Loading...
Min 05/16/1995 888 Wichita Falls,Texas Memorial Auditorium Building May 16 ,1995 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: Michael Lam - Mayor Don Johnston - Councilors Dan Shine - Angus Thompson - Bill Daniel - J. W. Martin - Harold Hawkins - James Berzina - City Manager Gregory Humbach - City Attorney Lydia Torres - City Clerk Mayor Lam called the meeting to order. The invocation was given by Rev. Angus Thompson, New Jerusalem Baptist Church. Mayor Lam proclaimed May 22-28, 1995 as "Air Force Field Training Mobileer Week" . Mayor Lam proclaimed May 14-20, 1995 as "Emergency Medical Services Week" . Mayor Lam welcomed to the Council the two newly elected City Councilors Don Johnston and Dan Shine. Item 3 Moved by Councilor Thompson that the minutes of May 2 and May 9, 1995 meetings be approved. Motion seconded by Councilor Daniel and carried by the following vote. Ayes: Mayor Lam, Councilors Johnston, Shine, Thompson, Daniel, Martin, and Hawkins Nays: None Items 4a-6c Moved by Councilor Shine that the consent agenda be approved. Motion seconded by Councilor Martin and carried by the following vote. Ayes: Mayor Lam, Councilors Johnston, Shine, Thompson, Daniel, Martin, and Hawkins Nays: None 889 Item 4a RESOLUTION NO. 68-95 RESOLUTION APPROVING AND ADOPTING THE REVISED SECTION 8 RENTAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM ADMINISTRATIVE PLAN AND FAMILY SELF-SUFFICIENCY ACTION PLAN Item 5a Bid was awarded to Casco Industries, Inc. in the amount of $33,825. 00 for the purchase of fire retardant station wear. Item 5b Bid was awarded to Construction Agricultural Supply in the amount of $46,793 . 00 for one (1) front end loader/backhoe. Item 6a-6c Minutes of the meetings of the following boards and commissions were received. a. Wichita Falls Traffic Safety Commission, April 5, 1995 b. Wichita Falls Park Board, April 27, 1995 c. Civil Service Commission, May 1, 1995 Item 7a The First Public Hearing on the Consolidated Plan which includes the proposed use of 1994-1995 Community Development Block Grant Funds and Home Investment Partnership Funds was held. Mr. Clark informed that the community anticipates funding for CDBG and Home Program in the approximate amount of $2,607, 000. As part of the process one of the new regulations of the Federal Government is the development of a Consolidated Plan. A Consolidated Plan will be a five year plan that will lay out the priorities and the needs for the community. This morning' s public hearing will allow citizen input, however, no decisions will be made today. Mayor declared the public hearing open. Tim Thomas, 4809 Dickens, Director Small Business Development Center at M.S.U. , handed out some information to the Council. We have made application for some CDBG money, however, I think it will be difficult to justify giving us money, but if you can I would ask that you consider it. Mr. Thomas gave information on the Small Business Development Center funding and their impact on Wichita Falls ' economy. He asked that if CDBG funding is not available that Council consider some way to fund SBDC. Councilor Martin commented that the Small Business Development Center plays a vital role in establishing small businesses and they do a great job. Mayor called for other comments or input. No one else wished to be heard. Mayor declared the public hearing closed. Item 7b A public hearing was held on hazardous structures. Mayor stated the purpose of the hearing and declared the public hearing open. Mayor read the list of structures and the following were addressed by citizens. 890 Item 7b, cont'd. Everett A. Boone, 3105 Milby, addressed 1328 32nd St. Requested that he be allowed to demolish structure himself. He has obtained a demolition permit and requested additional time to demolish. He was allowed a total of forty-five days to complete. Jimmy Foster, 1921 Hampton Rd. , addressed 1921 Hampton Rd. Mr. King informed that it was a garage building and it was endangering the adjacent house. Mr. Foster agreed to have it demolished within thirty days and transport the material to the landfill. Mayor directed him to work with Mr. King on details. Edward R. Shaw, 2900 McNiel, addressed 302 Oriole. Mr. Shaw said he was going to have the house moved and agreed to demolition if it was not moved within thirty days. Erica Chicano, 1327 35th Street, addressed 708 Eastside for her mother Diann Escobedo. She requested an extension to repair the structure. She was allowed sixty days to get her financing and obtain her building permit, and if not she is to get it demolished. Gwen Evans Horn, granddaughter of Bennie Roy, Jr. addressed 120 1/2 