Loading...
Min 09/16/1997 674 Wichita Falls, Texas Memorial Auditorium Building September 16, 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 - JW Martin - Harold Hawkins - Robert Powers - Assistant City Manager Greg Humbach - City Attorney Lydia Torres - City Clerk Bill Daniel - Absent Mayor Yeager called the meeting to order. Item 2 Invocation was given by Paul Kuykendall, Associate Pastor, Evangel Temple Assembly of God. Item 3 Charles Hyden, 3185 Wrangler's Retreat, asked Council for relief on his water bill of July 16-August 3, 1997. The approximate amount of the bill is $3300, which he said was unused water although it did go through the meter. Mayor directed Staff to look into this matter. Kirby Kellogg stated that at the September 2, 1997 public hearing on Kovarik Road there were only three Council members present, and the Kovarik Road citizens would like all the Council to be present at this evening's public hearing. He said it would be inappropriate and unfair for Council to vote on this and not be present at the hearings. Mayor informed that there were four Council members present that evening. Item 4 Mayor asked for clarification of the minutes on page 660, Item 9c. She asked who the last sentence of the discussion was referring to, and City Clerk informed that Councilor Hawkins had made the statement. The Minutes were approved as distributed. Items 5a-7b Councilor Shine requested that Item 5a be brought down to the Regular Agenda. Councilor Johnston requested that Items 6a, 6b and 6c be brought down to the Regular Agenda. 675 Items 5a-7b cont'd. Moved by Councilor Martin that the consent agenda be approved with the exception of Items 5a, 6a, 6b and 6c. Motion seconded by Councilor Hawkins and carried by the following vote. Ayes: Mayor Yeager, Councilors Johnston, Shine, Thompson, Martin, and Hawkins Nays: None Item 5b RESOLUTION NO. 137-97 RESOLUTION DETERMINING THE NECESSITY FOR ACQUISITION OF PROPERTY FOR THE PLUM CREEK FLOOD PROTECTION PROJECT AND AUTHORIZING PURCHASE OR CONDEMNATION. FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT THE MEETING AT WHICH THIS RESOLUTION WAS PASSED WAS OPEN TO THE PUBLIC AS REQUIRED BY LAW Item 5 RESOLUTION NO 138-97 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WICHITA FALLS, TEXAS, APPROVING THE ASSIGNMENT OF A NON-ANNEXATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF WICHITA FALLS AND HOWMET CORPORATION TO TURBINE AIRFOIL REFURBISHMENT SERVICES, INC.; FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT THE MEETING AT WHICH THIS RESOLUTION WAS PASSED WAS OPEN TO THE PUBLIC AS REQUIRED BY LAW Item 5d RESOLUTION NO 139-97 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WICHITA FALLS AUTHORIZING THE WICHITA FALLS POLICE DEPARTMENT TO EXTEND IT'S PARTICIPATION IN A JOINT OPERATION WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY, BUREAU OF ALCOHOL, TOBACCO AND FIREARMS IN SUPPRESSING THE USE OF FIREARMS IN THE CITY OF WICHITA FALLS Item 6d RESOLUTION NO 140-97 RESOLUTION TO AWARD BID AND CONTRACT FOR THE LUCY PARK SWIMMING POOL PROJECT Item 6e RESOLUTION NO 141-97 RESOLUTION TO AWARD BID AND CONTRACT FOR LANDFILL LINER CELL NO. 13 AND FINAL COVER CELL NO. 11, SANITARY LANDFILL - PERMIT NO. 1428 PROJECT Items 7a-b Minutes of the meeting of the following boards and commissions were received. a. Wichita Falls Traffic Safety Commission, August 6, 1997 b. Wichita Falls Park Board, August 28, 1997 676 Item 5a A proposed resolution was presented authorizing the City Manager to execute agreements with Johnny Simmons and Jack Alsup to lease and manage the Hamilton Park and Weeks Park Tennis Centers. Moved by Councilor Martin that proposed resolution be passed. Motion seconded by Councilor Hawkins. Councilor Johnston asked how this could be leased without bidding. City Attorney informed that this is going to be considered a professional services contract which is exempt from the bidding requirement. Mr. Robert Powers added that it would be professional services from an individual versus a corporation. Mr. Jack Murphy referred to Section II of the contract and stated that according to this section the tennis pro will be an employee of the City. Councilor Hawkins asked why we had two pros running two different programs. Mr. Murphy replied that the main reason is that there are expert groups for the two operations and that is why we have two tennis centers. Councilor Thompson added that at one time Council had tried to combine those two centers and there was a lot of opposition. Councilor Hawkins disagreed with having two tennis centers so close together and having two managers and dividing it up. He felt it would be better if it was under one operation. Several Councilors expressed concern over the bid requirements and the possibility of saving money if this was one operation instead of two. Motion failed by the following vote. Ayes: Mayor Yeager, Councilors Thompson, and Martin Nays: Councilors Johnston, Shine, and Hawkins Item 6a Yh Moved by Councilor Martin that bid be awarded to StressCrete Inc. in the amount of $36,350 for 25 concrete warning siren poles. Motion seconded by Councilor Johnston. Councilor Shine asked why the poles were concrete and not galvanized. Mr. Robert Parker replied that the other poles are concrete and they wanted to get longevity with the concrete poles. Motion carried by the following vote. Ayes: Mayor Yeager, Councilors Johnston, Shine, Thompson, Martin, and