Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes City Council - 02/28/2006I 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 February 28, 2006, which were approved by the Cita Council on March 21, 2006. WITNESSETH MY HAND AND SEAL, on this the 21st day of March, 2006. Armando Chapa City Secretary SEAL PRESENT Mayor Henry Garrett Mayor Pro Tem Bill Kelly Council Members: Brent Chesney Melody Cooper Jerry Garcia Rex Kinnison John E. Marez Jesse Noyola Mark Scott CITY OF CORPUS CHRISTI, TEXAS Regular Meeting February 28, 2006 —10:00 a.m. City Staff: City Manager George K. Noe City Attorney Mary Kay Fischer City Secretary Armando Chapa Mayor Garrett called the meeting to order in the Council Chambers of City Hall. The invocation was delivered by Pastor Mark Behrendt of the Galilean Lutheran Church and the Pledge of Allegiance to the United States flag was led by Council Member Marez. Mayor Garrett called for approval of the minutes of the regular Council meeting of February 21, 2006. A motion was made, seconded, and passed to approve the minutes as presented. * * * * * * * * * * * * * Mayor Garrett referred to Item 2 and the following board appointment was made: Corpus Christi Convention and Visitors Bureau Ed Persall (Appointed) * * * * * * * * * * * * * Mayor Garrett called for consideration of the consent agenda (Items 3 - 25). City Secretary Chapa announced that Mr. Noyola would be abstaining from the vote and discussion on Items 6 and 22. Council members requested that Items 10 and 11 be pulled for individual consideration. There were no comments from the public. A motion was made, seconded, and passed to approve Items 3 through 25, constituting the consent agenda, except for Items 10 and 11, which were pulled for individual consideration. City Secretary Chapa polled the Council for their votes as follows: Minutes — Regular Council Meeting February 28, 2006 — Page 2 MOTION NO. 2006-047 Motion approving the purchase of 38 police package sedans in accordance with Bid Invitation No. BI -0086-06 from Champion Ford, of Corpus Christi, Texas based on low bid for a total of $807,424. All units are replacements. Funding is available from the FY 2005-2006 Capital Outlay Budget in the Maintenance Services and Crime Control and Prevention Fund. The foregoing motion was passed and approved with the following vote: Garrett, Chesney, Cooper, Garcia, Kelly. Kinnison, Marez, Noyola, and Scott, voting "Aye". MOTION NO. 2006-048 Motion authorizing the City Manager or his designee to execute a contract with Cingular Wireless, of Atlanta, Georgia for cellular telephone and data device services in accordance with Request for Proposal Number BI -0159-05 for an estimated annual expenditure of $371,401.80 of which $154,750.75 is budgeted for FY 2005-2006. The term of the contract will be for twelve months with an option to extend for up to two additional twelve-month periods subject to the approval of the supplier and the City Manager or his designee. This service will be used by all City departments requiring cellular and data device services. Funds have been budgeted by the using departments in FY 2005-2006 and will be requested for FY 2006-2007. The foregoing motion was passed and approved with the following vote: Garrett, Chesney, Cooper, Garcia, Kelly, Kinnison, Marez, Noyola, and Scott, voting "Aye". 5 MOTION NO. 2006-049 Motion approving a supply agreement with Apollo Towing, of Corpus Christi, Texas for wrecker service for category 1 and 2 type vehicles in accordance with Bid Invitation No. BI -0092-06 based on best value for an estimated annual expenditure of $61,897.50. The term of the contract will be for twelve months with an option to extend for up to two additional twelve-month periods subject to the approvai of the supplier and the City Manager or his designee. Funds have been budgeted by Maintenance Services and the Fire Department in FY 2005-2006. The foregoing motion was passed and approved with the following vote: Garrett, Chesney, Cooper, Garcia, Kelly, Kinnison, Marez, Noyola, and Scott, voting "Aye". Minutes — Regular Council Meeting February 28, 2006 — Page 3 6 MOTION NO. 2006-050 Motion approving the purchase of fourteen (14) pickup trucks and eight (8) vans and the lease purchase of four (4) pickup trucks from the following companies, for the following amounts, in accordance with Bid Invitation No. BI -0062-06, based on low bid and low bid meeting specifications for a total amount of $506,288.61. The vehicles will be purchased for Aviation, General Services, Municipal Information Systems (MIS), Police, Storm Water, Water and the Wastewater Departments. Twenty-five of the vehicles are replacements and one vehicle is an addition to the fleet. Funding for the purchase of vehicles is available in the Capital Outlay Budgets of the Aviation Fund, Municipal Information Systems (MIS) Fund and Maintenance Services Fund. Funds for the lease purchase of vehicles are available in the Water Fund, Access Ford, LTD Corpus Christi, TX Bid Items 2, 3, 4, 9 10. 12, 13. 14, 15, 16, 17 $307,640 Champion Ford Corpus Christi, TX Bid Items 1, 5, 6, 7, 11, 18 $178,942 Grand Total: $506,288.61 Allen Samuels Chevrolet Corpus Christi, TX Bid Items 8 $19,706.61 The foregoing motion was passed and approved with the following vote: Garrett, Chesney, Cooper. Garcia, Kelly, Kinnison, Marez, and Scott, voting "Aye"; Noyola abstained. MOTION NO. 2006-051 Motion approving the purchase of two (2) diesel powered water pumps from Godwin Pumps of America, Inc., of Bridgeport, New Jersey in accordance with Bid Invitation No. BI -0099-06, based on low bid for a total amount of $60,930. The pumps will be used by the Wastewater Department. Funds have been budgeted by the Wastewater Department in FY 2005-2006. The foregoing motion was passed and approved with the following vote: Garrett, Chesney. Cooper, Garcia, Kelly, Kinnison, Marez, Noyola, and Scott, voting "Aye". 8.a RESOLUTION NO. 026653 Resolution authorizing the City Manager or his designee to execute an Interlocal Agreement between the City of Corpus Christi and Nueces County to establish terms for the sharing of the 2006 Byrne Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) Program Award. The foregoing resolution was passed and approved with the following vote: Garrett, Chesney, Cooper, Garcia, Kelly, Kinnison, Marez, Noyola, and Scott, voting "Aye". Minutes — Regular Council Meeting February 28, 2006 — Page 4 8.b. RESOLUTION NO. 026654 Resolution authorizing the City Manager or his designee to submit a grant application in the amount of $159,671 to the United States Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Assistance, for funding eligible under the FY 2006 Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant, 50% of the funds to be distributed to Nueces County under the established Interlocal Agreement. Grant funds will be used for the enhancement of law enforcement efforts by the Police Department and Nueces County. The foregoing resolution was passed and approved with the following vote: Garrett, Chesney, Cooper, Garcia, Kelly, Kinnison, Marez, Noyola, and Scott, voting "Aye". RESOLUTION NO. 026655 Resolution authorizing the submission of a grant application in the amount of $50,000 to the State of Texas, Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission, for the funding of overtime to enforce underage drinking laws, to prevent youth access to and illegal use of alcohol, and provide for an educational program with a City cash match of $14,500, and an in- kind contribution of $2,300, for a total project cost of $66,800, and authorizing the City Manager or his designee to apply for, accept, reject, alter or terminate the grant. The foregoing resolution was passed and approved with the following vote: Garrett, Chesney, Cooper, Garcia, Kelly, Kinnison, Marez, Noyola, and Scott, voting "Aye". 12. MOTION NO. 2006-054 Motion authorizing the City Manager or his designee to execute an agreement with the law firm Linebarger, Goggan, Blair & Sampson, LLP, to collect outstanding court fines and fees on behalf of the City. The foregoing motion was passed and approved with the following vote: Garrett, Chesney. Cooper, Garcia, Kelly, Kinnison, Marez, Noyola, and Scott, voting "Aye". 