Loading...
Min 08/29/1984 514 Wichita Falls, Texas Memorial Auditorium Building August 29, 1984 Items 1 & 2 The City Council of the City of Wichita Falls, Texas , met in called joint session with the Commissioners ' Court of Wichita County 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 Thomas E. Swift Charles Thomas Charles Harper Councilmen Craig A. Wilson Bill Palmer James Berzina City Manager H. P. Hodge, Jr. City Attorney Shirley Patterson Acting City Clerk Fred L. Werner Chief Accounting Officer James A. Welburn Absent Wilma J. Thomas Absent The invocation was given by Councilman Wilson. County Commissioners present were Weldon Nix, Dod Wiley, Gordon Griffith, and H. C. Greer, along with Judge Tom Bacus. Item 3 ORDINANCE NO. 101-84 ORDINANCE CREATING THE WICHITA FALLS - WICHITA COUNTY PUBLIC HEALTH DISTRICT, DEFINING THE TERMS INCORPORATED THEREIN, PROVIDING FOR ORGANIZATIONAL AND FINANCIAL ADMINISTRATION, PROVIDING FOR AN ADVISORY BOARD OF HEALTH AND SETTING FORTH ITS COMPOSITION AND DUTIES, PROVIDING FOR SELECTION OF A DIRECTOR/HEALTH AUTHORITY AND A MANAGER, PROVIDING FOR PAYMENT OF COSTS AND FEES, SETTING OUT PROCEDURES FOR ADMISSION, WITHDRAWAL, EXCLUSION AND DISSOLUTION OF MEMBERS, FOR MODIFICATION OF AGREEMENT, PROVIDING FOR COORDINATED AUDITS, AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO ENTER INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH WICHITA COUNTY UPON THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS HEREIN SET FORTH, REPEALING ALL CONFLICTING ORDINANCES, AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY. Moved by Councilman Wilson that Ordinance No. 101-84 be passed. Motion seconded by Councilman Harper. Mayor Cook asked City Manager Berzina to explain the ordinance. Mr. Berzina stated that effective September 1 new State law gives us the opportunity to reorganize the Public Health Department. With the county judges, we looked at our Health Department and tried to find ways to be better organized. We need to fix responsibility. It has been run by an Advisory Board, sometimes func- tioning as an Administrative Board. The new State Act gives the Council and County Commissioners the opportunity to state that they are advisory only. Formerly, the Department has functioned with money and personnel from the state, school and other entities. It will be put in a form that it operates primarily as a City Department with a Director appointed by the City Manager. We will still need a full or part-time physician and a full time administrator for non-medical services. The City takes the lead because it provides 1 .9 million city funds, counting grants, but excluding a large grant for women, infants, and children. We want to set up an across the county type agency, and agencies using service would contract for the cost of services. The primary reason is to fix responsibility for the operation of the agency. 515 Item 3, Cont'd. In reply to a question of whether this was patterned on a model agency, Mr. Berzina stated that some are local , some are county with tax levies, ours will be funded from each agency involved. Judge Bacus stated that this was being done because of a change in State law. A Health Reorganization Act was passed last year, but for some reason we were not informed until May or June. We are forced to do this now because present State statutes go out of existence in September, 1984. Day to day operation will not change, but will be more efficient means of overseeing operations. In order to get good management for the future, this would be the best way to organize. The Advisory Board consists of seven voting representatives, five appointed by the City Council and two by the Commissioners' Court, and four non-voting represen- tatives, two each from the management of City and County. The City provides the largest amount of support, and it is only fair that they would have the majority of votes. This is an advisory group only. The legislature is trying to make local units more uniform to relate to the State Health Department. Judge Bacus complimented the City staff, especially the City Attorney's office, in their work on this program. City Manager Berzina emphasized that the language says, "Insofar as possible, voting representatives will be selected from the following classes," and lists seven different members. Specific requirements make it difficult to do this all the time and secure the best people. The clause "insofar as possible" will be used so that the Council can make a lay appointment if qualified people can not be found inside the classification. Dr. Aubrey Cox repeated that it is very difficult to find the right person for any particular profession or position to fill a vacancy. Dr. Cox stated that we will be able to do everything needed to continue the functions of the Health Department. This eliminates other cities in Wichita County, but the Department does functions in other cities, such as issuing permits, examin- ing food establishments, making swimming pool inspections. He wants to insure the continuance of this. They will