Hawkins Nays: None Item 6b Moved by Councilor Martin that bid be awarded to Duke Construction Co. in the amount of $109,880 for a fuel containment facility at the Wichita Falls Municipal Airport, plus a contingency award of$25,000 to cover the cost of contaminated soil removal, if required. Motion seconded by Councilor Shine. Councilor Johnston referred to the $25,000 cost to remove contaminated soil and asked why we were liable for the cleanup of that spill. Mr. Robert Parker said that we do not know if it is contaminated soil but it is a part of the City's operation out there. Councilor Johnston questioned why the lessee was not liable for a part of that. City Attorney replied that we are the land owner and EPA would be looking to us as the responsible party to be paying for that, regardless of who is operating it. Councilor Johnston felt that the person who leased it should have some liability. City Attorney said he would look into that, however, it is difficult to determine who contaminated the soil. Mr. Parker commented that we own the land 677 Item 6b con'td. and we own the tanks. Councilor Johnston said that we need to insure that our present lease has the coverage so that when it is cleaned up we do not have to clean it up again. Motion carried by the following vote. Ayes: Mayor Yeager, Councilors Johnston, Shine, Thompson, Martin, and Hawkins Nays: None Item 6c "°a Moved by Councilor Martin that bid be awarded to Pavement Specialists, Inc. in the amount of$239,620 for an FAA/City of Wichita Falls apron spall repair and joint reseal project at the Wichita Falls Municipal Airport and recommend a waiver of the bid bond date. Motion seconded by Councilor Shine. Councilor Johnston asked why there were only two bids and asked about the irregularities. Mr. Robert Parker stated that they do have a legitimate bid bond. He added that there were two addendum sent out after the initial bid date was established. The bid bond date on their bond was the date it was issued and it did not correspond with the bid opening date, but we verified that it was a good bid bond and according to City Attorney it can be waived. Mrs. Gahagan informed that twenty bid specifications had been sent out and eight persons were present at the pre-bid conference, but only one gave us a pricing. Councilor Johnston asked why no one wants to do business with the City? Mr. Parker commented that this is with the FAA and Davis-Bacon applies; and there are a lot of things in here that do not apply to City bids. It is a small bid for a large pavement company and nobody Now wanted it. He informed that there is a particular problem with the ramp out there. We are on the water flow that comes off the top of the hill on Taxi Way C. We have more water coming under the ramp than we do on top of it in some cases. And that ram`p will bleed after a good rain for about seven days. The sealing will be with a synthetic that is going to require a test area with samples, and it will remain a test area to make sure we have a good seal to keep our problem from reoccurring in the near future. Motion carried by the following vote. Ayes: Mayor Yeager, Councilors Johnston, Shine, Thompson, Martin, and Hawkins Nays: None Item 8a A public hearing was held to receive comments regarding a proposed annexation of an area generally known as the Kiel Road/U.S. 287 area. Mayor declared the public hearing open and allowed for public comment. Mayor informed that the Staff will begin with a presentation followed by public comments and questions. At the end of the public comments and questions, Staff will answer questions. If questions cannot be satisfactorily answered they will be addressed at a later date, probably in a Council worksession. Mr. Dave Clark began with a presentation of the proposed annexation and service plan. Other Staff members who provided information on issues of public concern were Ruben Warren, Health Department , Jerry Gross, Public Works, and Ronnie James, Fire Chief. 678 Item 8a cont'd. Councilor Hawkins asked if there was "grandfathering" for the animals. Mr. Warren replied that there was not in the ordinance. Mr. Clark added that Council had the option to write it in the annexation ordinance. Pauline Griffith said she has an antique shop on Expressway 287, and the U.S. Postal Service will not deliver mail to them because they are not on a route. She said this antique shop is just a hobby, and she asked Council to reconsider and not take their property in. She said it is a country area and they want to keep it that way. Regan Reasor, owns property at the corner of FM 369 and S.H 287. The City has no plans to extend water lines out there so how is the Fire Chief going to support his fire operations out there? Also, I do not see how they can meet water requirements and water per minute flow. Explain how they plan on doing that. I do not see how area residents are going to benefit from annexation. Elton Penrod, 5525 N.W. Highway, said that they do not agree with this service plan because it does not adhere to the Annexation Code Section 43.056. He asked what the ETJ includes. It does not take six months to put in water lines according to what you put in for the prison. You should leave us out of annexation until you put in the water mains. It is not fair to charge us taxes and not give us sewer and water. You are treating us as though we were developers. We would hope you would forego this annexation