Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes City Council - 03/14/1983 - Specialti_ MINUTES CITY OF CORPUS CHRISTI, TEXAS SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING MARCH 14, 1983 4:00 P.M. PRESENT Mayor Luther Jones Mayor Pro Tem Betty Turner Council Members Jack Dumphy City Manager Edward Martin * Bob Gulley Assistant City Attorney John Bell Dr. Charles Kennedy Acting City Secretary Dorothy Zahn Cliff Zarsky ABSENT Council Member Herbert L. Hawkins, Jr. Mayor Luther Jones called the meeting to order in the Council Chamber of City Hall. Acting City Secretary Dorothy Zahn called the roll of required Charter Officers and verified that the necessary quorum was present to conduct a legally constituted meeting. Mayor Jones explained that the meeting had been called to discuss the City Hall issues and reviewed the motion previously approved/by the City Council on Weanesday, March 9, 1983. He stated that after the motion was passed, many citizens addressed the Council and stated that they did not want City Hall on the Shoreline median and that is the reason that the Council hos decided to discuss this further. Council Member Zarsky requested that the staff provide information and statistics, explaining the reason for the proposed public/private partnership and the amount of lease payments that the City is now paying for facilities all over the City. He stated that if the citizens do not want this type of building under the present financing venture, they may prefer to have a bond issue to pay for a new City Hall. He stated that there is a need to explain to the people the real need for a City Hall. Council Member Kennedy agreed that there is a definite need for such a building and this need existed as long as ten years ago at which time the City Council serving then was attempting to provide additional space for City offices. He pointed out that the need is greater now in order to provide BOJJLMED SgP 1 91984 Minutes Special Council Meeting March 14, 1983 Page 2 efficiency of government since operating out of six or seven different locations is very inefficient and costly. He explained that the City had first attempted to enlarge the existing City Hall and that is the reason the plan to locate it on its present site evolved. He reviewed the reasons for this location in conjunction with a library. Mayor Jones stated that he felt that there was a need to end the contract with Kinney Associates, vote on a fifteen million dollar bond issue to purchase the land and build a new City Hall and change the Shoreline median to make it a park now and forever in the future. Council Member Zarsky referred to the Mayor's statement in regard to a fifteen million dollar bond issue and stated that he was of the opinion that a referendum was in order for the people to indicate their preference on the location of City Hall. He explained that he is not completely convinced that the people who spoke the preceding Wednesday actually reflect the will of the majority of the people, and only a referendum would decide that. Mayor Jones stated that he felt that the people indicated last week that they felt very strongly against any further construction on Shoreline Blvd. and they were in favor of open space for this area. He expressed the opinion that a bond issue to locate the City Hall and library near the Court House would be in order. Council Member Kennedy pointed out that the only trouble with a referendum that just says "Yes" or "No" would not allow the means of moving forward because only a bond issue would accomplish that. Mayor Pro Tem Turner stated that a cost efficient government is not possible with the space that the City now has. She pointed out that the City spends a great deal of money to lease space in other areas, about one-half million dollars a year, and it became very apparent to her that there was a need for a new City Hall when she first became a member of the Council. She explained that at the time the Council solicited the proposal for the public/private development of a new City anticipated that the location would be here on she no longer felt that a City Hall should be still a need for a City Hall and she was of would be in order. Hall, nearly all the proposals Shoreline Blvd. She stated that located on Shoreline but there is the opinion that a bond election utes ,?ecial Council Meeting March 14, 1983 Page 3 Council Member Dumphy reminded the Council that at the time this was first discussed, they were considering the saving of money.He stated that the view on Shoreline is very important and he cares a great deal about the City, but pointed out that the people who drive down Shoreline to look at the bay cannot really see it for a distance from the Annex almost to Exposition Hall and to imply a new City Hall would block the view is simply not true. He also noted that the Council had pointed out the location where they would like to construct the City Hall on the hill and he would assume that the price of that land has increased a great deal since those statements were made. He pointed out also that if there is a bond issue with a specific location that is not owned by the City, the price of the desired property would increase tremendously. Mayor Jones inquired if the City does not have the right of eminent domain, and Council Member Dumphy agreed but emphasized the fact that that is extremely costly also. He reminded the Council that the City cannot purchase that land from the County but will have to purchase land somewhere else and exchange it for the property they plan to use. Mr.Dumphy also noted that when a bond issue is presented to the voters, it is possible that it will not be approved because people are economically in a depressed situation