Loading...
Min 11/04/1997 39 Wichita Falls, Texas Memorial Auditorium Building November 4, 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 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 Reverend William Carnley, Maurine Street Church of God. Item 3 Lewis Pearce, Sr., 3549 Parkhill Road, stated that the Charter allowed him to vote on annexation. He mentioned several areas which had water, sewer, and fire hydrants, however, the City is unable to provide him with those services. He will have to pay City taxes for an area of land that has no commercial value. They have a petition signed by City residents who want to vote on this issue, and they are the ones who elected you. The following persons also voiced their opinions on the annexation and the need to listen to the people by either repealing the Ordinance or calling an election to let the voters decide. They were all against the annexation. Mary Elizabeth Pearce, 2549 Parkhill Road; William Stevens, 635 Kovarik Road; Lou Ellen Kellogg, Parkhill Road; Paula Matlock, 3075 Parkhill Road; Kirby Kellogg, Parkhill Road; City Attorney stated that because of the attorney-client privilege, he will be advising the City Council in executive session. Councilor Johnston, on behalf of Mayor Yeager, read the proclamation proclaiming the week of November 17-21, 1997 as "Philanthropy Week in Wichita Falls". Item 4 Mr. Arnold Oliver, Chair of the Clean Country Commission, presented the 1997 Clean County Registry Awards to the following: District No. 1 Mr. & Mrs. Walter Sanders - 3507 Kent Mr. & Mrs. Adam Andrews -#4 Ravens Court Mr. & Mrs. Robert Lacy, 4413 Shady Lane Old Town Shopping Center, McNiel & Call Field Mr. & Mrs. O.W. Ayers, 3515 McNiel 40 Item 4 cont'd. District No. 2 Sindy Bevering, 1808 Harrison Mr. & Mrs. Jock Woods, 817 Dallas Lawrence McKenzie, 621 Dee McClurkan's Store, 916 Scott # 1 Center Plaza Office Building, 927 Indiana District No. 3 Mr. & Mrs. Kelly, 2918 Featherston Mr. & Mrs. Lonny Morrison, 2411 Fain Mr. & Mrs. Louis Kent, 4501 Martinique Pier 1 Imports, Mr. Chris Waters, General Manager, 4400 Kemp Taco Bueno, Phillip Chimens, Manager, 4417 Kemp District No. 4 Ms. Helen Hoggard, 1716 Victory Mr. & Mrs. Steve Muehlberger, 1917 Speedway Mr. & Mrs. Wiley Mason, 2631 Bretton Canterbury's, Marilyn Stafford, 2601 Harrison McDonald's, Mark Hamilton, Supervisor, 4035 Southwest Parkway District No. 5 Mr. & Mrs. George Davis, 2322 Hunters Glen Mr. & Mrs. John Brock, 4701 Eden Lane Lester Heupel, 1035 Harlan Lane Bogart's Deli, Mr. McGinty, 3600 Sheppard Access Road Maurine Street Church of God, Rev. William Carnley, 2250 Maurine City Council recessed at 9:30 a.m. for a reception to honor these recipients. City Council reconvened at 9:55 a.m. Item 5 Councilor Martin requested that the minutes reflect under Item 9c that he was opposed to the 800 Study and that he was in support of Motorola. The Minutes were approved as distributed with this addition. Items 6a-7b Moved by Councilor Shine that the consent agenda be approved. 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 6a RESOLUTION NO. 166-97 RESOLUTION TO ACCEPT THE LAKE KICKAPOO MOTOR START PROJECT AND AUTHORIZE FINAL PAYMENT TO JACK PIERCE ELECTRIC COMPANY Items 7a-7b Minutes of the meeting of the following boards and commissions were received. a. Library Advisory Board, September 23, 1997 b. Wichita Falls Park Board, October 23, 1997 41 Item 8a ORDINANCE NO. 112-97 AN ORDINANCE GRANTING APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A LIMITED RESTAURANT AT 2601 HARRISON STREET, WICHITA FALLS, TEXAS; FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT THE MEETING AT WHICH THIS ORDINANCE WAS PASSED WAS OPEN TO THE PUBLIC AS REQUIRED BY LAW Moved by Councilor Shine that Ordinance No. 112-97 be passed. Motion seconded by Councilor Johnston. Mr. Dave Clark provided background information and answered questions in regards to the new plan and the 1200 square feet requirement and notification process. He also mentioned that catering could go on in a limited commercial district without Planning & Zoning or Council action. Councilor Shine asked if a permit could be issued under this revised plan and Mr. Clark replied that it could. Mr. Clark explained that Planning & Zoning has the authority to issue a conditional use permit and that is final authority unless there is an appeal, which there was in this case. When we go through a conditional use process the neighbors within a 200 feet area are notified of the pending application for a conditional use permit. They can submit information to the