Loading...
MIN CC 09/06/1988MINUTES OF THE SEPTEMBER 6, 1988 MEETING BOOK "P" 148 INUTES OF THE HUNTSVILLE CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON THE 6TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 1988 IN THE CITY HALL OUNCIL CHAMBERS, LOCATED AT 1212 AVENUE M IN THE CITY OF HUNTSVILLE, COUNTY OF WALKER, TEXAS AT 6:45 P.M. The Council met in a regular session with the following members present: one Monday, Mayor 0. Eugene Barrett City officers present: ary Bell James L. Carter Gene Pipes, City Manager La G. Gaines William B. Green Scott Bounds, City Attorney Miam L. Hammack Percy Howard, Jr. Ruth DeShaw, City Secretary illiam H. Knotts, Jr. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- FORMAL SESSION Mayor Monday then called the meeting to order. The invocation was presented by Pastor David Shirley f the New Testament Baptist Church. CONSIDER THE MINUTES OF THE PREVIOUS MEETING Councilmember Barrett made the motion to approve the minutes of the meeting of August 30 and CONSIDER BIDS Mr. Pipes advised this bid is for replacement of old and outdated electrical supplies with new and mproved supplies. He noted although five individual bidders were contacted and the bid time extended, only ne bid was received. He recommended awarding the bid to Ward Electric in the amount of $6,403.60 for the lectrical supplies and accessories for Water Well 19. Councilmember Bell made the motion to approve this Mr. Pipes advised the Council there were four bidders bidding on two alternates. He advised the bid s for the removal of the composition roof and replacement with aluminum shingles or 5V -crimp sheet metal. r. Pipes recommended the lowest bid meeting specifications as submitted by Industrial Roofing and nsulation, Inc. for $14,850 for alternate one (aluminum siding). Councilmember Howard made the motion to pprove of this bid and Councilmember Barrett seconded the motion Discussion: Councilmember Knotts equested there be a performance and payment bond in -place for this bidder, due to the wide spread of bid rices ($14,850 to $27,327). Mr. Bounds advised a performance bond is not required since it less than 25,000 and that it is a turn -key contract. Mr. Knotts felt there is too much of a difference in the prices nd he felt a performance and payment bond is recommended in this instance through a change order on the id. Councilmember Knotts then made a motion to amend the motion on the floor to include a performance and epted by all. Mr. Knotts said the bond will be for the amount of the contract, 514,850 - -or 1% of the unt bid, which will cost the contractor about $148.50. Councilmember Green noted then the $14,850 is usted upward by the amount of $148.50. Upon a vote, all were in favor of the motion as amended and it The City Manager, Mr. Gene Pipes, advised of the four bids received for Option 1, structural repair painting of the existing aerator tower; and Option 2, replacing the aerator tower with a new structure n it MINUTES OF THE SEPTEMBER 6, 1988 MEETING BOOK "P" 149 and painting. He recommended approving the low bidder of Water Tank Service Company in the amount of $51,800 for Option 2. Councilmember Green made the motion to approve of this recommendation and Councilmember Bell seconded the motion. All were in favor and the motion passed unanimously. Mr. F. Boyd Wilder, Director of Public Utilities, advised the project will begin October 1 and the Spring Creek Water Plant will be out of service from four to six weeks for the interior work with the entire project requiring approximately two and one -half to three months to complete. Mr. Pipes advised there is a possibility there will be lower water pressure than normal and perhaps a slight incidence of brown water when the switch over is made. He noted the hospital was advised much earlier of the possibility of changes in the water pressure. CONSIDER CONTRACTS Consider a contract for services with Richard Haas. Inc and the Williams Company A.I.A. for the Preparation and presentation of design development documents for the downtown area in the amount of $13,000 from Arts Commission Funds, as recommended The Council was advised by Mr. Gene Pipes, City Manager, that the Arts Commission was awarded a grant in August of 1987 to contract for designs for architectural illusion paintings, compatible with Mainstreet guidelines for the downtown square. He said the $17,500 grant allows for consultation fees for compatible architectural plans. He advised the Arts Commission has agreed to engage Mr. Richard Haas, Artist, to do scale drawings and a model of Huntsvitle's downtown square buildings with designs for architectural illusion paintings. He noted, in addition, the Commission has agreed to engage Mr. Kim Williams, restoration architect, for consultation and facade designs for those downtown property owners who may wish to preserve or restore the facades of their buildings. The Council was advised Mr. Haas and Mr. Williams have agreed to work cooperatively on this project; thus, each building can be addressed appropriately within the guidelines of the grant. Mr. Pipes then presented the contracts for the services of Mr. Haas in the amount of $10,000 and Mr. Williams for up to 53,600 for design work, respectively. The projects are to be completed and finally presented to the Council on or before March 31, 1989, advised Mr. Pipes. Councilmember Barrett made the motion to approve of these contracts and Councilmember Bell seconded the motion Discussion: Councilmember Knotts asked how many of the downtown property owners are witting to proceed with this project. Linda Pease, Arts Commission Coordinator, advised 70% of the building owners were present at the first meeting with Messers. Haas and Williams and they generally approved of the project. She noted a specific number of those who guaranteed they will go along