make arrangements with schools for school nurses to assist in the school health program. Judge Bacus stated that this had been a City-County unit over the years. They do not intend to exclude other cities, but due to time, we must do something to keep the program going. We are not discouraging other cities, but will encourage them to join and will contact them to get them to join. They can contract, or become a part of the district, as they desire. This would require a vote of these two Councils here today, but he does not see a problem. Councilman Swift expressed concern about the County and City providing services and not getting paid for them. Judge Bacus stated that it was under consideration about charging fees for services they do perform, and that is only fair. The trend is to encourage as much user pay as possible. Item 9 covers this. Commissioner Wiley inquired about who will be responsible. Will mandatory procedures that Dr. Cox has to follow be interrupted? Judge Bacus replied that nothing will really change in terms of authority. They will still follow State health laws and local ordinances. The motion was carried by the following vote. Ayes: Mayor Cook, Councilmen Swift, Thomas, Harper, Wilson, and Palmer Nays: None Moved by Commissioner Nix and seconded by Commissioner Greer that the Public Health District agreement be approved. Commissioner Wiley stated that he would vote for it, but he wants all other entities invited to become part of it. The motion carried unanimously. Mayor Cook expressed his appreciation to the County Commissioners' Court for joining in taking care of these matters of business. The County officials left the meeting at 9:10 A.M. to attend another meeting. 516 Item 4 The City Council recessed into executive session at 9:10 A.M. pursuant to Article 6252-17, Paragraphs (g) and (e) of the Revised Civil Statutes. The meeting reconvened at 9:40 A.M. Moved by Councilman Wilson that the following appointments be made to the Mental Health Mental Retardation Public Responsibility Committee: For terms September 1 , 1984, through August 31 , 1986, new appointment of Candace Hensley (replacing Joseph Koncelik) , and reappointment of Drucillia Scaling and Dr. James Connor. Michael Lambert was appointed for a term beginning September 1 , 1984, through August 31 , 1985. Item 5 The City Council adjourned at 9:45 A.M. to discuss budget matters until the arrival of representatives from the Corps of Engineers. The meeting re- convened at 10:00 A.M. with the representatives from the Tulsa district of the Corps of Engineers, as follows: Colonel Frank Tilton, Bill Gamel , Steve Cone, and Billy Banks. Colonel Tilton explained that they had no great new messages, but wanted to discuss the situation on the Lake Wichita-Holliday Creek project.. He would prefer to call it a discussion rather than cost sharing negotia- tions. They want to dicuss the current status and what might be able to be done. Colonel Tilton stated that time is going on--the Federal government is putting together the 1986 fiscal budget. A letter was sent to the City of Wichita Falls last week. Summarizing the message, Lake Wichita and Holliday Creek are in two authorization bills. A bill was passed by the House as the Rowe Bill . The Senate will look at it in October, then it will need Adminis- tration' s signature. All this has to happen to get an authorization. Per- haps we can get it in a state that if authorization comes, we could get it in the fiscal year 1986 new starts. Mr. Gianelli , Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works, sent a letter to transmit the project to the House of Representatives in April , 1984. This letter says the Administration has adopted cost sharing policies, and they concur with the authorization of the flood control improvement for Lake Wichita-Holliday Creek as recommended by the report of the Chief of Engineers, subject to non-federal cost sharing equal to 35% of construction costs or cost of land, easements, right-of-way and relocation, whichever is greater, and non-federal assumption of rehabil- itation costs of existing unsafe dam. Colonel Tilton explained the time line shown for the Agreement Process attached, showing what would have to take place by October 24, 1984, in order to insure submission into the 1986 budget, subject to other necessary approvals. Colonel Tilton also explained Budget Sharing Cost Policies, as attached, and pointed out that Flood Damage Reduction, Rural & Urban, required the smallest percentage of local participation, 35%. Also, that operation, main- tenance and rehabilitation are the responsibility of the local sponsor. He further explained that the figures contained in the attached report were based on figures compiled in October 1977, indexed up to October, 1984, levels, and emphasized that these are preliminary planning figures only. He explained that the estimated cost of land, easements, right-of-way, and embankment for dam safety of 4.8 million would be local only. The estimated cost for flood control of 22.5 million would be 65% federal and 35% local , for an estimated total expenditure of 27.3 million. Councilman Thomas asked why the dam safety was not considered as a federal responsibility, since there was no power or recreational request? Colonel Tilton explained that the policy is that the federal government will make repairs to federal dams only, not local dams. Colonel Tilton stressed that there were 14 cases where a local sponsor had come up with an agreement to present, and that if a local sponsor could come up with an agreement, there is a strong possibility this could get into the 1986 budget. However, in case one of the present bills is approved and more specific cost sharing is agreed upon, this agreement would not be binding. 