and it will be difficult to convince the citizens to vote to approve a bond issue that might possibly increase taxes. He questioned the procedure to be followed if the bond issue does not pass. He summarized by stating that the reason he prefers the site on Shoreline is strictly for economic reasons. Mayor Jones estimated that a bond issue for a new City Hall should be for approximately 15 million dollars. City Manager Martin pointed out that according to the Laventhol-Horwath study, it was indicated that the "do nothing" alternative in relation to City offices over the next thirty (30) years would be much more expensive than constructing a new City Hall because of the projected increase in rentals. He continued by stating that in terms of private/public partnership versus a bond issue, in his opinion, the same project possibly would be more expensive through a bond issue because of the construction requirements and bidding processes necessary for such a project. Council Member Zarsky expressed the opinion that the Council would have a much more difficult job of convincing the public of the need for a City Hall. Minutes Special Council Meeting March 14, 1983 Page 4 A motion was made by Council Member Zarsky that a bond election for a new City Hall be conducted at the time of the City elections on August 13, 1983. Mayor Pro Tem Turner stated that she had prepared a motion covering several items and received consent from Mr. Zarsky to withdraw his motion until after she made her motion as follows: I. That the present public/private venture negotiations to build a City Hall on the Shoreline median be suspended; 2. That the City Council move forward with a new City Hall project; 3. That the new City Hall be built on a site other than the Shoreline median, preferably on property near the Court House; 4. That we attempt to restructure the Kinney Street public/private venture in a vicinity of the Courthouse. This would involve making land available at no cost to the City; 5. If that is not possible, the Council schedule a bond election no later than August 13, 1983; and 6. When the new City Hall is built, the Council commit to tearing down the City Hall Annex, the old City Hall, the Public Utilities Building (and possible Exposition Hall) and take necessary steps to assure no future building on the Shoreline median. (The above motion is listed as it was amended after further discussion.) Mayor Jones questioned whether or not the Council should have the bond election at the same time the general election is conducted on August 13, 1983 and expressed the opinion that possibly it should be conducted earlier to remove it from the political arena. Council Member Kennedy enumerated the advantages of having the bond election earlier than August 13th noting that actually the City is probably proposing to have a joint City Hall -Library site in order that parking may be shared and the possibility of closing a street between two blocks. Dr. Kennedy expressed the opinion that the five million dollars would allow for the purchase of enough lots for both facilities. He noted that if the election is delayed until August the library project will be further delayed. He suggested the date of June 1, 1983 for the election, and as soon as the bond issue passes progress could began on the new central library. Council Member Zarsky stated that he would agree to that date also if it is far enough ahead of the Council election. lutes Special Council Meeting March 14, 1983 Page 5 Council Member Dumphy pointed out that the Library Board wanted to move forward as soon as possible on their facility and he felt that this would delay that project unnecessarily. He stated that if it was the Council's desire to have a bond election, it should be held in May. City Manager Martin pointed out to the Council that even if the bond issue passes the bonds would probably not be sold for six to eight months and explained that a bond election could be held within a 45 -day period and still allow for the three readings of the ordinance calling the election. Council Member Zarsky asked about the possibility of leasing property from the County for 99 years and if that cost would have to be included in the 10 million dollars which is planned to be used by the publiciprivate partnership. Assistant City Attorney John Bell stated that that figure would not have to be included in the 10 million dollars if it was just a straight lease and not a finance mechanism. Mayor Jones called for a discussion of Item 4 of Mrs. Turner's motion. City Manager Martin explained that action on this portion of the motion would involve contacting a number of people to obtain land from the County and he estimated it would be a 30 to 60 day project which would be in conflict with the Item 5 which originally called for the bond election to be held prior to June 1st. He pointed out that restructuring of the Kinney Street public/private venture would depend upon the results of negotiations with Nueces County to obtain land on the hill in the vicinity of the Court House. Mayor Jones pointed out also that if the contract with Kinney Associates is terminated, the City is obligated to pay one-half of the cost incurred, which would be approximately $117,000.00. Mayor Pro Tem Turner noted that there has been a tremendous amount of time spent by the developers with department heads concerning space for the new City Hall and possibly that would have to be redone. Council Member Dumphy expressed the opinion that the same building design could be used on another site. Mr. Dumphy also noted that demoliton of the buildings on the existing City Hall site and possibly Exposition Hall would require a great deal of money and suggested that this expense