Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes City Council - 06/27/1983 - SpecialMINUTES CITY OF CORPUS CHRISTI, TEXAS SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 27, 1983 - BAYFRONT PLAZA CONVENTION CENTER 7:00 P.M. Present Mayor Luther Jones **Mayor Pro Tem Betty N. Turner Council Members Jack K. Dumphy Bob Gulley *Herbert Hawkins, Jr. *Dr. Charles Kennedy Cliff Zarsky ***City Manager Edward Martin City Attorney J. Bruce Aycock City Secretary Bill G. Read LAr Mayor Luther Jones called the meeting to order at the Convention Center. City Secretary Bill G. Read called the roll of required Charter Officers and verified that the necessary quorum was present to conduct a legally constituted meeting. Mayor Jones explained to the audience that the purpose of this meeting was to conduct a public hearing on various sites to be considered for a new City Hall. He explained that the City Staff had made a presentation the preceding Monday night of five sites which they recommended for this purpose. He requested that a brief presentation be made for the benefit of those present at this time. Mr. Bill Hennings, Assistant City Manager, provided a brief history of this project, stating that the City Council had considered the possibility of constructing a new City Hall approximately one year ago. He described the various buildings throughout the City that are in use by the City on a lease basis at great expense and inconvenience to the City and the citizens of Corpus Christi. He informed the audience that the City is leasing 90,000 square feet in several different locations. Mr. Hennings continued by reminding the Council that they had entered into an agreement with Kinney Street Associates to construct a City Hall through the use of IRB financing. Mr. Hennings stated that the plans for the new City Hall call for 120,000 square feet of space. Mr. Hennings explained that the committee to select the site included himself, Assistant City Manager James K. Lontos, M1CRO.LMED SEP 19 ,?14 inutes Special Council Meeting June 27, 1983 Page 2 Assistant City Manager Tom Utter, Assistant City Attorney John Bell, City Engineer Gerald Smith and Director of Planning Larry Wenger. He informed the Council and the audience that the following criteria were used in their site selection: A. Ease of access to the City Hall for citizens; B. Visibility and prominence; C. Room for future expansion by 50% or more; D. Acquisition costs and ownership; E. Economic development impact on surrounding area; F. Effect on ad valorem tax base; G. Land use compatibility; H. Proximity to other public facilities; and I. Located in Reinvestment Zone Mr. Hennings stated that following consideration of many sites, the following five sites were selected: A. The present site at 302 S. Shoreline Drive B. The present site plus the land across the street from the present site between Shoreline and Water Street and between Kinney Street and Born Street. C. The property presently occupied by the U & I Restaurant, Lundquist Buick and several other businesses located between Kinney Street and Born Street and between Water Street and Upper Broadway. D. South of Blucher Park to Laredo Street extending west from Tancahua Street to King Street, and E. Between Palo Alto Street and Belden Street and between Water Street and Mesquite Street including the adjoining property occupied by the Park and Recreation Department Office and the adjoining I.H. 37 right-of-way and public parking lots. *Council Members Jack Dumphy and Herbert Hawkins, Jr. arrived at the meeting at 7:10 p.m. Mr. Larry Wenger, Director of Planning, displayed slides of the five sites and Mr. Hennings explained certain characteristics about the five sites, noting that the cost of acquisition of all of the sites with the exception of Site A would be between $3 and $6 million. Council Member Zarsky noted that previously it was his understanding that the City's need for space was approximately 80,000 square feet but he believed that Mr. Hennings mentioned 120,000 square feet. Mr. Hennings confirmed the fact that the total proposal is for about 120,000 square feet which will provide for current need and some growth. He noted that City Hall is a rather permanent facility but the Staff feels that enough inutes special Council Meeting June 27, 1983 Page 3 land should be purchased to allow for about 50% expansion and all of these sites have that ability. ***City Manager Ed Martin arrived at the meeting during the Staff presentation. Council Member Zarsky inquired as to why the site near the County Court House was excluded from the recommendation. Mr. Hennings stated that the visibility and prominence that was one of the main criteria eliminated the possibility of using the site behind the Nueces County Courthouse because of poor visibility. Mayor Pro Tem Turner inquired about the square footage of the old Nueces County Courthouse and inquired as to why no consideration was given to the purchase and renovation of that facility since parking is available there. Mr. Hennings stated that they had not seriously considered this because they felt that it would be very expensive to renovate the building or demolish it and construct a new building there. He also noted that the parking lots are owned by the County and are located across a busy street from the Court House. Mayor Jones then called for comments from the public and suggested that presentations be limited to five minutes or less. Mr. Sam Allen, 509 