with the plans is not available, until of course they have plans to review. She said the first phase of this project approved here tonight will produce those preliminary plans. Councilmember Knotts asked if personnel at Sam Houston State University were considered to perform these studies. Ms. Pease advised because of the complexity of this particular style of art, Mr. Haas is generally credited with single handedly bringing back this type of architectural allusion painting and is world renowned for this art, having much of his work in the major cities of the world. Councilmember Knotts advised he will vote against these contracts because in his opinion it is not a viable way to upgrade the business atmosphere of the square He advised the Gibbs Brothers' and Mr. William V. Nash's structures are all 100% occupied and he said in talking with them, he didn't feel they were much in favor of it. Ms. Pease said building owners can choose from a variety of treatments and all of those will be worked into the final plan; noting it does not have to be one way or another. She noted each building will reflect the best aspect of itself and this is what the artists will work to achieve in cooperation with the desires of the owners. Upon a vote of the motion on the floor. all were in favor EXCEPT COUNCILMEMBER KNOTTS. who voted against the motion The motion however, passed by a vote of eight to one. CONSIDER ANNEXATION PROCESS OPTIONS /PROCEDURES Mayor Monday then opened the discussion for review of the annexation process, based upon the public hearing input received by the Council in two public hearings. The Council's opinions are summarized below: MINUTES OF THE SEPTEMBER 6, 1988 MEETING BOOK "P" 150 - Councilmember Gaines expressed her concern for more review and study so that the Council can do the best thing for both those in the city and those without, noting sometimes the courageous thing to do is to fall back and regroup, especially now that we have had the opposite point of view expressed. - Councilmember Barrett agreed with Councilmember Gaines, noting we need a more concrete timetable to give people that are annexed into the city, whether it be five or ten years, etc. to let them know what to expect and when. - Councilmember Green said it concerns him that 1) we are either not offering the kinds of services people want; or 2) we are offering too many things to those who are outside so that they see no benefit in being a part of the city. He felt we may need to reconsider where we are annexing and what we offer to non- residents, and do a better selling job so that those who are proposed to be annexed, do in fact, want to be a part of the city. He said if it is to the benefit of current city residents, then the council has a responsibility to annex any area whether they want to be annexed or not. He said for the particular areas chosen, it is still not clear to him that it is to the benefit of current residents to annex those areas. He said he would not want to stop the process of looking at annexation, but he is not real sure he is ready to vote yes on these four areas now. He suggested throwing this back to the annexation committee for review on the practical considerations that perhaps need to be addressed further, so that we will not have these same problems each time we look at annexing. - Councilmember Hammock agreed with the comments already made. He recommended tabling the annexation consideration for the present time to allow the council to review again the service plans in an effort to be more specific. He agreed the council does have an obligation to the current residents of the city to have a viable plan to protect and advance what we now have. He said he believes that is annexation of some areas. He said we do need to do that. He said he is disappointed this one is not working the way he thought when they developed the philosophy and started the discussions. He said he is uncomfortable now with where the Council is in the process. Councilmember Hammock then made the motion to table the annexation Proceedings and refer the matter back to the annexation committee. He said he did not want to halt the Process entirely, but he felt the Council needs to take a look at it. Councilmember Gaines seconded the motion. [Note: The Council annexation committee consists of Mayor Monday and Councilmembers Howard, Bell, and Green.] Discussion: Councilmember Bell pointed out the Council knew before the hearings that people would oppose it, basically because no one wants to pay taxes; noting it is a money issue. He felt the city has become involved in a very problematical situation in that it gives lots of services, from animal control, to planning, sewers, fire protection, etc. and mostly people do not have to pay for them. He said he would also oppose paying for services he already receives free. He said the 100 percent opposition to annexation is perfectly predictable. He felt it is the Council's responsibility to share the burden of what the city is being forced to pay to keep a very enjoyable, desirable entity going. He said Huntsville is a good place to live and the city government is largely responsible for that. Councilmember Bell noted it is not a better selling job that is needed, as some Councilmembers think. He predicted, there will never be a time, the way things are currently configured, that the city will have anyone wanting to come into the city as Long as they are getting free services and are not paying taxes for it. He said no one wants to pay more noney than necessary to get what they are getting. Councilmember Bell said sales taxes paid by county residents certainly do not pay for the city services they use, noting sales taxes only constitute 14 percent )f the city's revenues. He noted we have a $16.2 million budget but a sales tax revenue next year of $2.8 nillion. He