Loading...
Min 04/15/1997 494 Wichita Falls, Texas Memorial Auditorium Building April 15, 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 - J. W. 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 Rev. David P. Williams, East Side Baptist Church. Mayor Yeager proclaimed the month of April as "Month of the Young Child" in Wichita Falls . Item 3 No one signed up for public comments . Item 4 The minutes were approved as distributed. Items 5a-7d Moved by Councilor Thompson 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 495 Items 5a-7d cont ' - Nays : None Item 5a RESOLUTION NO. 63-97 RESOLUTION RESERVING THE CENTRAL PORTION OF LUCY PARK FOR A MONTH OF THE YOUNG CHILD EVENT APRIL 27, 1997 Item 5b RESOLUTION NO. 64-97 RESOLUTION TO ACCEPT THE LANDFILL FINAL COVER CELL X-B PROJECT AND AUTHORIZE FINAL PAYMENT TO ZACK BURKETT COMPANY Item 5c RESOLUTION NO. 65-97 RESOLUTION TO ACCEPT THE 1995-96 UTILITY PAINTING PROJECT AND AUTHORIZE FINAL PAYMENT TO ASSOCIATED PAINTING COMPANY Item 6a RESOLUTION NO. 66-97 RESOLUTION TO AWARD BID AND CONTRACT FOR REHAB OF LIFT STATION 3 AND 29 PROJECT Item 6b Bid was awarded to Texaco Lubricants Company in the amount of $38 , 586 . 86 for City' s estimated annual requirement of lubrication products . Item 7a-7d Minutes of the meeting of the following boards and commissions were received. a. Wichita Falls Traffic Safety Commission, March 5, 1997 b. Commission on Human Needs, March 17 , 1997 c . Park Board, March 27, 1997 d. Civil Service Commission, March 29, 1997 Item 8a ORDINANCE NO. 37-97 ORDINANCE WAIVING SECTION 27-30 OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES WITH RESPECT TO PLACING A SIDEWALK ON THE NORTH SIDE OF OLD IOWA PARK ROAD ADJACENT TO THE SOUTH LINE OF 4108 OLD IOWA PARK ROAD Moved by Councilor Martin that Ordinance No. 37-97 be passed. Motion seconded by Councilor Hawkins . 496 Item 8a cont ' d. Mayor informed that Items 8a and 8b were carried over from the last Council meeting. Mr. George Bonnett stated that they had very little additional information on Item 8a and the Council may wish to look at Item 8b first . Councilor Hawkins asked several questions and made comments regarding Mr. Skinner' s request which was Item 8b. Mayor clarified to Councilor Hawkins that Mr. Skinner' s request was not a part of item 8a but item 8b. Mayor asked for additional comments on Item 8a. Larry Fowler, 4808 Iowa Park Road, showed pictures of an irrigation ditch which he said was on either side of his business and is 20 feet from the pavement . He did not see the need for a sidewalk which was going to dead-end into an irrigation ditch. Also, it is not going to last because there is traffic in and out across it all day. There is not enough room between the road and my business to have a certain driveway. Mr. Fowler informed that he had to have the whole front of his business . Councilor Martin asked, if the sidewalk ended at the drainage ditch, where would the sidewalk go from there if the property is further developed. Mr. Bonnett replied that we would bring it inside the drainage facility of the headwall, and he added that it is still feasible for a sidewalk. Mr. Bonnett provided information on what the Ordinance requires on the sidewalk. Councilor Shine commented that this area had already been developed and there are no sidewalks within miles of this location. Therefore, he did not see why they were being required to put in a sidewalk. He was in favor of this waiver. Councilor Thompson stated that the commentary indicated the entire frontage is gravel and that would not be compatible with putting in a sidewalk. Councilor Hawkins said that if the sidewalk is put in as has been mentioned, the persons doing business there will end up parking across the sidewalk. It won' t be much use having it there . He was also in favor of this waiver. Councilor Daniel asked for the background on the original Ordinance . Mayor asked that information include why the Ordinance is written the way it is, the enforcement, and to inform, if the waiver is granted and property develops, if the City is responsible for the sidewalk. Mr. Bill Parker, City Engineer, displayed a map of Kell and F.M. 369 up to Kovarik Road. He reiterated that the sidewalks are not a platting requirement, but, a building permit requirement . Mr. Parker added that the owners' representative requested the waiver, and if they request it we include it . We have no way of knowing what they plan on doing. Councilor Hawkins commented that if they are not going to be doing a development or building out there, there is no need to request a waiver. Mr. Parker concurred. 497 Item 8a cont ' d. Mr. Parker continued his report . We looked at the history on F.M. 369 in three areas, building permits (1987) , aerial photographs (1986) , and plats, replats, and waivers . They found only one building permit in 1988 for a mobile home at 3701 Arena Road. The aerial photographs show habitable and out structures on the east side of F .M. 369, Mesa Irrigated Farms . The earliest record of activity in that area was in 1978 , and at that time no waiver was requested for sidewalk or curb and gutter. In the aerial photograph, structures appear to be outside the city limit line which were placed after 1986 . We only had one request for sidewalk waiver and that is the one pending, the request for waiver of sidewalk and curb and gutter at the Texaco . The curb and gutter was waived but the sidewalk was not waived. As units in the Landrum and Henderson Plat were platted in 1994 , a curb and gutter waiver was requested and granted, no sidewalk waivers were requested. There are no sidewalks out there because the units which were built are outside the 600 feet City limit line . We have pending the Mid- states Development Complex in the northwest corner, a fifty-five acre development, and curb and gutter waiver was requested, but, it was denied by council . No sidewalk waiver was requested, but we expect that they will put it in. The Public Works Engineering Department enforces curb and gutter requirements, the sidewalks are under the Building Inspection Department . Mr. Bonnett commented that the sidewalk ordinance attaches to the building permit, but, is not a part of the platting requirement . whereas, curb and gutter is a part of the platting requirement . Historically, property owners or their representatives will ask for a waiver if they perceive that, functionally, a waiver might be available, and we place it on the agenda . We believe