Lawrence, pointed out that at the present time there are approximately 20 projects - public/private that are either completed, near completion, under construction or in the planning stage and all of these projects are in the Bayfront Development area. He expressed the opinion that City Hall should be located on its present site known as Site A to form the southern boundary for people to circulate within. He stated that he concurred with the Staff's recommendation, particularly since the other sites would cost from $3 to $6 million. He noted that as a taxpayer, it seems astounding that the City should have to spend this amount of money for acquisition of sites that are not as desirable as the existing site. Mrs. Pat Duaine, representing the Citizens Coalition, strongly objected to constructing a new City Hall at its present location. She stated that the Coalition is in favor of Site D, which is south of Blucher Park. Council Member Gulley asked Mrs. Duaine to identify the Citizens Coalition, and Mrs. Duaine stated that it consists of several groups including OPUS, one LULAC organization and the League of Women Voters and that it was formed to oppose City Hall at its present location. Mrs. Betty Harris, President of OPUS, stated that their organization prefers the Site D location. _nutes Special Council Meeting June 27, 1983 Page 4 Mr. C. R. Smith, 4830 Broughton Drive, concurred with Mr. Allen that the City Hall should be located at its present site. Mr. Ruben Perez, 1700 First City Bank Tower, stated that he represented limited partnerships, an organization that owns property in the vicinity of sites A, B and C. He stated that they are not in a position to either object or protest but will be studying this and they would like to make their proposals at a later date on some of the other sites. Mrs. Martha Gutierrez, 2725 Tumbleweed, stated that she is in favor of Site A, the present location. Also speaking in favor of this location was Mr. Ellis Warren, 6318 Senator Drive. Mr. Lewis R. Corona, 2805 David Street, agreed that there as a need for a new City Hall, but he urged that the Sears building on Leopard Street be considered for a new City Hall. He stated that it would be more accessible for the older residents of that area. Mr. Gene Tacket, 218 Wagon Wheel, expressed support for the existing location of City Hall. He pointed out that construction of a new structure at the present site would cost approximately $10 million, whereas another site would cost $15 million with additional offsite improvements. In reference to the suggestion that the old Nueces County Courthouse building be considered, he stated that that was a ridiculous suggestion because Nueces County had problems with parking across the busy street and the building was deteriorating many years ago at the time they vacated it. Mr. Allen P. Johnson, 44 Hewit, concurred that the existing location is best primarily because of the wasted expenditure of $3 to $6 million. He pointed out that there is no ideal site on which all citizens will agree but everyone should agree that there is no need to waste money for acquisition for another site. Mr. John Thomason concurred that the existing site is the best location because of its accessibility and high visibility which would be a source of pride to all citizens. Mrs. Mary Rhodes, representing the League of Women Voters, recognized the fact that all governmental entities should have a central location for a more efficient government. She stated that they still support the policy of no public buildings located on Shoreline and they were in favor of a governmental complex near Nueces County and Corpus Christi Independent School District. inutes Special Council Meeting June 27, 1983 Page 5 Mrs. Sara Graham, Group One Real Estate, pointed out that realtors know the highest and best use of the land; they have studied the present location; they have nothing to gain from the location at the present site or at any other sites being considered, but she stated she is extremely interested in the visibility of City Hall and agreed that it should be located at its present location. She too pointed out the excessive cost of acquiring land at some of the other locations. She stated that because of all of the controversy she is fearful that we will end up with no new City Hall. Mr. Bill Ault stated that he is concerned that the City do the right thing and he did not want the City to be in a position of having to construct another building in the year 2000. He stated that there should be ample land for future expansion and for plenty of parking. He also pointed out that City Hall should be in a place that will not be threatened by storms. He completed his remarks by stating that he was well aware of how much we needed a new City Hall and pledged his support to work very hard to get a bond issue passed for the funds. Mr. Donald Greene informed the Council that he has another alternative site which he would like to call site E.1, noting that it is a modification of the staff recommended Site E and it would be located between Power Street and I.H. 37 and west Shoreline and Water Street. He pointed out that this site contains 3 acres and is adjacent to 5 acres of public parking and noted that this site would carry the following positive attributes: increased prominence since it is located on I.H. 37 adjacent to Shoreline Drive; if approved by the Chamber of Commerce, it would allow the project to proceed without costly delays