13.a. MOTION NO. 2006-055 Motion authorizing the City Manager or his designee to approve a Renewal for Standard Maintenance with Oracle Corporation, of Redwood Shores, California in the amount of $301,401.60 for twelve (12) months PeopleSoft software maintenance and support for Asset Management, Accounts Payable, Benefits Admin, Budgeting, General Ledger, Human Resources, Inventory, Projects, Purchasing, Payroll, Time and Labor Public Sector software based on sole source. The foregoing motion was passed and approved with the following vote: Garrett, Chesney, Cooper, Garcia, Kelly, Kinnison, Marez, Noyola, and Scott, voting "Aye". Minutes — Regular Council Meeting February 28, 2006 — Page 5 13.b. MOTION NO. 2006-056 Motion authorizing the City Manager or his designee to approve a Renewal for Standard Maintenance with Oracle Corporation, of Redwood Shores, California in the amount of $38,740 for twelve (12) months PeopleSoft software maintenance and support for eDevelopment, eCompensation, eBenefits, eProfile, eRecruit, and ePay software based on sole source. The foregoing motion was passed and approved with the following vote: Garrett, Chesney, Cooper, Garcia, Kelly, Kinnison, Marez, Noyola, and Scott, voting "Aye". 13.c. MOTION NO. 2006-057 Motion authorizing the City Manager or his designee to approve a Renewal for Standard Maintenance with Oracle Corporation, of Redwood Shores, California in the amount of $27,352.05 for twelve (12) months Oracle software maintenance and support for eProfile Manager Desktop, eCompensation Manager Desktop, Resume Processing, and Talent Acquisition Manager software based on sole source. The foregoing motion was passed and approved with the following vote: Garrett, Chesney, Cooper, Garcia, Kelly, Kinnison, Marez, Noyola, and Scott, voting "Aye". 14. MOTION NO. 2006-058 Motion authorizing the City Manager or his designee to procure 400 licenses and professional services from Kronos, Inc., of Chelmsford, Maryland in an amount not to exceed $40,875 to be used by the Fire Department. Kronos is the standard time keeping system utilized by the City. The foregoing motion was passed and approved with the following vote: Garrett, Chesney, Cooper, Garcia, Kelly, Kinnison, Marez, Noyola, and Scott, voting "Aye". 15. MOTION NO. 2006-059 Motion authorizing the City Manager or his designee to procure twenty software licenses and portable printers from Advanced Public Safety (APS), of Deerfield Beach, Florida in an amount not to exceed $76,518. The PocketCitation application will enable police officers to issue tickets electronically in the field. The foregoing motion was passed and approved with the following vote: Garrett, Chesney, Cooper, Garcia, Kelly, Kinnison, Marez, Noyola, and Scott, voting "Aye". 16. MOTION NO. 2006-060 Motion authorizing the City Manager or his designee to execute a Contract for Professional Services with RVE, Inc., of Corpus Christi, Texas in the amount of $142,606 for Homeland Security Improvements at Wastewater Treatment Plants and Wastewater Equipment Yard. The foregoing motion was passed and approved with the following vote: Garrett, Chesney, Cooper, Garcia, Kelly, Kinnison, Marez, Noyola, and Scott, voting "Aye". Minutes — Regular Council Meeting February 28, 2006 — Page 6 17.a. ORDINANCE NO. 026657 Ordinance appropriating $944,839 from the unappropriated interest earnings from Wastewater 1995A Capital Improvement Program Fund 4242; for the City -Wide Infiltration Related Collection System Enhancement Program; amending Capital Budget adopted by Ordinance No. 026188 by increasing appropriations by $944,839. An emergency was declared, and the foregoing ordinance was passed and approved with the following vote: Garrett, Chesney, Cooper, Garcia, Kelly, Kinnison, Marez, Noyola, and Scott, voting "Aye". 17.b. MOTION NO. 2006-061 Motion authorizing the City Manager or his designee to execute Amendment No. 1 to the Contract for Professional Services with Brown and Caldwell, of Austin, Texas in the amount of $944,839, for a total re -stated fee of $969,789, for City -Wide Infiltration Related Collection System Enhancement Program. The foregoing motion was passed and approved with the following vote: Garrett, Chesney, Cooper, Garcia, Kelly, Kinnison, Marez, Noyola, and Scott, voting "Aye". 18. MOTION NO. 2006-062 Motion authorizing the City Manager or his designee to execute Amendment No. 4 to a contract with Freese & Nichols, Inc., of Fort Worth, Texas in the amount of $65,000 for engineering services for the fifth year of a Five Year Inspection and Monitoring Program at Wesley Seale Dam. The foregoing motion was passed and approved with the following vote: Garrett, Chesney, Cooper, Garcia, Kelly, Kinnison, Marez, Noyola, and Scott, voting "Aye". 19. MOTION NO. 2006-063 Motion authorizing the City Manager or his designee to execute a Right -of -Way Easement containing 1.089 acres and a Utility Easement containing .294 acres, both located at the southeast corner of the Yorktown Boulevard and Cimarron Boulevard intersection, from the owners Robert J. Gonzalez and wife, Carrie L. Gonzalez, in the total amount of $182,200, both necessary for the Cimarron Boulevard Street Improvement Project (#6262), Phase 2, Bond 2004 and for other municipal purposes. The foregoing motion was passed and approved with the following vote: Garrett, Chesney. Cooper, Garcia, Kelly, Kinnison, Marez, Noyola, and Scott, voting "Aye". Minutes — Regular Council Meeting February 28, 2006 — Page 7 20. MOTION NO. 2006-064 Motion authorizing the City Manager to execute a Deferment Agreement with Kelly Pharr Investors, LTD, (Developer), in the amount of $98,100.20 for the installation of water, wastewater, and storm sewer public improvements to serve Brookhaven Subdivision Block 8, Lots 2 and 3, located east of U. S. Highway No. 77 and south of Brookhaven Drive, in accordance with the Platting Ordinance Section V -Required Improvements, Subsection A.3 (b). The foregoing motion was passed and approved with the following vote: Garrett, Chesney, Cooper, Garcia, Kelly, Kinnison, Marez, Noyola, and Scott, voting "Aye". 21 ORDINANCE NO. 026658 Ordinance authorizing the resale of ten (10) properties which were foreclosed upon for failure to pay ad valorem taxes, for $51,800 of which the City shall receive $6,103.30, plus $12,517 13 for partial payment of City paving and demolition liens. An emergency was declared, and the foregoing ordinance was passed and approved with the following vote: Garrett, Chesney, Cooper, Garcia, Kelly, Kinnison, Marez, Noyola, and Scott, voting "Aye". 22. ORDINANCE NO. 026659 Authorizing the City Manager or his designee to execute Lease No. DTFASW-06-L- 00118 with the Federal Aviation Administration for 2.8747 acres of land located at the Corpus Christi International Airport, for a term ending on September 30, 2025, for the construction and operation of a Digital Airport Surveillance Radar (DSAR-11) site. (First Reading 01/31/06) The foregoing ordinance was passed and approved on its second reading with the following vote: Garrett; Chesney, Cooper, Garcia, Kelly, Kinnison, Marez, and Scott, voting "Aye"; Noyola abstained. 