Planning & Zoning Commission in writing or appear in person, and the Commission can take that into consideration in their deliberation on whether to approve or disapprove an application. Mayor asked for the results of the letters to the neighbors. Mr. Clark informed that there were two notices because the addressing information was incomplete and we felt it prudent to repeat the notice and the entire process. There are two sets of numbers because of the two processes. Within the 200 feet area there were 11 responses for the restaurant and 10 against. There were two properties who did not respond and one of those is vacant. Lynn Connolly, 2300 Farrington, owner of the limited restaurant in question, provided reasons for the Council to reverse their previous decision. The following persons spoke in favor of the restaurant: Tim Connolly, 2300 Farrington, Ray Clymer, 2019 Berkeley, Rebecca Reeves, 2621 Harrison, Glenda Tate, 2100 Avondale, Aurora Bolin, 3300 Harrison, and Gordon West, 2108 Ellingham. Jackie Spraggins, 2009 Speedway #1, presented oppositions as to why the Council should affirm their decision. Mrs. Spraggins said that basically they were the same oppositions which were given at the last Council meeting. William Swan, 2009 Speedway #2, spoke in opposition to the restaurant and gave reasons why it should not be allowed. Councilor Hawkins commented that he did not have a problem with the restaurant as long as it has less than the required 1200 square feet. Councilor Martin believed that the voice of the residents within 200 feet should be honored and the majority are not in agreement with this restaurant. He is not against the restaurant but the Council is bound to follow the guidelines of the Ordinance. Councilor Daniel asked that for the record Mr. Clark provide the definition of a permitted use and a conditional use. Mr. Clark informed that a permitted use is permitted without any action by Planning & Zoning or City Council. Conditional use can be conditioned in the sense that Planning & Zoning reviews the request and there is a notification process, and they do have the right to impose conditions on that. Councilor Daniel wanted to know why we go through the notification process for the conditional use. Mr. Clark stated that was true of all actions before Planning & Zoning. Whenever there is a conditional use or zone change we provide notification to the residents within 200 feet. We do that because the responses are an indication of the interest of the people within the 200 feet for consideration by Planning and Zoning Commission. Mayor asked Mr. Clark to explain that the conditional use is specific to this particular applicant and would not necessarily stay with the facility. Mr. Clark explained that a conditional use is developed for a particular use for property. In regards to property ownership he deferred to the City Attorney, who informed that ownership was immaterial. City Attorney added that the conditional use applies to the property not to the owner. 42 Item 8a cont'd. Councilor Hawkins stated that the 200 feet had been questioned and the reason is to give some guideline and some notification of an impending change and in order to get input, but it is not limited to 200 feet. He added that when he served as Council liaison on the Planning & Zoning Commission, others who were adjoining that area had the opportunity to give their input and their views were noted. Councilor Daniel commented that Council is obligated to abide by Ordinances passed by this and previous Councils. He said that someone had mentioned that no valid reason had been given for the 200 feet figure at the last Council meeting. The fact is that conditional use requires notification and gives opportunity for input by neighbors who are affected by that use and to find out if it is a use which is acceptable to that immediate neighborhood. The desire is to protect the integrity of the neighborhood, it is not to decide if a particular use is good of in itself. It is whether it is good and acceptable to the neighborhood. It comes down to whether the Council has the right or is obligated to force a good use on a neighborhood that does not want it. It is not a vote on whether or not a restaurant is good or bad. Tim Connolly and Rebecca Reeves questioned the use of the definition of neighborhood and the idea of the 200 feet radius. They felt the use of the neighborhood definition was limiting neighborhood. Ira Krottinger, 3710 Cedar Elm, spoke in favor of the limited restaurant and mentioned the annexation concerns and that they seem