517 Item 5, Cont'd. Councilman Palmer asked if McGrath Creek was included? Colonel Tilton replied that McGrath Creek had been held separate in order not to slow this down (Holliday Creek). It could be added on as an addition, or could be a new authorization. Councilman Harper asked if Holliday Creek would be designed to take in a greater .volume of water from McGrath Creek? Colonel Tilton stated that it would. Councilman Harper pointed out that the 12.7 million figure would be 47% of the cost of the project, the apparent reason being the cost of the dam. Mayor Cook asked if the cost of the dam was included in the cost-benefit ratio? Colonel Tilton stated that he thought it was. Mayor Cook asked what the local share of McGrath Creek would be under these guidelines? Colonel Tilton stated that McGrath being totally flood control , 35% would be in the neighborhood of 4 million dollars. Mr. Berzina asked if there was an appeal process on the dam cost sharing? Colonel Tilton replied that there had been queries, but the Administration had determined that it should be considered totally out of the cost-sharing portion. Mr. Berzina asked if there would be room for discussion on that, since most cities were proposing a new plan and we were proceeding on a different formula? Colonel Tilton' s answer was to submit a proposal , and that would be addressed. This is supposed to be a give and take. Mr. Berzina asked for the reasons why the dam was considered unsafe? Colonel Tilton said that present criteria, looking at the hydrology, maximum probable flood would cause it to overtop. Mr. Berzina asked if this would happen even with an improved channel ? Colonel Tilton said that is correct because this is upstream of the dam. Councilman Thomas asked if there was a sand bar in the base of the dam that could cause problems? Colonel Tilton replied that was right. If it overtopped, we would have a problem. Councilman Harper asked how much it would have to be raised to prevent over- topping? The Colonel stated 12 feet. Councilman Harper asked if the City raised it twelve feet, would that take it out of the safety? Colonel Tilton asked Bill Gamel to talk about the dam. Mr. Gamel stated there were two aspects in regard to the dam safety at Lake Wichita. After structural problems were discovered in inspection, we told you that you needed to raise a portion of the dam and put in rip-rap, and you accom- plished this for around 100 thousand dollars. That got you by the immediate problem with the Water Resource Board that the dam would fail without being overtopped. Now hydraulic considerations that the dam would be overtopped by a very, very severe flood, something you have never experienced. Many federal dams are not designed for this kind of flood. This is considered because of so much population downstream from the dam. A negotiation on that might lower the standard some. Prices are based on raising nine feet to prevent overtopping and an additional three feet for creep over. All engineering is not completed and more problems could be found. If you agree to terms, and costs do go up, you can back out of the deal . Mayor Cook stated that what we would be agreeing to is that we would fund the project in the amount of 12.7 million dollars , if passed, and construction was allowed to begin. ` Mr. Gamel stated that there had been some question about the law. The law provides for traditional cost sharing. What we are talking about is increased amount in order for the Administration to support this and get it into the budget. The legislative process is so that it can come either through the budget; through the Administration, or through the Congress. Mayor Cook asked if this process is so that the President will include it in the FY 86 budget, and we would have presidential support on the project? Mr. Gamel stated that this was correct, both for authorization and appropriation. Mr. Berzina asked over what time period would the City need to come up with this money? Mr. Gamel replied that the requirement is to pay during construction whatever is needed for that fiscal year. It could be a three year project. You 518 Item 5, Cont'd. would be paying your pro rata share as you go. Colonel Tilton pointed out that part of the City's share would be non-financial--easements, land, right- of-way, etc. Mr. Gamel stated that this would be