23. ORDINANCE NO. 026660 Amending Chapter 2, Administration, Code of Ordinances, City of Corpus Christi, to disestablish the Storm Water Management Advisory Committee. (First Reading 02/21/06) The foregoing ordinance was passed and approved on its second reading with the following vote: Garrett, Chesney, Cooper, Garcia, Kelly, Kinnison, Marez, Noyola, and Scott, voting "Aye" Minutes — Regular Council Meeting February 28, 2006 — Page 8 24.a. ORDINANCE NO. 026661 Abandoning and vacating a parcel of unimproved street right-of-way containing 4,169.05 -square feet out of Lot 1, Block 1, Airline Unit 4 Subdivision, located on the east corner of the Wooldridge Road and Airline Road intersection, in connection with the Wooldridge Road Street Improvement Project, Phase 2 - Airline to Rodd Field, Project 6266 (Bond 2004). (First Reading 02/21/06) The foregoing ordinance was passed and approved on its second reading with the following vote: Garrett, Chesney, Cooper, Garcia, Kelly, Kinnison, Marez, Noyola, and Scott, voting "Aye" 24.b. ORDINANCE NO. 026662 Declaring as surplus property a parcel of land containing 4,169.05 -square feet out of Lot 1, Block 1, Airline Unit 4 Subdivision, located on the east corner of the Wooldridge Road and Airline Road intersection, in connection with the Wooldridge Road Street Improvement Project, Phase 2 - Airline to Rodd Field, Project 6266 (Bond 2004). (First Reading 02/21/06) The foregoing ordinance was passed and approved on its second reading with the following vote: Garrett, Chesney, Cooper, Garcia, Kelly, Kinnison, Marez, Noyola, and Scott, voting "Aye" 24.c ORDINANCE NO. 026663 Approving the conveyance of a parcel of surplus property containing 4,169.05 -square feet out of Lot 1, Block 1, Airline Unit 4 Subdivision, located on the east corner of the Wooldridge Road and Airline Road intersection to the adjacent property owner in exchange for his/her perpetual maintenance of the property and as consideration for partial payment towards an AEP electrical easement required for the street widening project, and authorizing the City Manager or his designee to execute Special Warranty Deeds for the property. (First Reading 02/21/06) The foregoing ordinance was passed and approved on its second reading with the following vote: Garrett, Chesney, Cooper, Garcia, KeIIy, Kinnison, Marez, Noyola, and Scott, voting "Aye" 25.a. ORDINANCE NO. 026664 Abandoning and vacating a parcel of unimproved street right-of-way containing 3,452.70 -square feet out of Lot 1, Block 3, Wooldridge Creek Unit 9 Subdivision, located on the northernmost corner of the Wooldridge Road and Airline Road intersection, in connection with the Wooldridge Road Street Improvement Project, Phase 1 - South Staples to Airline, Project 6267 (Bond 2004). (First Reading 02/21/06) The foregoing ordinance was passed and approved on its second reading with the following vote: Garrett, Chesney, Cooper, Garcia, KeIIy, Kinnison, Marez, Noyola, and Scott, voting "Aye" Minutes — Regular Council Meeting February 28, 2006 — Page 9 25.b. ORDINANCE NO. 026665 Declaring as surplus property a parcel of land containing 3,452.70 -square feet out of Lot 1, Block 3, Wooldridge Creek Unit 9 Subdivision, located on the northernmost corner of the Wooldridge Road and Airline Road intersection, in connection with the Wooldridge Road Street Improvement Project, Phase 1 - South Staples to Airline, Project 6267 (Bond 2004). (First Reading 02/21/06) The foregoing ordinance was passed and approved on its second reading with the following vote: Garrett, Chesney, Cooper, Garcia, Kelly, Kinnison, Marez, Noyola, and Scott, voting "Aye" 25.c. ORDINANCE NO. 026666 Approving the conveyance of a parcel of surplus property containing 3,452.70 square feet out of Lot 1 Block 3, Wooldridge Creek Unit 9 Subdivision, located on the northernmost corner of the Wooldridge Road and Airline Road intersection to the adjacent property owner in exchange for his/her perpetual maintenance of the property and as consideration for partial payment towards an AEP electrical easement required for the street widening project, and authorizing the City Manager or his designee to execute Special Warranty Deeds for the property. (First Reading 02/21/06) The foregoing ordinance was passed and approved on its second reading with the following vote: Garrett, Chesney, Cooper, Garcia, Kelly, Kinnison, Marez, Noyola, and Scott, voting "Aye" Mayor Garrett opened discussion on Item 10 regarding a grant from the Lichtenstein Foundation to establish a Spay and Neuter Clinic. Mr. Kinnison asked if staff had developed an expenditure budget. Assistant City Manager Margie Rose replied staff had submitted a budget to the foundation, which they approved. The City Manager would then review the budget and submit to the Council soon. Mr. Kinnison asked if staff planned to expand the animal care facility to accommodate the new clinic. City Manager Noe replied negatively, but noted that the facility would need to be remodeled and new equipment purchased. Mr. Kinnison asked if siaff had considered working cooperatively with local animal welfare organizations equipped with similar facilities to save costs. City Manager Noe and Assistant City Manager Rose replied staff could look into this over the next year. Mr. Kinnison stated that he would forward more information. City Secretary Chapa polled the Council for their votes as follows: 10. ORDINANCE NO. 026656 Ordinance appropriating a grant in the amount of $244,000 from the Morris L. Lichtenstein, Jr. Foundation in the No. 1066 Health Grants Fund to establish a Spay and Neuter Program. An emergency was declared, and the foregoing ordinance was passed and approved with the following vote: Garrett, Chesney, Cooper, Garcia, Kelly, Kinnison, Marez, Noyola, and Scott. voting "Aye". Mayor Garrett opened discussion on Item 11 regarding a Comprehensive Neighborhood Needs Assessment for the Model Block Program. In response to Mr. Noyola's question, Director of Neighborhood Services Yvonne Haag replied that staff was requesting the appropriation of CDBG funds to cover costs for a consulting contract. The consulting firm, J. Quad & Associates, would conduct a Comprehensive Neighborhood Needs Assessment to Minutes — Regular Council Meeting February 28, 2006 — Page 10 select a neighborhood for the Model Block Program. She said the assessment was being funded with a portion of FY 2004 CDBG funds allocated for a Re -Development Specialist position, which the city had been unable to fill. Mr. Noyola asked if staff ever planned to fill the position Assistant City Manager Margie Rose replied that the remaining portion of the funds would be allocated for a Project Manager position, similar to the Re -Development Specialist, to assist with the Model Block Program administration. City Secretary Chapa polled the Council for their votes as follows: 11.a. MOTION NO. 2006-052 Motion authorizing the City Manager or his designee to amend the scope of work from the FY04 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Re -Development Specialist project to fund professional services for a consultant to conduct a Comprehensive Neighborhood Needs Assessment for the Model Block Program. The foregoing motion was passed and approved with the following vote: Garrett, Chesney, Cooper, Garcia, Kelly, Kinnison, Marez, Noyola, and Scott, voting "Aye". 11.b MOTION NO. 2006-053 Motion authorizing the City Manager or his designee to execute a Contract for Professional Services with J. Quad & Associates, of Dallas, Texas for a fee not to exceed $28,050 for the preparation of a Comprehensive Neighborhood Needs Assessment for the Model Block Program for the City of Corpus Christi. The foregoing motion was passed and approved with the following vote: Garrett, Chesney, Cooper, Garcia, Kelly, Kinnison, Marez, Noyola, and Scott, voting "Aye". ************* Mayor Garrett referred to Item 26, and a motion was made, seconded, and passed to open the public hearing on the following zoning case: Case No. 0106-04, Harry Womble: A change of zoning from an "A-1" Apartment House District to an "AB" Professional Office District resulting in a change of land use from medium density residential to office space. The property is located at the South End West 2/3-Rds of W/2 of Lot 2Q, Block 2, located north of South Staples Street and South of South Tancahua Street. City Secretary Chapa stated that the Planning Commission and staff recommended the approval of an "AB" Professional Office District. No one spoke in opposition to the zoning change. Mr. Harry Womble spoke in favor of the zoning change. Ms. Cooper made a motion to close the public hearing, seconded by Mr. Scott, and passed. City Secretary Chapa polled the Council for their votes as follows: Minutes — Regular Council Meeting February 28, 2006 — Page 11 26. MOTION NO. 026667 Amending the Zoning Ordinance, upon application by Harry Womble, by changing the zoning map in reference to 0.330 acres out of the south end West 