Loading...
Min 08/19/1997 639 Wichita Falls, Texas Memorial Auditorium Building August 19, 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 Reverend Herb Smith, Calvary Baptist Church. Item 3 No one signed up for public comments. Item 4 The Minutes were approved as distributed. Items 5a-7c Moved by Councilor Daniel that the consent agenda be approved. Motion seconded by Council Martin. Councilor Johnston requested that Item 6c be brought down to the Regular Agenda. Councilor Daniel withdrew his motion and Councilor Martin withdrew his second. Moved by Councilor Martin that the consent agenda be approved with the exception of Item 6c. Motion seconded by Councilor Hawkins and carried by the following vote. Ayes: Mayor Yeager, Councilors Johnston, Shine, Thompson, Daniel, Martin, and Hawkins Nays: None 640 Item 5a RESOLUTION NO. 119-97 RESOLUTION APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO SUBMIT AN AMENDED GRANT AND TO EXECUTE A CONTRACT WITH HNTB CORP. FOR ENGINEERING SERVICES IN PREPARING AN AIRPORT LAYOUT PLAN FOR THE WICHITA FALLS MUNICIPAL AIRPORT Item 5b RESOLUTION NO. 120-97 A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AN ENCROACHMENT AGREEMENT WITH ROBERT D. OWENS AND JOELLYN S. OWENS ACROSS PORTIONS OF A UTILITY EASEMENT AND BUILDING SETBACK LINE ON LOT 12, BLOCK 48, FOUNTAIN PARK SECTION 2-D, AN ADDITION TO THE CITY OF WICHITA FALLS, TEXAS, FOR EXISTING STRUCTURES LOCATED ON THE LOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ENCROACHMENT AGREEMENT; FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT THE MEETING AT WHICH THIS RESOLUTION WAS PASSED WAS OPEN TO THE PUBLIC AS REQUIRED BY LAW. Item 6a RESOLUTION NO. 121-97 RESOLUTION AWARDING CONTRACT FOR PURCHASE OF WINTER FLOWERS FOR PARKS AND MEDIANS Item 6b RESOLUTION NO. 122-97 RESOLUTION TO AWARD BID AND CONTRACT FOR CYPRESS WATER TREATMENT PLANT FLOW METERS PROJECT Item 6d Bid was awarded to Pitts Ready Mix in the amount of $125,475 and to OK Concrete in the amount of $14,400 for the City's estimated annual requirement of ready mix concrete and flowable fill. Items 7a-7c Minutes of the following boards and commissions were received. a. 4B Sales Tax Corporation, August 5, 1997. b. Planning and Zoning Commission, July 9, 1997. c. Traffic Safety Commission, June 4, 1997. Item 6c RESOLUTION NO. 123-97 RESOLUTION TO AWARD BID AND CONTRACT FOR JASPER STANDPIPE AND DENVER ELEVATED TANK PAINT PROJECT Moved by Councilor Martin that Resolution No. 123-97 be passed. Motion seconded by Councilor Daniel. Councilor Johnston commented that the bids were out of line with other bids and he asked if there was an error. Mr. Bonnett replied that they have checked the references and they have a good track record. It is below the estimate but it is a good bid. We will be watching it very carefully. Motion carried by the following vote. 641 Item 6c cont'd. Ayes: Mayor Yeager, Councilors Johnston, Shine, Thompson, Daniel, Martin, and Hawkins Nays: None Item 8a A public hearing was held to receive comments regarding a special service vehicle franchise request from Mr. Claudio Ramirez, Jr. Mayor Yeager declared the public hearing open and allowed for public comment. David Knight, Attorney representing Presidential Limousines of Texas, Inc., informed that he had faxed a letter to the City Manager explaining their opposition to this franchise. Mr. Knight read the reasons why they believed All American's application is deficient . He listed those reasons as the vehicle age requirement, vehicle description, insignia and color scheme, findings of fact from Director of Traffic and Transportation, and the public transportation needs. Mr. Knight stated that Presidential can render the proposed additional service more efficiently and effectively than the applicant, if the need is proven. He added that without Presidential, a first rate cab company and a first rate transportation provider, the City was in a second rate status. The cabs that were being used were an eyesore. The first thing visitors see are the cabs and Presidential presents a positive image to this City. Granting of this application will have a negative impact on Presidential's business and of the other providers of this service. If we have a revenue pie and there is a set amount of fares and we continue to fracture that pie it will serve only to provide a negative impact on current providers. This could result in what happened several years ago. It would also have a negative affect on the traffic flow because it would add more vehicles. He asked that Council review the application and recognize that their objection is based in accordance with the Ordinance that you promulgated. Claudio Ramirez, Jr. ,2401 McNiel, stated the he was applying for the franchise and he has been complying with the Ordinance. We have been in business since 1982. The 1966 Fury is a classic convertible car which we planned to use for weddings if appropriate to use it, but if the vehicle age is a problem, we will delete it and purchase another vehicle. We are here to provide a service to the people who have called us for special service vehicles because the competitor seems to be a little too high for them. City Clerk informed that the Taxi Overview Committee had met and discussed several issues which needed to be updated in this Ordinance and one of the items which needs to be corrected is the age vehicle requirement. There was a typographical error in Section 31-75 of the Ordinance which would exclude the age requirement on special service vehicles. In addition, when a franchise application is submitted for consideration, the Ordinance requires a general description of the vehicles to be used and not a detailed one. Detailed information is obtained later in the process when and if the franchise is approved. Also, Insignia and color scheme are not required for special service vehicles. City Clerk provided information on the current special service vehicle franchises. Mayor allowed for additional public comment. There being none, Mayor declared the public hearing closed. Item 9a ORDINANCE NO 79-97 ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING A FRANCHISE FOR LIMOUSINE AND SPECIAL SERVICE VEHICLES; FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT THE MEETING AT WHICH THIS ORDINANCE WAS PASSED WAS OPEN TO THE PUBLIC AS REQUIRED BY LAW 642 Item 9a cont'd. Moved by Councilor Daniel that Ordinance No. 79-97 be passed. Motion seconded by Councilor Hawkins. Councilor Martin asked if a need had been established for these additional vehicles. City Attorney replied that he and the City Clerk discussed the