that curb and gutter and sidewalk should be installed on every street in every urban environment . However, we fully understand that it is not in the property owners financial interest, and that often that facility may remain unused for a good period of time . We believe it is the written policy of the City, as set out in the Ordinance, that it is required so we have no choice but to recommend it be put in if it can physically be put in. If a property owner disagrees with that and believes they have an opportunity not to install it, they are within their rights to ask for a waiver . The difficulty of administering the Ordinance is that if you put the sidewalk ordinance in the platting requirement you are not ever going to recover sidewalks in un-sidewalked area as it redevelops . There is nothing functionally wrong with Council taking a different tact and simply not requiring it , but perhaps setting up a taxation base to generate funds and council decides where they want to set up sidewalks . Right now, it is the responsibility of the property owner at the time they go for the building permit, not the plat . I believe it was put in the building permit for two reasons : to capture the redevelopment and to facilitate the builders operation. There are pros and cons, and we frequently get caught between a builder and a developer. There is no perfect way, but it is Council' s policy to install sidewalks and if it can physically be done, we recommend it . Councilor Shine asked what would constitute that road being curb and gutter if it was recommended it not be . He asked if that particular road was a farm-to-market or a state highway, would the State have to put it in. Mr. Bonnett replied that the 498 Item 8a cont ' d. State would look to the local agency to put in the curb and gutter. We would always recommend that curb and gutter be put in, but, in this case, the State asked that it not be done and there is a reason for that . When you install curb and gutter in an urban area, it should always be pulled down below the abutting property, that means that the street needs to be lowered also. It is a problem on a state route because they are a rural cross-section, they tend to build their streets up in the air so they can shed water under a bar ditch. The problem comes in if you put the curb and gutter where it belongs and for urban environment you have to rebuild the street . Your Ordinance only provides for the property owner to install curb and gutter, therefore, the City would have to find the funds to rebuild the street unless the street happens to be in the right elevation. Mr. Bonnett added that they do have a plan to curb and gutter every street in every urban area but we do not have the dollars to do that . Councilor Martin asked if the waiver was granted and later on that area develops, would the City be responsible to install sidewalks . Mr. Bonnett replied in the affirmative and added that the City would have to go to the General Fund. Councilor Thompson commented that we were talking about two different subjects, one is where an area is already developed and the other is not . Mr. Bonnett agreed that they were different criteria . Mr. Dave Clark stated that the issue was whether to have sidewalks or not and the second could be a topic for a later discussion of how to administer sidewalk development and enforcement . Mayor said that it would be very informative and educational to come back fairly quickly to the Council with a discussion on sidewalks . Councilor Hawkins asked for the sidewalk requirements on this particular area . Mr. Bonnett provided that information and stated that the driveway location would have to be defined in order to give specifics on the reinforcement issue . Motion carried by the following vote . Ayes : Mayor Yeager, Councilors Johnston, Shine, Thompson, Daniel, and Hawkins Nays : Councilor Martin Item 8b A proposed ordinance was presented waiving section 27-30 of the Code of Ordinances with respect to placing a sidewalk on the east side of Arena Road (F.M. Highway 369) adjacent to the west line of lot 2 , Block 51, Mesa Irrigated Farms Moved by Councilor Hawkins that proposed ordinance be passed. Motion seconded by Councilor Thompson. 499 Item 8b cont ' d. Councilor Hawkins asked if there was a plan for development out there and if not, was there a particular reason for asking for this waiver. Mr. Martin Litteken, property owners' representative, replied that this property was turned in for a plat , and the Plats Committee sent a comment that sidewalks would be required. That is a building permit issue, but it is one that is put down in the same situation as the plat . I realize that the Staff' s reasons for doing this is to make the person aware of this requirement . It is up to us to be the bearer of bad news of what the City requires, and I informed the property owners that there is the option to request waivers . Councilor Hawkins asked if there was a particular reason a sidewalk was required as a part of this platting. Mr. Bonnett replied that it is a requirement under the section of the Ordinance for the building permit not as a part of the plat . We give it to them during the platting process so that they are not surprised. We try to provide the requirements early, but a sidewalk is never required until the building permit is drawn. Councilor Hawkins said that it appeared that staff had put this in as a part of the plat requirement . Mr. Clark stated that they inform the property owners and it is strictly for information purposes . Mayor asked the property owner if they were not in the process of obtaining a building permit, then did they want to withdraw their request for this waiver until such time as they are ready to build on the property. Dean Caldwell, 219 Widows Drive said that they had never requested a building permit because the building is already there . Mr. Caldwell withdrew his request for the waiver. Mr. Litteken also withdrew the request for the waiver and apologized for the time involved in this matter. Councilor Daniel mentioned that Mr. Caldwell had commented that the City had denied him access to a plat on the basis of the sidewalk requirement . Mr. Clark informed that the platting process does not hinge on whether there are waivers or not . If there are no waivers there is a requirement to build the curb and gutter at the time of platting or make financial arrangements . When it comes to sidewalks they are required when you are going to build something. Councilor Hawkins asked why are sidewalks even mentioned in the platting process since they are actually under the building permit process . Mr. Clark stated that it is an informational piece, and when someone is ready to build, they will be aware of all City requirements up front and will be prepared for the next step . On the other hand, if someone is ready and in a hurry to build they would have to come in for waivers and there is a time delay waiting for Council meetings, etc . Councilor Hawkins was concerned that the curb and gutter is a plat requirement and it should be on a separate sheet of paper that says that these are also requirements when you get ready to build. The way it is currently done, tends to make that a part of the plat requirement whether you intended to or not . 