2/3 Rds of W/2 of Lot 2Q, Block 2, from "A-1" Apartment House District to "AB" Professional Office District; amending the Comprehensive Plan to account for any deviations from the existing Comprehensive Plan. The foregoing motion was passed and approved with the following vote: Garrett, Chesney, Cooper, Garcia, Kelly, Kinnison, Marez, Noyola, and Scott, voting "Aye". Mayor Garrett opened discussion on Item 27, and a motion was made, seconded, and passed to open the public hearing on the following zoning case: Case No. 0106-07, K C Corpus Partners, L.P.: A change of zoning from a "B -1A" Neighborhood Business District to a "B-1" Neighborhood Business District (provides for limited neighborhood uses) to a Neighborhood Business District (provides for expanded neighborhood uses). The property is at Northwest Estates Addition, Block 10, Lot 1, located at the northeast intersection of Northwest Boulevard and Pinnacle Drive. City Secretary Chapa stated the Planning Commission and staff recommended the approval of the "B-1" Neighborhood Business District along the front portion of the subject property and denial of the "B-1" Neighborhood Business District along the rear 50 feet of the subject property. Mayor Garrett asked for comments from the audience. Mr. Ivan Alvarez, a Northwest Estates resident, spoke in support of the Planning Commission and staff's recommendation to require "B -1A" Neighborhood Business District along the rear 50 feet of the subject property, serving as a buffer for the residential area. He said the neighborhood also opposed any 24- hour restaurant or gas station uses for the property. Mr Kelly stated the developer had agreed to the neighborhood's terms because of the low probability that a restaurant or filling station would be developed on the property. In addition, Mr. Kelly stated that the "B -1A" zoning would require landscaping at rear of the property, and the developer has agreed to use the same materials for the rear and front of the building. Mr Marvin Leary, representing Mr. Steven R. Troy, the property owner, stated that his client was selling the subject property to K.C. Corpus Partners L.P. contingent upon the zoning change. The developer. Ms. Kathy Hogan, met with the neighborhood association last Thursday at 6:00 p.m. The residents, as Mr. Alvarez indicated, were opposed to a fueling station use, and subsequently the buyer and the owner had agreed to include a deed restriction prohibiting fueling station use. The developer was opposed, however, to any restriction on a 24- hour business usage because it was highly unlikely that a fast food chain would open a restaurant on the corner of a residential street, as the residents feared. He acknowledged, however, that a restaurant with late hours operation or a Kinko's could lease space on the property. In conclusion, he said the developer and owner had made reasonable concessions to secure reasonable zoning on the subject property. He asked the Council to consider granting the "B-1" zoning with the "B -1A" buffer at the rear of the property and a restriction on the fueling station usage only. Minutes — Regular Council Meeting February 28, 2006 — Page 12 Assistant Director of Development Services Michael Gunning emphasized that the Planning Commission and staff recommended the "B-1" zoning with a "B -1A" buffer in the rear of the property, but the deed restrictions were negotiated directly between the property owner and the developer. To ensure that the deed restrictions were in place, he said staff would not publish the ordinance until they received documentation that the deed restrictions were filed. Mr Kelly asked if the city could require that the materials on the rear of the buildings match the materials on the front of the building through a special permit. Mr. Gunning replied that special permits were generally used to identify a specific use, and the Council had a great deal of leeway on what other conditions they want to place on the special permit. He felt comfortable that the developers would honor their commitment to the neighborhood. Mr. Kelly replied he planned to make a motion to amend the ordinance to include a special permit nonetheless, and he asked the developer to comment. Ms. Kathy Hogan, representing the developer. responded that they planned a nice development that would use a stucco -like material and brick on the rear of the building, comparable to the front of the building. Mr. Kelly made a motion to close the public hearing, seconded by Ms. Cooper. Mr. Kelly made a motion to amend the ordinance to include a Special Permit requiring that the rear of the building in the "B-1" Neighborhood Business District be constructed of the same materials as the front of the building or by the use of a stucco -like material, seconded by Ms. Cooper, and passed. City Secretary Chapa polled the Council for their votes as follows: 27. ORDINANCE NO. 026668 Amending the Zoning Ordinance, upon application by KC Corpus Partners, L.P., by changing the zoning map in reference to 3.180 acres out of the Northwest Estates Addition, Lot 1, Block 10 from "B -1A" Neighborhood Business District to "B-1" Neighborhood Business District; amending the Comprehensive Plan to account for any deviations from the existing Comprehensive Plan. An emergency was declared, and the foregoing ordinance was passed and approved as amended with the following vote: Garrett, Chesney, Cooper, Garcia, Kelly, Kinnison, Marez, Noyola, and Scott, voting "Aye". Mayor Garrett referred to Item 28, and a motion was made, seconded, and passed to open the public hearing on the following zoning case: Case No. 0106-08, Staples Development, LLC: A change of zoning from a "F -R" Farm - Rural District to a "B-4" General Business District on Tract 1 and "F -R" Farm -Rural District to a "R -1C" One -family Dwelling District on Tract 2 resulting from Tract 1 - agricultural use to commercial development; Tract 2 - from agricultural use to single family residences on lots with a minimum area of 4,500 -square feet. The property is located at Tract 1 being 4.48 acres and Tract 2 being 16.16 acres out of Nueces River Irrigation Park Annex No. 2, located north of Northwest Boulevard and 225 feet east of Trinity River Drive/FM 1889. City Secretary Chapa stated the Planning Commission and staff recommendation as follows: Tract 1 - Approval of the "B-4" General Business District along the front area of the subject property and denial of the "B-4" General Business District along the rear 50 feet of the property and in lieu thereof, approval of a "B -1A" Neighborhood Business District along the rear 50 feet of the subject property; Tract 2 - Approval of the "R-1 C" One -family Dwelling District. Minutes — Regular Council Meeting February 28, 2006 — Page 13 Assistant Director of Development Services Michael Gunning reported that the Planning Commission and staff recommended "B -1A" Neighborhood District zoning at the rear of the subject property to create a buffer zone for the adjacent neighborhood. The Planning Commission and staff recommended "B-4" General Business District zoning for the remainder of the frontage, however, because the subject property was anchored by existing "B-4" zoning on the west and east ends Mayor Garrett called for public comment. Mr. Ivan Alvarez, Northwest Estates resident, spoke in favor of the "B -1A" buffer zone, but expressed concern about the minimum 4,500 square foot lot size for the proposed subdivision because it could promote cluttered neighborhoods. He pointed out that the lot sizes in his subdivision ranged from 7,000 to 9,000 square feet. He requested that the Council consider making the minimum lot size to 6,500 square foot lots. Mr. Kelly stated that the proposed subdivision was a fairly dense compaction of residential uses. He said they were anticipating 530 trips per day. Looking at the proposed plat, the cars were going to have to go out existing neighborhoods like Northwest Estates. In addition. he noted that the area had a drainage problem, so with this type of compaction of residential uses, it was going to significantly overburden downstream