Loading...
Min 12/28/1982 i 42 Wichita Falls, Texas Memorial Auditorium Building December 28, 1982 Items 1 & 2 The Board of Aldermen of the City of Wichita Falls, Texas , met in called 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. Gary D. Cook Mayor Gene Shearman Carol G. Russell Aldermen Howard M. Morris Horace 0. Boston John A. Hampton, Jr. Absent Craig A. Wilson Absent Dane Bennett Acting City Manager H. P. Hodge, Jr. City Attorney Wilma J. Thomas City Clerk Fred Werner Chief Accounting Officer The invocation was given by Dane Bennett, Acting City Manager. Item 3a A proposed resolution was presented amending the agreement with Purolator Armored, Inc. RESOLUTION NO. 235-82 RESOLUTION APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE PUROLATOR ARMORED, INC. AGREEMENT. WHEREAS, the City of Wichita Falls, as Customer, and Purolator Armored, Inc. , as Purolator, entered into an agreement dated October 26, 1981 , which became effective December 1 , 1981 ; and, WHEREAS, such agreement between Customer and Purolator has been automatically continued from month to month; and, WHEREAS, Purolator agreed to call for, receive, transport and deliver sealed or locked shipments from Customer to the designated cosignee, City National Bank of Wichita Falls; and, WHEREAS, the amendment has been submitted and calls for an increase in monthly charges, paid Purolator by Customer, from $330.00 to $350.00; and, WHEREAS, possible alternatives to Purolator's service have been explored and are not considered viable by Customer. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF ALDERMEN OF THE CITY OF WICHITA FALLS, TEXAS, THAT; The attached amendment to Purolator Armored, Inc. agreement is hereby approved. Moved by Alderman Shearman that Resolution No. 235-82 be passed. Motion seconded by Alderman Morris. Mayor Cook asked if we had received a response from Chief Harrelson regarding the cost-out procedures for the Police Department to handle this service? Acting City Manager Dane Bennett stated that we did not receive it, but even so it would be taking a police officer off the street, and we should not really consider that alternative. 43 Item 3a, cont'd. Alderman Shearman asked if Purolator is insured from the time they pick up the money? Mr. Bennett stated that they are. The motion was carried by the following vote. Ayes: Mayor Cook, Aldermen Shearman, Russell , Morris and Boston Nays: None. Item 5 Discussion was held on proposed resolution authorizing contracts with the Wichita Falls Independent School District and Wichita County concerning tax increment financing. RESOLUTION NO. 236-82 RESOLUTION APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A CONTRACT WITH THE WICHITA FALLS INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT CONCERNING ALLOCATION OF A PORTION OF THE TAX INCREMENT TO BE COLLECTED FROM A PROPOSED REINVESTMENT ZONE. BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF ALDERMEN OF THE CITY OF WICHITA FALLS, TEXAS, THAT: That certain agreement, a copy of which is attached hereto, between the City of Wichita Falls and the Wichita Falls Independent School District, providing for the allocation and payment over to such District of a portion of the tax increment to be collected from the reinvestment zone being considered, is hereby approved, and the City Manager is authorized to execute the same for the City of Wichita Falls. Moved by Alderman Russell that Resolution No. 236-82 be passed. Motion seconded by Alderman Boston. City Attorney H. P. Hodge stated that this statute was adopted in 1981 . There have not been any lawsuits or Attorney General 's opinions construing the statute, and some of the questions that have come up we have to do our best to judge how a court would construe them if they came up. He stated that his primary problem is with Section 10 of the Statute. He and Judge Bacus have different opinions on the language of it. The question is how are the tax proceeds to be allocated among the taxing units? The base would be established at the 1981 values. Any future increases would be called the tax increment. Section 10 of the ordinance addresses this. All three property taxes would be collected by the City in this Zone. The Tax collector turns over the tax base to the City and County. The question arises from the captured amount of the tax increment. It must be under a contract prior to passage of this ordinance. If a contract is not executed by the school , county, or both, and you go ahead and pass the ordinance, no money is allocated to them out of the tax increment. Mr. Hodge further stated that he has some reservations whether the contract would be subject to negotiation. The contracts are drafted so that it will be flexible, and the percent allocated by the school and county can be re-negotiated. He feels this could be strongly upheld. He thinks Judge Bacus construes it to mean that if the City by contract can allocate money to the County, then they can do it voluntarily, even without a contract with them. He stated that there is reason to this, also. His opinion is, even without a contract between the City and County, you can go ahead and create the reinvestment zone. Mr. Hodge believes if the County wants to receive some percentage, then it should be put in the contract. Mayor Cook stated that this board does not want to spend any of the money of the county or school that they do not designate, and this is the reason for renegotiating each year the percent in which they desire to participate. Whether a contract is negotiated, and any security the county might have is questionable but if a contract is drawn up it would be subject to re-negotiation. They would like to put 100 percent in the contracts for both school and county and let them reconsider it in March. 