to be ignored by the Council. I want to know if the Council is going to listen to the people that are affected and look at the best and common good. Motion carried by the following vote. Ayes: Mayor Yeager, Councilors Johnston, Shine, and Hawkins Nays: Councilors Thompson, Daniel, and Martin, Item 8b ORDINANCE NO. 113-97 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING APPENDIX A - SUBDIVISIONS, SECTION 9(B)(2)(a) ADDRESSING BOUNDARY STREETS RELATED TO THE PLATTING PROCESS Moved by Councilor Hawkins that Ordinance No. 113-97 be passed. Motion seconded by Councilor Thompson. Mr. George Bonnett informed that the issue was on streets adjacent to a subdivision, existing right-of-ways, and what the obligation is of the new residents, through the developer, to improve this facility. Current Ordinance requires that only curbs and gutters be installed. The problem is that curbs and gutters cannot be installed on a rural cross section street without the street being rebuilt. Mr. Bonnett stated that the Council had expressed the following concerns: 1) the numerous requests for waivers on curbs and gutters; 2) the need to improve boundary streets at the time of platting to insure the current residents are not required to bear the costs of the improvement in the future; 3) shifting economic incentives or building away from non-contiguous areas to contiguous areas; 4) the installation of adequate streets and drainage to serve the developing areas at the time of development. This issue had been discussed by Council and was referred to the Planning Department. Planning gave a presentation and in essence was captured by this proposed ordinance. Mr. Bonnett explained that the proposed ordinance will still require only curbs and gutters to be installed, but will require that the amount can be placed in escrow, which amounts to about $15 per lineal foot. That would be held in perpetuity or until the improvement is done. In an effort to avoid numerous waivers, the approval of a waiver will generate new approval requests. If Council does not approve waivers but requires the deposit of funds to be held in escrow until the street is improved, you have addressed one of the concerns. He referred to the second concern of improving boundary streets. They checked their records and found that they are doing about 2.8 miles per year and if you look at that in terms of a cost of half the 43 Item 8b cont'd. street; that could amount to $900,000 per year. He felt that could work if $900,000 could be made available to pay for boundary streets, but that is a burden that will have to be borne by someone. The question is who bears that burden. The third concern on shifting economic incentives is that you need to measure if $15 /lineal foot is a sufficient economic incentive to shift the economic realities of development away from non-contiguous to contiguous. He questions whether or not that is a sufficient economic incentive. The fourth concern on the issue of adequate streets and drainage is a real concern. We have to find funds to pay for this and the question is who pays. Mr. Bonnett suggested that Council adopt a resolution on a yearly basis to establish a flat fee. Bill Franklin, 4406 Randel, member of Planning & Zoning, stated that they had spent a great deal of time on this and it is not a simple matter. He mentioned their concerns such as controlling the drainage problems; you cannot justify the taxpayer paying for the street; and the fact that homes are being built in our MSA but not within Wichita Falls. We do not want to curb development overall. We felt like there should be some incentive that the tax payers should pay for part of the street, however, to pay for the entire street would be a disincentive. Discussion ensued on boundary streets, drainage, and funding. City Manager stated that the City used to have a fund where people paid in anticipation of improvements and this was done for about nine years. Then there was substantial pressure to make it go away and refund the money. He wanted the minutes to reflect that Council had discussed all this, that this is in perpetuity, and that we recognize this is a forever deal; granted it can be changed. But Council realizes that it may be years before we can get to certain streets, and when a person shows up and wants their money back we have anticipated that and took it into affect with this vote. Councilor Martin commented that even though we make them put the money in escrow at today's cost, fifteen years from that cost may triple and the citizens of the City need to take up the