drainage. Mr. Kelly noted that the applicant was requesting `R -1C" zoning. He asked what the minimum lot size was for "R -1B" zoning. Mr. Gunning replied the minimum lot size for "R -1C" zoning was 6,000 square feet. He pointed out, however, that the preliminary layout for subdivision indicated that most of the lots were greater than 6,000 square feet. Since the remaining lots were below 6,000 square feet, the applicant had applied for "R -1C" zoning. Mr. Kelly asked how many of the lots were below 6,000 square feet. Mr. Gunning replied he did not have the lot count, but stated that the applicant or his representative could respond. Unfortunately, neither the applicant nor a representative was present. Mr. Gunning suggested that the Council could table the item to allow staff to obtain the information. Mr. Kelly stated that he concurred with the "B-4" zoning on the frontage and the "B -1A" zoning on the rear portion of the subject property. But considering the current drainage problems and traffic congestion that would be created for the adjacent neighborhoods, he was in favor of "R-1 B" zoning for the residential unless the applicant could convince him otherwise. Since the applicant was not present, Mr. Kelly made a motion to table the item until March 21, 2006 to allow the applicant to respond to his concerns, seconded by Mr. Garcia, and passed. 28. TABLED UNTIL MARCH 21, 2006 Amending the Zoning Ordinance, upon application by Staples Development, LLC, by Park Annex No. 2, from "F R" Farm Rural to "B 4" General Business District with a 0.801 acre 50 foot "B 1A" Buffer to the rear on Tract 1 and 16.16 acres from "F R" Farm Rural <- " a - account for any deviations from the existing Comprehensive Plan. Mayor Garrett referred to Item 29, and a motion was made, seconded, and passed to open the public hearing on the following zoning case: Case No. 0106-09, Meyer-Lamph Development Group, Ltd.: A change of zoning from a "B-1" Neighborhood Business District to a "B-4" General Business District resulting from a Neighborhood Business District (provides for expanded neighborhood uses) to a Minutes — Regular Council Meeting February 28, 2006 — Page 14 commercial development. The property is in Coastal Bend Subdivision, Block 2, Lot 7, located north of Northwest Boulevard and 575 feet east of County Road 69. City Secretary Chapa said the Planning Commission and staff recommended the denial of the "B-4" General Business District and in lieu thereof, approval of a Special Permit subject to a site plan and two (2) conditions No one spoke in opposition to the zoning change. Mr. Kelly made a motion to close the public hearing, seconded by Ms. Cooper, and passed. City Secretary Chapa polled the Council for their votes as follows: 29. ORDINANCE NO. 026669 Amending the Zoning Ordinance, upon application by Meyer-Lamph Development Group, LTD., by changing the zoning map in reference to Coastal Bend Subdivision, Lot 7, Block 2, located north of Northwest Boulevard and 575 feet east of County Road 69 (currently zoned "B-1" Neighborhood Business District) by granting a Special Permit for a 7,000 -square foot auto parts sales structure, subject to a site plan and two (2) conditions; amending the Comprehensive Plan to account for any deviations from the existing Comprehensive Plan. An emergency was declared, and the foregoing ordinance was passed and approved with the following vote: Garrett, Chesney, Cooper, Garcia, Kelly, Kinnison, Marez, Noyola, and Scott, voting "Aye" * * * * * * * * * * * * * Mayor Garrett opened discussion on Item 30, an appeal by Mr. Ismael Garcia of a Building Standards Board decision to demolish a structure on his property at 4314 Spring Creek. Director of Neighborhood Services Yvonne Haag introduced the staff members who would be participating in the appeal as follows: Elizabeth Hundley, Assistant City Attorney; Teena Houston, Building Official for the Building Standards Board; Robert Quiroz, acting Code and Zoning Administrator; and Assistant City Manager Margie Rose. Ms. Haag reported that the Building Standards Board considered Mr. Garcia's case at their December 15, 2005 meeting. The Board decided to order demolition of the structure, including the driveway, foundation, and all underground utilities, for failure to meet minimum building standards. Under Section 13-28 of the Code of Ordinances, Ms. Haag said Mr. Garcia had the right to ask the Council for an appeal. Assistant City Attorney Hundley described the legal aspects of the hearing. She said in hearing this appeal, the Council was acting in a quasi-judicial capacity; therefore, they must determine what the facts are and whether or not the structure should be demolished. She said the Council may consider the following actions: (1) deny the appeal (upholding the Building Standard Board's decision); or (2) sustain the appeal (reversing the Board's decision); or (3) deny the appeal in part and sustain in part (upholding some provisions of the Board's decision and modifying other provisions, in whole or part). Ms. Hundley stated that any decision made by the Council to modify an order of the Building Standards Board shall specify the following: (1) in what manner such modification is Minutes — Regular Council Meeting February 28, 2006 — Page 15 made; (2) the conditions upon which it is made (including any time requirements); and the reasons therefore. Ms. Haag briefly reviewed a chronology of events in the case, spanning from fire damage the structure sustained in February 2, 2002 to the Building Standards Board decision to demolish the structure on December 15, 2005. Ms. Haag noted that staff had tried to work with the property owners numerous times to bring the home into compliance. Mr. Garcia filed a request for appeal in the City Secretary's Office on January 9, 2006. Ms. Haag displayed a number of photographs of the residence taken before the Building Standards Board hearing. The photos showed heavy fire and smoke damage to the northwest area of the home. Attorney Hal George, 5350 S. Staples, representing Mr. Garcia, asked the Council to allow his client to rebuild the house rather than tear it down. He presented documentation estimating that the repairs would cost $157,000. His client believed that upon completion of the repairs, the house would be worth $300,000. By repairing the home, Mr. George argued that the home would be on the tax rolls and would be an asset to the community. If the Council ordered the demolition, then the neighborhood and the community would suffer while the vacant lot sat there awaiting a buyer. Mr. George stated that his client believed the repairs could be completed in five months from the beginning date of construction. Mr. George also provided a copy of a report by Mr. Arnold Moreno, a certified engineer, indicating that the home had sustained less than 10 percent structural damage. He noted that city staff had filed conflicting reports on the amount of structural damage, with Neighborhood Services stating that the structural damage was 50 percent, while the Development Services reported the structural damage was less than 20 percent. In addition, Mr. George provided two pre -loan commitment letters Mr. Garcia had received from a mortgage company for $197,000 and $200,000. The final document was from the builder, Mr. Michael Shokrian with Barfield & Associates, estimating that the repairs would cost approximately $157,000. Mr. George then explained why Mr. Garcia had delayed addressing the condition of the home until now. He said there was a fire in the residence, and his client filed a claim under his homeowner's policy and the claim was rejected. Mr. Garcia had to file a lawsuit against the insurance company, and the case was settled in April 2005. In the meantime, Mr. Garcia and his wife went through a divorce. Mr. Garcia had deeded the property to his ex-wife, who indicated that she had a buyer for the home. Unfortunately, the sale fell through for some reason and the property was transferred back to Mr. Garcia. Mr. George described Mr. Garcia's plan and timeline for the home repairs, pointing out that the plan was developed