Flood. Mrs. Horn informed that Mr. Roy is in a nursing home and that Lloyd Williams was supposed to be on the deed but was not. Mayor informed Mr. Williams that he had no ownership interest now as far as Council knew and he could be spending his time and effort on property he does not own. Mayor suggested that he obtain some advise on how he can secure ownership. Mr. Williams was allowed thirty days to obtain a title of ownership and then a permit to begin repairs. Martha Blair, 1634 Harding, addressed 1018 Tulsa for her father, Jack Blair. Due to Mr. Blair' s illness, Mrs. Blair said that they did not have the money to make the repairs but all the property is secure. Mrs. Blair informed that there were two interested parties in purchasing the property. Mrs. Blair was allowed 60 additional days to sell the property. The property is to be kept clean and secure. The new owners are to obtain permits to make necessary repairs. Gene Buchanan, 106 N. Oriole, addressed 1013 Woods. Mr. Buchanan said he had worked on the outside and needed to work on the inside. Mr. King informed that extensions had been granted on this property for four years and they have seen minimal progress on it. There is no current building permit status on it. Mr. Buchanan was instructed to make substantial progress by rehabilitating inside of the house such as electrical, plumbing and strengthening the walls and not just cosmetic signs on the outside. Councilor Thompson commented that in order to be fair to everyone, he would like to see Council set a date and time for repairs to be done and that if repairs are not done then it should be taken care of in accordance with the Code Enforcement Department. Mayor instructed Mr. Buchanan to meet with Mr. King before the first Council meeting in June, and discuss what needs to be done and to work out a schedule. Mr. King will present that schedule to the Council. Mayor told Mr. Buchanan that he is to clearly understand what is expected of him and the time frame to do this. Next time there will be no arbitrary discussion. Mr. Buchanan agreed. Jean Sherrill, 1309 21st, addressed 1305 Taylor, as an interested purchaser. Mrs. Sherrill wanted to know what was expected and the time frame on this property. Mayor stated that Council had gone through a procedure which they would like to establish. He asked her to meet with Mr. King to find out what is required of that property and to work out a time frame. Mayor stated that she could use that to make her purchase decision. 891 Item 7b, cont'd. Lloyd E. Nelms, 3307 Seymour Rd. addressed 4723 Cape Cod. He stated that structure is totally secure and cleaned up. The rain has hindered him from completing the repairs of the rear wall. He will complete what he had committed to within thirteen days from May 19. Mayor stated that Mr. Nelms has a plan and has made progress; therefore, he had no problem with allowing him the additional thirteen days. Gholamreza Vafaiyan, 2900 Kyle Cove, addressed 709 Burnett. He said that he had made substantial progress on the house and was trying to obtain a home owners electrical permit. He said he wants to live in it himself. Mr. King stated that Mr. Vafaiyan came to the Council and he was issued a permit in the amount of $1000, however, he has made no progress on the repairs. Mr. Vafaiyan stated that he has secured the property and has made progress inside and has eleven months left to complete the property. He requested that he be issued a home owners electrical permit to complete the property. Mr. King informed that this property had been brought before the Council in December, 1988. Councilor Hawkins commented that he had problems with the $1000 permit for repair and he did not think that would begin to touch it. Moved by Councilor Hawkins that this property be demolished. Motion seconded by Mayor Lam and carried by the following vote. Ayes: Mayor Lam, Councilors Johnston, Shine, Thompson, Daniel, Martin, and Hawkins Nays: None Mayor ordered that the property at 709 Burnett be demolished. Councilor Thompson asked that Mr. Abdoulamir Nadizadeh be notified by registered mail return receipt requested of this action. No one else wished to be heard. Mayor declared the Public Hearing closed. ORDINANCE NO. 55-95 ORDINANCE CLOSING HEARING AND FINDING CERTAIN BUILDINGS AND/OR STRUCTURES TO BE DANGEROUS; COMMANDING PROPERTY OWNERS TO DEMOLISH SAID BUILDINGS AND/OR STRUCTURES WITHIN THIRTY ( 30) DAYS OF THE DATE OF THIS ORDINANCE AND DECLARING THAT THE MEETING AT WHICH THIS ORDINANCE WAS PASSED WAS OPEN TO THE PUBLIC AS REQUIRED BY LAW. Moved by Councilor Martin that Ordinance No. 55-95 be passed with the notations stated in