500 Item 8b cont ' d. Councilor Daniel commented that the engineer has the opportunity and responsibility to explain to the property owner, and I am sure this was done . This is a very good illustration why we have this Ordinance and why the Planning Department goes about it the way that they do . A piece of property can be conveyed through a sale and the potential buyer does not know that the sidewalk requirement is going to be there down the road. He may feel like he got taken to the cleaners . Here the potential buyer is notified and I think the Planning Department is doing exactly what we asked them to do, to be good communicators and tell people ahead of time what the requirements are going to be so that they do not come back to the Council . It is not a requirement for platting now, but it is a future requirement for the building permit . Councilor Hawkins said that it does not say that, it says that curbs, gutters and sidewalks are required. Point of personal privilege was taken by the Mayor. Mayor Yeager recognized and welcomed Mr. Robert Wood, representing Boy Scout Troop 88 who is here to observe a City Council meeting and is working on a communications merit badge and a citizenship community badge . Mayor followed-up on Councilor Daniel' s comment regarding the Council' s goal that the Staff inform the citizens of potential things that they would be liable for by making them fully aware of the ordinances and the codes with which they will need to comply in innumerable instances . There could be some clarification in the process but the thrust of informing developers, builders, and a one home owner of all the ordinances they will be confronted with during the process as early in the process is certainly following that particular goal and guideline . Councilor Martin commented that this was a good example of the need to seriously consider a subdivision study committee . Point of order was called by Councilor Johnston. We had a motion on the floor in regards to this waiver and have not acted on it . Mayor stated that the request had been withdrawn. City Attorney acknowledged that no further action was needed. Item 8c ORDINANCE NO. 38-97 ORDINANCE WAIVING SECTION 22-1 (a) (9) OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES TO PERMIT SIGNS FOR THE MARCH OF DIMES FOR A WALKING EVENT IN LUCY PARK APRIL 26 , 1997 Moved by Councilor Thompson that Ordinance No. 38-97 be passed. Motion seconded by Councilor Johnston. 501 Item 8c cont ' d. William C . Young, 1018 Widows Lane suggested that a fact sheet be utilized in regards to the requirements on plats and building permits . Councilor Thompson left the Council chambers . Mayor informed that the ordinance before the Council was a waiver to permit signs for the March of Dimes event in Lucy Park, and she advised that comments from the public be directed to the ordinance before the Council to keep the order established by the Council . Motion carried by the following vote . Ayes : Mayor Yeager, Councilors Johnston, Shine, Daniel, Martin, and Hawkins Nays : None Item 8d ORDINANCE NO. 39-97 ORDINANCE WAIVING SECTION 22-1 (a) (9) OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES TO PERMIT SIGNS FOR THE CHILD ADVOCATES DURING AN EVENT IN THE DOWNTOWN PARK APRIL 18 , 1997 Moved by Councilor Martin that Ordinance No. 39-97 be passed. Motion seconded by Councilor Johnston and carried by the following vote . Ayes : Mayor Yeager, Councilors Johnston, Shine, Daniel, Martin, and Hawkins Nays : None Item 8e ORDINANCE NO. 40-97 ORDINANCE WAIVING SECTION 22-1 (a) (2) OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES TO PERMIT VEHICLES ON THE GRASS AND EXTENDED RESERVATION PRIVILEGE TO THE TEX-MEX BASEBALL LEAGUE FOR BALLFIELDS IN SPUDDER AND WILLIAMS PARKS ON FRIDAY, SATURDAY, AND SUNDAY APRIL-SEPTEMBER, 1997 Moved by Councilor Martin that Ordinance No . 40-97 be passed. Motion seconded by Councilor Johnston and carried by the following vote . Ayes : Mayor Yeager, Councilors Johnston, Shine, Daniel, Martin, and Hawkins 502 Item 8e cont ' d. Nays : None Item 8f ORDINANCE NO. 41-97 ORDINANCE WAIVING SECTION 22-1 (a) (9) OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES TO PERMIT SIGNS FOR THE "DIABETES WALK FOR LIFE" EVENT IN LUCY PARK MAY 31, 1997 Moved by Councilor Martin that Ordinance No. 41-97 be passed. Motion seconded by Councilor Shine and carried by the following vote . Ayes : Mayor Yeager, Councilors Johnston, Shine, Daniel, Martin, and Hawkins Nays : None Item 8a ORDINANCE NO. 42- 7 ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE TRANSFER OF A FRANCHISE TO OPERATE SPECIAL SERVICE VEHICLES FROM ALFRED S . TUCKER TO JAMES L. FIELDS (DBA SPECIAL DISABLED TRANSPORT) Moved by Councilor Martin that Ordinance No. 42-97 be passed. Motion seconded by Councilor Johnston and carried by the following vote . Ayes : Mayor Yeager, Councilors Johnston, Shine, Daniel, Martin, and Hawkins Nays : None Item 8h A proposed ordinance was presented amending Section 6210 J of the Zoning Ordinance regarding front yard parking. Moved by Councilor Shine that proposed ordinance be passed. Motion seconded by Councilor Hawkins . Councilor Hawkins said that we had asked staff to prepare an ordinance to allow for materials other than asphalt or concrete for front yard parking, instead they brought back a change which allows Staff to control the construction of material for driveways . I do not believe they have done what we 503 Item 8h cont ' d asked them, therefore, I propose the following substitute motion. Moved by Councilor Hawkins that Section 1 of Ordinance 158- 93 be amended by changing the word "unpaved" to "unimproved" throughout the Ordinance . Councilor Daniel referred to