HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes City Council - 07/22/2003I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of the minutes of the
Regular Meeting of the Corpus Christi City Council of July 22, 2003, which were approved by the
City Council on August 19, 2003.
WITNESSETH MY HAND AND SEAL, this 28th day of August 2003.
Armando Chapa
City Secretary
SEAL
MINUTES
CITY OF CORPUS CHRISTI, TEXAS
Regular Council Meeting
July 22, 2003 - 10:03 a.m.
PRESENT
Mayor Samuel L. Neal Jr.
Council Members:
* Brent Chesney
Javier D. Colmenero
Henry Garrett
Bill Kelly
Rex A. Kinnison
Jesse Noyola
Mark Scott
* Arrived at 10:05 a.m.
ABSENT
Mayor Pro Tem Melody Cooper
City Staff:
City Manager George K. Noe
Acting City Attorney R. Jay Reining
City Secretary Armando Chapa
Recording Secretary Rebecca Huerta
Mayor Neal called the meeting to order in the Council Chambers of City Hall. The
invocation was delivered by Reverend E.F. Bennett and the Pledge of Allegiance to the United
States flag was led by Council Member Kinnison. City Secretary Chapa called the roll and verified
that the necessary quorum of the Council and the required charter officers were present to conduct
the meeting. Mayor Neal called for approval of the minutes of the regular Council meeting of July
8, 2003. A motion was made and passed to approve the minutes as presented.
* * * * * * * * * * * * *
Mayor Neal referred to Item 2 and the following board appointments were made:
Commission on Children & Youth
Detective Angie Rendon (appointed)
Rosa Balderas (reappointed)
Vicky Alexander (reappointed)
Gloria Jackson (reappointed)
Lauren Ranly (reappointed)
Melissa Madrigal (reappointed)
Storm Water Management Advisory Committee
Willard Hammonds II (reappointed)
W. Greg Carter (reappointed)
Robyn Cobb (reappointed)
Dr. Hector Estrada (reappointed)
Richard Haynes (reappointed)
Claudia L. Lobell (reappointed)
Water Resources Advisory Committee
Carola Serrato (reappointed)
Kimberly Stockseth (reappointed)
Jon Kiggans (reappointed)
Capt. Paula Hinger (reappointed)
Corpus Christi Convention and Visitors
Bureau
Vangie Chapa (appointed)
Pat O'Boyle (appointed)
Minutes - Regular Council Meeting
July 22, 2003 - Page 2
Storm Water Management Advisory Committee (cont.)
Henry Nuss (reappointed)
Ed A. Lopez (reappointed)
Leon Loeb (reappointed)
Ted Stephens (reappointed)
Dan Winship (reappointed)
* * * * * * * * * * * *
*
Mayor Neal called for consideration of the consent agenda (Items 3-28). City Secretary
Chapa announced that Council Member Kelly would be abstaining from the discussion and vote on
Item 23, Council Member Chesney would be abstaining from the discussion and vote on Item 24,
and that Council Member Noyola would be abstaining from the discussion and vote on Items 24, 26
and 27. Council members requested that Item 8 discussed. There were no comments from the
audience. A motion was made and passed to approve Items 3 through 28, constituting the consent
agenda, except for Item 8, which was pulled for individual consideration. City Secretary Chapa
polled the Council for their votes and the following items passed by the following vote: Neal,
Chesney, Colmenero, Garrett, Kelly, Kinnison, Noyola and Scott, voting "Aye"; Cooper was absent.
(NOTE: Kelly abstained on Item 23; Chesney abstained on Item 24; Noyola abstained on Items 24,
26, and 27)
3. MOTION NO. 2003-249
Motion approving the purchase of three all terrain vehicles from Amigo Power Equipment
of Edinburg, Texas in accordance with Bid Invitation No. BI -0119-03 based on low bid for
the total amount of $28,198.50. The vehicles will be used by the Water Department and are
replacement upgrades to the fleet. Funds have been budgeted in the Maintenance Services
Fund in FY 2002-2003.
4. MOTION NO. 2003-250
Motion approving the purchase of nine (9) submersible pumps ranging from 5 horsepower
to 35 horsepower from Peeco of Corpus Christi, Texas in accordance with Bid Invitation No.
BI -0131-03 based on the only bid for a total amount of $63,326. These pumps will be used
by the Wastewater Department. Funds have been budgeted by the Wastewater Department
in FY 2002-2003.
5. MOTION NO. 2003-251
Motion approving a supply agreement with DPC Industries, Inc. of Corpus Christi, Texas
for approximately 1,150,600 pounds of Sodium Hypochlorite Solution in accordance with
Bid Invitation No. BI -0112-03 based on low bid for an estimated six-month expenditure of
$480,720.68 of which $40,060.06 is for FY 2002-2003. The term of the contract will be
for six months with an option to extend for up to four additional six-month periods subject
to the approval of the supplier and the City Manager or his designee. Funds have been
budgeted by the Wastewater Department in FY 2002-2003 and requested for FY 2003-2004.
Minutes - Regular Council Meeting
July 22, 2003 - Page 3
6. MOTION NO. 2003-252
Motion approving the purchase of traffic signal equipment from the following companies
for the following amounts in accordance with Bid Invitation Nos. BI -0122-03 and BI -0132-
03 based on low bid and only bid for a total amount of $225,401. Funds have been budgeted
by the Street Department in FY 2002-2003.
Control Technologies, Inc.
Sugarland, TX
Items 5 - 8
$102,085
Grand Total: $225,401
7. MOTION NO. 2003-253
Texas Highway Products
Round Rock, TX
Items 1 & 2
$63,450
Paradigm Traffic
Ft. Worth, Texas
Items 3 & 4
$59,866
Motion authorizing the City Manager or his designee to execute a three-year lease
(contingent on the funds budgeted in FY 2004-2007) with Old Lipan, Ltd. of Corpus Christi,
Texas for the facility space to operate the Juvenile Assessment Center in the amount of
$33,664.20 per year which has been budgeted in the FY 2003 - 2004 budget of the Corpus
Christi Crime Control and Prevention District.
9. RESOLUTION NO. 025372
Resolution authorizing the City Manager or his designee to execute a Local Project
Advanced Funding Agreement for the Voluntary Transportation Improvement Project with
the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) governing the construction of a proposed
drainage culvert on FM 70 to serve the future development of Cefe Valenzuela Landfill in
the amount of $16,000 for preliminary engineering and $900,000 for construction (subject
to availability of funds).
10. RESOLUTION NO. 025373
Resolution authorizing the City Manager or his designee to submit a grant application to the
Texas Department of Health in the amount of $87,979 for the elimination and control of
tuberculosis in Nueces County.
11. RESOLUTION NO. 025374
Resolution authorizing the Director of the Corpus Christi - Nueces County Public Health
District or his designee to apply to the Department of Health and Human Services for first-
year funding of a $50,000, three-year renewal grant for a demonstration project to
Minutes - Regular Council Meeting
July 22, 2003 - Page 4
supplement existing community emergency medical response systems.
12. RESOLUTION NO. 025375
Resolution authorizing the Director of the Corpus Christi - Nueces County Public Health
District or his designee to submit a grant application to the Texas Department of Health for
a one-year $204,750 grant to provide additional personnel and supplies for the continued
provision of immunization services.
13. RESOLUTION NO. 025376
Resolution authorizing the Director of the Corpus Christi - Nueces County Public Health
District or his designee to submit an application to the Texas Department of Health for a
one-year $149,797 renewable contract to fund the elimination and control of tuberculosis in
Nueces County.
14. ORDINANCE NO. 025377
Ordinance amending Article XI, Commercial and Industrial, Chapter 55, Utilities of the
Code of Ordinances, City of Corpus Christi, regarding disposal and pretreatment of
commercial and industrial waste; and providing for penalties.
15. MOTION NO. 2003-254
Motion scheduling a public hearing on August 26, 2003 regarding:
a. The establishment of the proposed Rodd Field Public Improvement District; and
b. Approval of said district's boundaries;
c. Approval of the method of levying property owner assessments based upon the cost
of infrastructure improvements to said district.
16. ORDINANCE NO. 025378
Ordinance appropriating $242,557.69 in interest and miscellaneous earnings in the No. 3072
Aquarium Capital Improvement Program Fund and transferring $242,557.69 to the No. 2010
General Obligation Debt Service Fund to pay outstanding debt service and closing Fund No.
3072; amending the FY 2003 Capital Budget adopted by Ordinance No. 025144 by
increasing appropriations by $242,557.69.
17. ORDINANCE NO. 025379
Ordinance appropriating $110,508.70 from paving assessments in the No. 3530 Street
Capital Projects Fund and transferring $110,508.70 to the No. 1020 General Fund to
reimburse the collections activity; amending the FY 2003 Capital Budget adopted by
Ordinance No. 025144 by increasing appropriations by $110,508.70.
Minutes - Regular Council Meeting
July 22, 2003 - Page 5
18.a. RESOLUTION NO. 025380
Resolution amending Resolution No. 025141 which authorized submission of grant
application to the State of Texas, Criminal Justice Division for Title V Delinquency
Prevention Grant; accepting Title V Delinquency Grant of $250,000.
18.b. ORDINANCE NO. 025381
Ordinance appropriating a grant in the amount of $250,000 from the State of Texas, Criminal
Justice Division of the Governor's Office in the No. 1067 Park and Recreation Grant Fund
for Municipal Court processing and tracking of status offenders and Juvenile Assessment
Center Case Management Services for at -risk youth.
19.a. ORDINANCE NO. 025382
Ordinance appropriating $9,664.36 from Brighton Village Unit 8B developer's contribution
to Drainage Channel No. 31 in the No. 4730 Infrastructure Fund; amending Ordinance No.
024130 which appropriated the trust funds by adding $9,664.36 to the No. 4730
Infrastructure Fund.
19.b. MOTION NO. 2003-255
Motion approving payment of $9,664.36 developer's contribution from Brighton Village
Unit 8B from the No. 4730 Infrastructure Fund to Mark Bratton, Trustee for disbursement
to the appropriate funding owners in accordance with the Offsite Drainage Development
Contract, Master Plan Drainage Channel 31 between the City of Corpus Christi and Trustee.
20.a. ORDINANCE NO. 025383
Ordinance appropriating $11,435.77 from Barclay Grove Unit 8 developer's contribution to
Drainage Channel No. 31 in the No. 4730 Infrastructure Fund; amending Ordinance No.
024130 which appropriated the trust funds by adding $11,435.77 to the No. 4730
Infrastructure Fund.
20.b. MOTION NO. 2003-256
Motion approving payment of $11,435.77 developer's contribution from Barclay Grove Unit
8 from the No. 4730 Infrastructure Fund to Mark Bratton, Trustee, for disbursement to the
appropriate funding owners in accordance with the Offsite Drainage Development Contract,
Master Plan Drainage Channel 31 between the City of Corpus Christi and Trustee.
21.a. ORDINANCE NO. 025384
Ordinance appropriating $26,311.01 from Yorktown Crossing Unit 2 developer's
contribution to Drainage Channel No. 31 in the No. 4730 Infrastructure Fund; amending
Ordinance No. 024130 which appropriated the trust funds by adding $26,311.01 to the No.
4730 Infrastructure Fund.
Minutes - Regular Council Meeting
July 22, 2003 - Page 6
21.b. MOTION NO. 2003-257
Motion approving payment of $26,311.01 developer's contribution from Yorktown Crossing
Unit 2 from the No. 4730 Infrastructure Fund to Mark Bratton, Trustee, for disbursement to
the appropriate funding owners in accordance with the Offsite Drainage Development
Contract, Master Plan Drainage Channel 31 between the City of Corpus Christi and Trustee.
22.a. MOTION NO. 2003-257
Motion approving the reimbursement application submitted by the Diocese of Corpus
Christi, owner and developer of St. Helena Church Tract, Block 1, Lot 1 for the installation
of 1,892 linear feet of a 12 -inch PVC water grid main.
22.b. ORDINANCE NO. 025385
Ordinance appropriating $53,154.42 from the Water Arterial Transmission and Grid Main
Trust Fund No. 4030-209010 to pay the developer reimbursement request for the installation
of 1,892 linear feet of an 12 -inch PVC water grid main to develop St. Helena Church Tract,
Block 1, Lot 1.