cautioned the Council on what they are storing up for themselves, noting we have attempted annexation several times and each time the residents come en masse and overwhelm the Council and the Council Jacks off. He said this time the Council took what would be a more easily absorbable area, and the - esidents again came down en masse and this time with a lawyer. He said the next time he can guarantee, no natter who the Council attempts to annex, the residents will come down en masse and strongly aver they do iot want to pay the taxes and they will show up with two lawyers. He said if the Council backs down on this )ne, after four years of preparation and philosophical analysis, and after putting together a city that, in 1 D MINUTES Of THE SEPTEMBER 6, 1988 MEETING BOOK "P" 151 his judgment, is one of the better run cities in the East Texas area, under the assumption it has not done its homework, then he guaranteed this council it will not annex for the next ten years and the city is essentially locking itself into its current existing area. Councilmember Knotts advised in looking to the year 2000, 2025 or 2050, if the City does not make some kind of move (annexation), as homes deteriorate within the present city limits and people make an exodus to get out of the existing city limits, the city could feasibly end up with a total ghost town in the incorporated area of today, with everyone living in a circle around the city limits. He said while this is a hypothetical theory, it could occur if we continue with this same theory and this same focus. He said he would be in favor of annexation, but he feels the people need some kind of a timetable, whether it be 10 or 15 years, for the realization of capital improvements. Councilmember Knotts said we must be careful not to promise residents something in two years that we cannot deliver. Councitmember Bell noted he has no objection to that. He encouraged the Council not to drop annexation. Mayor Monday said what she hears is that we are going to annex and that we do think it is best for the City of Huntsville; that we do in fact want to establish a time line; and that we want to have a plan; and that we want to refine that plan as to practical applications so that it is one that we will feel good about implementing. She said all of this is not contradictory to what Councitmember Bell has mentioned. Councilmember Carter said while there is some disagreement, he felt the city is ready, it has done its homework and it should annex now. He said the city made the right promises, told the people what it will do, and its planning and procedures are appropriate and suitable to those of other cities. Councitmember Carter then made a friendly amendment to the motion which is that if the Council is aoina to "back off." and we are going to further study annexation and are aoina to write up some detailed plans about areas that might be annexed in the very near future, that we include Westridoe. Timberwilde, and the two industrial areas of Hwy 75 North and South in these detailed plans and tell them when we are going to annex them just as we are going to tell these smaller areas when we are going to annex them. Mayor Monday noted this will be a comprehensive approach. Councilmember Carter said he agrees we may have the wrong areas pinpointed for annexation now; we should have had Westridge, Timberwilde and the industrial areas first. He said that is the only point made in the hearings to which attention should have been paid. Councilmembers Hammock and Gaines accepted this friendly amendment. Councitmember Howard said it is his feeling the people speaking in the hearings were basically asking the Council for some promises as to services to be offered. He said considering the city's budget, it is probably better that we do continue to study this matter so that we can see what we can promise them, whether it be streets or water, etc. In our continued research, he said, the city needs to make some definite plans and study each area as to what can be promised there as far as capital improvements and the time it will take to complete them. He felt if we did this, we would not have the type of repercussion the city received in the hearings. The motion on the floor was further clarified by the following discussion: Councilmember Green noted his understanding of the motion on the floor now is that we are not talking about any specific area at all, but we are talking about the whole process of practical considerations. He said Councilmember Carter's amendment seems more confining than what he anticipated the Council was now looking at. Mayor Monday clarified she thinks Councitmember Carter's intent is to do just the opposite and that is to open it up so that all areas within the seven star area would be analyzed. Councitmember Carter stated his intent is to have a detailed analysis of the areas the Council has identified. He said he did not think the Council should study the whole perimeter of the city and what the City should do in the whole perimeter. He said he meant the four specific areas that came up here and then the four specific areas that he mentioned. He said it is not a general statement about what we are going to do all around the city. Councitmember Green said he is not sure that Councitmember Carter may have left out something that should be considered. Mayor Monday said she thought it was to be an opening up of those areas being MINUTES OF THE SEPTEMBER 6, 1988 MEETING BOOK "P" 152 specifically included and if there are other areas, as we study, that we want to feel we could include them along the way and that we have the flexibility to do that. Councilmember Green said the way the motion is now is that we are only going to took at these particular areas and that if something else came up we would not look at those areas. He said he would