difference. Councilor Johnston agreed that the exact cost will not be recovered but we have a better approach of getting the people who will benefit from it to pay their share of it. Motion carried by the following vote. Ayes: Mayor Yeager, Councilors Johnston, Shine, Thompson, Daniel, Martin, and Hawkins Nays: None Item 8c A proposed ordinance was presented amending Section 4220(I) of the Zoning Ordinance governing the placement of carports within the front setback and exterior side setback. Moved by Councilor Martin that proposed ordinance be passed. Motion seconded by Councilor Thompson. Mr. Dave Clark informed that this was recommended by the City Planning Commission and has to do with placing of carports and the determination of that in the front set back areas. This is also covered by a conditional use circumstance of which Planning & Zoning has final authority on the issuance of a conditional use, unless there is a protest or an appeal. The recommendation today is to delete current language in the existing Ordinance which refers to all weather vehicular access to the rear yard and side carports. This would allow Planning & Zoning to have that determination, as they do in other cases. There would still be notifications to the neighbors, Planning & Zoning would still consider whether there are other carports within the area, and the appeal process is still available. Councilor Hawkins asked what the cost of an appeal would be. Mr. Clark replied that he believed it is a $50 cost. Councilor Hawkins felt that the Ordinance should be left as it is because it is a safeguard measure to insure the integrity of the neighborhoods to make sure 44 Item 8c cont'd. they are protected. Mr. Clark said that the current process requires an additional step to the applicant, which is that Planning & Zoning refers it to the Council for approval because it becomes an ordinance wavier and only Council can waive ordinances. Mr. Clark said that the general trend is that if there are carports in the area they get approved, and if there are no carports they do not get approved. Deed restrictions also prohibit carports. Councilor Martin said that these are so few and far between that that he would like to see it remain as it is. Councilor Daniel asked for Staff's recommendation. Mr. Clark stated that Staff recommends that Planning & Zoning be given the authority to rule on these issues ""M under this proposed ordinance. Councilor Hawkins stated that the downside is the people who are opposed to having a carport put in front of their neighbors' houses, they have no input to Planning & Zoning, where they do with us through the election process. Councilor Shine felt that Planning & Zoning should be given the authority because the Council appoints that Committee. It seems to be more of a nuisance to deal with it. We are appointing a Committee and then pulling back because we are saying we are afraid they will make mistakes. Councilor Hawkins believes that Council has to look a little longer and harder and be more answerable than Planning & Zoning does. Mayor's concern was that the integrity of the neighborhood be maintained. It seems once you start with a carport in one yard you end up going down the block with it. She would rather see them take a stronger stand, unless there is a valid reason, to preserve the integrity and beauty of the neighborhood. Mr. Clark stated that there are other communities that do not permit carports in the front yard and that is that. There seems to be over time an ebb and flow of opinion in this community of whether there should be a complete restriction or a combination, and we get a lot of requests for these. Motion failed by the following vote. Ayes: Mayor Yeager and Councilor Shine Nays: Councilors Johnston, Thompson, Martin, Daniel, and Hawkins Mayor directed Staff to look at this suggested change and come back with that at our next Council meeting if that time frame is feasible. City Council recessed at 11:30 a.m. and reconvened at 11:45 a.m. Item 9a RESOLUTION NO. 167-97 A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A COMMERCIAL LEASE AGREEMENT WITH DON AND LINDA RAKESTRAW FOR THE LAKE KICKAPOO GENERAL STORE/BOAT WORKS FOR A FIVE YEAR PERIOD BEGINNING ON AUGUST 1, 1997 THROUGH JULY 31, 2002; FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT THE MEETING AT WHICH THIS RESOLUTION WAS DISCUSSED WAS OPEN TO THE PUBLIC AS REQUIRED BY LAW Moved by Councilor Thompson that Resolution No. 167-97 be passed. Motion seconded by Councilor Hawkins. Mr. Dave Clark informed that the lease terms have been negotiated