22.c. MOTION NO. 2003-259
Motion approving the reimbursement application submitted by the Diocese of Corpus
Christi, owner and developer of St. Helena Church Tract, Block 1, Lot 1 for the installation
of 1,418 linear feet of a 12 -inch oversize, over depth sewer collection line.
22.d. ORDINANCE NO. 025386
Ordinance appropriating $54,034.59 from the Sanitary Sewer Collection Line Trust Fund
No. 4220 to pay the developer reimbursement request for the installation of 1,418 linear feet
of a 12 -inch oversize, over depth sewer collection line.
23. MOTION NO. 2003-260
Motion authorizing the City Manager or his designee to execute Change Order No. 3 with
Fulton Coastcon, Joint Venture of Corpus Christi, Texas in the amount of $595,000 for the
Multi -Purpose Arena to complete the suite build -out.
24. MOTION NO. 2003-261
Motion authorizing the City Manager or his designee to execute a real estate sales contract
with Katherine Cecelia DeMott, et al in the amount of $86,081 plus $1,200 in closing costs
for the purchase of fee simple property rights for Parcel 8A; being 29.683 acres out of Tract
No. 8, Margaret Kelly Land located south of the Corpus Christi International Airport
between County Roads 2292 and 763 in connection with the Corpus Christi International
Airport Expansion Project, and for other municipal purposes.
Minutes - Regular Council Meeting
July 22, 2003 - Page 7
25.a. MOTION NO. 2003-262
Motion authorizing the City Manager or his designee to accept a grant in the amount of
$296,826 from the Texas Automobile Theft Prevention Authority (ATPA) to continue the
Motor Vehicle Theft Enforcement grant within the Police Department.
25.b. ORDINANCE NO. 025387
Ordinance appropriating $296,826 from the Texas Automobile Theft Prevention Authority
(ATPA) in the No. 1061 Police Grants Fund; appropriating $13,812 from the No. 1061
Texas Automobile Theft Prevention Authority Asset Seizure and Forfeiture account; and
authorizing the transfer of $47,168 from the No. 1020 Cash Contribution to grants in the No.
1061 Police Grants Fund.
26. ORDINANCE NO. 025388
Ordinance appropriating $509,474 in Passenger Facility Charge Fund 4621; transferring
$288,185 into the Airport 2000A Debt Service Fund 4640 and $221,289 into the Airport
2000B Debt Service Fund 4641 for debt service payments on airport improvements;
amending FY 2002-2003 Capital Budget adopted by Ordinance No. 025144 to increase
appropriations by $509,474.
27. ORDINANCE NO. 0253 89
Ordinance appropriating $79,026.69 in unappropriated interest earnings in Airport 1990
Capital Improvement Program Fund No. 3022 for the Airport Terminal Project; amending
FY 2002-2003 Capital Budget adopted by Ordinance No. 025144 to increase appropriations
by $79,026.69.
28. ORDINANCE NO. 025390
Second Reading Ordinance - Amending the Zoning Ordinance by revising Article 17, "B-5"
Primary Business District, Article 18, "B-6" Primary Business Core District, and Article 22,
Off -Street Parking Regulations. (First Reading - 07/08/03)
Mayor Neal opened discussion on Item 8 regarding the AEP Texas Central Company.
Mayor Neal asked for more explanation on this item. Mr. Geoffrey Gay with Lloyd, Gosselink,
Blevins and Rochelle, serving as legal counsel, explained that this motion originated in the city's
participation in the South Texas Aggregation Project, which allowed the city's electric accounts to
enter into the competitive retail market. Mr. Gay said that the representatives of the cities on the
South Texas Aggregation Project (STAP) Board of Directors were concerned about the "non -
bypassable charges" set by the Public Utility Commission (PUC). He explained that upon entering
the retail market, the city was quoted a price plus the non -bypassable charges, charged by any
provider serving the city. He said that the charges were determined by the PUC in 2000 based upon
projected data. He explained that when the Texas Legislature decided to deregulate electricity, they
decided to change the law for this one case to allow the company to create its own set of books and
records and hypothesize on future costs, instead of looking at historical data. He stated that this
Minutes - Regular Council Meeting
July 22, 2003 - Page 8
practice was fundamentally inconsistent with regulation in the public interest.
In addition, he said that as the city entered into the competitive market, the city found two
major concerns with regard to nonpassable charges on city accounts. The first concern was
regarding the street lighting accounts because the city was paying more for street lighting off-peak
service than for peak service. He commented that all the cities in South Texas had been
discriminated against because of what the Commission did to set the street lighting tariffs. He said
that the second issue of major concern to cities was what the Commission did with regard to large
commercial accounts and demand ratchets placed upon those accounts. He said that these large
pumping accounts did not have ratchets before and that the costs being passed on to serve those
accounts were inappropriate, inconsistent with prior regulatory law, and need to be changed. He
said that the city had approached AEP and asked if they would adjust the street lighting and
reformation of the large pumping account costs if the cities dropped their demand for an overall rate
case. He stated that AEP declined the request. In response, Mr. Gay said that the cities sitting on
the STAP board authorized him to prepare a resolution to trigger review at the city level. He said
that McAllen, Victoria and Laredo had passed the original motion that the Council had before them,
which triggered a response from AEP's attorneys. Mr. Gay negotiated with AEP's attorney to give
AEP 120 days to file an overall comprehensive rate case with the cities rather than the accelerated
filing asked for in the resolutions, so long as it was triggered at the PUC at the same time. Mr. Gay
said that the agreed upon date was November 3, 2003. He said this new development was included
in the substitute ordinance submitted to them today. He added that the City of Laredo and the City
of Edna had also passed similar resolutions moving forward in this regard.
A motion was made, seconded and passed to accept the substitute resolution provided by
counsel. City Secretary Chapa polled the Council for their votes, and the following resolution was
passed as amended with the following vote: Neal, Chesney, Colmenero, Garrett, Kelly, Kinnison,
Noyola and Scott, voting "Aye"; Cooper was absent.
8. RESOLUTION NO. 025371
Resolution authorizing the review of Transmission and Distribution (T & D) rates of AEP
Texas Central Company (Company); directing Company to file certain information ("Rate
Filing Package") with the City of Corpus Christi; setting a procedural schedule for the
gathering and review of necessary information; setting dates for the filing of the City's
analysis of the Company's filing and the Company's rebuttal to the analysis; authorizing the
hiring of legal counsel and consultants; requiring the reimbursement of the City of Corpus
Christi's T & D rate case expenses; setting a public hearing to determine if the existing T &
D rates are unreasonable or in any way in violation of any provision of law and to determine
just and reasonable T & D rates to be charged. (AS AMENDED)
* * * * * * * * * * * * *
Mayor Neal deviated from the agenda and opened discussion on Item 30 regarding the public
access studio. Ms. Susan Cable, Director of E -Government Services, explained that the city had a
contract with the South Texas Informer Education Foundation (STIEF) for approximately one year
to manage the public access studio. As the end of the year was approaching, Ms. Cable reported that
staff had issued a Request for Proposal. At that time, Ms. Cable said that STIEF decided not to
Minutes - Regular Council Meeting
July 22, 2003 - Page 9
submit a proposal, and in fact indicated that they wanted to terminate the contract for lack of staff.
Ms. Cable said that they had received two proposals, one from the Channel 10 Public Access Users
Group (PAUG), the primary users of the editing equipment and the studio. The other proposal was
from the Observer Education and Research Foundation. Ms. Cable stated that the major difference
between the proposals was the funding request. She said that the Channel 10 PAUG requested a
one-time grant of approximately $15,000 for moving, setting up and for calibration of the equipment
and the studio, comparable to what was done on the first contract. They also requested a one-time
payment of approximately $14,000 to replace some inoperable equipment. They also asked for a
continuance of the $7,000 annual grant that the cable operators provide. By contrast, the Observer
funding request was for $118,000 annually. After review by a staff team, Ms. Cable said that staff
was recommending that the city enter into a contract with the Channel 10 PAUG/NuPAC, Inc.,
initially for one year with the option to renew for four additional one-year periods. Ms. Cable added
that the contract originally had a July 9 start date but had been changed to July 23.
Council Member Colmenero asked if the Channel 10 PAUG would be handling the
scheduling for the users of the equipment. Ms. Cable responded affirmatively. Council Member
Kelly asked if the equipment that the city currently owns and the equipment to be purchased would
belong to Channel 10 PAUG as part of this agreement. Ms. Cable responded that the city was
actually loaning the equipment to the group as long as it was being used for public use. If the group
decided not to renew their contract with the city, then the property would be returned to the city.
Mr. Kelly asked what would happen if the PAUG was using the equipment part of the time for
public access and other times for profit. Ms. Cable replied that this would not be a problem as long
as the public access producers's needs were being met. Mr. Kelly expressed his concern that if a
dispute arises between the users, the city would have to become involved. Ms. Cable said that she
did not anticipate a problem because there were only four producers using the studio.
Council Member Chesney commented that this agreement was another example of how the
Council was committed to supporting public access in the community. He also complimented the
Channel 10 PAUG and Ronald Klepac for their positive approach. Finally, Mr. Chesney noted that
there was a $90,000 a year difference between the two proposals. There were no comments from
the audience. City Secretary Chapa polled the Council for their votes as follows: Neal, Chesney,
Colmenero, Garrett, Kelly, Kinnison, Noyola and Scott, voting "Aye"; Cooper was absent.
30.a. ORDINANCE NO. 025391
Ordinance appropriating $30,379 from the Reserve for Government Access Equipment and
Facilities in the No. 1020 General Fund for access channel equipment and facilities;
amending Operating Budget adopted by Ordinance No. 024974 to increase appropriations
by $30,379.
30.b. MOTION NO. 2003-263
Motion authorizing the City Manager or his designee to execute a contract with Channel 10
PAUG/NuPAC, Inc. of Corpus Christi, Texas for a 12 -month period with a renewal option
of four additional one-year periods, subject to the approval of the contractor and the City
Manager or his designee, to manage a public access studio and editing equipment with City
donated equipment for public access producers for a one-time payment of $15,458 for
Minutes - Regular Council Meeting
July 22, 2003 - Page 10
facility and equipment set-up and $14,921 for replacement of inoperable equipment.
Mayor Neal opened discussion on Item 31 regarding the Lavaca-Navidad River Authority.
Assistant City Manager Ron Massey reported that in July 2000, the city had the opportunity to
purchase interruptible water from Lake Texana, 4,500 acre feet. He said that the city had agreed to
allow them to seek permitting for an additional 7500 acre feet. Mr. Massey said that the permitting
had been approved by TCEQ, so in essence, the city was preparing to enter into a contract to
purchase the additional 7500 acre feet of water, for a total of 12,000 acre feet. To put the purchase
into perspective, Mr. Massey said that the city was currently paying $340 per acre foot for the
46,348 acres that it purchases annually. He said that the new purchase would reduce the cost per
acre foot to $299 per acre. Mayor Neal asked if Lake Texana released more water than it stores
annually. Mr. Eduardo Garana, Director of the Water Department, replied affirmatively.
Council Member Scott commented that he had heard concerns that the city had not perfected
the Garwood water supply. Acting City Attorney Reining added that the city did have the water
right to Garwood, but the concern was probably related to a proposed change in the law in the Texas
Legislature that stated that if a city was not currently using the water, then the state would lose the
water rights. Mr. Scott asked for a status report on Garwood. Mr. Massey replied that staff was
scheduled to come back to the Council in September 2003 with a contract to engage an architectural
and engineering firm that will determine how the city will withdraw the water from the river and
work in conjunction with LCRA to determine the withdrawal point, because LCRA owns the rest
of the water rights to Garwood. Mr. Massey said that they would also determine pipeline sizing and
the right-of-way locations in a year's time. He said that the process could be accelerated if needed.
Council Member Scott remarked that it appeared that staff was doing what was necessary to secure
the water supply at Garwood.