with feedback from the neighborhood. He said the contractor would first address the aesthetics of the home's exterior. He asked the Council to allow Mr. Garcia to rebuild with a set schedule. He said the mortgage company needed three weeks to process the loan documents. Then, his client would present the final plans for the repairs to the architectural control committee of the Wood River Homeowners Association. Mr. George asked the Council to allow 30 days for the committee to review and approve the plan. Mr. Mike Garcia, the contractor, stated he needed a month from today to begin the project. In conclusion, Mr. George stated that the Council could require weekly inspections of the construction site to ensure that they were meeting the planned schedule. If the contractor was not adhering to the schedule, then the city could order demolition. Minutes — Regular Council Meeting February 28, 2006 — Page 16 Mr. Kelly stated that Mr. George and his client had spoken with the neighborhood and with the homeowners association. He asked if Mr. George was saying that the homeowners association was in support of the proposed plan. Mr. George replied he did not believe the homeowners association would oppose the plan, but stated that Attorney Michael George, representing the homeowners association, was in the audience and could answer that question. Mr. Kelly stated the home had been a nuisance to the neighborhood for the past four years. The city and the homeowners association had repeatedly contacted Mr. Garcia about the home throughout that time with little result. Mr. Kelly acknowledged that Mr. Garcia had been dealing with personal issues during this time, but said he could have avoided this entire proceeding if he had simply addressed the situation months ago. Mr. George replied that he could not change the past, but Mr. Garcia was sincerely interested in rebuilding the home. He said the neighborhood would be better off if they allowed reconstruction rather than demolition because it would address the problem sooner. Mr. Kelly noted that staff and the Building Standards Board differed on the extent of the demolition order. The Building Standards Board recommended the demolition of the home, the foundation, and the driveway; staff recommended the demolition of the home only. Director of Neighborhood Services Yvonne Haag replied city staff's practice was to exclude foundation and driveway removal from demolition orders because of the cost. Mr Scott remarked that the city had spent a phenomenal amount of time and energy in dealing with this case, and he felt the property owner should reimburse the city and the taxpayers for the costs. If the Council decided to allow the property owner to rebuild, he felt the city should obtain a performance bond or other form of guarantee that the work would be completed Mr Noyola asked staff how much structural damage the home had sustained, 20 or 50 percent. Ms. Teena Houston, city property advisor, replied that the code official who had inspected the site determined that home had sustained 50 percent structural damage from the fire. Mr. Noyola asked questions about the Mr. Garcia's timeline for the construction and the mortgage. He said Mr. Garcia told him he could complete the work in four months rather than five months because the neighborhood had suffered enough. Mi. Michael Shokrian, the builder, stated the work could be completed in four months with a huge effort. Mr. Noyola stated that if the repairs were not completed in four months, then he was in favor of ordering demolition. Mr. Shokrian and Mr. Garcia stated that they believed the work could be completed in four months, and the aesthetic improvements could be addressed in a very short time. In response to Council Member Garcia's question, Ms. Haag stated that Neighborhood Services' staff determined that the structural damage to the home was 50 percent, while an inspection initiated by Mr. Garcia but completed by Development Services determined the structural damage was 20 percent. Council Member Garcia questioned Mr. Shokrian about the construction estimate. Mr. Shokrian stated that the exterior repairs, including landscaping, would cost approximately $20,000. Council Member Garcia expressed concern that Mr. Garcia had not addressed the problems with the structure three years ago. Since the structure had been exposed to the elements for an extended period, Mr. Garcia felt the total removal of the interior of the unit was warranted. The construction should begin from the basic frame structure, in his opinion, but the many of the framing members, the ceiling joists, and the roof decking had probably been compromised. While he had not physically inspected the structure, Council Member Garcia stated that upon visual inspection, it wouldn't be possible to use existing rafters and joists in the construction because it was structurally unsound. He asked staff if they agreed with his Minutes — Regular Council Meeting February 28, 2006 — Page 17 statement. Ms. Houston replied affirmatively, saying that many framing members were burned in the fire. Mr Shokrian replied that when city staff inspected the unit, the sheetrock was still in place in most areas; thus, he was uncertain how they determined the extent of damage to the framing members. He said the fire damage was contained to a small area, but the smoke damage was more extensive. He did not intend to take shortcuts by using any burned joists or framing members; rather, he intended to replace all the damaged components. Mr. George added that Mr. Moreno's inspection of the unit indicated that the fire damage was limited to a 50 -square foot area, but the water and smoke damage was more extensive. Council Member Garcia stated that it was the builder's responsibility to provide a realistic estimate. Mr. Shokrian replied the cost for repairing the unit was roughly half the value of the completed home. He said the house had to be completely stripped of sheetrock, re -wired, and re -plumbed, and ten percent of the framing structure needed to be replaced. Council Member Garcia stated that based on Mr. Garcia's history, it was difficult to believe that things would be different starting today. He said there was no excuse for his derelict behavior regarding the condition of his home. Mr Chesney asked staff to routinely provide estimates on the costs to the city and the taxpayers in cases like these so the city could seek reimbursement from the property owner. He also stated that if the Council sustained the appeal, then he would insist that a performance bond be issued before approving the work. He asked staff what they considered a reasonable timeline to finish the repairs. Ms. Houston replied that five months was a reasonable timeline if the Council granted Mr. Garcia's request, but staff still upheld their recommendation for demolition Mr. Chesney asked how much Mr. Garcia received in insurance money and how it was used. Mr. Garcia replied he used the proceeds to pay off the house note, approximately $160,000 to $170,000. Mr Chesney stated that he would like an opportunity to hear from the homeowners association on the issue. While he was reluctant to grant Mr. Garcia's request, he acknowledged that demolishing the property would delay any reconstruction effort. Mr. Kelly asked Mr. Garcia how long he had had the ability to borrow $200,000. Mr. George replied Mr. Garcia's son in El Paso, TX, an engineer, arranged the financing through a personal friend. He said after the sale of the home fell through last year, Mr. Garcia turned to his son for help. Mr Kelly took exception to Mr. Garcia's delayed action to address the situation, only until the city ordered demolition. He noted that the estimate for the exterior repairs was only $20,000, yet Mr. Garcia had not obtained a loan in this amount for over four years. Mr. Kelly stated that the homeowners in the Wood River subdivision felt that Mr. Garcia's property reflected poorly on the neighborhood's property values, especially since it was a high- profile home. He said the neighbors had waited four years for Mr. Garcia to take action, yet