be included in the bond issue. Minutes Special Council Meeting March 14, 1983 Page 6 City Manager Martin explained that with the public/private venture, the estimated cost included demolishing those buildings, and if the Council decided to have a bond election, the cost for that action should be included in the bond issue. * Council Member Gulley arrived at the meeting at 5:16 p.m. Mayor Jones informed Mr. Gulley of the motion on the floor and Council Member Dumphy stated that he preferred not to call for the vote until the Council has heard from the people in the audience. Mayor Jones called for comments from the audience. Mr. J. E. O'Brien, 4130 Pompano, informed the Council that he felt that the discussion held today shows a definite improvement on the part of the Council to hear from the people but questioned the rush in calling the bond issue. He stated that he liked the idea of one site for the library and City Hall but he felt that the public should have all of the information available before they vote so that they can make an intelligent choice during the bond election. He stated that he believed that the members of the City Council will find that the Taxpayers Association can be very reasonable when they feel that the Council is acting fairly. He declined to answer the question as to whether or not they would support the bond issue. Mrs. Pauline Clarke, representative of the League of Women Voters, expressed support of this Council in their efforts to get a new City Hall and assured them that they would put forth every effort to assist the City in this effort but they hope that the Shoreline median will be vacated and restored as a public park. She stated that if the plan for the new City Hall is good, the League will support it. Mr. William G. Morgan, 4517 Dolphin, informed the Council that he did not think that a majority of the people agreed that the existing City Hall and other buildings should be torn down because of the tremendous expense just for a larger park in this area. Mr. Benny Benavidez, 4421 Cleo, agreed that all of the old buildings should be torn down and City Hall should be located across from the Court House because of the possibility of a more efficient government if it is near that building. He urged that the City Council move forward to accomplish this. Mr. Jack Gordy, 5802 Everhart, also objected to the rush on conducting the bond election. He expressed the opinion that it should either he conducted ,inutes Special Council Meeting March 14, 1983 Page 7 with the August election or even after the election if the Council did not want to make it a political issue. Mr. Larry Tucker, 4600 Ocean Drive, expressed the opinion that placing the Library and City Hall together would be undesirable. He noted at the time the Annex was constructed for patriotic purposes, it was the understanding that it would be torn down after that use was no longer necessary. He stated that the library should be located elsewhere. He also expressed the opinion that the people who decided to construct the City Hall on the bayfront were very intelligent because the bayfront was built for the use of people in several Counties and the one thing that represents all of the people of this community is this City Hall and it is appropriately located on Shoreline Blvd. Mr. Tucker also noted that the idea of the private/public financing is a type of financing device that is occurring all over the United States. He suggested if a bond election is conducted, it should be made very clear to the citizens that there will be a large difference in the cost of the City Hall and they should be aware of what they are voting on. He urged that the plan to construct the City Hall in partnership with Kinney Street Associates at the Shoreline Blvd location be continued. Mrs. C. A. Gregg, 308 Kathryn, stated that a number of people have questioned the selection of a developer without going out for bids. Mayor Jones explained to Mrs. Gregg that the City sent out invitations to a large number of developers and seven people responded to that invitation, following which Laventhol-Horwath studied the proposals and made the recommendation as to which firm would be the best to select. Mr. Pat Duaine, 4909 Branscomb, thanked the Council for listening to statements made the preceding Wednesday in regard to this matter. She expressed the opinion that with a majority of the citizens in support, the bond issue will pass. Mrs. Barbara May, 3307 Manitou, noted that a lot of the people who spoke last Wednesday were not present today. She expressed the opinion that fiscal responsibility is very important and the plans that have already been made were fiscally sound. She questioned whether the voters will approve the bond issue. Minutes Special Council Meeting March 14, 1983 Page 8 Mr. J. R. Keeling, 331 Poenisch, congratulated the Council on their change in plans and offered support for this bond issue. He urged that the bond issue be presented so that it is very clear that if it is approved, existing buildings will be torn down. He stated that he felt the new City Hall site should be ample enough to provide for future expansion and agreed that the Council should consider combining the City and County jails and the possibility of moving the police department nearer City Hall. Mr. Sam Allen, 509 Larson, predicted that the plan the Council has made today is the biggest blunder they have ever made. He stated that he had always supported the bond issues presented by the City, but he could not support a bond issue for a new City Hall when it could have been constructed without a tax increase. He pointed out that those who objected to the City Hall located on Shoreline Blvd. expressed concern about its blocking