Council Member Scott asked when ASR was going to come before the Council again. City
Engineer Escobar said that it would ready to come before the Council on August 19. Council
Member Chesney commented that there was a perception that the desalination project was getting
priority over Garwood. He said that it appeared that the city had Garwood and the desalination
project on parallel tracts in an effort to secure both. However, Mr. Chesney commented that water
rights were points of contention, with San Antonio and other municipalities vying for them as well.
He asked when staff's projected timeline to actually obtain water from Garwood. Assistant City
Manager Massey answered that the city would not need the water until 2028. However, if necessary,
the city could accelerate the process to complete it in two years. Mr. Chesney asked about any
opportunities to partner with other entities that might need the water now. Acting City Attorney
Reining answered that it was possible to establish a limited -term water supply contract with another
entity, as we do now with other municipalities. Mr. Chesney remarked that if the city were to build
all or part of the Garwood pipeline and then sell the water to a community that needs the water now,
it could truly be a win-win scenario. He said that it would secure the city's water rights while
benefitting another community. Assistant City Manager Massey replied that this was a viable option
that staff was considering.
Mayor Neal commented that the Council has already committed $10 million over the next
three to five years to the Garwood project. He said that when the Council reviews the CIP budget
this fall, it would be an appropriate time to assess the specifics of the plan and decide how to move
forward with the project.
Minutes - Regular Council Meeting
July 22, 2003 - Page 11
Mayor Neal asked for public comment on Item 31. Mr. Bill Kopecky, 3609 Topeka,
commented that he thought it would be more cost-effective if the city were to own Lake Texana if
they were the main users of the water. Mr. R.J. Herschbach, 4650 Hakel, spoke regarding a prior
50 -year fixed water contract to provide water to the Reynolds plant and asserted his contention that
Formosa Plastic was taking water from Lake Texana. Ms. Kathy Huffmeyer, 6706 Sahara, spoke
regarding the possibility of using the desalination project to provide water through pipelines to other
areas.
Council Member Kelly remarked that the Garwood project would put the city in a third
watershed, putting the city in an advantageous position. Assistant City Manager Massey added that
the plan was to acquire lower-cost surface water sources in addition to researching more -expensive
desalination options. Council Member Scott commented that the city was positioning itself to sell
water to the surrounding area in the near future.
City Secretary Chapa polled the Council for their votes, and the following resolution passed
with the following vote: Neal, Chesney, Colmenero, Garrett, Kelly, Kinnison, Noyola and Scott,
voting "Aye"; Cooper was absent.
31. RESOLUTION NO. 025392
Resolution authorizing the City Manager or his designee to execute on behalf of the City of
Corpus Christi the Interruptible Water Supply Contract between Lavaca-Navidad River
Authority and the City of Corpus Christi, Texas.
Mayor Neal opened discussion on Item 32 regarding the development of a large-scale
desalination demonstration project. City Manager Noe stated that the Texas Water Development
Board has initiated the next step in the grant process, and that the application deadline falls between
now and August 19. He asked Assistant City Manager Massey to explain the staff's strategy in
submitting an application. Mr. Massey stated that the city's project was selected as one of three
finalists for the grant. He said that the Texas Water Development Board had provided a
recommendation to the governor that the next phase of the grant process include studies to answer
specific questions. He reported that the Texas Legislature approved $1.5 million in funding to
support the three studies. He said that the city must submit a request for a grant to obtain the
funding. He said that the draft application must be submitted to the board by August 15.
Mayor Neal asked for public comment on this item. Mr. R.J. Herschbach spoke about
converting the old CPL building into a desalination plant and the demise of the Holland Dam in
Cotulla, TX.
Council Member Kelly expressed his concern that if the city was selected for the Governor's
Desal Initiative and the state spent $300 million building the plant in Corpus Christi, would that
make our existing water sources more vulnerable to a legislative raid by thirsty cities. Acting City
Attorney Reining answered that hopefully, the city will be able to wholesale that water to another
entity in Texas. Mr. Kelly expressed his concern that the city would be trading low-cost surface
water sources for unproven technology and more expensive water. City Manager Noe answered that
while the city continued to be aggressive in identifying new water sources, staff has to continually
Minutes - Regular Council Meeting
July 22, 2003 - Page 12
be on guard to protect the city's water rights, especially during the legislative sessions.
City Secretary Chapa polled the Council for their votes, and the following ordinance passed
with the following vote: Neal, Chesney, Colmenero, Garrett, Kelly, Kinnison, Noyola and Scott,
voting "Aye"; Cooper was absent.
32. RESOLUTION NO. 025393
Resolution authorizing the City Manager or his designee to submit a notice of intent to apply
for a Regional Facility Planning grant and to submit the grant application to the Texas Water
Development Board for the development of a large-scale seawater desalination
demonstration project in Corpus Christi.
Mayor Neal opened discussion on Item 33 regarding a contract for occupational services with
Concentra Medical Center. Ms. Lee Ann Dumbauld, Director of Finance, said that this was one of
two items for the Council's review, with the companion item, regarding drug testing, coming before
the Council at their next meeting. She said that the committee evaluated four proposals, and was
recommending that the city continue their contract with Concentra, since they were the lowest cost
proposer that met the city's requirements. Mayor Neal asked what services Concentra was providing
to the city. Ms. Dumbauld replied that Concentra handled workers compensation, small injury
referrals and employee physicals. Ms. Cynthia Garcia, Director of Human Resources, added that
they also examined employees re-entering the workforce after an injury. Mayor Neal asked if
Concentra also handled pre-employment drug testing and physicals. Ms. Garcia responded
affirmatively, but noted that those services were provided under a separate contract.
Council Member Scott asked what an employee would be told to do if they suffered a work-
related injury outside of Concentra's business hours. Ms. Garcia replied that the employee would
be advised to go to the emergency room. Council Member Scott remarked that if Concentra was
open twenty-four hours, then the employees would be able to go to Concentra at a substantial
savings to the city. Ms. Garcia remarked that the employees had the right to see their own
physicians, but if they sustained an injury that did not require emergency services, they are referred
to Concentra. He asked if any of the proposers were open twenty-four hours a day. Ms. Garcia
replied that she did not recall any of the proposers indicating that they were open twenty-four hours
a day. Mr. Scott asked if the number of locations was taken into consideration. Ms. Garcia replied
that the committee had considered this in their evaluation.
Mr. Scott asked if the proposers provided their own physical therapy. Ms. Garcia replied that
Concentra does provide physical therapy in-house, but some of the other proposers did not (e.g.
OneMed). Mr. Scott expressed his concern that the primary care was not separated from secondary
care in this instance. Ms. Dumbauld replied that the workers compensation TPA closely monitored
the costs associated with the provision of services for a particular injury, in addition to the Texas
Workers Compensation Commission. City Manager Noe added that the employee has the right to
elect to see their own physician, who in turn will most likely refer them to a different physical
therapist. He said that many employees often do choose to see their own physicians.
Council Member Chesney remarked that he had heard concerns that in -take clinics like
Concentra do not do enough to educate employees on how to resolve their claims more quickly. Ms.
Minutes - Regular Council Meeting
July 22, 2003 - Page 13
Garcia replied that the city had a return -to -work policy that handles the cases individually to assist
employees in re-entering the workforce quickly. Mr. Chesney asked why the in -take clinics did not
provide the education as well. His concern was that a clinic could be particularly tied to trial
lawyers looking for referrals. He asked whether the clinic's ability to educate employees on workers
compensation issues was included in the strategic need/technical solutions part of the evaluation.
Ms. Garcia replied that the team did not look at the doctor's role in counseling the employees
about workers compensation procedures. She said they could do that in the future. She added that
Concentra had agreed to train employees on workers compensation procedures before they get hurt.
Mr. Chesney stated that he thought it was important to educate employees properly about the
procedures. Mr. Chesney asked if it was standard to write the contract for two years with two one-
year renewals. Ms. Garcia replied that it was standard because the goal was to lock in a lower cost,
but the city had the option to terminate the contract if needed. Mr. Chesney asked if staff could
approve the one-year renewals without going to council. Ms. Garcia replied affirmatively. Mr.
Chesney expressed his concern that staff could potentially renew the contract with Concentra for
four years without bringing it to the Council again.
Council Member Colmenero asked how many locations each proposer had listed. Ms. Adria
Schrieber-Garza, Senior Management Analyst for Risk Management Services, replied that the
vendors had provided the following information: Concentra - two locations; One Med - two
existing locations, one location to open in August; Saratoga - one location; and Comp Care - one
location. Mr. Colmenero asked for the number of physicians at each location. Ms. Schrieber-Garza
replied that each of the vendors had indicated that there was one physician on staff. Council
Member Colmenero remarked that he knew that one of the providers had two physicians on staff.
Ms. Schrieber-Garza replied that this information was obtained from the proposals submitted by
each of the vendors. Council Member Colmenero again remarked that at least one of the providers
had two physicians. Ms. Garcia reiterated that staff obtained this information from the responses
the providers had listed in their RFPs. Council Member Colmenero replied that he could not support
this item because it did not contain correct information.
Council Member Garrett asked how long the city had been using Concentra's services. Ms.
Dumbauld replied that the city had been using them for four years. Council Member Garrett asked
if staff had any complaints about Concentra's services in the past. Ms. Garcia responded that they
were minor complaints.
Mayor Neal asked for public comment on this item. Mr. R.J. Herschbach spoke regarding
alleged problems with Workers Compensation claims by some firemen. City Secretary Chapa polled
the Council for their votes, and the following motion passed with the following vote: Neal,
Chesney, Garrett, Kelly, Kinnison, Noyola and Scott, voting "Aye"; Colmenero, voting "No";
Cooper was absent.
33. MOTION NO. 2003-264
Motion authorizing a two-year contract with two one-year renewal options between
the City of Corpus Christi, Texas and Concentra Medical Center to provide occupational
health services.
Minutes - Regular Council Meeting
July 22, 2003 - Page 14
* * * * * * * * * * * * *
Mayor Neal deviated from the agenda and announced the executive sessions, which were
listed on the agenda as follows:
35. Executive session under Texas Government Code Section 551.071 regarding CCMCA, Inc.,
a Texas Corporation vs. City of Corpus Christi, Case No. C-03-170, in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Corpus Christi Division, with possible
discussion and action in open session.
36. Executive session under Texas Government Code Section 551.071 regarding the
administration of the City's employee health benefits plans with possible discussion and
related action in open session.
37. Executive session under Texas Government Code Section 551.071 regarding United States
vs. City of Corpus Christi, Cause No. C-03-015, in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Texas, with possible discussion and action in open session.
38. Executive session under Texas Government Code Section 551.071 regarding City of San
Benito v. PG&E Gas Transmission, Texas Corporation, et al, No. 96-12-7404-A, 107th
District Court, Cameron County, Texas; the remaining related claims of the City of Corpus
Christi against PG&E's successor GulfTerra Texas Pipeline, L.P. and other entities; and
similar claims of the City of Corpus Christi against other similar entities, with possible
discussion and action in open session.
39. Executive session under Texas Government Code Sections 551.071, 551.072 and 551.087
regarding the acquisition and development of site for a minor league baseball stadium with
possible discussion and related action in open session.
The Council went into executive session. The Council returned from executive session and
the following ordinances were passed with the following vote: Neal, Chesney, Colmenero, Garrett,
Kelly, Kinnison, Noyola and Scott, voting "Aye"; Cooper was absent.
36. MOTION NO. 2003-265
Motion authorizing the City Manager to approve a Legal Services Agreement with
Bracewell & Patterson, L.L.P. granting an additional $50,000 to assist with legal issues
relating to the City of Corpus Christi's Health Plan at an hourly rate of $200.
37. MOTION NO. 2003-266
Motion to authorize the City Manager to settle the lawsuit relating to expenses arising from
the landfill tire fire, entitled The United States of America vs. The City of Corpus Christi,
Cause Number C-03-105, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
Texas, Corpus Christi Division, for the amount of Six Hundred Thousand Dollars
($600,000).