the public hearing. Motion seconded by Mayor Lam. Councilor Thompson asked that when possible Mr. King work with those who have problems in developing plans, in order to save time during Council. Motion carried by the following vote. Ayes: Mayor Lam, Councilors Johnston, Shine, Thompson, Daniel, Martin, and Hawkins Nays: None 892 Item 7c A public hearing was held on an addendum to the Wichita Falls Metropolitan Transportation Plan, 1995-2015 and the Transportation Improvement Program FY 1996-1998 . Mr. Clark informed that the Metropolitan Transportation Plan is a plan which has been worked out with much citizen input to establish a format for that plan. It was further refined with that input by the Committee of the Metropolitan Planning Organization to refine the dollar value. This is something in this plan that requires a dollar commitment using federal, state and local dollars for the development of these projects. If they are not able to be funded or even conceived in funding they go to a part of the Plan called "Unmet Needs" which is something that can be decided on at some time to change the priorities to bring those up. The second element of this is the Transportation Improvement Plan which is such an implementation element that brings more forward the more immediate projects that are scheduled for the use of federal and state funds. This has received a good bit of exposure. After this public hearing, the Metropolitan Planning Organization will be in a position to adopt it or take some other action. Mayor declared the public hearing open. The Mayor allowed time for public input and for Council input. No one who wished to be heard. The Mayor declared the public hearing closed. Item 8a ORDINANCE NO. 56-95 ORDINANCE MAKING AN APPROPRIATION FROM THE HOTEL/MOTEL FUND TO ASSIST IN SUPPORTING A WELCOME FOR REPRESENTATIVES FROM THE NATO NATIONS PARTICIPATING IN THE EURO-NATO JOINT TRAINING PROGRAM AT SHEPPARD AIR FORCE BASE Moved by Councilor Thompson that Ordinance No. 56-95 be passed. Motion seconded by Councilor Daniel and carried by the following vote. Ayes: Mayor Lam, Councilors Johnston, Shine, Thompson, Daniel, and Martin Nays: Councilor Hawkins Item 8b ORDINANCE NO. 57-95 ORDINANCE WAIVING SECTION 22-1 (a) ( 9) OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES TO PERMIT SIGNS DURING AN EVENT AT JAYCEE PARK JUNE 3 , 1995 Moved by Councilor Martin that Ordinance No. 57-95 be passed. Motion seconded by Councilor Shine and carried by the following vote. Ayes: Mayor Lam, Councilors Johnston, Shine, Thompson, Daniel, Martin, and Hawkins Nays: None 893 Item 8c ORDINANCE NO. 58-95 ORDINANCE WAIVING SECTION 22-1 (a) ( 9) OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES TO PERMIT SIGNS DURING AN EVENT MAY 26 AND 27, 1995 IN HAMILTON TENNIS CENTER Moved by Councilor Hawkins that Ordinance No. 58-95 be passed. Motion seconded by Councilor Martin and carried by the following vote. Ayes: Mayor Lam, Councilors Johnston, Shine, Thompson, Daniel, Martin, and Hawkins Nays: None Item 8d ORDINANCE NO. 59-95 ORDINANCE MAKING AN APPROPRIATION IN THE GENERAL FUND FOR ADDITIONAL GRANT REVENUE FROM THE TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE CONTRACT ACCEPTING SAME Moved by Councilor Hawkins that Ordinance No. 59-95 be passed. Motion seconded by Councilor Thompson and carried by the following vote. Ayes: Mayor Lam, Councilors Johnston, Shine, Thompson, Daniel, Martin, and Hawkins Nays: None Item 9a RESOLUTION NO. 69-95 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WICHITA FALLS, TEXAS, AUTHORIZING A CONFLICT OF INTEREST WAIVER FOR A CITY EMPLOYEE QUALIFYING FOR VARIOUS U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT FUNDED PROGRAMS; FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT THE MEETING AT WHICH THIS RESOLUTION WAS PASSED WAS OPEN TO THE PUBLIC AS REQUIRED BY LAW Moved by Councilor Hawkins that Resolution No. 69-95 be passed. Motion seconded by Councilor Shine and carried by the following vote. Ayes: Mayor Lam, Councilors Johnston, Shine, Thompson, Daniel, and Martin Nays: None Item 9b RESOLUTION NO. 70-95 RESOLUTION DEMONSTRATING SUPPORT OF EFFORTS TO KEEP THE WICHITA FALLS WEATHER SERVICE OFFICE OPEN AND THE UPGRADING OF THAT OFFICE TO A WARNING OFFICE FOR WICHITA COUNTY AND THE SURROUNDING AREA Moved by Councilor Thompson that Resolution No. 70-95 be passed. Motion seconded by Councilor Johnston and carried by the following vote. 894 Item 9b, cont'd. Ayes: Mayor Lam, Councilors Johnston, Shine, Thompson, Daniel, Martin and Hawkins Nays: None Councilor Hawkins suggested as part of the budget process to consider assisting the federal government in funding the weather service office. Item 9c RESOLUTION NO. 71-95 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WICHITA FALLS, TEXAS, DETERMINING NECESSITY FOR ACQUISITION OF FLOWAGE EASEMENTS FOR THE DIVERSION OF IRRIGATION WATER TO LAKE WICHITA AND AUTHORIZING PURCHASE OR CONDEMNATION; 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. 