the Council minutes of April 1, 1997 and stated that the last comment directed Staff to look at the original intent of the Ordinance and come back with recommendations of whether to leave it intact as it currently exists or to expand the surface to include gravel . Mayor added that the request included information on the problems that would be commensurate with changing the Ordinance and enforcement problems which we would be facing. The suggestion before us adds a section to the Ordinance which expands it to include gravel as a paving material in addition to asphalt and concrete . City Attorney concurred. Councilor Hawkins stated that also added is wording which prevents them from pulling in the front yard, they have to line it up with the driveway if all the driveways are perpendicular to the street . Councilor Johnston commented that it applies only if it is gravel . If they want to have a gravel front yard for parking, they cannot according to this ordinance . Councilor Thompson returned to the Council Chambers . Mr. Clark informed that the original Ordinance talked about parking in an area that is a recognized driveway and in an obvious driveway alignment, otherwise, on a paved surface . Staff has interpreted that to be asphalt pavement or concrete pavement . We have provided information that the neighborhood residents have supported this Ordinance and Staff has followed up on this . Regarding the enforcement of this Ordinance, for the most part, we call them or write to them and ask them not to park in the front yard; 980 of them don' t and that is the end of that . In regards to the motion presented by Councilor Hawkins, I would ask that Council define "improved surface" . Councilor Hawkins said that "improved surface" means that there has been something done to the surface to improve it, which means either paved, gravel , chat or seashells . Those are accepted means of paving. He did not think what we were doing was fair. Citizens wish to park in their front yard and they want to use gravel as a means of improving the parking surface instead of concrete or asphalt . I asked for a change in the Ordinance that would allow gravel as a substitute for asphalt or paving in the front yard and, in my opinion, we did not get it . Councilor Daniel said Staff had brought back recommendations to the Council and he requested that this be discussed in a non-adversarial and non-confrontational manner, especially between the Council and Staff . Mayor commented that this is the third most popular Ordinance and, from their comments, citizens do want to improve the quality of their neighborhoods . Options do exist and citizens can ask for waivers . In addition, it is enforceable as written. 504 Item 8h cont ' d. Councilor Johnston asked if the written ordinance required that it be parallel and adjoining the primary driveway and in general alignment with reference to the driveway placement of the neighborhood. Mr. Clark replied that the original Ordinance required that no parking would be permitted on unpaved grassy surfaces within the area defined as the front yard, unless recognized as the primary driveway serving a residence . We take that to mean if you are parked in the main driveway, which can be dirt tracts, gravel, asphalt or whatever, and you are parking in the front yard, then it will not be permitted on an unpaved surface . Therefore, it would need to be a paved surface and the Staff interprets that to be pavement in the sense of asphalt, concrete or even brick. Councilor Johnston commented that if we had no alignment requirements currently in the Ordinance, this would add it in the case of gravel . Mr. Clark concurred, and added that if you would put gravel in the front yard area, the other paved areas could be aligned in any manner as long as they are in the front yard. Councilor Johnston stated that another restriction is that it has to be boarded with a retaining 2" wall higher than the gravel . Mr. Clark informed that the reason for that was to define where the gravel stops . Councilor Johnston said this would make it a pond when it rains . The written proposal would kill any purpose of putting gravel in there, and that is not what we asked for. Councilor Shine felt that the intent was to have an alternative to concrete and asphalt, that alternative being gravel . Moved by Councilor Hawkins that Section 1, Appendix C, Section 6240 J of the Code of Ordinances be amended to read as follows : "For residential land uses, regardless of current zoning, classification, no parking will be permitted on unimproved or grassy surfaces within the area defined as the front yard (refer to Section 2030) , unless recognized as the primary driveway serving a residence . " Councilor Hawkins felt that this would allow them to use asphalt, concrete, gravel or some other type of surface . Councilor Johnston stated that "unimproved surface" would have to be defined. Motion died for a lack of a second. Councilor Daniel commented that apparently the Ordinance was presented to maintain the integrity of the neighborhood and with the number of complaints it has been very popular and very effective, and the City likes it the way it is, as well as the results . Mayor asked for any additional public comment . W. C. Young, 1018 Widows Lane, said he agreed with Councilor Daniel and the Ordinance should be left as it is . He also agreed with the waiver option. J. C. Bradberry, 1627 Lucas, felt this Ordinance should be left exactly as it is . He said that the gravel is going to end up in someone' s window, and also it will go down and cause ruts . Mayor informed that the motion before the Council was the original motion amending Section 6210 J of the Zoning Ordinance as suggested by Staff . Motion failed by the following vote . 505 Item 8h cont ' d. Ayes : None Nays : Mayor Yeager, Councilors Johnston, Shine, Thompson, Daniel, Martin, and Hawkins Item 9a RESOLUTION NO. 67-97 UWAO RESOLUTION AMENDING LABORATORY TESTING FEES FOR TESTS PERFORMED ON WATER SAMPLES SUBMITTED TO THE HEALTH DEPARTMENT LABORATORY Moved by Councilor Shine that Resolution No . 67-97 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 RESOLUTION NO. 68-97 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WICHITA FALLS, TEXAS; RATIFYING THE AGREEMENT REACHED BETWEEN T.U. ELECTRIC AND THE STEERING COMMITTEE OF CITIES REGARDING A REFUND OF $80 MILLION; AUTHORIZING INTERVENTION IN THE PUC DOCKET TO CONSIDER THE REFUND; AUTHORIZING CONTINUED NEGOTIATIONS BETWEEN T.U. ELECTRIC AND THE STEERING COMMITTEE TO RESOLVE FUTURE OVEREARNINGS ISSUES AND THE APPEALS AND REMANDS ASSOCIATED WITH PUC DOCKET NOS . 