the largest share, because the City would have to provide the right-of-way before the project could start. Councilman Palmer asked if the City entered into this agreement and Congress passed another water bill , would we be bound to this? Colonel Tilton replied that we would not. Mr. Gamel clarified dam safety costs being all inclusive--that is talking about the dam itself. There is considerable cost included in the federal share for the spillway modification. This is not included in your separate costs. Mayor Cook stated that there was a possibility that we would try to go ahead and do McGrath Creek at the same time, but not let it interfere with this project. There is a possibility we are talking about not 12.7 million dollars, but maybe 17 million dollars. Colonel Tilton referred again to the time line and proposed that the next step would be for the City to indicate their reaction and then continue to meet and discuss. He will leave a letter that has been used by sponsors, and will work to put together a proposal or agreement. This would be a voluntary action of the local sponsor. We want to know we are all together, and we know where we are. Mayor Cook stated that he shared their optimism and should proceed along lines of October 24 deadline. If legislature were to come forth with appropriate funding authorization, the President would not sign unless it met all these guidelines. We need to act responsibly on this opportunity we have with the President' s consideration. Councilman Harper stated that he believed we should go ahead and consider this. If it is possible to take the dam out of the safety measure by doing some work on it, and get it back into the 35% share, we should look at the cost effectiveness of doing that. Obviously, it is going to take a bond issue, and the citizens will speak on it. Councilman Swift asked if the City finds a more cost effective way to bring the dam up to your safety standards, would you go along with the other part? Mr. Gamel stated they would. Councilman Palmer asked if it would have to be brought up to 12 feet? Mr. Gamel stated he was very concerned about this. The standard we have given you, and at the time it was designed, we thought it would be at Federal expense. This standard is very severe, and would be more negotiable as to the extent of the improvement than whether or not it was included in the 35%. His opinion is that it will never be thrown into the 35%. Non- federal dam safety is a big issue nationally. They are concerned about getting non-federal dams repaired at federal expense. This would be a multi-billion dollar expenditure. There are about 4000 dams in Oklahoma that do not meet federal standards. They are very concerned about putting that under federal share of cost. Councilman Harper stated that at some point we want to be thinking about making it safe anyway. Many people live beneath that dam. If it was put in safe condition, and it becomes a flood retention dam, are we talking about 4.8 million to get it in a safe condition? Mr. Gamel stated that if you are talking about flood retention, you should be picking up benefits that we do not have included. To make it safe, we are talking about something that would make it safe from a catastrophic condition downstream, if it were to breech. We do not have scientific facts. The kind of rain that we are designing for would probably be downstream, too, and would cause flooding anyway. Councilman Palmer asked if we work this out to where that dam was raised by less than 12 feet, would that influence the cooperation with the govern- ment on the rest of this program? Are there specifications that must be met? Mr. Gamel replied that the dam safety question is a separate issue. You have to get it up to some condition we can accept. We will have to work with you 519 Item 5, Cont'd. on that design. Mr. Harper stated that was his suggestion--to work with them very quickly to determine if it would be a cost effective thing to start to work on bringing it up to a safe place, and then would that mean that it would come under the 35% participation? Mayor Cook stated that it would never be that because it could never be classified as a federal dam, and Mr. Gamel agreed. Mr. Harper asked if it would then become part of the flood retention, but Mr. Gamel stated that it would not be effective for flood retention. He stated that they could design their structure without the dam. Their concern was a catastrophic failure because the dam was there. They don't want to be in the position of designing a Federal project and then have the dam fail . Mayor Cook stated that if we want to keep Lake Wichita, we must address the dam problem. The liability is greater because the lake is there. Mr. Boyd, from the audience, was recognized and asked if the dam could be breeched, do away with Lake Wichita, and design flood control for Holliday Creek. If so, what would potential savings be? Mr. Gamel stated that the answer was "Yes", the dam could be breeched and a project designed without the dam. A simple answer to the saving would be