Minutes - Regular Council Meeting
July 22, 2003 - Page 15
* * * * * * * * * * * * *
Mayor Neal deviated from the agenda and opened discussion on Item 34, regarding the
proposed ordinance of Non -Discrimination Based on Disability as recommended by the Committee
for Persons with Disabilities. Mr. David Ramos, Director of Human Relations, began the
presentation by reviewing the current regulations in place that protect persons with disabilities at
the federal, state and local levels. He stated that the ordinance the city currently had in place did
not provide for local enforcement or penalties in disability cases, deferring them to the appropriate
governmental body. Mr. Ramos reviewed the timeline leading to the Committee's
recommendations He concluded that in June 2003, the Committee for Persons with Disabilities had
recommended its final draft for the City Council's consideration by committee resolution.
He briefly reviewed the main provisions of the proposed ordinance. He said that the
proposed ordinance would locally prohibit individuals with disabilities from being excluded from
the full participation in, or denying the benefits of, any service, program or activity. He stated that
the ordinance would also provide for complaint processing, investigations, enforcement (including
penalties), remedies, monitoring and education/training at the local level. He explained that there
were two different issues related to enforcement that were covered in the proposed ordinance. The
first enforcement issue was related to the city's responsibility to provide reasonable accommodations
and the second was related to the public's responsibility (restaurants, department stores, etc.).
Mr. Ramos said that the application of the ordinance, as recommended by the Committee for
Persons with Disabilities, would apply to the City of Corpus Christi and those who conduct business
with the city by contract, loan, grant, lease or other financial assistance/arrangement (excluding
procurement and insurance). He estimated that the number of existing contracts was 365 and the
number of annual rentals/other leases was 7,633.
Regarding the administration of the ordinance, Mr. Ramos said that the Human Relations
Department, working in conjunction under the City Manager and the Assistant City Manager, would
process complaints, conduct investigations and work with the City Attorney's Office in monitoring
city contractors for compliance and enforcing the requirements of the proposed non-discrimination
ordinance. In addition, Mr. Ramos stated that the proposed ordinance stipulated that the city would
provide technical assistance to those who contract with the city and monitor those contractors for
compliance.
City Manager Noe commented that there have been questions about what staff's
recommendations are regarding this item. He said that staff has no disagreements with the goal of
improving accessibility and moving more aggressively towards compliance. However, Mr. Noe said
that this was a significant policy issue because of the administrative impact the proposed ordinance
would have in terms of the number of agencies, entities and businesses that would be affected by
this ordinance. At this point, City Manager Noe remarked that many of the affected entities did not
know about the effects of the proposed ordinance. Thus, Mr. Noe stated that he had recommended
to the committee that they meet with as many entities as possible to help those affected understand
the ramifications of the proposed ordinance. He emphasized that it was important to have a
dialogue with those entities potentially impacted by this policy change. Second, he commented that
the fiscal impact to the city to comply, monitor and perform the responsibilities of the ordinance was
substantial. Mr. Noe concluded that staff's recommendation was that the Council receive the
Minutes - Regular Council Meeting
July 22, 2003 - Page 16
information presented today and delay action until the city has had the opportunity to move
completely communicate with those entities potentially impacted by the implementation of the
ordinance.
Council Member Chesney asked why these entities did not know this proposed ordinance
was coming. He said that Council had been talking about placing this item on the agenda for six
months. He said that Mayor Neal had specifically asked that this item be placed on the agenda three
weeks ago. City Manager Noe replied that he did not think that the public fully understood the
ramifications of the ordinance. Council Member Chesney replied that those members of the public
who were interested would have been at today's meeting. City Manager Noe responded that there
were approximately 8,000 groups involved who had not been informed. He said that a letter had
been sent out on July 11 notifying the public about a meeting that took place on July 17, and another
meeting was scheduled on July 24. Council Member Chesney replied that the ADA act had been
passed years ago. He added that this was the first reading of the ordinance and the second reading
would give those individuals interested an opportunity to speak. He said that he did not have a
problem with staff not recommending the ordinance, but he disagreed with Mr. Noe's statement that
the public had not been given an opportunity to comment. Mr. Chesney remarked that there was a
perception in the disabled community that the city was stalling on implementing ADA requirements.
Mayor Neal asked what entities were currently performing the additional functions that the
ordinance was asking the city to assume in the areas of monitoring and enforcement. Mr. Ramos
replied that the Human Relations Department was involved in the investigation and the enforcement
of complaints. Mayor Neal repeated his question, asking if these functions were not currently being
enforced at another governmental level. He asked if any of the functions were new. Mr. Ramos
replied that some of the functions were new, such as the monitoring of contracts and businesses.
Mayor Neal provided the example of a company that provides training sessions for the city by
contract. He asked how the passage of the ordinance would effect this hypothetical company. Mr.
Ramos replied that the Human Relations Department would be responsible for ensuring that the
company was in compliance with the ordinance. Mayor Neal asked that if there were 500 contracts
of this type, would the Human Relations Department be required to have enough staff to legally
review every contract to ensure that it was in compliance and provide enforcement. Mr. Ramos
replied affirmatively. Mayor Neal asked if the ordinance required that the contractor not
discriminate against persons with disabilities seeking work, and if the contractor was found to not
actively hire or recruit persons with disabilities, would the company be in violation. Mr. Ramos
replied that the Human Relations Department would not be involved in the hiring aspect because
it falls under Title I. He said that staff would mainly be looking at the priorities that are considered
reasonable and readily achievable, such as handicapped -accessible doors, counters and bathrooms.
Mayor Neal expressed his concern that if companies that presently contract with the city
decided not to do business with the city anymore based on the approval of this ordinance, would
these companies be subject to investigation by the city. Mr. Ramos replied that he would have to
hear a complaint from a disabled individual before he could start an investigation. City Manager
Noe added that there were two parts to this ordinance. He said that there was a public
accommodations part which applied to businesses whether they do business with the city or not,
such as restaurants and hotel. He said that the proposed ordinance would give the city the
responsibility and authority to investigate complaints and levy fines. He said that the second part
applied to those businesses that do business with the city. According to the proposed ordinance, if
Minutes - Regular Council Meeting
July 22, 2003 - Page 17
these businesses were non-compliant, they could be subject to contract termination.
Mayor Neal also expressed his concern that the city was putting the city into the position to
be "police". He asked if this ordinance would require the city to go to every business and
establishment in the city, whether they do business with the city or not, to ensure that they were in
compliance. Mr. Ramos replied that an investigation would be initiated only as the result of a
citizen complaint. Mr. Noe added that the current ordinance does not provide give the city
enforcement capabilities over complaints regarding public accommodations. Mr. Ramos said that
currently, the city handles complaints about public accommodations by trying to resolve them at a
local level but, if unsuccessful, then they must be referred to the appropriate authorities.
Mayor Neal asked if non-profit agencies, latchkey programs, softball fields and parks would
be required to have ADA -accessible restrooms if this ordinance was approved. Mr. Ramos replied
that to be in compliance, they would have to build an ADA -accessible restroom and assume the cost.
Mayor Neal asked what timeframe the organizations would be given to complete the restroom. Mr.
Ramos replied that the ordinance does not provide a timeframe. Regarding latchkey programs, he
asked if the city would have to terminate contracts with schools that did not have ADA -accessible
facilities. Mr. Ramos replied affirmatively, saying that the schools would have to come into
compliance to maintain a contract with the city. Mayor Neal concluded that he would like to support
this ordinance, but it was so broad in scope that the burden of enforcement and compliance for the
city was too onerous.
Council Member Kelly asked why the city had to expand over what the state and federal
government had already done. City Manager Noe replied that this ordinance was being
recommended by the Committee for Persons with Disabilities because they felt that the community
was moving too slowly to come into ADA -compliance. He said that his sense was that the
committee wanted to use the city's police powers as a mechanism to accelerate the community's
compliance. Mr. Kelly asked why the city did not simply say that they would enforce the existing
federal and state statutes, creating an ordinance to that effect. City Manager Noe replied that staff
was aware of only one other major city in the state, Austin, that had an ordinance like this. He said
that the committee modeled this ordinance after the Austin ordinance. Mr. Kelly asked how much
it would cost for the city to increase staff and resources to enforce this ordinance. He referred to a
previous memo that had approximated the cost at $280,000, which he and Mayor Neal both thought
was too low. City Manager Noe replied that this amount was a bit low regarding enforcement, but
the physical accessibility costs to bring all city facilities into compliance was huge. Mr. Kelly asked
what the consequences to the city would be if it did not come into compliance and did not enforce
the ordinance properly. City Manager Noe replied that he was not sure what the legal consequences
would be, but his feeling was that it would put the city into a difficult position if it could not comply
with its own ordinance.
Mr. Kelly asked if an ordinance could be more narrowly drawn yet still meet the objectives
of the community without placing as large a burden on the city. Specifically, he asked if the existing
statutes were more effectively enforced, would this achieve the same objectives as the proposed
ordinance without creating a new layer of bureaucracy. Finally, Mr. Kelly asked City Manager Noe
what effect this ordinance would have on the city's cost of doing business with other contractors.
Mr. Noe replied that it was unknown because he did not know how many contractors would be
willing to comply. He said that there had not been a dialogue with them to determine their response.
Minutes - Regular Council Meeting
July 22, 2003 - Page 18
Mr. Kelly asked how long Austin has had this ordinance in place and what the effect had been. Mr.
Ramos replied that it was in place before the ADA and said that he was unaware of any cases or
grievances that had been brought through their ordinance. Mr. Ramos said that he personally had
not seen any.
The Council took a brief recess for proclamations.
* * * * * * * * * * * * *
The Council returned from recess and continued the discussion on the proposed ADA
ordinance. Council Member Chesney asked Mr. Ramos if the proposed ordinance was very similar
to the Austin ordinance. Mr. Ramos replied that it was. Mr. Chesney asked if Austin enforced the
ordinance. Mr. Ramos replied that he had spoken with the City of Austin's ADA Coordinator, and
she had indicated that the main emphasis was to use it as an education tool to inform potential
contractors about the requirements of ordinance and to get their assurances that they would be in
compliance. Mr. Ramos said that this was done on an annual basis. Mr. Chesney observed that
Austin had seen tremendous growth as a community since the ordinance has been in place and
concluded that the ordinance did not appear to be a hindrance to their growth.
Mr. Chesney asked Mr. Ramos what he felt was wrong with the proposed ordinance, since
staff was not endorsing it. Mr. Ramos replied that one issue was that he would need additional staff
to meet the enforcement requirements in the ordinance. He also said that staff wanted more time
to begin a dialogue with those people who would be affected by the ordinance. Mr. Chesney asked
Mr. Ramos how much time he would need to finalize the process. Mr. Ramos answered that it was
difficult to say, because staff needed time to speak with the contractors and other entities affected.
He estimated that reviewing the contracts could be completed within the next six months. Mr.
Chesney commented that there was a perception in the disabled community that the city was moving
too slowly to come into compliance. He asked Mr. Ramos if he thought this was accurate. Mr.
Ramos replied that the city has moved forward more quickly during the last two to three years than
during the last ten years.
In response to Mr. Chesney's question, Mr. Ramos said that overall he did support the
ordinance, but he felt that more discussions were needed with the persons affected. Mr. Chesney
asked if this option had been presented to the committee. Mr. Ramos replied that City Manager Noe
had met with the committee and made this recommendation, but the committee decided that the two
public meetings, scheduled for July 17 and July 24, were sufficient and asked that the ordinance be
brought before the Council. Mr. Chesney asked for information on the July 17 meeting. Mr. Ramos
replied that approximately 500 notices had been mailed, and 13 individuals attended the meeting.
Of the 13 individuals, six spoke in support of the ordinance, six expressed their concerns and one
was opposed.
Council Member Colmenero commented that the ordinance was quite progressive but
needed to be balanced with the city's ability to implement it. Mr. Colmenero suggested that the
implementation of the ordinance be phased in. He said that the first phase may be to work with
contractors and the committee to identify the appropriate language for the ordinance. He said that
the fiscal impact also had to be considered. He commented that phasing in the implementation of
the ordinance would be one way to spread out the cost of implementation over several fiscal years,
Minutes - Regular Council Meeting
July 22, 2003 - Page 19
lessening the financial burden. He asked if there had been any discussion with the contractors to
inform them about the proposed ordinance. Mr. Ramos replied that the only information provided
had been the July 17 meeting notice and a news release sent out through the Public Information
Office. Mr. Colmenero suggested that the city's website could also be a method of informing the
public. Mr. Colmenero concluded that he thought it was a good ordinance but may require some
tweaking to make it work. City Manager Noe remarked that he had suggested to the committee that
there would be opportunities in the dialogue with the impacted parties to establish some benchmarks
or goals to allow for incremental improvements over several years.