vehicle age requirement and she is correct, the intent was to exempt special service vehicles from age requirements altogether. We will come back with an ordinance correcting that. Councilor Daniel asked how it spoke to the need for special service vehicles. City ° Attorney replied that it was silent, and that would be Council's decision as to whether you find an additional need for an additional franchise. Mr. Parker responded to Councilor Martin's question by stating that it is very difficult to determine taxi cab needs and special service vehicles are a quantum leap over in the difficult area. Virtually, there is no way to determine the need except for us to call people. If in doubt, go on the side of allowing free enterprise at work. I do not know a formula to determine the need for special service vehicles; it is extremely difficult to determine the need. Councilor Johnston asked if Council could legally approve this even with the error in the Ordinance. City Attorney replied that they could with the exception of the 1966 fury. They could come back and request that after the Ordinance is corrected. Councilor Hawkins commented that the ordinance is to issue a franchise and not to determine what type of vehicles they have. If the franchise is granted, then they are going to have to comply with the other requirements, but we should not be considering the age at this time. City Attorney concurred and stated that was ministerial and conducted by the City Clerk's office. Councilor Hawkins asked if the application met the City's requirements, and City Attorney replied that it did. Councilor Shine asked for the definition of a special service vehicle. City Attorney replied that it was a vehicle which was used on a prearranged basis. Councilor Daniel asked if we set the rates. City Attorney replied that we did not. Councilor Hawkins did not believe there was a need for additional special service vehicles. Councilor Daniel said that the only rationale we have for limiting taxis is the amount that they charge. It is a protected franchise, however, competition protects special service franchises. The customers determine the needs. Mayor commented that Mr. Parker had said there was no way to determine a need other than letting the free enterprise in the market place determine the need. Councilor Hawkins suggested that when the Ordinance is corrected that Staff look at separating the special service vehicles and the handicap vehicles. Motion carried by the following vote. Ayes: Mayor Yeager, Councilors Johnston, Shine, Thompson, Daniel, Martin, and Hawkins Nays: None Item 9b A proposed ordinance was presented waiving Section 27-30 of the Code of Ordinances u with respect to placing a sidewalk on the northwest side of Eastside Drive adjacent to the southeast line of Lot 6-A, Block 13A, Amended Bateson Second Addition. Moved by Councilor Martin that proposed ordinance be passed. Motion seconded by Councilor Thompson and failed by the following vote. Ayes: Councilor Hawkins Nays: Mayor Yeager, Councilors Johnston, Shine, Thompson, Daniel, and Martin, 643 Item 9c A proposed ordinance was presented waiving Section 27-30 of the Code of Ordinances with respect to placing a sidewalk on the south side of Sullivan Street adjacent to the north line of Lot 6-A, Block 13A, Amended Bateson Second Addition. Moved by Councilor Hawkins that proposed ordinance be passed. Motion seconded by Councilor Thompson. Councilor Hawkins commented that there is sidewalk out there but they are blocks and blocks away and the City has indicated that the sidewalks are right there. Mr. George Bonnett informed that there is sidewalk directly across the street. Councilor Hawkins commented that when we consider this we normally look at tying the sidewalk into another sidewalk or a continuation. Mr. Bonnett stated that there are no sidewalks on this side of the street. Councilor Thompson commented that this is going to be a car lot and there is a car wash across the street and there will probably be people walking there. He asked if a sidewalk would add to the safety and well being of those pedestrians. Mr. Bonnett replied that it would. Councilor Shine assumed that the adjacent car wash has sidewalk. Mr. Bonnett informed that it did. This ordinance would require them to install on the 150 ft. on Sullivan Street; rejection of this ordinance would require extension of that sidewalk to Eastside Drive. Motion failed by the following vote. Ayes: Councilors Martin and Hawkins. Nays: Mayor Yeager, Councilors Johnston, Shine, Thompson, and Daniel Item 10a RESOLUTION NO 124-97 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE LEASE AGREEMENT WITH THE RED RIVER AUTHORITY OF TEXAS FOR WATER FACILITY SITES AT LAKE ARROWHEAD Moved by Councilor Daniel that Resolution No. 124-97 be passed. Motion seconded by Councilor Martin Mr. Bonnett explained that there are currently three lease sites by the Red River in the Lake Arrowhead area. One is in the east which is a ground storage tank and one in the west which is a ground storage tank and there is one for a water plant. This lease would lease two additional sites, one adjacent to the east tank and one adjacent to the west tank. Red River is proposing to construct elevated storage and the existing site where the ground storage is would cease to exist automatically. Additionally, they are proposing to expand their plant, and this plant will replace three existing water plants. One which is operated by the State of Texas, Red River has one adjacent to one of these lease sites, and one is located in the Lake Arrowhead Estates area. Councilor Shine asked what determines the price of the lease. Mr. Bonnett replied that they have used the existing lease and used the cost per care. It is roughly ten times our lease rate for grazing leases. We did the best we could and extended what we had there per acre. Councilor Johnston commented that this lease will supersede the existing lease, however, nothing is mentioned as to what will happen after the forty years. As far as who owns the improvements and who is required to remove them, and that needs to be addressed. Mr. Bonnett said they did not see an exposure there. If Red River ceased to exist, at most, we would be exposed to a demolition cost of the elevated storage tank. We believe we are adequately protected. Motion carried by the following vote. 644 Item 10a cont'd. Ayes: Mayor Yeager, Councilors Johnston, Shine, Thompson, Daniel, Martin, and Hawkins Nays: None Item 10b RESOLUTION NO. 125-97 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE WATER PURCHASE CONTRACT WITH RED