regarding the commercial lease at Lake Kickapoo. The proposed lease would raise the monthly payment amount and also look at 1% payment of all taxable sales. Don Rakestraw, lessee, stated that the date of the lease is from August 1, 1997 to August 1 five years from now. He asked that the percentage and the increase in lease payment itself go into effect from November 1, 1997 and not back to August 1, 1997. Council agreed to this. 45 Item 9a cont'd. Motion carried by the following vote. Ayes: Mayor Yeager, Councilors Johnston, Shine, Thompson, Daniel, Martin, and Hawkins Nays: None Item 9b RESOLUTION NO. 168-97 RESOLUTION APPROVING THE ISSUANCE OF REVENUE BONDS BY THE CITY OF TATUM, TEXAS HEALTH FACILITIES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION TO FINANCE AND/OR REFINANCE A HEALTH FACILITY FOR THE TEXHOMA CHRISTIAN CARE, INC., LOCATED WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS OF THE CITY OF WICHITA FALLS, TEXAS; FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT THE MEETING AT WHICH THIS RESOLUTION WAS PASSED WAS OPEN TO THE PUBLIC AS REQUIRED BY LAW Moved by Councilor Martin that Resolution No. 168-97 be passed. Motion seconded by Councilor Shine. Gary Johnson, on behalf of Nations Bank and Texhoma Christian Care, requested Council's consent to issue $4.6 million in a tax exempt loan to Texhoma Christian Care through the Texas Health Facilities Development Corporation of Tatum, Texas. He provided a brief background. Discussion of refinancing their taxable obligations into tax exempt debt began several months ago. Being a nonprofit it must be done through a Health Facilities - Development Corporation. At that time we were under the impression that the City of Wichita Falls had issued some debt and would be issuing more debt. If we added $4.6 million on top of that it would go above the $10 million cap for what is called a small issuer. This loan will be a bank qualified transaction, meaning certain representations have to be made in loan documents whereby the City does not anticipate issuing any more than $10 million in any given year. Several months ago we felt that it was going to be a problem and we began discussions with the City of Tatum and they agreed to allow the debt to be issued through the Health Facilities Corporation, sponsored by them. Yesterday we learned that the City of Wichita Falls probably won't issue $10 million this year and we would like to issue this through the City of Wichita Falls, however, we have all the documents prepared and negotiations have been made with the City of Tatum and we are trying to close this before the end of the year so that Texhoma can begin to recognize the savings this transaction will afford them. Rather than change in mid stream we ask that Council approve this resolution and allow us to proceed with the transaction. Councilor Shine asked why the City of Tatum. Mr. Johnston replied that Tatum has issued no debt this year and they are a good prospect to do this and we were able to get their consent. Councilor Hawkins asked if this would have any bearing on our bond rating. Mr. Johnson replied that it would not affect it at all. City Manager commented that at one point we thought the hospital bonds would count against this but we are not named as one of the issuers at this point. The other thing is that you would have to set up this health finance corporation and it did not appear in the City's best interest to do that at this time for one issuance. But anyone looking at the City's reliability or soundness for additional bond issues would totally bypass that as a consideration; we are not in the position to set up a health finance corporation and it would take a quite a while to get in that position, so we do not recommend it to you. Mayor stated for the record that she abstained from this vote. Motion carried by the following vote. Ayes: Councilors Johnston, Shine, Thompson, Daniel, Martin, and Hawkins Nays: None Abstention: Mayor Yeager 46 Item 9c A proposed resolution was presented approving Amendment No. 4 with Blackbird Aviation, Inc., for lease of premises at the Wichita Falls Municipal Airport. Moved by Councilor Shine that proposed resolution be passed. Motion seconded by Councilor Johnston. Mr. Robert Parker provided a brief history of this lease. In 1982 a lease agreement was entered into which increased the time of the lease for 27 years under certain conditions. Every five years the FBO has to request in writing that the lease be continued for another five years. One thing that was missing in the 27 year extension