until you put these lines in then we can take over from there. John Ward, 5926 N.W. Freeway, stated that there was no developer so no one is going to bring those services to where we can connect to them because we are already there. We have built our houses and most of us haul our water and we have our own septic tanks. Since there is no developer that will never be done. Curb and gutter is not needed in the rural areas. I understand the reason for the annexation is to control the development out there but without water and sewer trunk lines there will be no development. If the City were as good a neighbor as Iowa Park and Burkburnett, you would sell us water. I am not against being in the City if the City is going to work and comply with the law. We will and do abide by the law. I cannot understand how someone would go out there and build a motel then have to run back to the City for water and sewer. Without trunk lines there is no need for control because there is not going to be development. How are you going to control something that cannot happen? The City should not skirt the law. If you want us, we ask that you go by the annexation law and provide the trunk lines. I ask that Council look at the law and load your conscience with the simple truth and do what is right. Jerry Luke, 309 Cartwright, was concerned that the City fire trucks do not have the water capacity to fight brush fires. If the City does not extend the water lines, we have no fire hydrants. He asked if a water tower was put in at the prison would the money come from water and sewer funds? Also, he wanted to know if the City was going to take care of their coyote problem out there. According to the Charter the people in the annexed area should be able to vote on whether they want to be annexed or not. I guess this Charter does not mean anything. Michael Dietrick, 3500 Kessler, representative for Ed Spraggins, asked what the actual water line and sewer line demand was for the prison. He mentioned that there was a change in position from the plan which was presented in November 1995 and this plan. There have been several plans which have been discussed but at no time have they been taken to the service plan level, such as having public hearings, etc. He felt it was undesirable for the City Staff to correlate what goes on in the City limits with what is in the rural area. Annexation under the proposed service plan, without public works modification, will further burden and stymie the area which has been burdened with ETJ status. Sidney Smith, 2811 City View, asked what a public hearing is. We are supposed to be able to come before this Council and get fair and impartial treatment and I do not believe we are getting that. I believe you have already made a decision to annex these areas. If this is the case you are side stepping the laws of the State of Texas. I do not think we will have the opportunity to vote because if we did there would be no annexation. If the City would loop the line to the prison you have a tremendous area for some tax base. A big business could go in, but, that is not the case. Every large BCI development has been outside the City limits and I wonder why this is the case. You cannot annex the prison and get that population along with us to put you over the 100,000 mark. What is the City trying to do? The Staff has done what you asked to do and then you extended the line out to 1000 feet. In the proposed annexation 679 Item 8a cont'd. area, you have 90-95% of the structures coming into the City limits to pay City taxes without services. He wanted to know what would be grandfathered. In situations where people have cattle, you have required them to move their fences back 200 feet, what is right in a case like this? Also, when is the City going to recommend that we stop waiving curb and gutter in the rural area? When you annex our property the value goes down. K-Mart and other businesses have closed down. Show me the growth in this area. He asked Council to consider the benefits and the headaches that would be involved out there. We have what we need out there, law enforcement and fire protection, and we do not need your parks or your library. We hope that you will reconsider on this annexation. Margaret Beck, 2011 Victory, owns a farm on City View and Kiel. It is only agriculture k,-•.< land and there are no structures on it and she does not intend to sell that farm. Keith Dyer, 3409 Wellington, asked what the approximate cost over and above tax revenues would be to the City to take this property in? How can the City spend money on us when it does not have enough money to take care of current needs inside the City? If you take in 5000 acres of farmland how can you project what your animal control costs will be out there and how can you do an effective job? Ed Honkomp, 6314 Kovarik, asked how the Council members who were not present at the first public hearing could make a decision without hearing the comments and concerns expressed at that hearing. Are you going to abstain from voting? I do not think you can vote on something and be fair without having the full picture. It would be in the best interest of the City and of the people out there if you consider and think about what has been said. Jimmy Nix, 4376 Airport Drive is his business location which is a fireworks warehouse. He asked for a variance on his fireworks warehouse which is only for storage, and also requested that