9300 AND 11735; 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. 68-97 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 506 Item 9c RESOLUTION NO 69-97 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WICHITA FALLS, TEXAS; AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO APPLY FOR ASSISTANCE UNDER DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE WEED AND SEED GRANT PROGRAM AND TO EXECUTE ANY NECESSARY CONTRACTS INCLUDED IN THE APPLICATION TO OPERATE THIS PROGRAM; FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT THE MEETING AT WHICH THIS RESOLUTION WAS PASSED WAS OPEN TO THE PUBLIC AS REQUIRED BY LAW Moved by Councilor Thompson that Resolution No . 69-97 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 City Council recessed at 10 : 20 a .m. and reconvened at 10 : 35 a.m. Item 10a Mayor mentioned that when they attended the National League of Cities Conference in Washington, D. C. one of the topics presented at a general session was the move towards deregulation of the electric industry. It is a topic confronting us and we have asked Ron Bullock, District Manager for T.U. Electric to provide us with that information. Mr. Bullock introduced Mr. Ron Seidel, Vice President of T.U. Electric who provided an overview of the issue on deregulation. A copy of Mr. Seidel' s presentation is attached hereto as Exhibit A. Item 10b The Council held a discussion of the City' s policy on library fines . City Manager brought Council up to date by informing that if a person goes through the required steps and goes to court, the court does not have the authority to abate the fine . They can impose their own fine but the fine and obligation are still there . Once they walk out of court the process starts all over if a book is not brought back and a fine is incurred. What happens with the original fine is that the person should go to the library and pay the fine and return the book. If they do not, at that point library services would be refused to that person until the previous matter was taken care of . They would 507 Item 10b cont ' d. not be run back through the Court in what was called double jeopardy. The fine goes on at ten cents a day. Councilor Hawkins asked if there is absolutely no way that a person could be charged with failure to return the book more than once . City Manager replied that was his understanding. Linda Hughes informed that they had never taken them to Court the second time on the same offense . Another citation would be issued if they have a second set of books, but not on the original set of books . Councilor Hawkins asked if once a person has a delinquent book, and the process has started, is that person prohibited from taking out future books until they satisfy the problem with the delinquent book . Mrs . Hughes confirmed that and informed that there is a three week check-out period on books, and there is actually four weeks before a fine is generated. Councilor Hawkins was concerned that once the fine was paid, why that did not release them of the obligation of having to return the book. Mrs . Hughes explained that the person goes to Court and pays a $75 fine; however, if they have checked out ten items at $25 a piece, which have not been brought back, they get away with $250 for $75 . Councilor Hawkins commented that if a person gets a ticket for breaking one of our other ordinances, they are released of having broken that ordinance . City Attorney said he hoped that was not the case; they can be fined daily because it is a continuing offense . Councilor Johnston brought up the income tax issue, and the fact that if it is not paid or filed you are fined and not relieved of the obligation to pay those taxes . Mayor asked what happens if the Court fine is paid but the books are not returned; is there a system to have the books returned. Mrs . Hughes responded that the only thing is that we can refuse to allow them to check out further material, but, we do not have any way of having the books returned. City Attorney interjected that if there were a substantial amount of capital involved we would pursue it through civil court . Item 10c There were no concerns mentioned by Council . Item 10d (1) A discussion was held on the North Texas RADAR Council' s request to receive the decommissioned National Weather Service radar located at the Municipal Airport . City Manager stated that it is a 1970 radar unit located at the airport which has not been active for some time . The City is in a position where it can request that radar from the federal government . At this point, we see no reason for a City operation to ask for that radar. We feel that the present radar coverage for us is fine . According to reports, the Frederick radar is working better. We have indicated backup coverage from 508 Item 10d (1) cont ' d. Abilene and Dallas area and, also, a Lawton station has a Doppler radar. I would report to the Council that we would not recommend to you that the City take the radar for any constructive purposes in our operation. We have had discussions with Mr. Briggs on the proposal . In all fairness, I would want the Council fully aware of that so that in making a determination whether or not you want us to make a request for the radar (1) for our use which our recommendation is we not, or (2) for any other use then I think you need to be aware of these proposals . I am ready to leave it at the point of recommending to the Council that for our purposes we not accept the radar. Mayor stated that the City Manager has made the recommendation that the City not request the radar for the City, not closing the door on any other organization. City Manager commented that there should be some stipulations on proposals on behalf of any other organization pursuing accepting the radar. Most of this seems to be in concert with Mr. Briggs . There is some compelling reason to keep it at the airport because of the tower that is there . If you are going to keep it you could be saving in relocation money as much as $30, 000-$50, 000, then there is a compelling reason. I think the radar should be divested of City obligation for future repairs and expenses associated with it . Mr. Briggs has talked in terms of a financial support base that could be put together to pay those costs . But I think it has to be at arm' s length distance from the City in terms of obligation or