the view but noted that even the Bayfront Plaza Convention Center Complex is constructed on public land, a portion of which was on the median of Shoreline. He noted that the City Planners were wise enough to make Shoreline Blvd. very wide at this location to accommodate the public buildings. He stated that he has a copy of the bayfront plan which the Council adopted a short time ago which indicated that the City Hall should remain where it is. He stated that he felt that having a bond election for a new City Hall would be a big mistake and voters would reject it. Mr. Hank Snyder stated that since last Wednesday he had conducted an impartial poll of citizens by calling them on the telephone and the poll indicated 87 of the people that he called preferred to have the City Hall located on Shoreline Blvd. and 13 responded that they did not. Mr. Tom Hunt, Sr. expressed appreciation to the City Council for complying with the wishes of the people who had spoken the preceding Wednesday. He stated that he was of the opinion that people are very concerned about open space on Shoreline and prefer not to have buildings on the median. He also expressed the opinion that a $10 million building that is planned would not supply the needs for City Hall for very long and stated that he felt that taxpayers will approve the bond issue for a new City Hall to be located on the hill near the County Court House. He questioned the increase in estimated cost of 10 million dollars to 15 million dollars and also urged that the bond issue not be rushed so that better planning can be included in the issue. ,l1nutes Special Council Meeting March 14, 1983 Page 9 He stated that this Council should also be concerned about the new Council that will be elected in August and give them an opportunity to work on the new City Hall. He suggested that the Council wait until August 13th, or even after that date, to have a bond election. Mayor Jones explained that the 15 million dollars that he had mentioned was just an estimate. Council Member Zarsky expressed the opinion that there should be an option on the ballot devised in some manner so that voters could indicate whether or not they were in favor of public/private financing as originally planned. Others speaking in favor of the bond election to locate City Hall on the hill were Mrs. James H. Martin, President of Corpus Christi Council of Garden Clubs; Mrs. Victoria Sloan; Mrs. Fredricka Casillas and Mr. Charles Nichols. Council Member Gulley stated that he had several questions in regard to the motion and referred in particular to Item 4 which mentions land available at no cost to the City. He stated that he could not understand how land could be available at no cost to the City. He also expressed concern about the passage of a bond election for 15 million dollars for a single bond issue for City Hall, noting that during the previous bond election, a 45 million dollar bond issue included basic services but he did not think that the voters would approve a single issue for a City Hall. He also pointed out that the existing location of the City Hall is very convenient; people can get to the building without much trouble; and if another public building is placed up near the Court House, a tremendous traffic problem will be created. He also expressed the opinion that in view of the fact that so many people had objected to the obstruction by the City Hall building of the view of the bayfront, he felt that citizens would have the same difficulty with a new land mass because It would definitely obstruct the view of the bay. Fle stated that City Hall would not be that much of an obstruction, and he felt it was a mistake to go ahead with the bond issue fpr a new City Hall. Council Member Zarsky reiterated that he felt that people should have an option to vote on the location of the City Hall if the mechanics of such an issue on the ballot could be resolved. City Manager Martin stated that he would hesitate to have this item on a ballot for a bond issue because of possible conflicts that might exist. Minutes Special Council Meeting March 14, 1983 Page 10 Council Member Zarsky suggested that the City Manager be allowed to study this until next week. Council Member. Dumphy concurred with Council Member Zarsky that the City should find out which location the citizens prefer and how they want City Flail financed. Council Member Gulley questioned why there is a need to go to the extra expense of having a special election one month before the general election is scheduled. Council Member Kennedy stated that there were three reasons, as follows: I. So that it will not become a political issue; 2. If there is the possibility of a complex with the City Hall and the Library together, a parking area could be combined and; 3 Such a measure would delay the construction of the Library if they have to wait until August. Council Member Gulley reiterated that he would prefer a bond election with the general election because he felt that 30 thousand dollars was too much money to spend just to keep this from becoming a political issue. Council Member Kennedy stated that the City will probably know within ten days whether or not they will be able to obtain the land from Nueces County. After a further discussion, the date for the bond election as listed in item 5 was changed to read "no later than August 13, 1983". Mayor Jones called for the vote on the motion and it passed as follows: Jones, Turner, Dumphy, Kennedy and Zarsky voting "Aye"; Gulley voting "No"; Hawkins, absent. There being no further business to come before the Council, on motion by Council Member Zarsky, seconded by Council Member Dumphy, and passed unanimously, the special Council Meeting was ajourned at 7:05 p.m.