that you could do away with 4.8 million expense for rehabilitating the dam, but some features would have to be modified downstream. My guess is that there would be considerable saving. You would lose recreation features , and we would have to start over on the design plans and getting authorization. We would have to get approval all the way up through the Secretary of the Army. Councilman Palmer asked what raising the dam 12 feet would do to the houses around the lake. Mr. Gamel stated that it would not affect the level of the lake. It is just for safety during flood conditions. The spillway controls the level of the lake, and it will be lowered. Mayor Cook stated that some of the right-of-way has already been acquired, so we are not necessarily talking about a total of 12.7 million dollars. If you can be working with our staff, we will certainly be working toward that signed agreement to meet the October 24 deadline. Councilman Harper asked when, under this time line, would we have to have this bond issue? Colonel Tilton replied that if we can get the draft agreement going forward, then it takes an approval , and then an agreement can be signed. We haven' t put dates on this, but we don't have a lot of time to get it into this budget cycle. Mr. Gamel stated that it would not have to be prior to October 24, but would have to be held so that funds would be available for construction prior to March, 1986. The real concern is getting right-of-way prior to 1986. We cannot initiate construction until you have right-of-way. Mayor Cook stated that we would have our staff look at right-of-way we already have and right-of-way requirements, and they will come back to this Council to tell us specifically how many dollars we will have to have. What you are providing us is estimated dollars, but some of this we already have. Colonel Tilton again emphasized that these are preliminary figures, and actual design figures may be different. Councilman Swift asked if we enter into an agreement and the bond issue failed, would we be obligated? Mr. Gamel stated that we would not. Up to the point where construction was initiated, there are ways to get out of it. Once construction is initiated, we will have a binding agreement, called a 221 agreement. Councilman Palmer asked how much time was needed between the preliminary agreement and October 24? Colonel Tilton replied that there were no ,exact dates, but if we get the draft agreement going near the end of September, three to four weeks from now, that would give us four weeks to get this review and approval , and get the final thing signed. Councilman Harper suggested a Resolution the second meeting in September. Councilman Wilson asked how fair market price of right-of-way was determined? Mr. Gamel stated that pricing of right-of-way was a very inexact method. Appraisers were here at one time, but did not go very deep on pricing. Figures have been indexed up to current date. Councilman Wilson asked if they had a figure that we could take, times the square footage, to determine how much of the land we already owned, and Mr. Gamel said they did not. Mayor Cook stated that these were estimates. What we pay is not going to impact the percentage of the project. We will work together to get the figures. 520 Item 5, Cont'd. Councilman Thomas stated that we are having some difficulty in our City relating to the flood way and flood path determined in 1979. Topo maps were done of the area in 1962. From 1962 to 1979, our City grew; there was a lot of construction, and the channel changed quite a bit. This has made problems for our Planning Department and Engineering Department, and for the people who own the land. Hearings were held so soon after the tornado that they were not well attended. Could we get this revaluated with new maps without the City footing the whole bill? Do you have new data that we could draw some new lines? We are penalizing businesses in our community. The freeway changed it a lot, and it has been taken out. Mr. Gamel stated that the responsibility is under the Federal Insurance Administration, and under the Federal Emergency Management Agency. We are technical advisors. We do work for them, and did it in Wichita Falls. If you need a revision, go to the Federal Insurance Administration, and they will do it if you convince them you need it. Councilman Harper stated that we worked with the Federal Insurance Administration and the Corps on the flood level . At the time it was lowered at the Lucy Park area, we understood it was to be taken on downstream. This could make quite a difference in the flood plain level at the mouth of Holliday Creek. Mr. Gamel stated that they could advise the Federal Insur- ance Administration, and what they do with it is up to them. Mayor Cook stated that he would ask that our staff meet with them, and begin work on this project, so that we can move toward the October 24 dead- line. The City Council adjourned at 10:50 A.M. PASSED AND APPROVED this / X day of 1984. i Craig A. ''Wils , Mayor Pro tem ATTEST: Wilma J. Tho as, City Clerk