its actual location. There may be some place where it could be put and still utilize the tower that is there . Councilor Martin asked if anyone else had requested the radar or was it limited strictly to the City. City Manager replied that he had not looked into that, but, he was under the impression that it would have to be this City that requests it . I assume other governmental units could do it . Mayor wanted to get a feel as to whether Council is supportive of the Staff' s recommendation that the City not get into the radar business . Council concurred. David Briggs, 3600 Onaway Trail, President and General Manager of radio station KTEO, informed that he had attended NexRad classes and gave his qualifications . North Texas Radar Council was formed to own and operate the decommissioned radar at the airport and to prevent its demise and loss to the community. we made a formal request for the radar in a letter to the City. Since that formal request was made six months ago you may have heard that the City should not accept the radar from the Weather Service nor facilitate its transfer to a non- profit group. Some may feel that the technology is not needed and those who hold that opinion are not necessarily in possession of all the facts . We know that KDFX-TV 3 subscribes to a commercial provider of national weather radar images . You may not be aware that a failure of that provider or the National Weather Service radar renders Channel 3 without any radar. KAUZ TV 6 and KSWO TV 7 both have radar but no backup power to operate in emergencies . All three TV stations only present radar images on an occasional basis during breaks and regular programming and during six minute weather casts . He reported that the images from those radars are not available to the general public or emergency management officials outside those 509 Item lod (1) cont ' d. few broadcast transmissions . The reason is because they are not connected to any dissemination system beyond their own internal use . He demonstrated where the four NexRad systems are located and the fact that three of those radars cannot see below 10 , 000 feet . If the Frederick radar were to be off line there would be no government radar that would ever see the threat to us . You may have heard of an estimate of $150 , 000 to upgrade the radar to Doppler by the original manufacturer . He had information that this could be done for under $5, 000 . In January, I presented a memorandum of understanding to the City Manager which contained all the preliminary information regarding the organization and our proposal . The document included a non - disclosure to the media clause which was declined at that time . Due to the public nature of this meeting and any future meetings regarding the radar I will now remove the non-disclosure clause and make those documents available to anyone who wants a copy. If the citizens of Wichita Falls do not want to fund the radar from a grass roots level of individual contributions, and if the value of the radar images and products are of no value to our corporate and industrial neighbors, then there will be no radar. If the promised gifts, grants and donations are not realized, the radar will go away. It will not cost the City anything, it will only cost the loss of a time proven asset in the battle for advance warning in threatening conditions . Mr. Briggs stated that the North Texas Radar Council is incorporated under the Texas Non-profit Corporation Act . The Charter complies with mandates by the Sate of Texas and the Internal Revenue Service . The City may rest assured that the responsibility of the radar will end when ownership is transferred to the Radar Council . There are ample provisions in law for the dissolution of the organization and the disbursement of its assets . Mr. Briggs explained how the radar could be set up at the airport . He said that without the tower and the antenna system, the radar is scrap and it has no value . The electronic system is inside the building, but, could be re-located into a smaller building and we can deal with that . Remote control is built into that system and there is no requirement that it be manned. The Advisory Committee, appointed by the North Texas Radar Council, has a list of people who will be the primary users of the product . The City does not have to be involved in the radar business . We would like to move the electronics to a smaller building and remote control it and maintain it . Councilor Johnston asked Mr. Briggs if he felt confident that he had the money to do this, and what if this does not materialize . How can the City get out of the obligation to remove it? Mr. Briggs replied that the Staff has already obtained prices from wrecking companies, and electronic salvage companies would love to have this radar because the parts have a very high re-sale value . The cost of removing it will be none, because people would be willing to come and take the parts . The North Texas Radar Council has no funds at this time until there is a consensus from the City, then people will contribute to this . The IRS also has a hand in how anything would be disbursed at the end if it no longer existed. If there was not enough financial interest out there, North Texas Radar Council 510 Item lod (l) cont ' d. would be committed to find a surplus vendor that would remove the radar from the sight and disband the Corporation. Mayor asked for clarification on whether the corporation was actually formed. Mr. Briggs informed that it has been formed, however, the IRS 501c3 status forms have not been tendered because there is no requirement to file one until you have $25 , 000 or more for a fund. Councilor Martin asked if the equipment could be moved to a portable site away from City property leaving the tower and antenna at the airport on City property. City Manager replied that it had to be in close proximity, but, would still be on City property or City property leased to the Base . Councilor Martin asked if there would be any problems in leasing that property with the tower still there . City Manager replied that our concept is that it would be outside the building, it would be a separate building put near the tower itself which would house the radar that would be used by remote control . Councilor Johnston asked if the Air Force had pushed to have the tower removed or if there was any problem. City Manager said that to his knowledge there was none . Councilor Hawkins asked how much time they would need, if