in construction prices since the property is owned by two parties only, the City and the Chamber of Commerce; since the Chamber is looking for a method of adding space, they could trade the Chamber of Commerce site for the City Hall site; it would allow public/private partnership to continue; no land purchase would be necessary; saves bond election, condemnation proceedings, time and land costs; the site is in the tax increment subzone, more advantageous to the City; and it would allow the project to proceed in a timely manner. Mr. Joe Gardner agreed that the new building should be located at the existing site. Mr. J. E. O'Brien, 2130 Pompano, representing the Corpus Christi Taxpayers Association, asked that the decision be postponed because they did not feel that six days was enough time to evaluate the information presented to the City Council last week. He urged that the issue be decided by the next City Council and that the decision be postponed until after the election. _nutes Special Council Meeting June 27, 1983 Page 6 Mr. Dean Banks agreed that the Blucher Park site is the best location. He pointed out that it allows for future expansion; it distributes traffic; the acquisition costs would be at the minimum amount of $3 million in a depressed area; there will be maximum revitalization of that area by the installation of a City Hall at that location and he felt that governmental complexes should be located as near to each other as possible. He commented that use of the old County Courthouse would be an unbelievable choice. Mr. Larry Tucker, 4600 Ocean Drive, agreed that the present location is ideal and would save the taxpayers from $3 to $6 million. Mr. Jim Boggs urged that something be done as soon as possible and indicated his concurrence that the existing City Hall site is preferable to spending over $3 million for acquisition of land. Mr. Benny Benavides, 2421 Cleo Street, expressed approval of Site D near Blucher Park because it would be accessible from all areas of the City by bus. Dr. Jack Best, 225 Bayshore, pointed out the real need for a new City Hall. He suggested that either Site A or Site D would be good locations but he personally preferred Site A. He suggested that the issue be submitted to the voters and the taxpayers to see it they want to spend $3 to $6 million to locate City Hall at a new location. Mr. J. Wall, 6701 Everhart, urged that the City Council consider future growth and also consider the parking ratios. He stated that he preferred Site A. Mr. Frank Hankins, located on the Hill. Mr. Lewis B. Soto, location of City Hall. 727 Crestview, urged that City Hall be Marguerite Street, prefers the existing No one else spoke in regard to this matter. Mayor Jones expressed appreciation to those who had spoken and pointed out that apparently the Council has three options: 1) do nothing, which would be the most expensive way; 2) return to the public/private partnership at the present site; or 3) call for a bond issue on either August 13, 1983 or at a later date. Council Member Zarsky inquired if it would be possible to get a bond issue on the ballot for August 13. inutes Special Council Meeting June 27, 1983 Page 7 City Manager Martin replied that it could be done if it is approved prior to July 13. He reminded the Council though that a bond issue would have to be of a very precise nature because it would have to list the amount of the bonds. He commented that if the Council wanted a site selection made by the voters, there would be a way to do it. He pointed out that it would be possible to have a bond question for perhaps $15 million for a new City Hall and a separate opinion issue for a site selection for people to vote on. Council Member Zarsky agreed that he would like to have something like that on the ballot. Council Member Dumphy noted that 8 people who spoke were in favor of Site D; 13 preferred the existing location; and 4 were in favor of other locations. He suggested that a bond issue be considered for $15 million for a new City Hall, noting that he would be opposed to listing two different amounts on the ballot. Council Member Gulley stated that he did not believe that this Council should select the site since a new Council will be governing the City very shortly. He noted that there had been so many delays that another short delay would not make that much difference. Council Member Zarsky disagreed with Mr. Gulley stating that this should be decided by the public, not by the new Council and urged that the issue be on the ballot August 13, 1983. Council Member Dumphy agreed that he would like to see some action taken as soon as possible. He stated that he would prefer to have the new building on Shoreline at the existing location and that Exposition Hall and City Hall Annex be demolished because he felt that that would be the most reasonable solution. He made a motion however, that a bond election be called listing one amount for a new City Hall with an issue for the voters to vote on two sites, either Site A or Site D. The motion was seconded by Council Member Zarsky who further explained that the bond issue would be for $15 million with the voters to approve either Site A on Shoreline or Site D, the Blucher Park site. The motion passed by the following vote: 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 Kennedy, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Turner and passed unanimously, the Special Council Meeting was adjourned at 9:01 p.m., June 27, 1983.