rather it be a little broader than that. Councilmember Knotts said he thought the only problem was the service plans on these four areas. Councilmember Green said that is not the entire problem and there are a number of things the Council needs to look at. He said he would Like to take a little bit of an issue with Councilmember Bell in that (1) he seems to assume the rest of the Council who are not going to vote to annex these areas are abandoning the process, but that is not representative of what he is hearing; and (2) he does not think that just because someone brought an attorney or that there was a group of people here to speak, that the Council was intimidated into voting that way, noting he does not feel the least bit intimidated by the fact that the speakers were against it unanimously. He said he does feel, however, that they have raised some issues that the Council need to address. He said he is willing to spend time addressing those issues before we make the final step of annexing just to make sure that he feels more comfortable with what it is that the Council is doing. He said he is not backing off from the process of annexation at all, even though he is going to vote "no" on annexing those areas, or at least voting to table this and continue the process. Councilmember Gaines said she agrees with Councitmember Green, noting it is not a matter of doing away with it, but we do need to do some more groundwork. Councilmember Bell noted this is the exact same posture the Council arrived at last year when we agreed to start talking about annexation, that we were going to study it further, and we studied it further; what we have arrived at is "that we are going to study it further." Mayor Monday stated the Council has cane a long way in that this Council now has a unified policy in place, it has identified parameters in place, and now it simply is going to take another step for additional refinement so that the Council is indeed comfortable with where it is going, both for the good of the people inside the city first and the people outside the city next. She said she sees this as a progression of a very good process and a continuing process of this Council and she is very proud of the fact that we've taken this type of approach. Councilmember Bell asked when the process will conclude, noting he has been on the Council for four years and he has seen no annexation. He said the last annexation that took place was Boettcher's Mill and just before that Spring Lake. Mayor Monday said everyone on the Council wants this process to continue and she assumes that it will and she didn't feel the Council is talking about five years, but rather a continuing process of following a natural sequence and it will happen as soon as these plans are ready. She said she doesn't see anyone saying not to have a continuing process, but rather she sees them saying to go on with the process. She said she sees absolutely no intent to stall this process. Councilmember Knotts noted then the Mayor will not call for a vote on annexation until we get finished with the service plans. Mayor Monday said that is correct and we will come back with a unified effort. Councilmember Knotts asked if we could have some of the same people back that addressed the Council in the hearings. Mayor Monday said she felt they would certainly be back because we will go through the same process again. Councilmember Knotts said there will probably be a lot of them opposed. Mayor Monday said there may be. Councilmember Barrett reminded Councilmember Bell the city annexed Fish Hatchery Road and the city owes them the answers to the same questions raised in the hearings on the proposed areas to be annexed, such as what kind of timetable will be afforded them. Councilmember Bell said he sees that point as one on which annexation will stall out completely. Councilmember Barrett noted the city has made improvements on the roads in the Fish Hatchery Road area. Mayor Monday noted the Fish Hatchery Road area is included in the city's capital improvement plans and those answers are in that document. Councilmember Barrett said they need to know some answers as well as the proposed new residents. Mayor Monday said that is certainly something the Council will want to review again. Councilmember Hammock asked if there is a time frame on this of, say, one month, two months, etc. Mayor Monday said the city cannot very well do that until this gets back to the committee to see how much information needs to be generated. She said she does hear the consensus here that the city will move forward on annexation and that this is not something that we will be talking about next year. F—F, 1 MINUTES OF THE SEPTEMBER 6, 1988 MEETING BOOK "P" 153 Councilmember Carter said the reason he offered the amendment is that he is taking the Council at their word that it is saying it is going to annex these areas. He said he is assuming that once the city spends the money and the time to plan for areas: that are not in the city that this is going to lend the weight toward annexation. He said he would hope the city will not spend this time and effort for planning roads and streets, sewer lines, and other capital improvements on areas that are now outside the city and it will be spending city money doing that, without a purpose, which is to bring them into the city with the proper plans. He said he considers the council is locking itself into annexation of these areas once it has done this planning and he did not see how the council could back down once those plans are ready. Councilmember Green asked Councilmember Carter if he didn't think one does cost benefit analyses. Councilmember Carter said he hoped that would be done as we are doing this. Councilmember Knotts said, as was mentioned in the hearings, income should be considered in those areas too. Upon a vote on