for as little as $20,000, he chose not to do it. Mr. Kelly understood that the neighbors were tired of waiting. Mr. George responded that Mr. Garcia had experienced a number of personal issues that caused the delay and had taken an emotional toll. If Mr. Garcia had hired him at the beginning, Mr. George felt that the issue would have been resolved long ago. Mr. Garcia added that his inaction was due to a miscommunication between him and his ex-wife. Mr. George stated that he was placing his credibility on the line by vouching for Mr. Garcia's sincerity. Although he was sympathetic to Mr. Garcia's plight, Mr Kelly replied that he could not approve nis request unless the neighborhood was in favor of it. Minutes — Regular Council Meeting February 28, 2006 — Page 18 Mr. Marez stated that Mr. Garcia's blatant inaction regarding the condition of his home was cause for concern. Before he made a final decision, he wished to hear from the neighborhood association. Mayor Garrett called for comment from any interested parties with information relevant to the appeal. Mr. John Pierce, who lived next door to the subject property, stated that the neighborhood had endured the poor condition of the structure for two and a half years. He said the neighborhood was skeptical that giving Mr. Garcia more time would accomplish anything. On the other hand, if the Council were to deny the appeal and order demolition, he was concerned that Mr. Garcia would take legal action, leading to further delays. Thus, Mr. Pierce said the neighborhood was in favor of whatever action would address the problem most expediently, be it demolition or reconstruction. He provided a petition signed by 90 residents requesting that Mr. Garcia either demolish or repair the house without delay. If the city decided not to demolish the property, then they requested that the city hold periodic inspections to ensure that the construction was progressing appropriately with interim deadlines. They also requested that the exterior of the property be made presentable first, including repairing the front door and replacing broken windows Mr Kelly asked if Mr. Pierce had a position on the removal of the foundation and driveway. Mr. Pierce replied that the front of the home featured a large cement stairway that would be an eyesore if it remained. The neighborhood felt the lot would be more sellable if the driveway was removed. Mr. Garcia stated that it was much less expensive to work with the existing foundation and in general they were easy to work with. Mr. Rick Melby, 4310 Spring Creek, said he had lived next door to the subject property since 1996. He reported that Mr. Garcia had never lived in the home during this time; rather, his ex-wife resided in the home sporadically. Mr. Melby stated that the insurance claim was tied up in litigation because of suspicion of arson; he said three separate fires had been set in the home, and his ex-wife was the prime suspect. While she was not convicted of any crime, Mr. Melby said she was the worst neighbor he had ever lived near. Since Mr. Garcia had entered the picture, Mr. Melby said he had tried to make amends to the neighbors. As a former fire specialist, he estimated that the home had approximately 30 percent structural damage, primarily in the master bedroom and covered porch. At a homeowners association meeting held on February 20, he said a comment was made that if the city denied their appeal, Mr. Garcia would sue. Consequently, Mr. Melby said the residents preferred that the home be reconstructed rather than demolished. He agreed that the foundation should be removed because of the cement staircase in front of it because it could deter buyers. In addition, he asked that the city prescribe strict timelines on the progress. He asked that the city include a provision stating that if Mr Garcia did not meet the time limits, then the structure would be demolished with no other legal recourse. Under these conditions, Mr. Melby said he could support Mr Garcia's request. Ms. DeAnn Pierce spoke in support of removing the cement staircase if the home was demolished and preserving the existing foundation if possible. Attorney Michael George, representing the Wood River Homeowners Association, stated that the association chose to allow Mr. Garcia additional time regarding the litigation for the property. He said Mr. Garcia was much more cooperative than his former spouse, and was sincere in his attempt to address the situation. He said the association's architectural committee was scheduled to meet on March 20, and Mr. Garcia could submit his plans at that time for review and approval. He understood Mr. Garcia planned to rebuild the home as it originally was, which would expedite the process. Mr. George recommended that the Council Minutes — Regular Council Meeting February 28, 2006 — Page 19 sustain the appeal in part by postponing the demolition, and deny the appeal in part by abating the demolition by requiring Mr. Garcia to reimburse city costs and require a performance bond. In addition, he recommended that the city periodically inspect the construction and report to the homeowners association regarding the progress. Mayor Garrett asked for a brief recess to allow city staff and Mr. Garcia to meet and discuss the terms of the agreement. * ** ********** Mayor Garrett presented proclamations and conducted a swearing-in ceremony. * ************ The Council returned from recess. Mayor Garrett called for petitions from the audience. Mr. Johnny French, 4417 Carlton, spoke regarding his interpretation of a portion of Texas Beach Protection Code dealing with the closure of beaches on North Padre Island. He asked the City to either consult with the senators sponsoring the act or with the Texas Attorney General's Office regarding the exemption. * ************ Mayor Garrett referred to Item 35, and announced that the City Council would go into executive session under Texas Government Code Section 555.071 to consult with its attorney to seek legal advice on legal matters relating to granting a permit to Sabco Operating Company, with possible discussion and action related thereto in open session. * ************ The Council returned from executive session. Mayor Garrett allowed Ms. Dorothy Davis, Hillcrest resident, to speak regarding Item 34, the location of the new wastewater treatment plant. Ms. Davis spoke against locating the plant at the CITGO site because of its proximity to the Hillcrest area. Mayor Garrett referred to Item 35, and the following motion was passed with the following vote: 35. MOTION NO. 2006-072 Motion authorizing the City Manager or his designee to grant a permit to Sabco Operating Company of Houston, Texas to drill an oil or gas well at an exceptional location, approximately seven (7) miles easterly of the marina area in Corpus Christi Bay, State Tract 49 Well No. 6. The foregoing motion was passed and approved with the following vote: Garrett, Chesney, Cooper, Garcia, Kelly, Kinnison, Marez, Noyola, and Scott, voting "Aye". * ************ Mayor Garrett referred to Item 31, a presentation on the current water supply status and the Garwood Pipeline. Assistant City Manager Ron Massey began with the current water supply status. He presented a chart depicting the city's water supply and demand projections between 2000 and 2060. The projections estimated the availability of water using a safe yield Minutes — Regular Council Meeting February 28, 2006 — Page 20 projection, leaving six months supply in the reservoir, and a firm yield, which would pump all the water that could be drawn out of the reservoir. Staff estimated the future demand projections based on Census 2000 data; he said the next census update would be available in 2005. Additionally, he said staff used two models to predict the high and low ranges of future demand, a linear regression and a growth -rate projection. Mr. Massey then displayed a chart illustrating the actual water demand between 2000 and 2005, noting that the actual demand was less than the projected demand. He stated the decrease in overall demand could be attributed to wet weather and the loss