Council approved this, to raise the money and to relocate . Mr. Briggs responded that because we are now in storm season, we should wait until the fall, which means about six months . Mayor asked if legally, although it is still owned by the federal government, an arrangement could be consummated and even before that arrangement was done, could they utilize the system during storm season. Mr. Briggs commented that the ownership would have to pass before they could legally do that . City Manager mentioned that we could request it and it would be ours or we could get into an arrangement where its theirs subject to it being moved by a specific date . The City has first right of refusal . The issue of maintenance was brought up and Mr. Briggs stated that they were prepared to handle that and they do have a plan of operation. It would be operated only when bad weather was coming in. Councilor Daniel asked if the City would have an implied liability if this backup system failed. City Manager said that the City Staff made this recommendation because we feel what we have is a sufficient system. One of the things we feared is what happens if you get competing information between Doppler and this system. The cooperation will be there, but we feel we should go with the system we have said is sufficient for this City. I do not know what that says about the liability question. I would hope that most people would be glad to have the warning and they would act accordingly and there would not be any liability. I think the City needs to strive to be distant of that . Councilor Martin questioned where this information was going to be disseminated, and who was going to pick that up and put it out . City Manager replied that this was going to be used 511 Item lOd (1) cont ' d. as a backup. Mr. Briggs informed that they have looked into that and believe transfer of the title will also transfer the liability, and there are good Samaritan laws, under which we feel we would be covered. City Manager commented that we are not relinquishing our warning system; we only view this as additional information. Mayor said that from the City' s perspective, we feel like we are adequately covered by national weather service and this would be a backup service . We would not stand in the way if all the necessary details of an arm' s length arrangement were prepared where the City is not liable and in the long run not fall into the position of having to do something with the radar. Charles Byers, 4217 Meadowbrook, District Emergency Coordinator for the amateur storm spotters, informed that the City should not be in the storm business and someone else can do that . He stated that the storm spotters do their job as a volunteer service for the citizens of the community. He was disappointed that City Manager and Staff had not contacted them to ask their opinion about this since they are the ones using that radar to protect the City. There was very uninformed and inaccurate information given to the Council, and we could have given you accurate information, but, we were not contacted. We feel the City should invest money for the safety of the community. Our recommendations are that you ask for the radar and give it to this non-profit organization, we need the data from that radar now. Leave it in its present location throughout theh remainder of this and next season. Unit only occupies 200 feet of space and could be modified for outside access . Moving the equipment would be expensive and would be hard to do . If over a period of time the system does not work out the City, by contract, can take possession of the radar. There are a lot of people who are willing to pay good money for that radar. The spotters do not want to man, operate or maintain that radar unit . The NexRad unit in Frederick, Oklahoma has been improved but it still goes down and we do not want to be without adequate local radar coverage during severe weather. We need a local operator controlled radar, not a computer control unit located 90 nautical miles away if Frederick goes down. I do not think there would be any liability to the City regarding the use of the old radar. Norman, Oklahoma would be the one responsible for issuing the warnings, not the City or the spotters . We are just asking you to give it a chance and not close the door on this matter. We will be glad to work with City Staff . Mayor asked for clarification on the aspect of sending information to the local industries . Industry has contacted us wanting to know how to get radar information. Mr. Byers replied that all we need to do is hook up a phone line to a modem and the information could be sent anywhere to anyone who wants it . Councilor Johnston asked if this is turned over to the non- profit how would you communicate between the radar and the spotters in the field. Mr. Byers replied that they do not want to man the radar at all except on an interim basis, but the National Weather Service in Norman, Oklahoma would make the decision as to when to issue warnings . One of the reasons we utilize the radar data is to provide information to the spotters 512 Item 10d (1) cont ' d. to keep them in an area of safety. The information from the NexRad radar is excellent, however, when we receive an update image on our radar at the TV stations, the information is six to ten minutes old. We do have radio communication to the City dispatch office . Councilor Hawkins asked what the cost would be to the City if it was left in its present location. City Manager replied that under that arrangement the City would not be at arm' s length, and it gets back to the liability issue . In my mind, continuing with the present arrangement does not separate into a new arrangement . Mayor commented that Mr. Byers has suggested something different from Mr. Briggs, and in defining and separating the liability issue and who would fall heir to that , Mr. Briggs' approach draws the line more clearly. It has never been our intention to deny access to this radar to a responsible group who can, first , show financial responsibility and, second, if the lines can be delineated to place the City in arm' s length. If we can accomplish that through an agreement that allows this usage to occur this spring with a proviso that they are ultimately responsible, that perhaps is the avenue we should take . Mayor suggested allowing a length of time in which Mr. Briggs' organization can show some responsible business plan to us so that we can sit down and try to get some of the parameters in black and white in order to move forward on this . There was discussion as to whether the City should ask for the radar first and then have the plans or visa versa . City Manager asked Mr. Briggs if they were given an indication of that the City will ask for the radar, could they show us an operating and capability plan, and assuming that could he perceive that . Mr. Briggs replied that he and the City could reasonably present a proposal that would be acceptable to everyone within two weeks, consummation being in eight weeks . Mayor suggested that Mr. Briggs and City Manager begin working on this plan with City Attorney and move forward. Margie Coal, 3305 Arthur, suggested that the City meet with the spotters and hear what they do or get a scanner and hear what they do . We citizens are due that protection. Item 10e City Council went into executive session at 1 : 00 p .m. in accordance with Section 551 . 