was a method to prevent the City from incurring excessive cost and to guard against inflation. Inserted in that lease was the statement that at the beginning of each new option period that all rentals would be subject to change and such rentals will increase or decrease in the same ratio that the cost to the City of operating those portions of the airport utilized by the lessee are increased or decreased. Mr. Parker provided City's operating cost. Staff recommends a $425/month rental increase plus electric bill, and we do not believe this is excessive. This is a pass-on charge. In negotiating, Mr. Parker asked Mr. Orcutt to give him something in writing of what he thought would be an appropriate rental rate increase, to which Mr. Orcutt suggested a 10-20% increase. Mr. Parker put together a proposal to increase the rental rate by $85 plus the utility cost, however, Mr. Orcutt did not agree with the inclusion of the utility bill. After discussing this with the City Manager, Mr. Parker recommended that the increase on the monthly charge be $200 plus the electric bill. Councilor Thompson asked if there was any discussion with Mr. Orcutt when he signed the lease about the possibility of raising the rent. Mr. Parker replied that there was. The letter that renewed the five year option was written and delivered to us by Mr. Orcutt. He asked at that time what the recommended rental rate would be and we told him what we are recommending today - $200 increase plus utility cost. Councilor Martin was concerned that Staff was to re-negotiate and bring back an agreeable situation to both parties, but we are back to where we were before. Mr. Parker stated that they had what he assumed to be an agreeable situation, $85 plus electrical bill, but it was declined. Mayor commented that basically they are back before the Council because they are at an impasse. Councilor Daniel stated that Staff is recommending this as the lease and they have negotiated. If we turn this down the City stands to loose an FBO and that responsibility falls on the Staff. We have to let them negotiate, right or wrong, and let them take the heat if things fall apart. Additional discussion was had on the negotiations. Bill Orcutt, owner of Blackbird Aviation, provided documents to the Council and a clip of last Council meeting. He quoted the City Attorney on a statement he made at the June 17 Council meeting that any amendment to the lease requires the consent of both parties. On July 9 Mr. Humbach sent out the letter that is before you stating that the attached maintenance costs were enough to justify a rental figure of $500. That is an 18% increase and is reasonable. Mr. Orcutt said that he relied on these two representations when he purchased Best Aviation two weeks later. He went over the documents presented to the Council. He refuted the $500,000 of expenses represented in July as expenses to the City to justify rental increase. He added that on June 17 he was told that there was not going to be a change to - the lease, then July 9 Mr. Humbach states in a letter that the rent is going to go to $500/month. I purchased Best Aviation and budgeted in that manner. Now in October I get verbal rental proposals to double the lease rent. I expect the City to keep their word. These kinds of misrepresentations are going to put us on a one-way alley heading to a law suit. I don't want that and you don't want that. Councilor Daniel asked Mr. Orcutt how Waco and Lawton's FBO is different from his. Mr. Orcutt said he did not know, but it is pretty easy to picture or present the $425 rent that I have as being the only thing I pay the City for 2900 square feet. He mentioned that last month his fuel flow fee was $3300. Mr. Parker disputed what Mr. Orcutt had mentioned in the documents to the Council, and listed the operation costs paid out and added that all of that was out of the City's operating budget and nothing is offset by federal government money. 