71-95 be passed. Motion seconded by Councilor Martin and carried by the following vote. Ayes: Mayor Lam, Councilors Johnston, Shine, Thompson, Daniel, Martin, and Hawkins Nays: None Mayor noted that this Ordinance commences the progress of bringing more water into Lake Wichita which was an action item recommended by the Lake Wichita Study Committee. This was a budgeted item and the City is fulfilling its commitment. Item 9d RESOLUTION NO. 72-95 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WICHITA FALLS, TEXAS, AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A CONTRACT WITH JERUSALEM COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION. AN ELIGIBLE COMMUNITY HOUSING DEVELOPMENT ORGANIZATION (CHDO) AS DEFINED BY FEDERAL REGULATIONS GOVERNING THE HOME INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM, FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMMITTING THE 15% SET- ASIDE OF $55, 350 FROM THE 1993 FEDERAL FISCAL YEAR HOME FUNDING AUTHORIZATION TO JERUSALEM COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION FOR USE IN ELIGIBLE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES; FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT THE MEETING AT WHICH THIS RESOLUTION WAS PASSED WAS OPEN TO THE PUBLIC AS REQUIRED BY LAW Moved by Councilor Daniel that Resolution No. 72-95 be passed. Motion seconded by Councilor Martin. It was noted that Councilor Thompson did not participate in the discussion or the vote of this item. Motion carried by the following vote. Ayes: Mayor Lam, Councilors Johnston, Shine, Daniel, Martin, and Hawkins Nays: None Abstention: Councilor Thompson 895 Item 9e RESOLUTION NO. 73-95 RESOLUTION APPROVING A TEMPORARY CLOSURE OF BELL STREET BETWEEN AVENUE H AND AVENUE I Moved by Councilor Martin that Resolution No. 73-95 be passed. Motion seconded by Councilor Shine and carried by the following vote. Ayes: Mayor Lam, Councilors Johnston, Shine, Thompson, Daniel, Martin, and Hawkins Nays: None Item 10a RESOLUTION NO. 74-95 RESOLUTION TO AWARD BID TO ANDRITZ-RUTHNER, INC. FOR SEWAGE SLUDGE BELT FILTER PRESS EQUIPMENT Moved by Councilor Thompson that Resolution No. 74-95 be passed. Motion seconded by Councilor Johnston and carried by the following vote. Ayes: Mayor Lam, Councilors Johnston, Shine, Thompson, Daniel, Martin, and Hawkins Nays: None City Council recessed at 10: 15 a.m. and reconvened at 10: 30 a.m. Item 11a A discussion was held on the Sanitary Sewer Evaluation Study Proposed Construction Program. Mr. Bonnett stated that today they would review with Council the preliminary results of the Sanitary Sewer Evaluation Study survey and work with council to prepare a plan of action. Mr. Bonnett gave a brief history and current status of the process. Council is aware that we hold a national pollutant discharge elimination permit from EPA Region VI under the Clean Water Act 33 USC 1342 . Discharge, under this Act, is permitted only from sanitary sewer treatment plant outfalls, and we have two outfalls. It is EPA' s position that any other discharge is presumed to be intentional if it re-occurs. We are required to report any discharge which occurs from the sanitary sewer system. In 1988 due to chronic overflows from the southwest quadrant of the City, namely the intersection of Hampstead and Midwestern, we had repeated sanitary sewer overflows during inclement weather. In 1988 EPA issued an Administrative Order and as a result you built a $4,000, 000 trunk sewer in the bottom of Holliday Creek that is in and functioning and has stopped those overflows. In 1993 EPA issued a Show Cause Order requiring the City to show cause why EPA should not assess administrative penalties. The show cause order required the City to cease any discharges in wet weather within thirty days or submit a report detailing specific action to be taken to achieve compliance in as short a time as possible. In 1994 representatives of the Council met with EPA and we developed the Sanitary Sewer Evaluation Study and a time line. The City entered into a contract with Biggs and Matthews in 1994 and we are now well into the study and looking towards the end of the study and are prepared to develop a strategy to deal with EPA in terms of a "get well" program. 