Council Member Scott asked City Manager Noe to provide some examples of benchmarks
that might be put into place. Mr. Noe replied that staff could ask each entity subject to this provision
to provide a three-year plan for reaching compliance with quantifiable standards. He said, for
example, that if the issue was that the Chamber of Commerce did not have ADA -accessible
restrooms on the first floor, they could submit a three-year plan noting what they would do to each
year to reach compliance.
Council Member Scott asked Mr. Ramos to which entities he had sent notices. Mr. Ramos
replied that he had asked the City Secretary's Office for a list of contractors doing business with the
city. Mr. Scott commented that builders associations, such as the Associated General Contractors,
were often the primary way that members process governmental data. City Manager Noe replied
that the builders associations had not been contacted, but it was a viable way to contact potential
vendors with the city. Mr. Scott also asked for a copy of the meeting notice.
Council Member Kinnison asked if staff could find out more about Austin's experience with
this ordinance. He observed that it was telling that Austin was the only major city in the state with
this type of ordinance in place. Mr. Ramos replied that other cities, namely San Antonio, had
considered an ordinance of this scope, but ultimately did not pursue it. Mr. Kinnison asked when
the invitations were mailed. Mr. Ramos replied that the invitations had been mailed out the previous
Friday for a meeting on Thursday, June 17. He added that Hurricane Claudette had delayed delivery
of the meeting notices because one person contacted him and said he had not received his notice
until the day before the meeting.
Mr. Kinnison asked for more information on estimates regarding the financial effect of this
ordinance. Ms. Linda Hodge with the Park and Recreation Department said they made a
conservative estimate of $280,000. She said that the Park and Recreation Department was
committed to bringing its facilities into compliance with the ADA. She added that it has been a slow
process due to lack of funding but they are working toward compliance.
Mr. Kinnison asked Mr. Ramos if his supplemental budget request to fund two positions
would be sufficient to enforce the proposed ordinance. Mr. Ramos said it was probably insufficient
but would at least allow his department to begin the process. Mr. Kinnison asked what time frame
would be realistic to prepare his department for enforcement and to inform the public about the
proposed ordinance. Mr. Ramos replied that it would take approximately six months. Mr. Kinnison
stated that, at the appropriate time, he would like to make a motion to table this item to allow staff
to take the necessary steps to ensure that the Council had the information needed to make a decision.
Mayor Neal asked for public comment on this item. Ms. Crystal Lyons, Chairman of the
Minutes - Regular Council Meeting
July 22, 2003 - Page 20
Committee for Persons with Disabilities, commented that the proposed ordinance was consistent
with what was already in the ADA with regard to the responsibilities of public entities. She
commented that the ordinance was progressive, but that she felt wholeheartedly that it was the right
thing to do. She agreed with Council Member Chesney that these requirements should not be a
surprise to the public because the ADA has been in effect since 1992. Regarding the financial
impact of the ordinance, she agreed that it was difficult, but that the city should have been preparing
to come into compliance with the ADA all along. She noted that a point of contention between staff
and the committee was Section 24-94 (b), which stated that the city and its contractors should
operate each program or activity to which this section applies so that the program or activity, when
viewed in its entirety, is readily accessible to individuals with disabilities. She said that all the
committee was asking was that people use common sense regarding the ordinance. She warned
against diluting the ADA by creating benchmarks. She concluded that she felt the ordinance was
necessary. However, if the Council felt that the ordinance was not necessary, then some other action
needed to be taken to accelerate the community's compliance with the ADA. She expressed her
hope that the Council would support the ordinance.
Council Member Kinnison reiterated his concern that the ordinance wouldn't do any good
if the city could not enforce it. Ms. Lyons replied that the City of Austin does not use the ordinance
as a punitive measure but rather as an educational tool. Council Member Kelly commented that he
understood from Ms. Lyons's comments that the primary value of the ordinance was as an
educational tool. He added that the substantive portions of the ordinances did not appear to be
necessary because the state and federal government have already imposed most of these
requirements. Ms. Lyons said that she would hope to use the ordinance as an educational tool but
that the ordinance was necessary because there was no enforcement. Mr. Kelly replied that what
seemed to be necessary was a mechanism to enforce or to educate people about the substantive
ordinances already in place.
Mr. Tom Niskala, representing the Corpus Christi Chamber of Commerce, spoke in favor
of tabling the proposed ordinance to allow for further discussion and collaboration. Ms. Judy Hales,
9442 Waxwing, spoke regarding the city's need to enforce the ADA. Ms. Shea Hales, 9442
Waxwing, spoke regarding the city's need to make the city more disability -friendly. Mr. Casey
Duplessy, 1701 Thames, spoke regarding inclusiveness for all individuals living in the community.
Ms. Judy Telge, 3553 Floyd Street, spoke in support of the proposed ordinance. Mr. David Percy,
606 Bermuda, spoke regarding his understanding that the ordinance was targeted strictly toward the
City of Corpus Christi's compliance with the ADA, not the private sector. City Manager Noe
clarified that the proposed ordinance would affect enforcement in the public accommodation section.
Council Member Noyola spoke in support of moving ahead with the process. Mayor Neal
suggested that the Council consider passing the ordinance on the first reading and delay the second
reading until the first meeting in December. He said that this would allow for more time to tweak
the ordinance and to allow for a dialogue with those entities that would be impacted. Council
Member Kinnison asked how this action would affect the budget. City Manager Noe replied that
it would not have a negative impact because staff has recommended an increase in the reserve
appropriation to allow for mid -year adjustments to the budget if necessary. He added that by
December, staff would have a better feel for the state of the budget. Council Members Kinnison,
Colmenero, Kelly, Chesney, Noyola spoke in support of Mayor Neal's suggestion. City Secretary
Chapa polled the Council for their votes, and the following ordinance passed on the first reading
Minutes - Regular Council Meeting
July 22, 2003 - Page 21
with the following vote: Neal, Chesney, Colmenero, Garrett, Kelly, Kinnison, Noyola and Scott,
voting "Aye"; Cooper was absent.
34. FIRST READING ORDINANCE
Amending the Code of Ordinances, Chapter 24, Human Relations by adding Article V,
Discrimination Against Individuals with Disabilities, establishing procedure and
implementation and providing for penalties.
Mayor Neal called for a brief recess.
* * * * * * * * * * * * *
The Council returned from recess, and Mayor Neal deviated from the agenda and referred
to Item 44, a presentation on the Landry's Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) which had been
posted on the agenda for discussion at 3:00 p.m. City Manager Noe opened the discusssion by
emphasizing that the MOU was the beginning of the negotiation process, not the end. He noted that
the Landry's MOU would be posted on the city's website, as well as the following PowerPoint
presentation. City Manager Noe provided a brief background and history of the developments
leading to the development of the MOU. Mr. Noe stated that the purpose of the MOU was to outline
the basic terms of the agreement, allow for input and review at an early stage and serve as a
foundation for definitive lease documents.
Mr. Noe reviewed the basic structure of the document, saying that it was a partnership
between the city and Landry's. He said that the MOU outlines Landry's responsibilities as follows:
leasing the pad site for the restaurants and amusements; operating the remaining site including the
marina through a management agreement; and constructing restaurants and amusements. He stated
that the city would be responsible for constructing site and marina improvements funded by annual
rental payments and taxes on the project.
Mr. Noe reviewed the scope of the project in four specific areas: Marina Improvements, Site
Improvements, Restaurants, and Amusements. Regarding the marina improvements, Mr. Noe
outlined the following items: improvements to existing facilities (electrical, cable, security, fastening
and pilings); R Pier replacement with floating dock; boaters facilities; and boaters support.
Regarding public site improvements, Mr. Noe stated that Landry's had agreed to make the following
improvements: parking, landscaping/walkways/lighting, water features, kiosks and connectivity.
Regarding restaurants, the following were mentioned: Joe's Crab Shack, the relocation of the
Landry's Seafood House, and two theme restaurants: the Aquarium and Rainforest Cafe. Under
amusements, City Manager Noe said that the MOU stated that three out of five from a list were
proposed, including a Ferris wheel, carousel, train and/or observation tower. Mr. Noe stated that
the preliminary design and specifications would be included in the final lease documents. Finally,
Mr. Noe pointed out that Landry's had agreed to guarantee that their overall investment would be
$20 million.
Mr. Noe stated that the term of the agreement was a 40 -year base term with two extension
option of ten years each. He said that the rental payment was $1 million per year or 2.2 percent of
annual sales, whichever was greater. Regarding the construction, Mr. Noe said that Landry's will
Minutes - Regular Council Meeting
July 22, 2003 - Page 22
construct the restaurants and amusement and would be involved in the design of the marina and site
improvements by the city architect. Finally, Mr. Noe stated that Landry's would serve as
construction manager for the marina and site improvements.
Regarding maintenance, Mr. Noe stated that Landry's has agreed to maintain a first-class
facility, including dredging within the marina. He noted that capital reserves have been established
jointly, with excess project revenues to utilize for long-term maintenance of the project.
City Manager Noe asked Mr. Mark McDaniel, Executive Director of Support Services, to
review the proposed budget for the project. Mr. McDaniel stated that throughout the negotiations,
the goal was at best to break even on the project, where all the revenues would go back into the
project. He reviewed the preliminary project budget, which was estimated to be $45 million,
including site work, marina improvements and restaurants/amusements. Regarding the construction
or project budget separate from the marina operations, Mr. McDaniel reviewed the projections. In
Year 1 of the project, Mr. McDaniel said that the city would see a loss of $13,480. However, in
Year 10, Mr. McDaniel said that the city's projected income was $69,757. He noted that any income
would go into a reserve account until $3 million was accumulated to cover maintenance on the
project. Regarding the marina operations pro forma budget, Mr. McDaniel noted that the marina
was currently seeing a loss of $450,637 in FY 2002-03, only $39,205 of which was being paid out
of the marina fund. By Year 10, Mr. McDaniel reported that the projected loss would drop to
$107,406.
Mr. McDaniel reviewed the marina operations pro forma assumptions for the city's costs
only. He said that the existing marina debt would expire in FY2011-12 and included a portion
funded by general city resources. He noted that city operations of the marina would be limited to
rescue and patrol services. Finally, Mr. McDaniel stated that all slip rental and most bayfront lease
revenue would become part of the management agreement.
City Manager Noe reviewed the marina management section of the MOU. He said that the
management agreement would run concurrent with the lease. He said that the fees for current leases
would be limited to CPI increases, while others were based on market value. He stated that the city
was responsible for fees and budgets for the marina. Finally, a failure to agree on fees or budgets
would trigger a "management fee" approach versus net revenue compensation.
Regarding the proposed South Wharf development, Mr. Noe said that it had been excluded
from the project site. He added that Landry's had made a commitment that the development would
be compatible. He noted that restaurant uses were limited to a maximum of 10,000 square feet and
a restriction on marina uses to prohibit the South Wharf marina completing directly with the other
marina. Finally, he said that if any developer other than Mr. Loeb's company were to develop the
South Wharf project, then Landry's would have the right of first refusal. He noted that this would
be only after the Council elected to move forward with the project if Mr. Loeb could not.
City Manager Noe reviewed a series of transition issues that were being discussed. He said
that Landry's has agreed to retain the Marina Superintendent and the Marina Supervisor. He added
that Landry's will review the remaining staff, but any additional employee security would be the
responsibility of the city.
Minutes - Regular Council Meeting
July 22, 2003 - Page 23
City Manager Noe covered other miscellaneous issues included in the agreement, including
the following: encouraging Landry's to have local participation regarding contractors and suppliers;
the city's agreement to maintain municipal service; continue support of sailing events; parking rates;
and the prohibition of gambling. Mr. Noe noted that the agreement included 31 of the issues raised
in the Stakeholder's Comments Checklist and did not address eleven.
City Manager concluded the presentation by reviewing the future schedule for the Landry's
negotiation. He suggested September 23, 2003 as the date for Council debate and consideration.