the time limit on it be lifted. In addition, he asked that his property at S.H. 287 be excluded in order to allow him to regroup his investment there. Tommy Evans, 493 Wellington, said that there are a lot of acres within the City that need urbanization. Lands have more than doubled, however, the population has only increased by 2500 since 1967. Planning would be prudent in this area preferably before it is annexed and not after. He mentioned the runoff problems in the City and said that most of the land in the proposed annexed area is farmland, and putting in curb and gutter will increase flooding problems. Storm detention is the responsibility of the developer. Wichita Falls citizens will have the responsibility for part of the runoff in the rural area. You need to consider all these problems which will be inherited. Upgrade of trunk lines should be considered in this area. Everything that is going to be grandfathered falls under an Ordinance, therefore, what is going to be grandfathered and is it selective? Oscar Dominguez, owns property at 6036 N.W. Freeway and lives at 510 E. Inwood, explained that he had bought the property outside the City limits for recreation with his family and to have horses and cows. But, if you annex we will not be able to do the things we had planned. He asked Council not to annex, but leave it as it is. Don Kirkham, 3807 Yuma Trail, said he did not think this annexation was a good idea at this time. From the public standpoint there is nothing that is going in out there. The property for future use is there, but the demand for that property does not seem to be coming because nothing has developed in that area on the north side of town in the past ten years. I do not think it is the time or the area to annex. We annexed a corner of Airport Drive about ten or twelve years ago, but nothing has happened. Businesses have closed and people have not built or expanded, why do we need it? I do not want my tax dollars to go to develop something that is not needed. Bill Evans, spokesperson for Texas Pyro Technics Association, said that Jimmy Nix, National Fireworks, has been a distributor and retailer for over forty years and has been at his present location for thirty-four or thirty-five years, and many others who have been doing business here for a long time, and we observe City Ordinances. We ask that these areas be given some consideration. Our Service Plan in 1996 had two options - leave fireworks location parcels out of the annexation area or allow fireworks sales from existing businesses to be exempt from a band for seven years. This year the City Manager and City Attorney have recommended permitting wholesaling and storage only but for ten years, but no retail sales. Other cities in Texas have granted variances to allow fireworks locations to continue to operate after annexation. These cities let these fireworks organizations stay because they see no need to extinguish their free enterprise which brings revenue into the city. Should the City Manager, 680 Item 8a cont'd. City Attorney and Planner be allowed to extinguish 138 years of combined free enterprise business in the fireworks industry to these wholesalers and retailers? Something is wrong with America when the City of Wichita Falls or America can put a man out of business by a recommendation of one or two people. Kathy Hydrick, 6391 Kovarik, requested that all Council members attend the public hearing tonight. She did not think Council could make a fair and impartial decision without hearing all the information first hand. John Ward asked if they were going to have to mow the right-of-way between the pavement and the property. City Council recessed at 10:30 a.m. and reconvened at 10:44 a.m. At this time Staff responded to the public's questions on annexation. Question: Qualifications of City Vs. Volunteer Fire Departments. Fire Chief Ronnie James listed the State requirements which he and his firefighters must meet. A volunteer fire fighter is not required to be certified or meet any requirements. Chief stated that the difference between career and volunteer firefighters is that volunteer firefighters do not need to meet State requirements or to be certified but career fire fighters are. Chief emphasized that he was not indicating that volunteer fire fighters were not certified or did not meet requirements, they can voluntarily do it. Question: Fire on Armstrong Street. Fire Chief informed that this was not our fire, it was outside the City limits, however, we did assist the volunteer fire department. Question: Wildlife and the cost of animal control. Mr. Ruben Warren informed that the keeping of wildlife is prohibited because they are aggressive and not domesticated easily. They are not able to be vaccinated in the sense that it is not recognized that the rabies vaccine is effective against them. We did not mean to address the issues of patrolling coyotes and that type of creatures. That is part of the Ecology System and it works well unless you have a rabid skunk or the such. As far as the costs, it is difficult to put a handle on what it is going to cost us to assimilate this into our program. We do not see expect to see additional personnel added. Question: Water capacity available for fighting fires. Chief James informed that NFPA Standards deal with fireworks, sprinkler systems, etc. It is a standard and not a law. There are many other things that regulate fire flows in