896 Item 11a, cont'd. Under the time line developed we must submit a program to EPA in September, 1995. We are also required to move into a four year cleaning program where every sanitary sewer will be cleaned once every four years. That program is alive and functioning. There will be a new budget line item 704 which identifies that activity. Under the tentative program worked out with EPA we are required to rehabilitate and modify our sanitary sewers from January 1996 to December 1999. That is what the current order says, however EPA did signal that they are prepared to enter into a dialogue with us after we complete our study. The costs that we have delved out are tentative; we do not have specific construction drawings yet, however, they are good in order of magnitude costs. We think we are in the ball park, but they are not hard figures. Councilor Daniel asked if EPA was backing off to some extent on their requirements. Mr. Bonnett replied that according to a memo from EPA they have said they would absolutely not move. However, at an EPA sponsored conference in April, he and Mr. Maroney detected some flexibility on EPA' s part. Their written format states that they will hold the line and there will be no adjustment, but verbally and in discussing the issue with other cities we are seeing some willingness to enter into a dialogue as to what is reasonable. Mr. Maroney said that over the last 16 to 18 months they have been involved in a detailed and exhaustive investigation of the sanitary sewer system and Council has the summary report. The field investigation has all been driving to today' s meeting, the modeling of the system. Mr. Maroney referred to the charts and explained the dry weather flow hydraulic model of the existing City of Wichita Falls sewer system. These are 10" and larger mains; nothing below 10" was modeled. Mr. Maroney explained the dry weather flow. He said that there are some existing dry weather capacity problems in the southwest portion of the area and also in the northeast area. Even though you can convey the dry weather f low you do have some lines that are at or approaching capacity during dry weather flow. There are defects in the system which show up in wet weather. The model is set up assuming that the system is pristine. Next, they looked at the kind of storm the existing system could take. The prime objective of the SSES is to stop the inflow. They depicted at a two year 24 hour storm, which says that you have a fifty percent chance of that storm occurring in any one given year. The five year storm has a twenty percent chance of occurring in any given year. They think a reasonable storm is more like a two year storm, however, we are talking about 3 1/2" to 3 . 6" of rain in a 24 hour period. On a two year storm, without any rehab and with the existing lines you will peak at the plant at about 56mgd. That is the amount of inflow you will have coming into the existing system. Your plant is permitted for about 40mgd. In order to fix the system, you will be looking at a two-fold solution. They have designed on a two year system and have established on known over flows. You will need to do some improvements in the southwest area, known as the Arizona Trunk Main. Mr. Maroney stated that they will need some political support to convince EPA that this is "reasonable" . However, they have left some flexibility to do some other things as a fall back position. He explained that the only thing that should be going into the system is wastewater from industrial and residential. Anything coming from the curb should not go into the system. He said as a part of the rehab program some of the problem is grades and a lot of what they are going to do is pipe bursting or in fact direct line replacement. If we can convince EPA on a two year storm, we are basically saying that if we get a two year storm with the 897 Item lla, cont'd. existing system as it is, we are going to have numerous overflows at 3 . 6" of rain if we do not do any rehab work. The next thing we did was try to develop a program where flows can be conveyed and where we can convince EPA to accept our plan of action. The approach was to go to a repair rehabilitation program and the assumption is that by our repair and our rehab we are going to reduce inflow by 40% on a two year storm. In doing so we are going to spend approximately $10 million. It is a cost effective analysis. The 40% will be the easiest sell to EPA. The rehab program will not eliminate all overflows, strictly going rehab. With the rehab program we are projecting a 40% reduction in the storm inflow on a two year storm. If you get rid of the 40%, some of the major lines are R still full but not at capacity. What