RIVER AUTHORITY OF TEXAS Moved by Councilor Johnston that Resolution No. 125-97 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 10c RESOLUTION NO. 126-97 A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE SERVICE PLAN FOR THE PROVISION OF MUNICIPAL SERVICES FOR AN AREA PROPOSED FOR ANNEXATION r GENERALLY KNOWN AS THE US 287/KIEL ROAD AREA; AUTHORIZING PUBLIC HEARINGS AS REQUIRED UNDER CHAPTER 43 OF THE TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE; FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT THE MEETING AT WHICH THIS RESOLUTION WAS PASSED WAS OPEN TO THE PUBLIC AS REQUIRED BY LAW Moved by Councilor Johnston that Resolution No. 126-97 be passed. Motion seconded by Councilor Thompson. Mayor commented that Council had gone on a tour of the ETJ area and viewed some of the activities. Also, a worksession was held where specific areas were discussed. This item and the next one are the result of the tour and worksession. Councilor Martin mentioned that Council had discussed extending the line from 500 feet to 1000 feet, and he asked why it had not been extended to 1000 feet south of U.S.287. Mr. Dave Clark stated that they did not understand that it was to include the southern area, but we did extend the western and northern boundary, but we can change that. Councilor Martin commented that for future development, it should be consistent. Mr. Clark informed that that change can be accommodated through this process. Mr. Clark explained that adoption of this resolution would begin the process for the annexation of the Kiel Road area and set up a schedule for potential public hearings. Under this process two public hearings are required, and we propose, for Kiel Road, to set up a public hearing on September 2 at 7:00 p.m. in the Chapel in the Woods on Wellington Road and one on September 16 to be held in Council Chambers during the regular Council meeting. Councilor Shine asked if changes can still occur after the process has begun. Mr. Clark replied that during the process you can amend the service plan and the boundary. City Attorney concurred that changes can occur until the ordinance is actually adopted. Councilor Johnston asked if the boundary can be moved further out after this time or are we limited only to moving it further in. City Attorney stated that he would not recommend extending further out but he will need to research this. It seems to me that the purpose of giving the notice is to notify all potential individuals affected by the annexation, so increasing the area would not comply with the notice requirement. 645 Item 10c cont'd. Councilor Johnston commented that if Council intends to change the number of feet from 500 to 1000, it needs to be done today. Councilor Martin stated that it was his recommendation that it be changed to 1000 feet. Councilor Hawkins asked if there were any developments in that area which would be affected. Mr. Clark replied that he did not think so. Moved by Councilor Martin to amend the proposed annexation by extending the boundary 1000 feet south of U.S. 287. 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 Hawkins commented that he thought the east side of Wellington was in the City limits. Mr. Clark stated that there is an area further south from here, Old Iowa Park Road. There is a westward projection of the City that follows along Iowa Park Road. Motion on the original motion carried by the following vote. Ayes: Mayor Yeager, Councilors Johnston, Shine, Thompson, Daniel, Martin, and Hawkins Nays: None Item 1 Od RESOLUTION NO 127-97 A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE SERVICE PLAN FOR THE PROVISION OF MUNICIPAL SERVICES FOR AN AREA PROPOSED FOR ANNEXATION GENERALLY KNOWN AS THE KOVARIK ROAD AREA; AUTHORIZING PUBLIC HEARINGS AS REQUIRED UNDER CHAPTER 43 OF THE TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE; 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. 127-97 be passed. Motion seconded by Councilor Thompson. Mayor said that she had been asked about the water system in these areas, and she had replied that, generally, they are not built to the same specifications as the City's water system. However, the newer ones do have to be, but at this point we are not requiring that. Mr. Bonnett concurred and added that while we try to watch the size and get them as compatible as possible, we do not exercise any quality control in terms of the installation, which gives us a pause for concern. In addition, we do not have access to the actual location where those water lines are going to be installed to insure that they are compatible with future street construction. Mr. Clark informed that public hearings are required. The first one is to be held September 2 during the regular Council meeting and the second one is to be held September 16 in the evening, likely at the Knights of Columbus Hall. The exact place will be announced when confirmed. Councilor Johnston thought the boundary was going to be extended down to Kovarik Road. Councilor Hawkins commented that this was the one where we have an agreement to buy only a certain portion of their water service. Mr. Bonnett concurred. Mr. Clark stated that there had been a negotiation with Wichita Valley Water Supply on how the potential transfer of water service for that area might be accomplished, and that area did not include anything west of FM 369. From the Council's last discussion it was concluded that for the purposes of 646 Item 10d cont'd. moving ahead with this degree of annexation it may be more prudent to stick with the negotiations as they have been completed. Councilor Johnston thought that dealt with the portion north of Kovarik Road. Mr. Bonnett believed that Council said OK to proceed as shown because it got very complex with some other service areas that Wichita Valley had, but we were to continue to work for a secondary effort to address the concerns Council has. Councilor Hawkins commented that on lands inside the City that are not platted, we are requiring that they maintain the City's right-of-way. He asked if this rule will apply if we adopt this entire area. We are going to require them to mow where the County has been doing it for them. Mr. Clark stated that the regular Ordinances of the City will apply unless Council chooses to change them. Councilor Hawkins said he had a problem voting for this because he has had no citizens from the City of Wichita Falls, with the exception of the City Staff and Council, say they want to annex this area. Councilor Thompson mentioned that this was an area that had flooding problems. Mr. Bonnett said that there were