He said that the proposed project implementation dates were July 2004 through July 2006.
Mayor Neal asked for Council questions. Council Member Kelly noted that one of the issues
from the Stakeholders List that was not included was a timeline for construction. City Manager Noe
clarified that the MOU provided for a 24 -month target date. Council Member Kelly asked what the
consequences would be if the 24 -month target date was not achieved. City Manager Noe replied
that this would be discussed in the definitive documents. Council Member Kelly remarked that in
his opinion, one of the more attractive features of the project was Landry's commitment to
aggressively market the project. He asked if this was included in the MOU. Mr. Noe answered that
it was not discussed for inclusion in the documents, but he said that Landry's has made it clear that
they intend to aggressively market the project. Mr. Jeff Cantwell, Landry's Senior Vice -President
of Development, assured Mr. Kelly that Landry's was fully committed to marketing the project,
including print and television media strategies.
Council Member Kelly noted that there was a great deal of flexibility included in the
amusements part of the agreement. Mr. Cantwell agreed, saying that more details would be included
in the definitive document. Council Member Kelly asked Mr. Cantwell how he viewed Mr.
McDaniel's revenue projections for the project. Mr. Cantwell replied that he thought the estimates
were conservative.
Council Member Scott remarked that he was pleased to hear that the Landry's development
in Kemah, TX was open for lunch the next day after Hurricane Claudette, about twenty-four hours
later. Council Member Scott asked if Landry's was responsible for maintaining the fountain water
features. Mr. Steve Greenberg, Landry's Director of Real Estate and Governmental Affairs,
answered affirmatively. Council Member Scott commented that he did not support a 10,000 square -
foot limit for a restaurant on South Wharf. In response to Mr. Scott's question, City Manager Noe
replied that the South Wharf marina was being limited for their tenants only so that it would not be
in direct competition with the city's marina. Council Member Scott asked for more information on
Landry's plans for marina employees. Mr. Noe replied that the city was going to be responsible for
additional employee security. Council Member Scott remarked that there was a perception in the
boating community that Landry's intended to displace the local boaters to attract transient boaters.
Mr. Cantwell answered that their primary slip rentals in Kemah were for local boaters, and that
would be Landry's focus in Corpus Christi. Council Member Scott expressed his concerns that the
proposed development would be unique and distinct to Corpus Christi, but he understood that these
details would be addressed in the definitive document.
Council Member Garrett asked if the city would have any input on which amusements would
be included in the development. Mr. Cantwell replied that it would be negotiated as part of the
definitive document, and the Council would have the opportunity to approve or not approve the
Minutes - Regular Council Meeting
July 22, 2003 - Page 24
definitive document. Council Member Garrett asked if the public would be able to enter the
development to fish without paying an entrance fee. Mr. Cantwell answered affirmatively. Council
Member Garrett asked ifLandry's would be responsible for dredging. Mr. Noe replied that Landry's
would have to dredge in order to maintain first-class operations. Council Member Garrett said that
he shared Council Member Scott's concern about the 10,000 -square foot limit on restaurants in
South Wharf. He felt there should be no limit whatsoever.
Council Member Colmenero asked if Landry's would accommodate the Buccaneer Days
celebration. Mr. Cantwell replied that Landry's would be interested in participating in any type of
celebration near downtown or the bayfront.
Council Member Kinnison asked Mr. McDaniel to explain more about how the capital
reserves were created. Mr. McDaniel replied that any excess revenues generated from any taxes plus
the lease, after paying for the debt, would go into the capital reserves. He added that if the city was
not able to meet the $2 million obligation, then Landry's would have to create a second capital fund.
Council Member Kinnison asked if the project area ends at the seawall itself. City Manager Noe
answered affirmatively.
Council Member Garrett asked if the live aboard issue was addressed. City Manager Noe
replied that it had not been discussed. Mr. Cantwell added that it would be addressed in the near
future.
Council Member Noyola expressed his concern that the MOU was not more detailed. He
said that he had expected the agreement to be near completion. He said he did not understand how
the document was going to further the public discussion since it was so general. City Manager Noe
replied that Landry's position was that they did not want to expend any funds on design without
having a preliminary business arrangement in place. Mr. Cantwell added that Landry's has
committed to spend $20 million which will translate into a $45 million investment for Corpus
Christi. Council Member Noyola pressed Mr. Cantwell for more specifics on the amusements. Mr.
Cantwell replied that without an engineering study, he could not provide them at this time. He noted
that Landry's has made it a practice in its other developments not to engage architects and engineers
until a preliminary business arrangement has been made. Mr. Cantwell said that this type of
arrangement was typical in the real estate business.
Council Member Chesney asked what the cost estimate would be to hire engineers and
architects to complete the design phase. Mr. Cantwell said he expected to budget approximately
$2.5 million for this project. Council Member Chesney said that he did not agree with all aspects
of the MOU, mainly regarding South Wharf, but understood Landry's position that an MOU needed
to be in place before the design process could begin. He thought the MOU was a good starting
point for the discussion.
* * * * * * * * * * * * *
Mayor Neal called for petitions from the audience. Ms. Kathy Huffmeyer, 6706 Sahara,
spoke against the Landry's proposal. Mr. Jack Gordy, 4118 Bray, spoke regarding illegal signs. Ms.
Minutes - Regular Council Meeting
July 22, 2003 - Page 25
Margaret Thornton, 6717 Pharaoh, spoke regarding National Flood Insurance requirements and the
Landry's development. Mr. R.J. Herschbach, 4650 Hakel, spoke regarding the length of the lease
for the Landry's proposal. Ms. Dorothy McCoy, 612 Chamberlain, spoke against the Landry's
proposal. Ms. Yolanda Trevino, 917 Lolita Street, spoke regarding irregularities in the appraisal and
assessment of taxable properties submitted by the Nueces County Appraisal District. Mayor Neal
asked that her written statement be included in its entirety as part of the minutes for this meeting (see
Attachment A). Mr. John Bell, 13750 Primavera, spoke on behalf of his client, Ralph Diaz with
Corpus Christi Disposal Service, against the proposed increase to the municipal solid waste service
charge by 30-40 percent (Item 45g).
* * * * * * * * * * * * *
Mayor Neal deviated from the agenda and opened discussion on Item 29a, a public hearing
regarding proposed amendments to the Platting Ordinance. A motion was made, seconded and
passed to open the public hearing on this item. Mr. Michael Gunning, Director of Planning,
explained that the proposed Platting Ordinance text amendments relate to reimbursements from the
trust fund for infrastructure improvements. He said there were three issues in the development
community that the city has faced over the last several years. First, Mr. Gunning said that some
developers are preparing to develop areas that will require major trunk line extensions. Second, he
said that the city need a mechanism to reimburse developers for installation of lift stations and the
extension of trunk lines. Third, he said that the city needed a mechanism for cost sharing with
developers for the installation of storm water collection stations. Mr. Gunning reported that the
Planning Commission held their public hearing on July 16 and unanimously recommended the
amendments.
City Engineer Angel Escobar provided the specifics of the proposed ordinance. He said that
the original ordinance, established in 1939, has been amended 74 times to date. He stated that the
amendments were designed to streamline the reimbursement process and procedures. He noted that
the amendments will also allow the Council to approve the request prior to construction. Mr.
Escobar said that authorized reimbursements would include gravity trunk mains, sanitary sewer
force trunk mains and lift stations. He noted that infrastructure improvements must be based on an
approved Master Plan. In the event that a Master Plan amendment was required, Mr. Escobar said
that the developer to be responsible for preparing the amendment to the Master Plan before Council
approval of construction. He also said that the amendments will rename the trust fund from the
Sanitary Sewer Trunk Line Trust Fund to the Sanitary Sewer Trunk System Trust Fund. Mr.
Escobar stated that the order of reimbursements will be based on the order in which the City Council
approved the contract. He noted that the amendments also established the Storm Water Collection
Sewer Trust to allow for reimbursement for storm water collection sewers. Finally, Mr. Escobar
reported that the city was developing three contract options for developers to choose from for the
infrastructure construction and reimbursement procedures.
Mayor Neal asked for public comment on this item. Mr. Larry Urban with Urban
Engineering, spoke in support of the amendments to the Platting Ordinance. He said that he had
worked with Development Services staff on developing this new process.
A motion was made, seconded and passed to close the public hearing. Mayor Neal asked
for council comments. Council Member Kelly asked if the projects eligible for the reimbursements
Minutes - Regular Council Meeting
July 22, 2003 - Page 26
were on an approved list. Mr. Escobar replied that the list in the council packet could bear no
relationship to the projects that are completed, but rather were staffs best guess regarding the land
that was undeveloped at this time that would require wastewater service.
City Secretary Chapa polled the Council for their votes, and the following ordinance passed
on its first reading with the following vote: Neal, Chesney, Colmenero, Garrett, Kelly Noyola and
Scott, voting "Aye"; Cooper was absent.
29b. FIRST READING ORDINANCE
Amending the Platting Ordinance by renaming the Sanitary Sewer Trunk Line Trust Fund
to the Sanitary Sewer Trunk System Trust Fund and authorizing the use of the Sanitary
Sewer Trunk System Trust Fund for the installation of trunk force mains and lift stations by
adding the Storm Water Collection Sewer Trust Fund and by revising the procedures for
obtaining reimbursements to developers from all of the Infrastructure Trust Funds and
providing for an effective date.
* * * * * * * * * * * * *
Mayor Neal deviated from the agenda and opened discussion on Item 40 regarding the
adoption of the budget for FY 2003-04. City Secretary Chapa noted that Council Member Noyola
was abstaining from the discussion and vote on any airport -related items contained in this item. City
Manager Noe noted that Item 42 was related to the various proposed fee adjustments and Item 43
was related to the proposed ad valorem tax rate. Mr. Mark McDaniel, Executive Director of Support
Services, reviewed the proposed amendments to the budget. First, he noted that the Amendment #1
reflected the recommendation of the Audit Committee to increase ad valorem taxes by the additional
revenues generated from the projected 4.7 percent growth as submitted by the Nueces County
Appraisal District on June 13, 2003. He said that Amendment #1 also adjusted the sales and use tax
revenue down by the amount of the ad valorem tax increase, less $100,000 which was added to the
General Fund to provide operations performance reviews.
Since that time, Mr. McDaniel reported that the Appraisal District had issued the certified
roll and values were now at 6.19 percent, generating an additional $653,972 in revenue. He said that
staff was suggesting a second amendment to adjust for the additional ad valorem tax revenue, offset
by an additional decrease in sales and use tax estimates to reflect no growth as compared to FY
2002-03 year end estimates. He said that staff was also recommending a decrease in pipeline license
agreement and an increase in the General Fund reserve appropriation. Mr. McDaniel said that these
amendments would change the total proposed expenditures in the FY 2002-03 from $464,427,103
to $464,616,659 and the proposed revenues from $466,328,525 to $466,518,081. A motion was
made, seconded and passed to amend the ordinance to include the revised numbers including the
certified roll.
Council Member Kinnison noted that the Council has not acted on Item 42 regarding the
proposed fee/rate increase adjustments, and that changes to this item would affect Item 40. Mayor
Neal answered that Item 40 could be amended again if needed.
Mayor Neal asked for public comment. Mr. J.E. O'Brien, 4130 Pompano, spoke against
Minutes - Regular Council Meeting
July 22, 2003 - Page 27
passing the budget on an emergency reading and also spoke against the proposed fee increases. Mr.
Danny Noyola, representing the Corpus Christi Barrios Association, spoke regarding securing more
funding for neighborhood services and quality of life issues, and asked for a second reading on the
budget to allow for more time for discussion.
City Secretary Chapa polled the Council for their votes, and the following ordinance passed
as amended with the following vote: Neal, Chesney, Colmenero, Garrett, Kelly, Kinnison, Noyola
and Scott, voting "Aye"; Cooper was absent. (NOTE: Noyola abstained on any airport -related items
in this item).
40. ORDINANCE NO. 025394
Ordinance adopting the City of Corpus Christi Budget for the ensuing Fiscal Year beginning
August 1, 2003; to be filed with the County Clerk and appropriating monies as provided in
the budget.