buildings. I have never seen any standard that did not have a fire flow requirement for a minimum of two hours Any time that you have a non-continuous water supply without a convoy of people it is almost impossible to have a two hour continuous water supply. I am not familiar with anybody that has that many tankards and that many people available to have that kind of convoy to continue to keep a two hour supply of water, plus a water source to draw it from. There are certain requirements for fire flows in certain types in size of structures and there is a gallon per minute flow for a certain size room of a certain occupancy that is on fire. We cannot have a continuous water flow for two hours, and I do not know of anyone that can. Question: Utility demand on a 12 inch water line serving the prison. Demand by the prison system itself on water. Mr. Jerry Gross provided data from the time they had prisoners on the average daily demand. Average daily demand is 275,000 gallons per day to the nearest 1000. 1 assume the peak would be some where near 2.0; typically for the City it would be 2'/z . Capacity on 12 inch line is 2'/2 million gallons per day. We have a fire requirement out there of 1600 gallons per minute, converted that would be 2.3 million gallons per day. On a 2'/z million gallon per day line we have a fire requirement of 2.3 million gallons per day leaving an excess of 200,000 gallons. The only way that can be changed is if that fire suppression requirement is handled by some means other than the capacity on the existing line. That is to say through an elevated tower that would store enough water to respond to the immediate fire demands of the prison or through a major reinforcement line being installed to reinforce the system above its current capacity. 681 Item 8a cont'd. Question: Sewer demand on 12" water line serving the prison. Mr. Gross informed that they do not measure sewer flow. The prison stated a requirement for the 250 bed unit of 450 gallons per minute. We built the lift station there for about 700 gallons per minute so the lift station constitutes the limiting factor. That and a down stream receiving gravity system which is in the Lynwood West area. In general terms, we know the prison has a capability of placing a flow on us greater than the 700 gallons per minute flow capacity of that prison lift station because we have over flowed it previously. When we speak of what capacity is available on that line, there is very little sewer capacity available when the prison provides their maximum flow. If they are, as they are now in cooperation with us, controlling that flow to their stated demand then there is about 250 gallons per minute available in the sewer. Question: In the rural area with extended frontages where the County is now mowing, will the land owner be required to mow? Mr. Clark said they would, but added that this is something that the Council can consider amending and write it into the annexation ordinance. Question: What is the ETJ? Mr. Clark informed that the ETJ is authorized by the State and is 3.5 mile area around the City of Wichita Falls in which the City can look at subdivision development in the sense of approving street layouts, etc. It does not have the authority for building codes or zoning regulations. Question: Cost estimate for annexation. Mr. Clark stated that the initial cost has a one time expense for street lights, traffic control signals, sirens, etc. of approximately $84,000. There is operation and maintenance for seal coating, and right-of-way mowing in the amount of $179,000, and a revenue of $115,000. The cost analysis was based on existing development and does not consider any future development. The cost benefit analysis does come in when there is additional development in the area. Question: The residual between the prison and the 450 gallons per minute. Mr. Gross stated that this equates to 150 homes. He clarified that the line between that lift station, located on Kiel Road, all the way to near the intersection of 1-44 and Airport Road is a pressure line and not a gravity line and is not available for gravity use. The only portion of that sewer line that is gravity is between the lift station and the prison, primarily running north and south along Huntington Road. Question: Time frame for installation of water lines. Mr. Gross informed that the land owner or developer is responsible for installing the water lines, therefore, the time frame is dependent on that decision by that party. If we take the view that the City may install the lines, if that were to happen, we could install the water lines in that annexed area within a year of the decision to do so. The cost for putting in the lines only would be a ballpark figure of $400,000 but that does not address the fire flow requirements to the prison which would be in the vicinity of $200,000. These are very broad figures. Question: What is grandfathered and what is the application of grandfather position? Mr. Clark stated that zoning would be developed on the basis of a public hearing process administered both by Planning and Zoning Commission and the Council. If there is a business that ends up being contrary to the zoning district, that entity is grandfathered to continue operation. Expansion is subject to a process; if it becomes vacant or abandoned after some time it can also lose its grandfathering status. This exists within the City limits in the same