some areas that were susceptible to flooding. A great deal of attention has not been paid to drainage and that would be one of the challenges we would be facing in the coming years if you choose to annex this area. Mr. Clark informed that any new development would be required, under City Ordinance, to handle its run-off. Councilor Hawkins stated that the City has an Ordinance which requires that the dry lakes for water retention be maintained by the City after they are built. Mr. Bonnett concurred and added that they did maintain them for residential. Councilor Hawkins asked if that would apply to the acreage. Mr. Bonnett replied that it would for a detention facility constructed as a part of a development that is under the City's Detention Ordinance. It would apply and all the obligations will go with it according to the Ordinance. Councilor Shine asked about "grandfathering" areas in regards to keeping horses, etc. Mr. Clark informed that the uses that are existing on that site can continue to exist and that is something that will not change should this area be annexed. We will be doing a land use plan and that could be included in looking towards future development of the area. We would take into consideration those major uses that are already there. Councilor Martin commented that the only thing that would be involved would be safety and health hazards. Mr. Clark agreed and stated that the fireworks stands would be an exception to that, but I cannot think of any other use in these areas that would have an effect otherwise. Councilor Hawkins stated that Mr. Bell owns about 800 acres and is using it as a sanitary landfill. According to this plan we are annexing his entire 800 acres. Is it wise to bring that into the City? Mr. Clark stated that they are regulated by the Texas Department of Natural Resources, whether inside or outside the City. I think we should include that area in the annexation, if we do not it will be surrounded by the City. I think that when taking this area in that needs to be considered and acknowledged by a change to the Zoning Ordinance. Councilor Hawkins wanted to know if that was annexed would we bring in the entire 800 acres or just the landfill area. Also, how is this going to be done. Several Councilors expressed concern about this. Councilor Johnston commented that if it was approved today Council still had the option of deleting it later. Lavonne Bell, 8218 Happy Hollow, Wichita Falls, the owner of the landfill asked if Council owned the property, would they want to be taken into the City limits of Wichita Falls. He stated that landfills are very important and necessary. He wanted to know the reason for the annexation and questioned if it was for tax dollars. He felt like the money should be used to improve what was already in the City limits. City Manager commented that the Staff has to look for these type of developments, otherwise, there would not be any future. In the long run it is the right thing; in the short run it may cost us more than it will bring in. We have to have a systematic view of where we are going in the future. If you wait until it develops, you will pay a o- lot more for it and you will have a situation that is going to be a lot harder to plan and correct and it is that correction that we have to look for. This is in the best interest of the City and that has been proven over and over again. If you wait too long to annex, your cost will double, triple or even more. Councilor Hawkins said that we have examples in the City where portions of the City were allowed to develop, such as Callfield Road, after they were already in the City. We have had to go back and spend millions of dollars to improve the streets after we allowed it to develop instead of doing it before. Staff has said that we need to have better control on the building standards, therefore, if we are so concerned, why do we need to annex? If people want to annex they will ask to be annexed. City Manager replied that you do it so that you do 647 Item 10d cont'd. not inherit situations like Callfield Road. Individual builders will not come in and ask to be annexed unless it is financially beneficial. Unless you wait for them to come in after it is an advantage to them, they won't be here. Councilor Hawkins questioned if it was the right thing to do for the City. We know there is a problem in providing sewer to them. City Manager stated that Councilor Hawkins is providing reasons why it should be annexed. You want to make sure those situations are taken care of where you can get to them, and that is why you annex. Councilor Daniel believed that the reason for looking at this is to try to determine at some point in the future that this area will be in the City limits of Wichita Falls. That being the case, we need to consider how we can go about it in the best way to make sure that the ultimate cost of the operation of the facilities out there is minimal, and that we do not cause taxes to go up. Councilor Hawkins said his point is that what we are going to end up doing is that the people out there are going to sell their property and move further out and put the same problems just a little further out. He expressed concern with how long they will be grandfathered. Mr. Clark replied that they grandfather land uses, but when it comes to trash he did not know that they grandfather that. City Manager commented that we appreciate landfills; it is the case of that nobody wants them in their backyards. Mr. Bell explained that they have the cleanest landfill in Texas and they work at that, but he would not appreciate the harassment because they were in the City limits. He mentioned that had happened with the landfill which was located on the east side inside the City. There is always going to be a landfill and I think it should be looked at very strongly. This situation can change with an entirely new Council who may want to make changes and require that the landfill be moved outside the City limits. I think this needs to be considered. Councilor Thompson commented that if the 800 acres owned by Mr. Bell are going to be taken into the City limits, we should work with Mr. Bell. We are not trying to take Mr. Bell out of business. That is not our intent, it is to improve the welfare and well being of individuals who live in that area. My concern was the flooding problems and I think that is more dangerous than the landfill. We need to look at the pros and cons and the benefits. Councilor Martin said that we are trying to avoid the Callfield, McGrath Creek and Faith Village flooding, and we are doing that by considering