Mayor Neal opened discussion on Item 41 regarding the changes to Chapter 39, Personnel
reflected in the proposed budget. There was no public comment and no Council comment. City
Secretary Chapa polled the Council for their votes, and the following budget passed with the
following vote: Neal, Chesney, Colmenero, Garrett, Kelly, Kinnison, Noyola and Scott, voting
"Aye"; Cooper was absent.
41. ORDINANCE NO. 025395
Ordinance amending the Code of Ordinances by revising Section 39 - 303, Standard
Classifications, Pay Plans, Pay Grades and Ranges, as amended; revising Section 39 - 304,
Classified Service defined, as amended; revising Section 39 -349, Plan II, Personal Leave
for Plan II employees, as amended; revising Section 39 - 318, Discretionary Payment of
Involuntary Termination, as amended; repealing all other ordinances and rules or parts of
ordinances and rules in conflict with this ordinance.
Mayor Neal opened discussion on Item 42 regarding the proposed fee/rate increase
adjustments included in the proposed FY 2003-2004 budget. Mr. McDaniel explained that Items
42a -I were fees that supported the budget document. He noted that each of the fees were discussed
as the Council reviewed each of the funds. Mr. McDaniel stated that staff was withdrawing Item
42k regarding building construction fees, rescheduling it for consideration on August 19 with the
rest of the development services -related fees. Council Member Chesney asked if any changes to
these items would affect the budget. Mr. McDaniel answered affirmatively. Acting City Attorney
Reining noted that there was a substitute ordinance for Item 42h regarding the solid waste system
service charge, adding a Section (e).
Mayor Neal asked for public comment on each of these items. City Secretary Chapa noted
that Council Member Noyola was abstaining from the discussion and vote on Item 42f regarding
airport parking rates. Mayor Neal commented that Mr. John Bell had commented on Item 42g
regarding the solid waste system service charge (SWSSC), and asked staff if they would like to
comment. Mr. McDaniel answered that it appeared that there was a misunderstanding. He said that
staff was increasing the SWSSC across the board at the same rate. He explained that this was the
Minutes - Regular Council Meeting
July 22, 2003 - Page 28
add-on cost that staff put in the budget last year for any waste that was collected inside the city
limits, whether the waste was taken to the city's landfill or another landfill. He said that it was the
same basic charge, whether the customer had a put -or -pay contract or if the customer was paying
at the gate. He did say that customers with a put -or -pay contract were given a better price because
they had guaranteed the city a certain volume of waste through their contracts. Several council
members commented that the 30 percent increase was substantial. Mayor Neal asked why the
increase was necessary. Mr. McDaniel answered that the increase would generate $600,000, which
would be used for funding four new code enforcement officers and the Neighborhood Improvement
Program.
Mr. John Torrey with Captain Hook Dumpsters asked if staff had a detailed plan showing
exactly how the monies would be used. City Manager Noe answered that he and Mr. McDaniel
would go over the information with him if he would like to set up an appointment.
Mayor Neal opened discussion on Item 42h regarding the solid waste hauler annual permit
fee. Mayor Neal asked Mr. Jeff Kaplan, Director of Solid Waste Services, to comment on a number
of letters that the Council had received regarding the lack of enforcement of commercial haulers
without proper permitting. Mr. Kaplan replied that Item 42h was specifically designed to provide
penalties and enforcement capabilities for the solid waste staff to penalize commercial haulers
caught without permits.
Mayor Neal asked for public comment. Mr. John Torrey said that he had sent a letter to the
Mayor, Council and City Manager regarding the difference between self -haulers and haulers -for -
hire, saying that there was no difference between the two except that the haulers -for -hire were
required to pay more insurance. City Manager Noe commented that Item 42h addressed many of
the concerns that Mr. Torrey had raised, but said that they did not agree on every issue. Mr. Kaplan
explained that the self -hauler was categorized as an individual who hauls trash maybe twice a year
but doesn't do it for profit. In response to Mayor Neal's question, Mr. Kaplan said that individuals
caught abusing the self -hauler category were asked to obtain a proper permit or stop hauling.
Council Member Chesney made a motion to amend Item 42h with a substitute ordinance with
a new Section (e) and Council Member Noyola seconded the motion. The motion passed
unanimously. City Secretary Chapa polled the Council for their votes, and the following ordinances
passed with the following vote: Neal, Chesney, Colmenero, Garrett, Kelly, Kinnison, Noyola and
Scott, voting "Aye"; Cooper was absent. (NOTE: Noyola abstained on Item 42f)
42.a. ORDINANCE NO. 025396
Ordinance amending the Code of Ordinances, City of Corpus Christi, Chapter 55, Utilities,
regarding water, gas and wastewater rates and providing an effective date of August 1,
2003.
42.b. ORDINANCE NO. 025397
Ordinance amending the Code of Ordinances, City of Corpus Christi, to establish Section
55-7 to adopt a monthly fifty cent local exchange access line service fee to provide for the
purchase, installation and maintenance expenses, including personnel, of 9-1-1 service in
Minutes - Regular Council Meeting
July 22, 2003 - Page 29
the City of Corpus Christi, Texas; repealing Ordinance No. 024971 which established a
monthly forty cent fee and providing for an effective date of August 1, 2003.
42.c. ORDINANCE NO. 025398
Ordinance amending the Code of Ordinances, City of Corpus Christi to increase and
establish the Health Department fees as follows: Food Handler and Food Manager's Permit
from $6 to $7; Day Care Facility Inspection from $35 to $50; Sexually Transmitted Disease
Clinic visit from $5 to $15; Sexually Transmitted Disease Clinic blood test from $5 to $10;
Food Service Permit Reinspection, Fee of $50; Foster Family Home Inspection, Fee of $50;
Birth Certificate Cover, Fee of $1; Letter of Verification for Cosmetology License
Applicants, Fee of$50; amending Section 23-19 regarding fees for Water Sample Lab Tests;
and providing for an effective date of August 1, 2003.
42.d. RESOLUTION NO. 025399
Resolution authorizing fees for laboratory testing of water samples for FY 2003 - 2004 and
providing for an effective date of August 1, 2003.
42.e. ORDINANCE NO. 025400
Ordinance amending the Code of Ordinances, City of Corpus Christi, Section 53-257,
Parking Meter Zones: established by amending certain parking meter zone rates; providing
for penalties; and providing for an effective date of August 1, 2003.
42.f. ORDINANCE NO. 025401
Ordinance amending the Code of Ordinances, City of Corpus Christi, Section 9-35.1,
Parking Rates, to increase long-term (hourly) parking rates and adding covered parking rates
at the Corpus Christi International Airport; providing for repeal of conflicting ordinances;
providing for penalties; and providing for an effective date of August 1, 2003.
42.g. ORDINANCE NO. 025402
Ordinance amending the Code of Ordinances, City of Corpus Christi, Chapter 21, Garbage
Trash and other refuse to increase the solid waste system service charges; providing for
penalties; and providing for an effective date of August 1, 2003.
42.h. ORDINANCE NO. 025403
Ordinance amending the Code of Ordinances, City of Corpus Christi, Chapter 21, Garbage,
Trash and other Refuse to increase, in certain instances, the solid waste hauler annual permit
fee; providing for penalties; and providing for an effective date of August 1, 2003. (As
amended)
42.i. ORDINANCE NO. 025404
Minutes - Regular Council Meeting
July 22, 2003 - Page 30
Ordinance amending the Code of Ordinances, City of Corpus Christi, Chapter 49, Streets and
Sidewalks; to increase fees to close and abandon street or easement and providing for an
effective date of August 1, 2003.
42.j. ORDINANCE NO. 025405
Ordinance amending the Code of Ordinances, City of Corpus Christi, Chapter 13, Buildings;
Construction; and Related Operations; housing and housing premises standards; to add a new
flood determination letter fee and providing for an effective date of August 1, 2003.
42.k. In cca,ncnan,g
c of vwinaucc:a, Lily OI l.OipuS ui r sLy l.liaytcr 1.), Uu.ldnig�,
cuvn auu nolatcd Opc ativ, hOuSulg and houmu6 p Stdndai tl3, tv c.sta13 I
cw l.,C� Oi n1CiCdac t�clinical COfbtructiOil Cv -
. WITHDRAWN
42.1. RESOLUTION NO. 025406
SC al
.lupiov.a.ngIv!ancII tw
Resolution authorizing Park, Recreation, Cultural and Leisure Time Activities rental fee and
recreational fee adjustments; adding new rental fees and recreational fees for FY 2003 - 2004
and providing for an effective date of August 1, 2003.
Council Member Kinnison asked what the monetary effect would be of withdrawing Item
42k. Mr. McDaniel stated that if this item was delayed until August 19, there will be a half month
of lost revenues, but staff believed that they could adjust for this amount.
Mayor Neal opened the discussion on Item 43 regarding the adoption of the ad valorem tax
rate. Mr. McDaniel referred to a document submitting the 2003 certified roll from the Nueces
County Appraisal District. He said there were two parts to this item, the first setting the date of
adoption of the ad valorem tax rate of $0.644175 as August 26, 2003 and the second setting the
public hearing for the ad valorem tax rate as August 19, 2003. Mayor Neal asked staff to provide
information on the status of a roll -back before August 19.
Mayor Neal noted that the city does, through homestead exemptions and over -65 tax
exemptions, try to make a substantial difference in the rates their citizens pay. Mr. McDaniel added
that there was an item on the November ballot that the Texas Legislature has introduced to freeze
a individual's values if they are over 65 years of age. He said that this could impact the city's tax
roll to the tune of $350,000. Council Member Kinnison noted that the City of Corpus Christi offered
an unusually large over -65 exemption of $50,000.
City Secretary Chapa polled the Council for their votes, and the following motion passed
with the following vote: Neal, Chesney, Colmenero, Garrett, Kelly, Kinnison, Noyola and Scott,
voting "Aye"; Cooper was absent.
43.a. MOTION NO. 2003-267
Minutes - Regular Council Meeting
July 22, 2003 - Page 31
Motion setting August 26, 2003 as the date of the adoption of the ad valorem tax rate of
$0.644175 per $100 valuation.
City Secretary Chapa polled the Council for their votes, and the following motion passed
with the following vote: Neal, Chesney, Colmenero, Garrett, Kelly, Kinnison, Noyola and Scott,
voting "Aye"; Cooper was absent.
43.b. MOTION NO. 2003-268
Motion setting a public hearing on the ad valorem tax rate for August 19, 2003 during the
regular City Council meeting beginning at 2:00 p.m. at City Hall, 1201 Leopard Street,
Corpus Christi, Texas.
Mayor Neal thanked the Audit Committee and staff for their efforts on the budget this year.
He commented that the budget process was probably going to be easier than in future years. He said
this was the best budget cycle that he can remember. He challenged staff to look at the budget
carefully over the long-term to plan for the future now. City Manager Noe complimented the
Council for their foresight in planning for the future, and he thanked staff for their work as well,
especially Mark McDaniel and the budget staff.
* * * * * * * * * * * * *
Mayor Neal called for the City Manager's report. City Manager Noe reported that the
groundbreaking ceremony for the Packery Channel Project was set for August 19 at 11:00 a.m. He
noted that the Large Cities Conference will be hosted in Corpus Christi from Jan. 8 -10, 2004. He
stated that there would be a joint meeting between the Council and the Port Commission on August
26. He said that Mr. Tom Utter had asked him to distribute a copy of dialogue that had taken place
on the Senate Floor regarding H.B. 16 relating to election dates. Assistant City Manager Ron
Massey spoke regarding the aftereffects of Hurricane Claudette in terms of flooding. He said that
there were concerns in the community about flooding after the hurricane, but he said that the
reservoirs were receding or below flood stage. He said that Bluntzer was the only location above
flood stage, but the flooding was moderate. City Manager Noe reported that Mr. Juan Ortiz, the
Emergency Management Coordinator, had submitted his resignation and has accepted a job in Forth
Worth, TX. Mayor Neal asked City Manager Noe to look into combining the EOC Director and the
Homeland Security position to best prepare the city. Mr. Noe said that the city was already looking
into grants.