we look at is an ultimate design, we simply want to keep it in the ground on a two year storm after rehab and after expansion. EPA just does not want you to discharge. If you get rid of 40% of the inflow and you make system expansions you are going to be sitting at that 40 million which is the plant capacity. That is what was driving the rehab and expansion program. We are going to make enough improvements to hold the plant capacity and at the same time reduce the inflow and upgrade the system so that water can be conveyed without overflows. The prison and Sheppard flow are plugged into the system. Our rehab and our line upgrade are going to be addressing the confines of the Wichita Falls system and we have tried to make sure that our system is such that if it overflows, in Sheppard' s case it is going to be back behind our metering point. The approach we are going to try to take is that we are going to try to design for no overflows in the system on a two year storm. But if we get something larger than that or if there are some other constrictions not directly related to inflow, you will probably get an overflow, but I do not think it will drive you to another administrative order or a fine as long as you make a diligent effort and as long as you rehab your system and as long as you have a plan and a design that is reasonable to EPA. Future growth will be built into the line expansion. The cost has not been driven up or the lines oversized based on future development as far as the rehab program. You will probably run these programs concurrent for a period of time, making some system expansions along with the rehab program. We are projecting addressing some of our dry weather capacity problems and in doing so we are looking at the possibility of relieving the southwest relief line, along Southwest Parkway. We need to relieve that area and in order to do that we can build a lift station in the southwest area and move the flow out of the southwest area onto the Arizona Trunk ,, Main. Even with the 40% reduction we still need to relieve that line. Another problem area is around Melody Lane and again, we can build a lift station and move those flows to the southeast part of town. The major problem is deteriorated infrastructure. The fourth project is 6th and Broad overflow. I do not think that EPA is going to allow overflows in public places. 6th and Broad is a very public area and the only solution is to extend the line to the plant. The next area is the Old Iowa Park Road, around the Red Bud area, and we propose that area for expansion to handle additional flow. The Collins Street area is going to be addressed through the rehab program in what is called pipe burst. Another priority area is in the northeast, along Old Burk Road and we would like to divert the flow from up stream to the north side trunk main. 898 Item 11a, cont'd. In a nutshell you are looking at about $10 million for the rehabilitation program and about $15 million for the system expansion for a total of $25 million. Mr. Gross stated that the cost of cleaning of the sewer lines was not mentioned and is now being financed at $250,000 a year. About three additional years of that would bring the total cost up to $25,750,000. The source of funds will have to be bonding and the most economic route is the state revolving fund, which we have previously used, and is administered by the Texas Water Development Board. It gives us a rate which is generally lower than the rate we can receive on the open bond market. We have had preliminary discussions with the Texas Water Development Board and they see no problem with our being able to work with them. There are several options available to us. Ranging from issuing all the bonds at one time or issuing bonds on an incremental basis, year by year as the construction is designed and constructed. Staff believes the second option is better for several reasons. First, it permits an incremental effect on the rates to our customers rather than a single large rate increase. Second, we avoid some legal restrictions and arbitrage rules that have to do with our investment of bonds and drawing interest on them. Assuming that EPA agrees with the two year storm and that the $15 million expansion is extended to ten years instead of four years, and that funds are spent evenly over the time period of each of the three programs, the City would be looking at the following. We would be looking at a bond issue of $4. 5 million for each of the first three years and about $4 million for the fourth year and about $1. 