this annexation. Mr. Clark said that when an area comes into the City it comes in the most restrictive zoning, however, that becomes subject to change because of commercial and industrial development. We do not have any zoning that would allow for a landfill and that needs to be addressed and can be done in this process. Councilor Daniel added that we have an opportunity in the public hearings to address this and other persons' land use concerns. Mr. Clark stated that the purpose of the pubic hearings is to obtain input and before you make a final decision you have some latitude on boundaries and on changes. Mr. Bell commented that regarding water runoff, it is not going to be controlled, because we are going to continue to build homes and highways and it is going to continue to rain and flood. We need to address that. Bill Evans, 9002 Avenue P, Lubbock, Texas, asked if the City has a current service plan. Mr. Clark replied that there is a service plan which is a part of today's agenda. Mr. Evans asked who was responsible for the ETJ jurisdiction. City Manager informed that we are but there are no permits issued in that area. Elton Penrod, 5525 N.W. Highway, said that this annexation area is all farmland and he wanted to know why it had to go from 500 feet to 1000 feet. There is no building out there now and has not been in years. You are doing this for tax purposes and it hurts us older people. Motion carried by the following vote. Ayes: Mayor Yeager, Councilors Johnston, Shine, Thompson, Daniel, and Martin, Nays: Councilor Hawkins 648 Item 10e A proposed resolution was presented determining policy for administration of lease lots at Lakes Arrowhead and Kickapoo in regard to piers, docks, crappie/boat houses attached to leased lots; piers, docks, crappie/boat houses not attached to a leased lot; and improvements placed on public shoreline property not a part of a leased lot. Moved by Councilor Martin that proposed resolution be passed. Motion seconded by Councilor Johnston, City Council recessed at 10:05 a.m. and reconvened at 10:29 a.m. Mr. Dave Clark informed that they have brought back the same proposal as was presented to the Council on June 17, 1997, with the exception of the re-leasing of properties, which is a separate issue. The only change is that the date has been filled in regarding the time that the piers and docks had to be accomplished, and it is the same as for the other policies. This resolution is a prudent look at the lakes with the principle purpose being the water supply of the City. There are some circumstances where we are not aware of ownership of some of the crappie houses. The real issue is the water quality, and that is what the lakes are about. We were asked to develop policy proposals for lake lots. This overall policy would eliminate crappie houses and boathouses, however, it would give a time period for that to be accomplished and would require an inspection for docks. It would make sure properties are under benefit of some kind of lease arrangement with the City to make sure the quality of construction and quality of environment is maintained. Mayor stated that this is one of the water resources for the City of Wichita Falls and the protection of that resource as a safe water supply for the City should be utmost in our thoughts and considerations as we move forward in this. Councilor Hawkins' understanding of the June 17, 1997 discussion was in reference to the ownership of the crappie and boathouses and the squatters who built them. It was agreed that those properties should be taken down, but that did not apply to the people who have crappie and boathouses that owned the property and the City was knowledgeable about it. I think we need to discuss the leases versus squatters, Lake Kickapoo versus Lake Arrowhead, crappie houses versus boathouses, and boathouses versus boat slips. We need to define each in what we are going to do and what we expect. Councilor Daniel stated that was also his understanding from the June 17, 1997 discussion. The focus was on the squatters and he assumed they were following up with what they had agreed to. City Manager said his recollection was different from that. There were two different segments. We talked about those whose ownership was unknown and were obviously not contiguous with any lease. We also talked about crappie houses in general. Councilor Shine said that it seems we have a definition problem. Crappie houses could mean different things to different people. What we are interested in is the structures that are in the lake that are illegal and should be out. Water line rights, boat docks, etc. are also some of our problems and we need to deal with them. I think we should segregate it like Councilor Hawkins suggested. I think crappie houses are a misnomer. Councilor Hawkins said that if it can be identified to a lease, it should be tied to that lease. The properties where the boathouses and boat docks run contiguous to the property itself are the ones that I am concerned with. I do not consider them squatters if they have a lease on Lake Kickapoo and they have gone down to the water's edge and put in a dock, a pier or a boathouse, and it is identified with that lease. Lake Administrator explained the situation and the problems in identifying ownership of the crappie houses. There was a lengthy discussion in regards to the legality and contamination concerns of crappie houses and boat houses, and definition of crappie houses and boathouses. It was suggested by Councilor Shine that a small committee be appointed to look into this. Concerns were expressed from the Staff in regards to sub-leasing access to the water's edge, enclosed boathouses, and trespassing upon public property. Council agreed that any structure without benefit of a lease arrangement will be removed from the lake immediately. 