 p.m. and reconvened at 6:05 p.m. City Manager read the following as a proposed modification to the Service Plan: Once the water requirements of the prison expansion are known or within a period not to exceed two years, if the water capacity is insufficient for normal development of the area, the City shall commit to constructing a water tower with a minimum capacity of 150,000 gallons to free up sufficient water capacity. City Manager stated that this answers the questions about what is the City is committing to and how do you free up that water. Moved by Councilor Daniel that the Service Plan be amended to include the following wording: Once the water requirements of the prison expansion are known or within a period not to exceed two years, if the water capacity is insufficient for normal development of the area, the City shall commit to constructing a water tower with a minimum capacity of 150,000 gallons to free up sufficient water capacity. Motion seconded by Councilor Thompson. City Manager explained that the only reason two years is in there, is that it provides a time frame of a beginning and an end. Within that two year time frame we will have that. No matter 21 Item 9n cont'd. what the prison does the City will have to go and take care of the tied-in water capacity there. Councilor Shine asked if there is a major development that goes in on U.S. 287 what are they faced with in regards to sewer? Mr. Bonnett replied that there are two options: 1) Construction of a sewage treatment plant and a trunk line running up to that area or 2) A package plant. City Attorney instructed, for drafting purposes, that the wording should be placed on Page 14 of 14 in the Service Plan, and that the last sentence should read as follows: No plans currently exist for any capital improvements to be made within the annexed area with the exception of the following: once the water requirements of the prison expansion are known or within a period not to exceed two years, if the water capacity is insufficient for normal development of the area, the City shall commit to constructing a water tower with a minimum capacity of 150,000 gallons to free up sufficient water capacity. Mr. John Ward commented that this does not do anything for the people hauling water. Motion on the amendment carried by the following vote. Ayes: Mayor Yeager, Councilors Johnston, Shine, Thompson, Daniel, Martin, and Hawkins Nays: None Motion on the ordinance as amended carried by the following vote. Ayes: Mayor Yeager, Councilors Thompson, Daniel, and Martin Nays: Councilors Johnston, Shine, and Hawkins Item 9k ORDINANCE NO. 104-97 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WICHITA FALLS, TEXAS, AMENDING CHAPTER 15, ARTICLE I OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES REGULATING THE SALE, USE, STORAGE AND MANUFACTURING OF FIREWORKS AT SECTION 15-1(b); (c): AND 0); PROVIDING FOR INCLUSION IN 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 Martin that Ordinance No. 104-97 be passed. Motion seconded by Councilor Johnston. City Attorney commented that this amendment would allow large warehouses that store pyrotechnics to remain in operation for a ten year period. It also would allow a structure which contains at least 1500 square feet which is currently being used for the sale of fireworks to continue the commercial wholesale operation for a period of ten years, but would not allow the sale of fireworks to the general public in that location. We recommend approval. Councilor Johnston asked if this will prevent another fireworks wholesale facility from locating there with retail sales. City Attorney replied that they have to be existing as of the date you approve this ordinance, if they are not there now they do not get grandfathered in ten years. Fire Chief James said this was a compromise. We are not crazy about having explosives stored in the City but on the other hand we do not want somebody who has an investment in a business to lose that overnight. I am not happy with it, but I think you need to look at both sides of it. We are concerned with the safety of our personnel and we have made it quite clear that if one of those buildings is involved in a fire we will protect the exposure but we will not attempt to approach the building. We had three or four representatives from the fireworks industry present and they are aware of this. 22 Item 9k cont'd. City Attorney stated that change of ownership would not change the ten year time period. Motion carried by the following vote. Ayes: Mayor Yeager, Councilors Johnston, Shine, Thompson, Daniel, Martin, and Hawkins Nays: None Item 10c RESOLUTION NO. 155-97 A RESOLUTION BY THE CITY OF WICHITA FALLS REQUESTING THE TEXAS TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION TO CONSTRUCT A FOUR-LANE DIVIDED HIGHWAY BETWEEN ABILENE AND WICHITA FALLS AND TO PROVIDE FUNDING FOR THE PURCHASE OF NECESSARY RIGHT-OF- WAY; FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT THE MEETING AT WHICH THIS RESOLUTION WAS PASSED WAS OPEN TO THE PUBLIC AS REQUIRED BY LAW Moved by Councilor Daniel that Resolution No. 155-97 be passed. Motion seconded by Councilor Shine and carried by the following vote. Ayes: Mayor Yeager, Councilors Johnston, Shine, Thompson, Daniel, Martin, and Hawkins Nays: None Item 11 a RESOLUTION NO. 158-97 RESOLUTION TO AWARD BID AND CONTRACT FOR GRACE STREET RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT Moved by Councilor Hawkins that Resolution No. 158-97 be passed. Motion seconded by Councilor Shine and carried by the following vote. Ayes: Mayor Yeager, Councilors Johnston, Shine, Thompson, Daniel, Martin, and Hawkins Nays: None Don Kirkham, 3807 Yuma, stated that it was a bad day for some people but it was a good day for the City. Item 12a Councilor Johnston said that we need to address the priorities for the 413 Board in a worksession. The flood control problems do not have high enough priorities. Councilor Hawkins suggested that the worksession be held with the 4B Board, Council and Staff. Mayor suggested that Council meet and review those priorities before meeting with the 413 Board. 23 Item 12b No Staff/Council discussion. Item 12c The City Council dispensed with the Executive Session The City Council adjourned at 6:33 p.m. PASSED AND APPROVED this r day of ? , 1997. KATHO YN A. YE ER MAYOR ATTEST: Lydia Torres City Clerk ap.yam. W s �4Fa i�"'y�q, Nukes