the motion on the floor. as amended and thoroughly discussed above, all were in favor EXCEPT COUNCILMEMBER BELL. The motion. however. Passed by a vote of eight to one. CITY MANAGER'S REPORT- -GENE PIPES Consider application of insurance settlement funds as recommended by staff Gene Pipes, City Manager, advised the city has received the insurance settlement in the amount of $117,813 for damage to the warehouse building caused by the storm on November 16, 1987. He then advised a great deal of this money has been used to make the necessary repairs. Some money was advanced out of the service center construction funds to get the city temporarily in- service at the time the damage occurred, he said. The repairs and electrical work at the warehouse building are complete and repairs needed to the poolhouse and park gazebo are being reviewed, he noted. The container repair building will be torn down when the addition to the warehouse is completed and $1,188 will be used to cover part of the costs, he noted. The needs at the airport terminal and city hangar are currently being reviewed and these funds will be transferred to the general fund, he reported. Mr. Pipes recommended that the 25% overhead and funds reimbursed for city labor remain in the Service Center capital improvement fund. The total overhead reimbursement is $1,651, he said, and the total city labor costs reimbursed is $7,684.27. He advised a total of $10,523.27 then could be added to existing monies in the Service Center capital projects fund; combined with existing funds, the funds available will then be $123,537.11. He reported the city is about to go out for bids on the service center project and these funds should be about equal to the estimates anticipated for the required work. Councilmember Hammock made the motion to approve of the disposition of these funds as outlined by the City Manager and Councilmember Howard seconded the motion All were in favor and the nation Passed unanimously. Public Hearing Cancelled City Manager, Gene Pipes, asked the news media to assist the city in getting the word out that due to the action of the Council this evening on the annexation issue, the previously published public hearing for September 12, 1988 will not be held. MAYOR'S REPORT - -JANE MONDAY, MAYOR Compliments from SHSU's President Bowers on City Street Work Mayor Monday expressed the appreciation of Dr. Elliott T. Bowers, President, Sam Houston State University for the work done on the streets by the city crews, and noted he stated the street work compliments the University. Superconducting Super Collider Letter of Support Mayor Monday then read aloud a letter she proposes to send to support the construction of the SSC project in Ellis County (Waxahachie), Texas. The Council concurred with the wording of the letter and the Mayor then signed the letter in preparation for mailing. MINUTES OF THE SEPTEMBER 6, 1988 MEETING BOOK "P" 154 Blaine Seaboalt. Channel 7 News Reporter Mayor Monday then introduced to the Council the news reporter from SHSU's Channel 7, who will be covering the meetings of the City Council for this fall semester. COUNCIL ACTION Chamber of Commerce Budget Clarification Councilmember Carter asked that someone come to the Council from the Chamber of Commerce to explain in some detail the $3,000 that is not explained in the report the Council received last week. Mayor Monday noted she will ask that this report be made to the Council. Historical Committee - -Historical Structures in the City Councilmember Carter noted there is an historical committee that deals with historical structures in the city that is supposed to meet and he asked when that committee will meet. Mayor Monday noted it has not yet met, but it will be scheduled soon. She then asked for the class schedules of the university professors on the Council for use in scheduling that meeting [whose members are Mayor Monday and Councilmembers Barrett, Carter and Gaines] and also a meeting with the solid waste committee [whose members are Mayor Monday and Councilmembers Bell, Gaines and Green]. Councilmember Carter urged the setting of the meeting with the historical committee, noting the city has already condemned one historical structure in town which should not have been condemned. He said this house was on the master list that the Council adopted and he feels it is a mistake that the city did that. He felt the committee needs to meet and make some provisions for not letting those structures get condemned or taking other approaches toward revitalizing or rehabilitating them. Councilmember Barrett asked what historical structure was condemned. Councilmember Carter noted it was on Avenue F and it has 19th century origin (across from the Good Shepherd Mission). He said in looking at it, he could not see that it was in such a shape as to be condemned. He said it has historical significance and it is on the map the Council adopted as a city council to take under their wing to protect. Mayor Monday noted this committee will take a look at procedures it may wish to develop to address these issues. South -End Cemetery Improvements- -Need for Street Improvements Councilmember Howard passed on a request from Mr. Smith who is interested in making some improvements at the South End Cemetery and was concerned about the possibility of making the street leading to the cemetery passable to where people can get in and out of the cemetery (Willow Street extension). Mr. Pipes noted there was a joint project planned and partially funded in the Spring of last year, but it had to be abandoned. Mr. Pipes said he would look into the matter again noting the street in the area in question is basically "not there" except for the right- of-way, and he would see if it could be made at least passable. ADJOURNMENT �—Respectfully submitted, ut DeS aw, City Secretary September 6, 1988