649 Item 10e cont'd. Several Lake Kickapoo residents and some of their representatives expressed their concerns and suggestions to solving this situation. They were willing to work with the Council whether it was in permitting and inspecting their structures or keeping the Lake free of pollution, etc. but they asked that they be allowed to keep their pre-existing structures. The following addressed the Council. Clifford Hitchcock, HC 51, Box 50, Holiday, Texas, 76366, was speaking as a committeeman for the entire residency of Lake Kickapoo. He mentioned having a bill of sale which included a boathouse. There are situations where boathouses have been there for many years with the City's knowledge. Even the squatters had permission to put in their boathouses, they just do not have the leases anymore. There are no crappie houses floating on the lake, they are all attached to property. He detailed different situations at the Lake, and expressed concern about allowing over-night campers, the maintenance of the public boat ramp, and the pollution from the runoff from that ramp. He requested consideration from the Council. Daryl Lightfoot, Lt. 11 B, Turtle Creek Road, Lake Kickapoo, asked that they be allowed to keep their piers and land attachments across the roadways. Councilor Johnston left the Council Chambers. Georgia Mount, lives between Lake Kickapoo and Alvord, owns Lt. 18, Blk B, would like for the problems to be resolved. Paul Lance, #4 Karen Court, Wichita Falls, said he thought Turtle Creek Road was built to allow people to get to their cabins. R.J. Stone, lives and is employed in Wichita Falls and is a lease holder at Lake Kickapoo. He was elected by the lease holders of Lake Kickapoo to represent them here today. He expressed the same concerns in regards to the crappie houses, boathouses and docks being out there for a long time and the understanding that they could do that. Most have received oral communication as to what they could and could not do. We want to work in good faith regarding these issues. They have no problems with inspections whether random or annual. He asked that Council reconsider grandfathering what was already out there as long as they meet the conditions which Council had mentioned. Also, that all piers and docks be grandfathered whether attached or adjacent to the property with the same conditions. In addition, allow the lots that have been separated by a road to be extended to the lake. We recommend that the city put a moratorium on the letter dated July 23, 1997 from the Lake Administration and allow more time to study and work through the issues. Lastly, they suggested appointing a Council and lease holder committee to work through these problems. Charles Oldham, Attorney with Oldham & Associates, 1812 Rose Street, spoke on behalf of a number of the owners at Lake Kickapoo. He believed that the City and the Lake Kickapoo residents could work this out in a fair manner. Property has been bought and sold with the understanding that the piers were a part of that lease. There is no reason to object to enclosed boathouses, but these people are willing to say OK to no more enclosed boathouses, and to license the ones that are there. They feel they should have a right to put their boathouse on the water. They want to keep what they now have and it is not going to hurt anyone. The length of the piers should be allowed at more than 100 feet. Let these people be grandfathered in to what they are entitled to morally and do what should be done and what is fair and right. He suggested that several Council members get with some of the residents to work out an ordinance that should make everybody happy and not hurt anybody. He suggested that it be an informal meeting without cameras or taping equipment where everyone could speak freely. Eddie Herndon, Lot 14B, Turtle Creek Road, said his main concern was the maintenance of the area across the road. Chuck White, Lot 22-B, Turtle Creek Road, said the reason the houses are so far away from the lake and the crappie houses and piers are across the road is that when the water is over the spillway, that road is under water. Mayor entertained a motion to table this item and informed that she will be appointing a Council committee which will include representatives from Lake Kickapoo to discuss this. Moved by Councilor Martin that this item be tabled. 650 Item 10e cont'd. Motion seconded by Councilor Daniel and carried by the following vote. Ayes: Mayor Yeager, Councilors Shine, Thompson, Daniel, Martin, and Hawkins Nays: None Item 10f RESOLUTION NO. 128-97 " A RESOLUTION DETERMINING THE RENTAL RATE FOR 22 LEASE LOTS AT LAKE ARROWHEAD, CURRENTLY UNDER A $480.00 LEASE AGREEMENT ESTABLISHED ON MAY 19, 1992, FOR A FIVE YEAR PERIOD BEGINNING ON JANUARY 1, 1998 THROUGH DECEMBER 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. 128-97 be passed. Motion seconded by Councilor Shine. Mr. Dave Clark informed that the lease calls for a rate review every five years and the five year period is up and that has been done. The recommendation is that the rate remain the same. Motion carried by the following vote. Ayes: Mayor Yeager, Councilors Shine, Thompson, Daniel, Martin, and Hawkins Nays: None Item 10a RESOLUTION NO.129-97 A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING THE ANNUAL RENTAL RATE FOR 10 LEASE LOTS AT LAKE KICKAPOO, CURRENTLY UNDER A $200.00 LEASE AGREEMENT ESTABLISHED ON DECEMBER 2, 1986, FOR A FIVE YEAR PERIOD BEGINNING ON OCTOBER 1, 1997 THROUGH SEPTEMBER 30, 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. 129-97 be passed. Motion seconded by Councilor Shine and carried by the following vote. Ayes: Mayor Yeager, Councilors Shine, Thompson, Daniel, Martin, and Hawkins Nays: None Item 10h A proposed resolution was presented 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. Moved by Councilor Martin that proposed resolution be passed. 651 Item 10h cont'd. Motion seconded by Councilor Thompson. Councilor Hawkins suggested going to a step increase of $660 and then after they reach a certain point to go to a definite figure rather than a percentage. Mr. Clark explained that under this proposal the rental rate would remain the same at $660 and the overage amount would be raised, essentially double the base amount from $20,000 to $40,000 and increase up to 10% of the gross revenue in excess of$80,000. City Manager informed that historically when they assume the lease the percentages were applied, but it took smaller amounts to trigger it. I think the staff is proposing that that be made a larger amount before it is triggered, but that has been what was in the lease and that is how it was assumed. Councilor Hawkins asked why put in a triggering amount or percentage amount in if we are not using it. City Manager explained that if you go over a trigger amount you are talking about a different rental rate, and we thought gross receipts was the fairest way of doing it. It was noted that the lessees had not accepted this new proposal. Brad Hale, 318 W. Park, Iowa Park, Attorney representing Don and Linda Rakestraw, informed that they have made improvements to the property, some at the City's request. We have negotiated with the City but have not come to an agreement. We are asking the Council to remove the percentage of gross revenue clause from the lease and amend it in that fashion. We provide