47 Item 9c cont'd. $47,000 a year for five years has been out of the City's operating budget to support that facility. He added that we had been subsidizing that operation over a five year period at $134,718.92. Councilor Johnston commented that there was conflicting information on both sides. Based on the presentation Mr. Orcutt expected to purchase this and have a $500/month rental fee; where do we stand as far as liability? City Attorney stated that it was a $500 increase, but the letter does not say that, although it should. Mr. Parker informed that Mr. Orcutt had been told verbally in July by Mr. Washburn and myself what we would be recommending to the Council in the month of October and that was $200/month plus utilities. He was told prior to the time he bought It. Mr. Orcutt stated that subsequently he received the letter from Mr. Humbach and two weeks later he purchased Best Aviation. Mr. Parker stated that there was no negotiated position at that time with Best. Councilor Thompson asked if on July 9 we were saying that the proposed rent would be $500/month. City Attorney stated that the letter did go out of his office and the word "increase" should have been in there but was not included. I can see some merit to the argument that it could be misleading, but it was followed up verbally with these people. They understood that we were talking about a $500/month increase over the existing compensation. Mr. Parker stated that the reason this clause is in amendment no. 1 is to protect the City. You cannot give somebody a 27 year lease extension and keep his rent at the same rate. We have the same opportunity five years from now; if we do not expend the same amount of money then the lease rate will go down by the same ratio as it decreased from the previous five years. It decreases or increases on the ratio of the previous five years. Councilor Johnston commented that we are not only increasing that but we are also putting in the utility bill and it does not say that will change every five years. Mr. Parker informed that we have requested that Mr. Orcutt take the electric bill, we cannot force the electric bill on him, that would require consent by both parties. It is a request on our part that he pay the utilities in his area, and if he does not agree to that I recommend that the $225 be added to the $200 and the rental rate go up by $425/month. Councilor Johnston noted that Council was doing what they did not want to do and that was negotiating the contract, and he did not see that it would be resolved at this time. He felt it needed to be negotiated where some reasonable agreement can be reached with both parties. He suggested that a group consisting of the City Attorney, Airport Manager, Mr. Orcutt, and his attorney sit down and negotiate this. Moved by Councilor Johnston to table this item until it is resolved in negotiations. Motion seconded by Councilor Martin and carried by the following vote. Ayes: Mayor Yeager Councilors Johnston, Thompson, and Martin, Nays: Councilors Shine, Daniel, and Hawkins Item 10a Councilor Thompson asked for a Library update report. Councilor Daniel stated that they had not met but will meet with the Committee and report back to Council. Mr. Clark mentioned that at the next Council meeting they are planning a tour of downtown which will include the Library and Council will be able to see the Library then. Councilor Martin pointed out that the airport situation had been rather confusing on the part of both parties because of the dissemination of information. Staff should provide Council with all the appropriate documentation. Councilor Johnston mentioned the petition requesting a vote on the annexation, and he asked that it be on next Council's agenda for discussion. City Attorney said that he did not think it would be appropriate for him to respond to that question publicly because he would be waiving his attorney-client privilege. He will respond in executive session. 48 Item 10b There were no items under Staff/Council discussion. Item 10c The City Council went into Executive Session at 12:45 p.m. as authorized by Sections 551.071 and 551.074 of the Government Code, and reconvened at 2:05 p. m. Mayor stated that no action was taken in executive session. Councilor Hawkins did not return to the Council Chambers after Executive Session. Item 11 Mayor stated that at this time appointments would not be made to the Appraisal District Board. Council will seek applicants to serve on this board. Item 12 Moved by Councilor Thompson that Dr. Susan M. Strate be appointed to the Wichita Falls-Wichita County Public Health Board with term to expire December 31, 1998. Motion seconded by Councilor Johnston and carried by the following vote. Ayes: Mayor Yeager, Councilors Johnston, Shine, Thompson, Daniel, and Martin Nays: None Item 13 Mayor informed that at this time appointments would not be made to the Traffic Safety Commission. We will seek applicants to serve on this board. Councilor Johnston wishes to consult with the Traffic Safety Commission for the District 2 representative. The City Council adjourned at 2:08 p.m. PASSED AND APPROVED this day of 1997 KATH YN A. YE GER MAYOR ATTEST: n � Lydia Torres City Clerk