perimeters. Question: City's Charter position on annexation. : City Attorney informed that the City Charter, adopted in 1920, Section 3 required voter's approval of the land owners before the City could annex. However, that was adopted before the Texas Municipal Annexation Act which was adopted in 1950. Section 3a of this Act amends Section 3 and provides for annexation within the ETJ with or without property owners consent in accordance with State law 682 Item 8a cont'd. Question: Explain what is a public hearing. City Attorney explained that a public hearing is for the governing body to receive public comments and the expressed opinions of the people who attend the public hearing on a given issue. I think that has been accomplished this morning as the Council has heard the concerns of numerous property owners in the proposed annexed area and we are responding to their questions. Question: Variance on wholesale fireworks sales with no term limit. Request to be excluded on retail fireworks sales with no time limit. City Attorney informed that he and the Fire Chief had been in contact and in negotiation with Mr. Evans and Mr. Nix for more than two years, and he thought they had come to a consensus that a ten year exemption from the prohibition of storing fireworks would be appropriate. We would allow them to continue for a period of ten years the wholesale sale of fireworks from an existing structure; but there was not a concurrence to allowing the continued retail sale of fireworks, which has been prohibited within the City limits since 1941. Staff would not recommend an exemption from that requirement, and we would not recommend that these two activities be allowed to continue forever. However, if Council wants to do what was requested that can be accomplished, it is Council's decision. Question: Can a non-annexation agreement be done on something like this? City Attorney replied that the non-annexation has to be an industrial zone, which is a classification that the Council makes by ordinance before we proceed with non-annexation agreements. Councilor Hawkins asked what is along Airport Dr. Mr. Clark replied that there are light industrial uses; but there is no zone because that area is outside the City. However, I suspect that when an annexation would be accomplished and zoning would be considered that a large part of this area would be industrially zoned. There is some option here whether it might be in the best order to go ahead, if this is annexed, to develop that complete zoning right up front instead of as one. Councilor Hawkins asked if that is made an industrial zone, what is the other restriction? City Attorney reminded Councilor Hawkins that the issue here is the storage of fireworks, the wholesale and resale of fireworks which is not an industrial use, it is a commercial activity. Mr. Evans asked Council if they believe in the consent of the governed? Many persons have asked not to be annexed. Where are the people who want to be annexed? Question: Why has big business grown outside the City? Mr. Clark informed that when it comes to the negotiation for the development of new industries and you have the potential for large scale job creation, an incentive to make that development happen is through a lesser taxation rate to allow the business to step in to full taxation and therefore, have a benefit at the beginning to encourage that job creation. Doing pre-annexation agreements is one way of doing that. Question: Will property owner have to move fences? Mr. Warren explained that unless they have a 25 acre piece of property they are required to have certain setbacks, for certain animals, from their neighbor's home. Typically, for livestock it is 200 feet, but if they have over 25 acres or more they are exempt from the requirement. Question: Does Council have all the information and are they all going to attend tonight's hearing? Mayor replied that those Council members who could be there, would be there. We are provided the information and we will move forward. She informed that tonight would be the second of the two public hearings concerning the Kovarik Road area. All questions have been addressed and Staff will be available outside Council Chambers to answer additional questions. Mayor restated that Council will follow up very quickly with another worksession to discuss the annexation. Mayor declared the Public Hearing closed. 683 Item 9a ORDINANCE NO. 92-97 ORDINANCE MAKING AN APPROPRIATION IN THE GENERAL FUND FROM GRANT REVENUE RECEIVED FROM THE BUREAU OF JUSTICE ASSISTANCE Moved by Councilor Martin that Ordinance No. 92-97 be passed. Motion seconded by Councilor Johnston and carried by the following vote. Ayes: Mayor Yeager, Councilors Johnston, Shine, Thompson, Martin, and Hawkins Nays: None lem9b ORDINANCE NO. 93-97 AN ORDINANCE PROVIDING FOR PARTICIPATION OF THE CITY IN THE SUPPLEMENTAL DEATH BENEFITS FUND OF THE TEXAS MUNICIPAL RETIREMENT SYSTEM, TO PROVIDE CERTAIN IN-SERVICE DEATH BENEFITS FOR EMPLOYEES, AND DEATH BENEFITS FOR ANNUITANTS WHOSE LAST EMPLOYMENT BEFORE RETIREMENT WAS THE CITY OF WICHITA FALLS, TEXAS Moved by Councilor Martin that Ordinance No. 93-97 be passed. Motion seconded by Councilor Hawkins and carried by the following vote. Ayes: Mayor Yeager, Councilors Johnston, Shine, Thompson, Martin, and Hawkins Nays: None Item ORDINANCE NO. 94-97 ORDINANCE WAIVING SECTION 5-59 OF THE CODE ORDINANCES WHICH PROHIBITS GIVING ANIMALS