the following reasons for this: 1) that has never been exercised by the City; 2) the same clause has been removed from the only remaining commercial lease, the Kickapoo Barge, which sells the same items as the General Store; 3) the Rakestraws cannot afford to continue to operate the store if the clause remains. They cannot take the risk of that clause being exercised and being put out of business. This lease will come up in another five years and can be re-negotiated on the successes and failures of the business. For now, the Rakestraws would not mind paying increased rent at $900/year, comparable amount of rent at the Barge. We ask that the lease be executed in its entirety with the condition that the percentage of gross revenue clause be removed, as it has been from all other City commercial leases. City Manager stressed that the operators as well as their representatives have to understand that these were the conditions when they leased it. In fact we are proposing lessening those conditions. We will do what the Council proposes. Councilor Daniel felt that Staff had reviewed this and recommended this. The Rakestraws were aware of what it was when they leased it and they do not have to sign it. Councilor Shine asked why the other lease was changed. Lake Lot Administrator stated that she understood that it had been changed because it was a different operation from the General Store. They were not competing with the General Store. She also corrected that the Fishing Barge lease went from $450 to $660, not $900. Mr. Hale informed that the Barge does sell everything that the General Store but at a lower cost because they are not subject to this provision. Don Rakestraw reiterated that the Barge sells the same things as they do and they also deliver. He wanted to know what the difference was. Councilor Hawkins said that if we have a rule we should enforce it and if not it should be taken out. Mr. Hale explained that the Rakestraws bought the lease thinking that the percentage clause would not be exercised and if the City is not going to enforce it why not take it out. Mr. Clark mentioned that there was bad administration in the past, but the Rakestraws have made phenomenal improvements out there, and I think this is a part of the whole new change of having a lake lot administration and property management oversight of all this. City Manager mentioned that the 2.25% is the amount that the people in town are charging on the sales tax that is not charged out there. He informed that if this resolution was passed, Staff would enforce the percentage clause. City Manager said that there is something to the fairness issue and we would want to find out if there is a similarity. 652 Item 10h cont'd. Linda Rakestraw said that she felt that attaching 10% above $80,000 a year would be an increase. Because by doing better we would be paying you more, approximately $6,000- $8,000 a year, and I think that is very unfair. Our competitors have begun to sell and deliver food. She did not think it was fair that the Barge should be able to do the same thing they do and get away with paying $660 with no imposition of this percentage attached to their gross. We would be happy to negotiate an increase in rent. Councilor Martin felt that the City had neglected our duty of what should have been l collected. Moved by Councilor Martin to amend the motion by increasing the rent to $900 a year and delete any references to percentages. Motion seconded by Councilor Shine. Councilor Daniel said that there was a lot of information that we do not have. Councilor Thompson suggested that it be tabled and that the City Manager look at the situation and look at the Barge and come back with a recommendation. Motion failed by the following vote. Ayes: Councilors Shine, Martin and Hawkins Nays: Mayor Yeager, Councilors Thompson and Daniel Moved by Councilor Thompson that this item be tabled. Motion seconded by Councilor Daniel and carried by the following vote. Ayes: Mayor Yeager, Councilors, Shine, Thompson, and Daniel Nays: Councilors Martin and Hawkins Mary Peterson, 201 W. Anderson, Electra, Texas, said that the General Store was very important to everyone out there, and she asked the Council to think about this. She confirmed that the Barge had been selling the same thing as the General Store and Council needs to look into that. Councilor Johnston returned to the Council Chambers. The following item was taken out of sequence. Item 12a RESOLUTION NO. 131-97 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WICHITA FALLS, TEXAS; AWARDING FINAL PAYMENT TO INMAN CONSTRUCTION CO. FOR THE NATURE WORKS SHELTER PROJECT; 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. 131-97 be passed. Motion seconded by Councilor Shine. Councilor Thompson left the Council Chambers. Mr. Troy Inman requested that payment be issued but there is an item in the amount of $15,000 that he would like to discuss with the Council at a later date. Councilor Hawkins explained that Mr. Inman was asking for final payment and that the $15,000 be held and let Council discuss it later, on whether to hold or release the liquidated damages. 653 Item 12a cont'd. Moved by Councilor Daniel to award final payment to Inman Construction Company for the River Bend Nature Works Shelter Project in the amount of$39,323.62. Motion seconded by Councilor Shine. Mr. Inman explained that the $15,000 issue that revolved around good faith from Inman Construction was done in the beginning of this project. I am not prepared to address that this morning. City Manager explained what the situation was and informed that the River Bend Nature Board does not agree with the change and that the liquidated damages are valid. It was something that Mr. Inman agreed to do and hoped it would work out better. Mr. Inman stated that it was a good faith effort, but we do recognize we were late. We were able to resolve $1500 and also there is $8500 that we had hoped during the negotiations that we were able to offset. This changed from an A building to a B building and involved over $100,000 in changes to get it inside budget. He provided Council a copy of a memo to that effect. Beverly Williamson, River Bend Nature Works Exectuive Director, informed that the Board had met and explained their standpoint on their losses during their limbo status and stated that postponing this issue would result in continued losses to this project. She stated that at no time were they under any obligation to pay Mr. Inman $10,000 if there were not $10,000 in reduced construction cost. The Board thought Mr. Inman was being a very generous