5 million for the additional six years which would go out to the year 2005 . I am speaking only on the impact of this SSES program on the rates not on any other ancillary issues, such as future projects or future inflation, etc. First, the impact on sewer rates there will be a 4-5% for each of the first four years per year. For each of the succeeding six years there will be a 1-2o increase of the sewer bill. At the end of the 10 year period you are looking at 30-350 increase. EPA does not believe there is a significant economic impact on the community until the effect on the community is 1 1/20 of the median income. Assuming $30,000 to be the median income for our City, 1 1/2a would be $450 and that means about $37.50/month. Assuming the median income person is our average customer, he is now paying $12. 53/month for the sewer bill. EPA is saying, effectively, when you have tripled your sewer bill then you can begin to talk about economic impact. Computing the change in the combined water and sewer bill, it is about 20 for each of the first four years and a little less than to each year thereafter. The effect on the total water and sewer bill is, obviously, less. We are proposing that once we have a firm program established that we fund it through incremental issues of bonds through the state revolving fund with those approximate impacts on our citizens. Mr. Bonnett proposed that a committee of Council accompany Staff to negotiate with EPA. We would like to get EPA to agree to a two year storm with a 40% inflow reduction and to try to extend the current four year construction program to a ten year. The reasons for this are the rate of increase of the sewer bill and the degree of construction in the approximate amount of $25 million. This is a significant amount of construction and there is going to be a great amount of disruption. We feel we are prepared and have the information ready to negotiate with EPA, and we need to do that very soon. Mayor suggested that in order for the Council to have a comfort level on this, the next step would be to meet with Staff in order to obtain more detail at how the figures and time frame were derived and decide where we are going from here. Councilor Thompson suggested that Staff share information with the media 899 Item lla, cont'd. on this proposed project regarding cost, ramifications and implications, in order to keep the citizens informed. Item llb Bettie Murphy, 101 Lakewood Drive, addressed the flooding situation on Avenue E and wanted to know the procedure to include this in the budgeting process in order to solve this problem. Mr. Bonnett informed that was a $2 million project. Mayor suggested that Mrs. Murphy attend budget hearings in August and present it. He stated that had fallen into what is known as Capital Expenditures and we do not have the funds at this time to do that. Mayor suggested that be looked at during the budget. Brenda Jarrett, 1815 Hayes, representing Revitalization Committee, gave a verbal update on the committee. She asked support from the Council as a whole and specifically Councilor Thompson. William Tisdale, 4404 Prince Edward, brought up the pond for the 14th green at Weeks Golf Course. Mayor directed that this be discussed during the budget process with some definite costs and that interested parties attend. Giola Ozuna, 2938 Elliott, asked if the rate on the SSES project would be a fixed rate. She complained that the ditch by Putt Putt had stagnant water sitting in it. Kenya Mitchum, 6614 Webb, said vending machines should have been addressed in the smoking ordinance. Robert Wright, 1000 Cedar, urged Council to repeal Ordinance 152-95 today. Councilor Daniel reminded Mr. Wright that they wanted an election, confident that the ordinance would be repealed, but now it is after the fact of an election that did not repeal the ordinance. We had that opportunity as a city to negotiate, and you decided not to take that opportunity; through the election it has been taken out of our hands. Mr. Wright commented and asked questions on several sections of the City Charter. Marty Sparks, 306 Polk, commented on the smoking ordinance and questioned Councilor Daniel on several points dealing with smoking. Brian Ballard, 1410 Deville, does not represent either group on the smoking ordinance, but rather the citizens who believe that the ordinance was good public policy. He stated that the citizens had voted and that election is over with and Council should stand its ground. Donald Duran, 2610 Inglewood, General Manager of Denny' s Restaurant, asked that the smoking ordinance be repealed. Mayor asked Council if they wanted to place this on the agenda as an action item. Council decided that they were bound by the election and were not interested in reviewing that process again. Item llc Councilor Thompson asked the citizens to try to live with the law as it has been passed. The citizens have spoken and we need to be supportive of the view that is predominate in the public ' s eye. Secondly, Councilor Thompson encouraged the pastors to be supportive of the revitalization effort in the eastside. He presented his stance on making recommendations and funding organizations, and said that if people desire to make donations to any organization they should investigate first and then decide if they want to make any contributions. 