Mayor Neal called for Council concerns and reports. Council Member Garrett complimented
City Manager Noe and the budget staff for the smooth budget process. Council Member Garrett
asked City Manager Noe to look into emergency funding for the Manshiem area. City Manager Noe
replied that the Council has agreed to increase the amount of funding for storm drainage by $10
million. He suggested that the Council could decide to use these dollars to address the problem in
the Manshiem area.
Council Member Chesney asked for an update on an incident that had taken place at the
airport regarding shuttle service. Mr. David Hamrick, Director of Aviation, said that he had
received a complaint from Ms. Horner about a shuttle driver who quoted an overcharge to a
Minutes - Regular Council Meeting
July 22, 2003 - Page 32
potential customer. Mr. Hamrick said that he requested an audit of his transactions, and he was late
in providing the information. Mr. Hamrick said that the driver's contract was terminated. Council
Member Chesney announced that the next town hall meeting on August 4 at Hilltop Community
Center. He said the meeting would be hosted by Council Members Garrett, Cooper, Kelly and
himself. Council Member Chesney asked City Manager Noe to provide a response on the incident
regarding the theft of police insurance papers, specifically asking if a protocol was going to be put
into place. City Manager Noe replied that he had previously provided a response detailing efforts
to secure personal employee information, but said was not going to take any further action on
establishing a protocol. Council Member Chesney replied that he did not like this response and
would speak to Mayor Neal about the matter. Council Member Chesney complimented Mr.
McDaniel and his staff for the smooth budget process. He said that the Audit Committee would
keep up their efforts to assist in the budget process. Council Member Chesney complimented Mr.
Juan Ortiz and the EOC for their efforts, as well as City Manager Noe and Ms. Cheryl Soward,
Public Information Officer. Council Member Chesney asked that the Sunnybrook/Manshiem area
be included on the priority list for storm drain projects.
Council Member Noyola commented that his constituents had concerns about all the rate
increases included in the budget, but he explained that the fee increases would be used to make some
badly needed repairs. He complimented Mr. Juan Ortiz and Ms. Cheryl Soward for their efforts
during Hurricane Claudette. He also thanked the County Commissioners for their efforts. He also
wanted to recognize those restaurants that donated beverages and food to the workers at the EOC,
namely Portis Country Kitchen and Jason's Deli among others. Finally, he asked staff to look into
a letter from a constituent regarding a house on MacArthur Street having a problem with bees.
Council Member Kelly also spoke in support of assisting the Sunnybrook/Manshiem area.
He congratulated Mr. Juan Ortiz on his new position. He thanked Mr. McDaniel and his staff for
the smooth budget process. He also asked staff to look into a constituent concern from Mr. Floyd.
Council Member Colmenero spoke in support of the pilot program for the Neighborhood
Improvement Project, saying that the follow-up meeting at Greenwood Senior Center was very
successful. He looked forward to the presentation on this program, taking place on August 19. He
also asked to speak with staff about the situation with the Southside Pony League. He congratulated
Mr. Ortiz for his new position, and thanked him for his work during Hurricane Claudette. He also
thanked Mr. McDaniel and staff for their efforts during this budget cycle.
Council Member Scott congratulated Mayor Neal, City Manager Noe and Mr. Ortiz for their
efforts during Hurricane Claudette. Council Member Scott asked for more information on the street
assessment item he had requested earlier. He asked for information on a temporary partition in the
airport terminal building. City Manager Noe said that staff had reinforced the partition because of
Hurricane Claudette. Council Member Scott said it was quite rewarding that the Packery Channel
project was finally set for a groundbreaking ceremony.
Council Member Kinnison congratulated Mr. Ortiz, City Manager Noe and staff for their
efforts during Hurricane Claudette. He also thanked Mr. McDaniel and staff for their work on the
budget. He also asked staff to work on mowing overgrown grass throughout the city. Council
Member Noyola added that high weeds and grass were especially bad around Airport Road and
Brownsville Road near Del Mar College.
Minutes - Regular Council Meeting
July 22, 2003 - Page 33
There being no further business to come before the Council, Mayor Neal adjoumed the
Council meeting at 8:02 p.m. on July 22, 2003.
* * * * * * * * * * * * *
ATTACHMENT A
MR. MAYOR: CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS: AND GENERAL AUDIENCE:
My name is Yolanda Trevino, 917 Lolita St., Corpus Christi, Tx. 78416
I have been procrastinating this matter and trying to get here for five years,
so please bear with me and allow me the time needed to complete my presentation.
I worked for the Nueces County Appraisal District as an appraiser for ten years
and a clerk for 6 years. So I do have hands-on experience and knowledge about
the information that I am going to present.
Each year I see you all grappling with the budget process and trying to fit that
budget within the boundaries of the tax base submitted by the NCAD. Yet, each
year there is always the possibility of having to raise the tax rate to fit those
needs.
As you all should know, the NCAD is the entity that provides the appraisal and
assessment of all taxable property in Nueces County. They then submit their values
to each taxing agency for certification and collection. It is my opinion, and has
always been, that the values being submitted by the NCAD are incomplete, unequal
and insufficient..
As you should also know, the City of Corpus Christi is the major contributor to
the fund that budgets the NCAD. Thus, the City has more to lose or gain from this
information and the course of action.
I urge that all of you, as representatives of the City of Corpus Christi, and the
general public, take on more of a "watchdog attitude" with the values being submit-
-ted and to question the reasons why some businesses are not on the tax roll.
As examples for the basis of my opinion, I have submitted a list of some areas,
where I know from experience, there is no assessment or taxation or very poor
assessments. I have provided a list for each one of you for review at your con-
-venience.
I would also add that the NCAD records are on-line. There is a lot of information
available to the general public and a way to check or verify information. Their
website address is: www.nuecescad.net and their phone number is 881-9978.
There needs to be decisive action taken on this matter as soon as possible, due
to the loss/gain of the revenue involved.
The NCAD will likely state that it is too late for assessments for this year.
But, to my current knowledge,they can still appraise and assess property. They
would just have to schedule additional Appraisal Review Board meetings on a
"Supplemental Roll" Plus, in some cases, they can even "back -assess" some accounts.
This is a process that would take the assessed values "back" for some years. They
"capture" that lost value and the taxing entity regains lost revenue.
Consequently,I would ask that all of you bear in mind, that the fact that some
businesses are not on the tax roll puts the burden/share of the taxes on the
businesses that are. It would also force the increase in the tax rate.
I want to thank you all for your time; for the opportunity to vent; and for
allowing me to lift this great weight off my already over -burdened shoulders.
Should any one of you have any questions, I'd be glad to try to answer them for you.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
NAS -CORPUS CHRISTI - to my knowledge, there is no property being taxed out at
the base. The State Property Tax Code states that "any and all property, being
used in the production of income, shall be taxed; unless it it exempted by the
statues". When in doubt, one needs to refer to the manual used by the State
Property Tax Board. The following is a list of probabilities that are not being
taxed and very well should be:
Lockheed -Martin - these are private contractors, who contract their services
and lease the simulation equipment used in the flight training program, to the
government. Plus any additional assets which they might own that are located on
the base. This value should well be a six -digit figure.
Citgo/Circle K - this gas station/convenience store is brand new, building,
equipment, machinery, fixtures, signage and inventory. This should also be a six -
digit value.
Franchises - McDonalds, other eating establishments, any and all small
franchises operating within the commisary or PX, bowling alley or any buildings
located on -base.
Contractors - any and all provate contractors that contract out to the gov-
-ernment, (i.e. fueling, maintenance, construction, mechanical) etc. All of their
assets are taxable and should all be on the tax roll.
Leasing companies - any and all leasing companies that lease office equip-
ment, machinery, vehicles etc. anywhere within the base. The leasing companies
should be considered taxable regardless of whether the equipment sits in the
base, at City Hall , federal offices or in the County Courthouse. The value still
has to be looked into.
CORPUS CHRISTI TRADE CENTER - 2833 SPID-indoor flea market, houses about 150 small
businesses; retail stores, jewelry stores, furniture stores, antique dealers,
bars with seating, fast food, toy stores, you name it, it's out there. On any given
weekend these stores seem to have as much or more inventory as any other store on
one of the main streets. Where is the equality here? This location just celebrated
it's 20th year out there and I would venture to guess that the only accounts shown
out there are the ones that I put on the tax roll, years ago. Again, where is the
fairness here?
OFFICE BUILDINGS - the businesses operating within the office buildings are not
visually inspected, as they should be. Values for some tenants are outdated and
might have been too low to begin with. The values being submitted by the companies,
most of the time, do not encompass all their assets, growth or expansions.
(example: one year I inspected a site where the assessed value of 5,000 had been
carried over for the previous 5 years. This business, a law firm, had seen a tre-
-mendous amount of growth. To the point of now occupying three entire floors; had
twenty attorneys on staff; 5 company vehicles; 3 law libraries; a computer on every
desk; a very sophisticated phone system and a large amount of leasehold improvements.
Needless to say, they were not happy with my appraisal figure. It is my opinion
that there are way too many accounts such as this one, that are getting overlooked
by the lack of on-site inspections and a tremendous amount of tax revenue lost.
CORPUS CHRISTI DIOCESE- for years and years and years any and all property that was
in this name was automatically set up as an exempt file. However, the State Property
Tax Code states that "church property" will be considered exempt only if the use
of the property can be tied to "church use". I know for a fact, that a lot of the
property was never looked into. There were lots, vacant lots, out on the island.
How would these be considered exempt?
CORPUS CHRISTI DIOCESE - continued
There is an exemption process, and it should apply to everyone. This was also
the procedure used for Spohn Hospital at that time,every piece of property was
just exempted automatically. No questions asked,no investigation.
CHRISTUS-SPOHN - for years and years, whereby all of the other hospitals were
being taxed out of business, Spohn Hospital was not even on the tax rolls. WHY?
Even now, I would venture to say that their existing values are way under market
or not even on the roll. Plus, there is also the values for all the leased
equipment, machinery , vehicles, etc that are within their properties. We are
well into the six -digit figures here. Their non-payment of taxes for all those
years may account for the reason, why, they are the only hospital now operating
at that scale in Corpus Christi.
AUTOMOBILE TAXATION - The State Property Tax Code states that "any vehicle
being used in the production shall be taxed" even if it is a personal vehicle.
It boggles the mind to see how many doctors, sales reps, lawyers, engineers,
real estate agents, service providers, welders, painters, mechanics, interior
designers and all other contractors should be on the tax roll in this case.
But I would venture to say that there are probably fewer than 25% on the tax roll.
HOME-BASED BUSINESSES - there is a large amount of value being lost in this category.
There is a growing trend of people being driven to operate their business out
of their homes, because of the skyrocketing rent in Corpus Christi.One only needs
to drive down city streets and see garages full of equipment, machinery, lumber,
inventory and even their company vehicles parked on the street. I am of the
opinion, that a lot of these businesses were at one time on main streets, but
were forced to relocate their businesses to their homes. However, the Appraisal
District probably just voided their accounts instead of tracing their movement.
This category has always been ignored by the appraisers and due to the lack of time.
But it is a growing trend and needs to be addressed.
REFINERY VALUES - my concern with these values is that the values assessed to the
refineries may not be anywhere near the market values. In the past, these values
were being "settled out" with George Moff. The concern here should be that two
of the refineries employeed tax agents who represented their values and they just
happened to be ex-employees and very close, personal friends of George Moff.
This situation should merit an independent audit from an outside source to verify
if the values are fairly assessed.
EXEMPTIONS (OVER-65/HOMESTEAD EXEMPTIONS) - The over -65 exemption is an exemption
that was adopted to aid the elderly with their taxes. It exempts up to 50,000 off
the assessed value of the legal homestead. The regular homestead exemption exempts
5,000 of the value. My last job as a clerk with the district, I discovered some
abuse by taxpayers and neglect by district employees on the exemption files. I
found an over -65 taxpayer, who was claiming 3 exemptions on 3 different properties.
I found 3 to 4 taxpayers, who were getting this exemption, yet had been deceased
from 2 to 7 years! These are only the accounts, that I dealt with due to deed changes.
I would be interested to find out how much more abuse there is in addition to the
negligence on the part of the Appraisal District.