person. However, the Board did not consider this as an obligation. There was never a change order. We do feel that the liquidated damages are separate from the construction costs. They believe very strongly that the liquidated damages is a fair assessment at this time. Mayor explained that we were talking about two different issues. It is the opinion of the Board and the City Staff that the liquidated damages assessment is fair and the other has no impact on it. City Manager added that in Mr. Inman's mind there was a change order that was never processed as a change order. Charles Harper, Architect, explained that this project was bid as a wood structure and it came in about $100,000 more than they wanted it to, so we changed it to steel to get it below that amount. One of the changes was to cut out the rock and change it to brick which was a $15,000 delete. Mr. Inman said he had found some rock that he could get for $10,000 if we allowed him to use it. Since there was not enough money he would go ahead and put it in there and if we could find a way to save that $10,000 during the course of the construction then he would get paid for it, but there would not be anything in writing. That is how it was left until April when there was a thing about moving the sewer and water line which provided a savings of $1526 and Mr. Inman asked the Board to take it off the $10,000 that he had voluntarily put into the project. The Board approved that. The $1526 is all the savings that we found in the project. What Mr. Inman is asking Council to consider is that the remainder of the $10,000, which is $8,474, be taken off the $15,000 of the liquidated damages. This would allow him to recoup the $10,000 he has in it. Motion carried by the following vote. Ayes: Mayor Yeager, Councilors Johnston, Shine, Daniel, Martin, and Hawkins Nays: None City Council went into executive session at 1:55 p.m. as authorized by Section 551.074 of the Government Code. City Council reconvened at 2:11 p.m. Mayor informed that there was no action taken and there were no motions during executive session. 654 Item 11 a RESOLUTION NO. 130-97 RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE BID FROM MERTENS IRRIGATION IN THE AMOUNT OF $41,200 FOR IRRIGATION IN LAMAR PARK Moved by Councilor Hawkins that Resolution No. 130-97 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 13a Discussion was had on waiver for curb and gutter requirements of Appendix A, Subdivision 9(B)(2)(a) of the Code of Ordinances. (1) 1101 Fell Lane - Mr. Bonnett stated that Fell Lane has no curbs and gutters, and drainage is from the irrigation canal. If you request curb and gutter you have to rebuild the street. (2) Lots 2C and 2D, Certain-Teed Products Addition - Mr. Bonnett stated that the State has requested that we not install curbs and gutters because of the configuration of their street. Item 14a Mayor reported that on the proposed merger between the Helen Farabee Center and the Rolling Plains Mental Health Association, we agreed to go into this merger with the fact in mind that we would have representation on the board in proportion to the population. It is a nine member board and the City-County would have four members on that board. She asked for Council input as to what they wanted to do. Councilor Hawkins stated that since funding is provided to the Helen Farabee Center through our General Fund, we need to make sure that the citizens are getting their money's worth. Mayor informed that only the City and County contribute to the Center, it is an independent facility. Councilor Johnston asked who would back up the services, and Mayor replied that the State will. Councilor Martin commented that the City should just withdraw and let the County handle it. Councilor Hawkins stated that it was the responsibility of the County to take care of indigent health care and this falls under that. Mayor informed that the Texas Women's Golf Championship is being held here for the first time in history. Item 14b There were no staff reports Item 15 Moved by Councilor Martin that appointment to the Mental Health Mental Retardation Public Responsibility Committee be postponed. Motion seconded by Councilor Shine and carried by the following vote. Ayes: Mayor Yeager, Councilors Johnston, Shine, Daniel, Martin, and Hawkins 655 Item 15 cont'd. Nays: None Item 16 Moved by Councilor Hawkins that Mr. Ernie Dover and Mr. David Farabee be appointed to the Mental Health Mental Retardation Board of Trustees with terms to expire August 31, 1999. Motion seconded by Councilor Johnston and carried by the following vote: Ayes: Mayor Yeager, Councilors Johnston, Shine, Daniel, Martin, and Hawkins Nays: None Item 17 Moved by Councilor Johnston that appointments to the Construction Board of Adjustments and Appeals be postponed and that more applicants be requested in the specific areas. Motion seconded by Councilor Martin and carried by the following vote. Ayes: Mayor Yeager, Councilors Johnston, Shine, Daniel, Martin, and Hawkins Nays: None Item 18 Council discussed appointments to the Library Advisory Board. Moved by Councilor Martin that Mr. Jim Snowden and Mr. James Bracket be appointed to the Library Advisory Board with terms to expire June 30, 2000 and that Ms. Valda Jones be re-appointed with term to expire June 30, 2000. Motion seconded by Councilor Hawkins and carried by the following vote. Ayes: Mayor Yeager, Councilors Johnston, Shine, Daniel, Martin, and Hawkins Nays: None Item 19 Council discussed appointments to the Tax Increment Financing Reinvestment Zone #1 Board of Directors. Moved by Councilor Hawkins that appointments to the Tax Increment Reinvestment Zone#1 Board of Directors be postponed for one month in order to get additional applicants. Motion seconded by Councilor Johnston and carried by the following vote. Ayes: Mayor Yeager, Councilors Johnston, Shine, Daniel, Martin, and Hawkins Nays: None 656 Item 20 The City Council recessed at 2:55 p.m. The annual City Council Budget Hearings were conducted and commenced at 3:15 p.m. City Council recessed at 5:10 p.m. on August 19, 1997 and reconvened at 8:30 a.m. on August 20, 1997. A public hearing was held on the annual budget and proposed property tax rate at 3:00 - :r p.m. on August 20, 1997. Mayor declared the public hearing open and allowed for public comment. There being no one who wished to be heard, Mayor declared the public hearing closed. The budget hearings continued. The City Council adjourned at 4:00 p.m. on August 20, 1997. PASSED AND APPROVED this day of 1997. KAT YN A. YE GER MAYOR J ATTEST: I LA. ( Lydia 'i orres City Clerk