44 Item 5, con t'd. Judge Bacus stated that the statute is poorly drawn and is not clear, and does not state how it is to be implemented. He feels that the paragraph Mr. Hodge mentioned is subject to several interpretations. No final decision has been rendered by a court. A suit is pending in E1 Paso, but it has not gone to court. If they have the authority to contract for 100 percent they have the authority to contract for one percent. He stated that he does not have the authority to sign a contract with the City today. You don' t have to contract with either the school or county. His personal opinion is that we are hurrying this up too fast. Experience around this has been difficult, and plans have not been adopted because of problems in other cities. Priorities in the short run have not been discussed sufficiently. He realizes we are talking about an increment for 1983. He has no trouble with the concept, but feels we should spend more time studying it. We would also lose one year's revenue. He stated that the County is really at the mercy of the City, but he senses a spirit among the Council that they want to be sensitive to the other entities. He would prefer it be deferred for another year for further study. The Commissioners feel it is moving too fast. Judge Bacus stated that they could do what the law is silent about. He thinks they can go ahead and relinquish 99 percent, or whatever they want to. He thinks a limit needs to be set. Alderman Shearman asked Judge Bacus if he thought this law was poorly written and too loose-ended? Judge Bacus stated tht it is very vague. Senator Farabee had explained that some changes are being written pertaining to this law. He hates to jump into this when some of the rules may be changed at a later date. Mayor Cook stated that Senator Farabee intends to work on the percentage of participation, and the contract. Mayor Cook stated that we are talking about losing one year of revenue. We are only talking about $76,000 from the standpoint if the City were to participate completely. He is not as concerned with the revenue loss as the direction and message we are trying to communicate to developers in and out of Wichita Falls. We have an area here that is in need of attention. If there is no commitment of a desire between governing bodies to address this problem, developers will not be as interested. This is the basis for continuing to enact this as of January 1 , 1983. He would want to put 100 percent in for the county and school so that they are not participating, and they will have that option to change it in March. Alderman Morris stated that if the school signs their contract for 100 percent, and the county does not sign their contract, and the ordinance is adopted, does that not leave the county out in the cold? Would that not be left up to future councils to determine what percent they wanted to participate? City Attorney H.P. Hodge agreed. They would not have any contract to demand anything if they failed to sign the contract. They would have to depend on the Council to allocate something to them. Judge Bacus asked if they executed a contract between now and March, would it be valid? City Attorney H. P. Hodge stated that he has some doubt about it. He feels it would be back to a voluntary action. Moved by Alderman Shearman that this be tabled until it comes back out of the legislature. No second was received and the motion died. Alderman Morris asked Judge Bacus why he was not prepared to sign a contract when it would cost the county nothing? Judge Bacus stated that he first saw the contract at 5:00 P.M. yesterday. He could not recommend anything to the Commissioners until he could study it. He is not sure that the Commissioners would have authorized execution of it because of the time element involved. He stated that they are not ready to make a commitment. Even though he realizes the potential benefits to the zone itself, he feels it needs more study. Alderman Morris stated that the contract does not really tie them down to anything. He assumes Judge Bacus is saying that the reason he would not sign the contract was because he did not have the contract in time to review it. 45 Item 5, cont'd. Alderman Shearman stated that tax increment financing may be well and good for Midtown Now projects. The Greenbelt project may be well and good as a City project, but are these projects good for all the hard working taxpayers of the city? He noted that flood control had previously been given our number one priority, yet we have taken very little decisive action to stop the flood waters that caused so much damage on May 12, 1982. An earlier Mayor and Council had expressed how expensive the Holliday Creek project would be, and how it would break our backs to pay the entire amount. We are now about to take the first step to fund a project that will be, in his opinion, equally expensive. Only time will tell if we can walk and chew gum, too. The people who have been affected by flooding have been waiting and suffering. He stated that if our priority is refurbishing the old business district of Wichita Falls, let's be decisive and get on with it, but that he cannot and will not vote for this project which, in his opinion, will put more of a tax burden on the hard working taxpayers of our city. Mayor Cook stated that we are trying to eliminate some of the tax burden on the residential property owner because of the viable tax base of that area. Alderman Morris stated that he does not have a problem with tax increment financing, and the Greenbelt is needed. He appreciates Dr. Williamson being here and being prepared to sign the agreement. He is sorry Judge Bacus is not prepared to sign it. He thinks we are leaving the county out in the cold. The complexity of this Council can change anytime, and he does not believe this is the proper way to build confidence with them. City Attorney H. P. Hodge has doubts that they can later sign a contract. Mayor Cook anticipates the legislature will address this problem of the contract to alleviate some of the problems other cities are having. Alderman Shearman asked if the Texas Municipal League had studied this? Judge Bacus feels you can execute a binding contract at any time. If the ordinance is adopted before a contract is completed then you eliminate those parties. The loss in revenue in 1983 will only be $76,000, and you could