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.