900 Item llc, cont'd. Councilor Hawkins was pleased that Covington Street was going to be worked on. He asked for information on the meter valve. City Manager replied they would provide that to him. Councilor Daniel asked Staff to see if the Small Business Development Center could be budgeted. Councilor Martin said that the Small Business Development Center does an outstanding job in helping people get started in business and they have added a lot to our economy here. Councilor Martin stated that there was a request to remove our Mayor from office. He said that he was not in favor of this on any grounds whatsoever, if anything, the Mayor is to be commended. He asked the Councilors for a show of hands from those who wanted to place on the next agenda to discuss removing the Mayor from office. There were none. Councilor Hawkins stated that impeachment was a very serious act and simply because you disagree with his beliefs or leadership is no reason for this, he has to have committed a heinous act. Despite their differences, Councilor Hawkins said that he backed the Mayor. Councilor Thompson felt that to discuss removal was out of order because of a vote or different views. This would send the message to the public that if they did not like or agree with someone that they could have them impeached. He said that would be a frightful scenario. He hoped that this was the last time they would hear something like this. Councilor Shine said that all citizens should be allowed to bring their reports and concerns to the Council, however, he felt it was inappropriate for citizens to interrogate Councilors in an attempt to put them on the spot. We should be considerate of each other. Councilor Martin commended the gentleman for calling the point of order. Mayor said that as Chair of the Council he would be more alert to these type of situations. He said that Council should not be subjected to a question and answer trial situation. Item lld City Manager informed Council that Murphy Davis would address the refinancing of the water sewer revenue bond series at the June 6, 1995 Council meeting. City Manager said that Council had approved in the present City budget $180,000 for preservation of the Memorial Auditorium Building, and Staff had a report on that project. Mr. Bill Parker stated that after getting into the project they realized it was highly specialized. Mr. Parker informed they had it looked into by David Potter. He introduced David Potter of Bundy, Young, Sims & Potter, Inc. architect firm. Mr. Potter reported that the existing building is going through some substantial damage. He handed out photographs and pointed out that the building has loose mortar, cracks, and material which is coming apart and falling off. He said that this building is a landmark and will be here for a long time, however, it needs to be repaired. He recommended it be repaired before it gets worse thereby increasing the cost. Mr. Potter said that the City needs to go out for bids. He informed Council that they have the following three options. You can remove all the mortar from the brick, which is very expensive, approximately $480, 000. You can take out every crack but they will be back within a year because of shrinkage; cost is approximately $365,000. You can repair only what needs to be repaired and use the best method to put the building back into a 901 Item 11d, cont'd. water tight condition; approximate cost is $180,000. Mr. Potter recommended the last option. He suggested that Council look at the building before and after repairs and that someone from the City be involved in the process from the beginning to the final. payment approval. Mr. Parker clarified that this project involved only the walls, areas where the metal meets the brick, and caulking the windows. Mr. Bonnett commented that no action needs to be taken today, that they needed a consensus to move forward and that had been obtained. The City Council adjourned at 1: 10 p.m. PASSED AND APPROVED this day of , 1995. Michael Lam, Ayor ATTEST: Lydi Torres City lerk