AS PRIZES OR INDUCEMENTS Moved by Councilor Johnston that Ordinance No. 94-97 be passed. Motion seconded by Councilor Hawkins and carried by the following vote. Ayes: Mayor Yeager, Councilors Johnston, Shine, Thompson, Martin, and Hawkins Nays: None Item 9d ORDINANCE NO. 95-97 ...a: AN ORDINANCE WAIVING SEC. 22-1(A)(2), SEC. 22-1(A)(9), SEC. 22- 1(A)(10), SEC. 22-3, AND SEC. 22-4 OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTION 2509 AS AMENDED TO PERMIT VEHICLES ON THE GRASS, PLACEMENT OF SIGNS, HORSES ON THE GRASS, ATTENDANCE DURING CURFEW HOURS, POSSESSION AND CONSUMPTION OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES AND WAIVER OF PAYMENT OF PERCENT OF GROSS SALES TO THE CITY DURING FALLSFEST IN LUCY PARK SEPTEMBER 26-27, 1997 684 Item 9d cont'd. Moved by Councilor Thompson that Ordinance No. 95-97 be passed. Motion seconded by Councilor Johnston and carried by the following vote. Ayes: Mayor Yeager, Councilors Johnston, Shine, Thompson, Martin, and Hawkins Nays: None Item 1 a A proposed resolution was presented approving the proposed budget for the Nortex 9- 1-1 Communications District for the period from October 1, 1997 through September 30, 1998. Moved by Councilor Martin that proposed resolution be passed. Motion seconded by Mayor Yeager. Councilor Hawkins commented that the City of Wichita Falls is the primary payer of the funds to pay for the operation of 9-1-1 because the money comes directly from the City of Wichita Falls. Yet, we are not allowed to name a director to the 9-1-1 Board. 9-1-1 Board goes to the smaller cities and get their endorsement before they come to us. I will continue to cast my vote against the support or accepting their budget. Councilor Martin questioned the need for two Ford Explorer vehicles. Also, there are problems with locating 9-1-1 by cellular phone and there was a question if funds were budgeted to address this situation. There were no representatives present from Nortex 9-1-1 to answer questions. Moved by Councilor Martin that this be tabled until next Council meeting to request representatives to be present to answer questions. Motion seconded by Councilor Thompson and carried by the following vote. Ayes: Mayor Yeager, Councilors Johnston, Shine, Thompson, Martin, and Hawkins Nays: None Item 10b A resolution was presented authorizing the City Manager to execute a professional services contract with RCC Consultants, Inc., Houston, Texas, for radio communications systems. City Attorney informed that Council had been handed an amended copy of that resolution adding a new Section 3 and 4. He read the new sections. Moved by Councilor Martin that proposed resolution be passed. Motion seconded by Councilor Thompson. Mayor informed that Mr. Powers, who has been working on this, had to leave earlier to testify before a federal judge in Dallas. Council had concern about spending money on this when there was a possibility that it could be done free. Also, Council wanted to see the different phases and the time frames because depending on these schedules there are other major problems that need to be addressed which might take precedence over this project. For the public's information, Council suggested a full explanation of what this project involves and why it is necessary. Moved by Councilor Hawkins that this be tabled until next Council meeting so Mr. Powers can be present to answer questions. 685 Item 10b cont'd. Staff explained that this is the last agenda meeting before the end of the fiscal year to encumber money. The monies can be appropriated from equity or funds can be encumbered from available balances in the current fiscal year. Chief James explained that there are other communication needs that our present system does not adequately satisfy. The Police and Fire Departments' responses are together and we cannot talk to each other without going through a dispatcher. This lengthens and sometimes creates problems. The technology may change before we buy the radios to address the needs, but the needs are still going to be there. This would not be money wasted, it would be well spent to get into the needs assessment at this time. Chief Schlieper mentioned that there was a plan in the 4B Sales Tax for this that outlined a time frame to pay for this depending on what the Council decided. Motion seconded by Councilor Johnston. Councilor Shine asked if this was approved, would it hire the consultants?. Mr. Dockery explained that this would allow a contract to be entered into up to a dollar amount. Motion to table carried by the following vote. Ayes: Councilors Johnston, Thompson, Martin, and Hawkins Nays: Mayor Yeager and Councilor Shine Item 10c RESOLUTION NO 142-97 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WICHITA FALLS, TEXAS, AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF WICHITA FALLS, THE WICHITA FALLS INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT, AND WICHITA COUNTY, ESTABLISHING AN ADVISORY TASK FORCE AND PROGRAM COORDINATOR TO REVIEW GANG ACTIVITY AND VIOLENCE IN THE GREATER WICHITA FALLS VICINITY; 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. 142-97 be passed. Motion seconded by Councilor Johnston and carried by the following vote. Ayes: Mayor Yeager, Councilors Johnston, Shine, Thompson, Martin, and Hawkins Nays: None Item 1 Od RESOLUTION NO 143-97 RESOLUTION APPROVING THE TRANSFER OF THE CITY'S AIRPORT AND AIRWAYS IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 1982 ENTITLEMENT FUNDS, $66,303 TO SUGARLAND/HULL AIRPORT AND $23,276 TO THE STATE OF TEXAS, FOR THE STATE'S INNOVATIVE FINANCE PROGRAM Moved by Councilor Martin that Resolution No. 143-97 be passed. Motion seconded by Councilor Johnston. 