wait a little more time to solidify the contract. He is not against the Greenbelt. He feels it will do a lot for this area. His only thought is that it needs to be thought out. They may want some other things in the contract. They also may want to change some things about the ordinance. By waiting they are not demonstrating to the contractors that they do not recognize the problem, but they are indicating to the citizens that they want to make further study. He is not trying to throw a wet blanket on the project. He feels the potential problems of doing it today are worse than the loss of $76,000. The motion for passage of Resolution No. 236-82 was carried by the following vote. Ayes: Mayor Cook, Aldermen Russell , Morris, and Boston Nays: Alderman Shearman Dr. Williamson signed the contract for the school , clarifying that the City will return 100 percent of the tax increment back to the School District, and this protects their options of a change in participation in March, 1983. RESOLUTION NO. 237-82 RESOLUTION APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A CONTRACT WITH THE COUNTY OF WICHITA, STATE OF TEXAS CONCERNING ALLOCATION OF A PORTION OF THE TAX INCREMENT TO BE COLLECTED FROM A PROPOSED REINVESTMENT ZONE. BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF ALDERMEN OF THE CITY OF WICHITA FALLS, TEXAS, THAT: That certain agreement, a copy of which is attached hereto, between the City of Wichita Falls and the County of Wichita, providing for the allocation and payment over to such County of a portion of the tax increment to be collected from the reinvestment zone being considered, is hereby approved, and the City Manager is authorized to execute the same for the City of Wichita Falls. 46 Item 5, cont'd. Moved by Alderman Russell that Resolution No. 237-82 be passed. Motion seconded by Alderman Morris, and carried by the following vote. Ayes: Mayor Cook, Aldermen Russell , Morris, and Boston Nays: Alderman Shearman 'I - - - - - - - - - - Item 4 A proposed ordinance was presented designating a certain area as reinvestment zone number one. Mayor Cook recommended that seven members be named to the board in Section 3. The Council recommended the following Directors, and their terms. a. Jerry Mathis - 2 years b. Charles Dunlap - 2 years c. Gary Shorts - 2 years (Chairman) d. Otis Polk - 2 years e. Don Wills - 1 year f. County Commissioners ' Designee - 1 year g. Wichita Falls Board of Aldermen Designee - 1 year The public hearing was opened and closed on tax increment financing. No one desired to be heard. Moved by Alderman Russell that the Ordinance be passed, designating reinvestment zone, number one. Motion seconded by Alderman Boston, and failed by the following vote. Ayes: Mayor Cook, Aldermen Russell and Boston Nays: Aldermen Shearman and Morris The Board of Aldermen adjourned at 10:00 A.M. PASSED AND APPROVED this day of 1983. Horace 0. Boston., Mayor Pro tem ATTEST: Wilma J. Thomas, City Clerk This agreement made and entered into this the --�f&--Iday of December, 1982, by and between the City of Wichita Falls, Texas, hereinafter called "City", and the Wichita Falls Independent School District, hereinafter called "District". WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, City intends to create and designate a reinvestment zone under the authority of the Texas Tax Increment Financing Act of 1981, Article 1066e, Revised Civil Statutes of Texas, which zone is described in Exhibit A, which is attached hereto; and, WHEREAS, the parties desire that a portion of the tax increment shall be allocated and paid over to the District. NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereto agree as follows: In the event such reinvestment zone is created and designated by the City, the City shall allocate and pay over to the District out of the tax increment an amount equal to 0 0 % of the taxes which District would have received from the captured appraised value had such reinvestment zone not been created and designated. Such percentage may be renegotiated by mutual agreement of the parties each year the reinvestment zone is in effect. Such renegotiation shall be accomplished during the month of March, and any new percentage so negotiated shall be used in allocating the tax increment levied in the current calendar year. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused these presents to be executed as of the day and year first set out above. CITY OF WICHITA FALLS BY: h,,� City Manager ATTEST: ,A- -� y71C�� � City Clerk WICHITA FALLS INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT BY ATTEST: Page 3 of 11 Pages Agenda Item No.5 This agreement made and entered into this the c7�d&`clay of December, 1982, by and between the City of Wichita Falls, Texas, hereinafter called "City", and the County of Wichita, State of Texas, hereinafter called "County", WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, City intends to create and designate a reinvestment zone under the authority of the Texas Tax Increment Financing Act of 1981, Article 1O66e, Revised Civil Statutes of Texas, which zone is described in Exhibit A, which is attached hereto; and, WHEREAS, the parties desire that a portion of the tax increment shall be allocated and paid over to the County. NOW, THEREFORE, the parties do hereby agree as follows: In the event such reinvestment zone is created and designated by the City, the City shall allocate and pay over to the County out of the tax increment an amount equal to 00 % of the taxes which County would have received from the captured appraised value had such reinvestment zone not been created and designated. Such renegotiation shall be accomplished during the month of March, and any new percentage so negotiated shall be used in allocating the tax increment levied in the current calendar year. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused these presents to be executed as of the day and year first set out above. CITY OF WICHITA FALLS BY: City Manager ATTEST: City Clerk COUNTY OF WICHITA STATE OF TEXAS BY: ATTEST: Page 8 of11 Pages Agenda Item No. 5