071 Texas Government Code and Section 551 . 074 of the Texas Government Code . City Council reconvened at 2 :45 p.m. Item 10f Moved by Councilor Thompson that Ray Clymer, Ron Bullock, John Gavin, Stan West and Gary Shores be appointed as the Board of Directors to the 4A Sales Tax Corporation. 513 Item 10f cont ' d. Motion seconded by Councilor Hawkins and carried by the following vote . Ayes : Mayor Yeager, Councilors Johnston, Shine, Thompson, Daniel, Martin, and Hawkins Nays : None Item 10g Moved by Councilor Thompson that Gail Key be appointed to the Arts Commission to fill the At-Large position held by Jeanne Kay Rigg, who resigned. This will be the second of a two year term, and that the following be re-appointed: Heather Tedford, Carolyn C. Sanders, Martha Fain Shores, Betty L. Smith and Cathryn Whaling. Motion seconded by Councilor Hawkins and carried by the following vote . Ayes : Mayor Yeager, Councilors Johnston, Shine, Thompson, Daniel, Martin, and Hawkins Nays : None Item 10h Moved by Councilor Thompson that Mark Terning be appointed to the Clean Country Commission with term to expire December 31, 1998 . Motion seconded by Councilor Hawkins and carried by the following vote . Ayes : Mayor Yeager, Councilors Johnston, Shine, Thompson, Daniel, Martin, and Hawkins Nays : None Item 10i Moved by Councilor Thompson that Dr. Harl Mansur, Jr. Be appointed to the Board of Health with term to expire December 31, 1998 . Motion seconded by Councilor Hawkins and carried by the following vote . Ayes : Mayor Yeager, Councilors Johnston, Shine, Thompson, Daniel, Martin, and Hawkins Nays : None 514 The City Council adjourned at 1 : 00 p .m. i" PASSED AND APPROVED this day of (� 1997 . KAT RYN A. YE GER MAYOR ATTEST: Lydia Torres City Clerk MAY-01-97 13=29 FROM=TU ELECTRIC WF ID= 16177233933 PAGE 2/4 Electric Industry Structure Information Packet provided by TU Electric The rationale behind any electric industry public policy change is to increase competition with the goal of lowering the price of electricity. This information packet has factual information on the electric industry, both for Texas and the U.S.: - REAL ELECTRICITY PRICES IN THE U.S. Real electricity prices in the U.S. have dropped more than 20% the past 10 years. Part of that drop is due to increased competition at the wholesale level in a number of states. - REAL ELECTRICITY PRICES IN TEXAS Real total electricity prices in Texas are approximately 25% lower today than they were 10 years ago. The electric industry in Texas has done a good job of maintaining competitive prices and thestate has reaped the benefits in terms of industrial development and jobs created-The 74th legislature enacted wholesale market competition legislation for the Texas electric industry. Those amendments became effective on September 1,1995. - 1994 INDUSTRIAL PRICES BY NATION Electricity prices in the U.S. compare extremely well with the rest of the world. Only Mexico, Canada, and Sweden have lower rates. Mexico has access to cheap oil and minimal environmental regulations. Canada and Sweden generate most of their power with hydro- - PRODUCTIVITY OF U.S. ELECTRIC INDUSTRY The U.S_is the most productive producer of power in the world, based on the common measure of sales divided by employees. MAY-01-97 13:26 FROM=TU ELECTRIC WF ID= 29177233933 PAGE 3/4 - PRICE OF ELECTRICITY BY STATE There are areas in the U.S. where significant price disparities exist_ Most dramatically in California and the New England states_ It is no surprise that the perceived need for industry change varies among states. Many states whose past legislative and regulatory practices were considered "cutting edge" (e_g, requiring utility purchase of expensive power produced by cogenerators or renewable resource facilities), are now proposing to correct the current pricing concerns with more radical industry re-regulation.Califomia and New England have something in common..... high prices and significant price differentials with neighboring areas-This is not the case in Texas. A number of states have studied retail wheeling and concluded that it is either (1) not in the public interest, or (2) that the time was not right for it. Among those states are Kansas, Maryland, Minnesota, and Washington, and New Mexico. -SURVEY OF CUSTOMERS • KEY FINDINGS Recently, EEI conducted a survey of electricity customers in a number of states, including Texas. A summary of the survey results is included in the information packet. - TEXAS UTILITIES POSITION ON PUBLIC POLICY CHANGE The Texas Utilities position on changing public policy toward increased competition in the electric industry is based on a number of important principles. A copy is included in the information packet. MAY-01-97 13:29 FROM=TU ELECTRIC WF ID: 19177233933 PACE 4/4 The Texas legislature should be cautious as the public policy issues of electric industry structure and retail competition are considered . The following should be carefully considered: - Recently enacted wholesale competition in Texas will benefit all customers of retail electric utilities and should be given time to evolve - Texas electric rates are competitive, nationally and globally - Texas' electric system is world class in terms of service reliability - The issues to be dealt with are extremely complex - The impacts on stakeholders are largely unknown (e.g. all retail customers will not be in a position to benefit from full retail competition - Radical change, including retail competition,is not appropriate, especially in Texas. The potential risks are too great 3196