686 Item 10d cont'd. Mr. Robert Parker explained that they have a surplus of their entitlement money in the amount of $89,579. The money will be lost to the State of Texas if we do not designate a recipient inside the State of Texas, it will be distributed anywhere in the United States where there is a project waiting. He received five potential projects for funding within the State of Texas. Motion carried by the following vote. Ayes: Mayor Yeager, Councilors Johnston, Shine, Thompson, Martin, and Hawkins Nays: None Items 11 a and Item 11 b Discussion was had on waiver for curb and gutter requirements of Appendix A, Subdivision 9(B)(2)(a) of the Code of Ordinances Section 27-30 and waiver for sidewalk requirements of Section 27-30 of the Code of Ordinances for Lot 1, Bradley Addition. Mr. Bill Parker informed that this was a single lot west of Barnett Road. The existing roadway is not paved. It is not technically feasible to put curb and gutter there. We recommend approval of the waiver for the curb and gutter. The placement of sidewalk is technically feasible. We recommend disapproval of sidewalk waiver. Judith Bradley, 4820 Lovers Lane, owner of the lot under discussion, said that there is no other property on Barnett that faces out as mine will. It is not feasible to put in curb and gutter; we would like to put in a culvert there to have access to the property. If City Council wants us to put sidewalk in we will, but there will be no other sidewalk on either side of our property. There is no sidewalk on McNiel, and I can see that it would serve no purpose, but we will comply with what City Council requires of us. Mayor asked Council if they wished to continue this format in discussing waivers at one meeting and taking action at the following meeting. It was a consensus of Council to return to the previous format of discussing and taking action on waivers at the same meeting with information provided to Council as soon as it was available to Staff. Item 12a The following TML Region V Resolutions were presented to Council for their consideration and support. A RESOLUTION OF THE TEXAS MUNICIPAL LEAGUE, REGION 5, REQUESTING THAT THE TEXAS MUNICIPAL LEAGUE SPONSOR AND/OR ENDORSE LEGISLATION AT THE 76T" LEGISLATIVE SESSION THAT WOULD AUTHORIZE A MUNICIPALITY WHICH HAS ADOPTED THE MAXIMUM SALES TAX TO ANNEX TERRITORY INTO ADJACENT COUNTIES WHICH HAS ALSO ADOPTED A SALES TAX A RESOLUTION OF THE TEXAS MUNICIPAL LEAGUE, REGION 5, URGING THE TEXAS MUNICIPAL LEAGUE TO SPONSOR AND/OR ENDORSE LEGISLATION BEFORE THE 76T" LEGISLATIVE SESSION THAT WOULD AUTHORIZE THE VOTERS TO APPROVE THE CONSOLIDATION OF MUNICIPAL AND COUNTY GOVERNMENTS Moved by Councilor Martin to support these Resolutions. Motion seconded by Councilor Thompson and carried by the following vote. Ayes: Mayor Yeager, Councilors Johnston, Shine, Thompson, Martin, and Hawkins Nays: None 687 Item 12 Councilor Thompson asked that in preparation of the annexation worksession that Mr. Clark provide information on what the cost would be to provide sewer in the proposed annexation area. Also, that he provide his own analysis as to how this would increase or enhance the development ability of that area with water. He commented that it is not true that we are doing this to enhance the prison population and for taxes only. Councilor Thompson mentioned the removal of lights on Eastside Drive and Jefferson. Mr. Robert Parker reported that Friday night an 18-wheeler took out the light there and they are in the process of putting it back. Councilor Thompson mentioned the study which was going to be done on 10th and Grace. Mr. Parker informed that was he was going to do that study in November. Councilor Hawkins asked for information on the following: a) how major coastal cities handle the storage of fireworks; b) the keeping of swine and other noisy animals; and mowing on agricultural frontages. Councilor Johnston felt an annexation worksession was definitely in order and a lot of information that Council needs to receive and provide information to the public. We need to move the flooding problem in the City up on our list of projects. Councilor Shine was concerned that he had been hearing about the Police/Fire training center, and Council had not received information or had input in it. Councilor Martin asked that Council be provided a copy of the MPEC budget and that it should be put in with the City budget as it was last year. He asked for an update on MPEC progress of the third building. Councilor Martin asked for clarification of the ownership of the property at the water's edge at Lake Wichita. Councilor Johnston asked for an update on land acquisitions authorized by Council such as Callfield, the water treatment plant, etc. Mayor asked that a resolution be prepared in support of widening U.S. 277 between Wichita Falls and Abilene. Item 12c There were no Staff reports. Item 12d The City Council went into Executive Session at 12:40 p.m. as authorized by Section 551.074 of the Texas Government Code, and reconvened at 2:00 p.m. The City Council adjourned at 2:01 p.m. PASSED AND APPROVED this _day of 62a Vk 1997. /<4- t Z KATqAYNA. YEA ER MAYOR ATTEST: Lydia Torres City Clerk