of a large commercial customer. Currently, Mr. Massey said the city was experiencing a dry period, so the demand should begin increasing to 2000 levels. Mr. Massey presented a slide depicting the water supply and demand projections from 2000 to 2060 including available water from the Garwood Pipeline, which was anticipated to come online in 2020. Under the worst case scenario, he said the city's water needs under a firm yield calculation would be met until approximately 2050. Mr. Massey reviewed a chart listing the city's potential water strategies, and the projected yield and unit costs for each alternative. The list included the Padre Island Aquifer Storage and Recovery project, the Governor's desalination initiatives, and the Garwood Pipeline. To update the Council of the Garwood Pipeline project status, Mr. Massey introduced Mr. Stefan Schuster with Freese & Nichols to make the report. Mr Schuster provided a brief overall project approach. He said Phase 1, a screening study of delivery options, and Phase 2, a detailed study of delivery options, had been completed. Phases 2A, permitting, and Phase 2B, partnership agreements, were in progress, and he said he would report on them today. Mr Schuster said the project approach in Phase 2 (A and B) was as follows: detailed study of options; water rights and permit review; meetings with participants and regulators; loss studies; operational analysis; regional planning update; and continuing to the next phase. Mr. Schuster stated that the recommended options for detailed study in Phase 2 are as follows: Option 1 (combined facilities with LCRA/SAWS); Option 5 (Garwood System to West Mustang Creek and Lake Texana); and Option 6 (Gulf Coast System and Pipeline to Mary Rhodes Pipeline). Mr Schuster provided a progress report on Option 1, combined facilities with LCRA/SAWS. He described the objectives of the study. He said SAWS and LCRA continued to support the project and wished to see it move forward. All the technical studies to determine the siting and location of the diversion facilities for the SAWS project would be completed by 2010. SAWS and LCRA indicated that project construction would not begin after 2020. The team recommended that if the Council were to choose Option 1, a firm agreement with LCRA should be developed. Regarding Option 5, Garwood System to West Mustang Creek and Lake Texana, Mr. Schuster said the objectives were as follows: coordinate the operation of and possible upgrade to the existing Garwood Pump Station and canal system; determine the requirements for revising the water right to allow diversion into West Mustang Creek and Lake Texana; determine permitting requirements; determine potential delivery of the system; and coordinate reservoir operations and contracting arrangements with LNRA. Mr. Schuster stated that Option 5 appeared to be the most affordable solution at $5 million. If the city chose this option, he said they would need to negotiate a Bed and Banks permit and a Water Rights permit revision, and Minutes — Regular Council Meeting February 28, 2006 — Page 21 to resolve a number of environmental permitting issues. Option 5, while the most affordable and most immediate option, still allowed for the flexibility to chose the other two options in the future If desired. Mr Schuster discussed Option 6, the Gulf Coast System and Pipeline to Mary Rhodes Pipeline. The study objectives were as follows: coordinate operation and possible upgrade to Gulf Coast Pump Station and Canal System; determine requirements for revising water right to allow diversion in canal system; determine potential delivery of the system; determine location of pump station at the diversion from the Gulf Coast Canal; perform a preliminary pipeline route study; and determine permitting requirements. Mr. Schuster noted that Option 6 had a higher construction cost of $52 million, a pump station was needed at the end of the Furbor Canal, competition with the LSWSP siting was possible, and water availability was unknown at this time because of LSWSP. In conclusion , Mr. Schuster stated that the team was recommending that the city pursue Option 5 because it was the most immediate delivery option available at the lowest cost. He said permitting issues have been identified and coordinated, and the delivery could be accomplished without irrigation season interference. Options 1 and 6 required coordination with LSWP results and findings of technical studies. He said continued coordination was needed for permitting and infrastructure needs. He also emphasized that the water right was protected under all scenarios. Mr. Schuster stated the next step was to begin negotiating permitting and agreements, and finalizing any partnership agreements with SAWS, LCRA, and LNRA. Mr. Scott noted that the city did not have to coordinate with SAWS to engage in Option 5. He asked if staff had discussed the feasibility of the project with SAWS. Mr. Massey replied City Manager Noe would be setting up a meeting with SAWS, which had recently undergone a leadership change, to make a case for running a pipeline to Lake Texana. City Manager Noe added that while having SAWS on board with the project would be beneficial, the LCRA was actually going to drive the alignment of the pipeline in their area, and the city was already in contact with their principal agent. Mr. Scott asked for more information on the timelines for the project. Mr. Massey replied that if the city decided to purbue Option 5, for example, staff would bring the Councii a contract for additional work with the Freese & Nichols team to begin negotiations on permitting and water rights amendments. He said if the city wished to move forward with the Garwood water project, then staff was recommending Option 5. Mr. Scott stated that he felt it was important to move forward with the project soon to protect the city's water rights. Mr. Massey agreed, but pointed out that the Council could postpone their decision to consider the other water option and their relationship to each other He emphasized that every water supply option the city pursued came with a cost, so the Council needed to consider them all and then choose the ones that made the most sense. Mr. Scott asked for details on how the $5 million cost for Option 5 would be used. Mr. Massey replied the $5 million would cover the construction costs for a diversion facility to move the water down the creek. Mr. Massey discussed the other water supply initiatives the city was considering as follows: the Padre Island groundwater desalination and Aquifer Storage and Recovery (ASR); the Corps of Engineers (COE) Nueces River Basin feasibility studies; and Seawater Desalination (Governor's Initiative). Regarding the Padre Island initiatives, he said the city moved forward to authorize the ASR district and staff was negotiating land acquisition agreements with adjacent landowners. Mr. Massey said the Corps of Engineers Nueces River Feasibility Study was being sponsored by the COE, SAWS, SARA, GBRA, NRA and the City of Minutes — Regular Council Meeting February 28, 2006 — Page 22 Corpus Christi. Year 2 of the study was being funded by Congress, and the city's share of the funding was $182,800. Finally, he said Phase I of the Governor's seawater desalination initiative was completed in 2004. The state legislature approved approximately $2.5 million for Phase 11 funding this year, and cities can submit Phase II applications in March 2006 to the Texas Water Development Board. He said the city was not sure whether they would apply for funding because the Board was requesting a set timeline for the project. 0 Finally, Mr. Massey discussed a number of other supply opportunities as follows: to investigate groundwater sources with SPMWD; and to pursue additional Texana firm water. Mr Don Roach with the San Patricio Municipal Water District discussed their interest in partnering with the city on a water supply project using groundwater Mayor Garrett opened discussion on Item 32 regarding the city's cost share agreement with the Corps of Engineers for Phase IIA of the Nueces River Basin Feasibility Study, as Mr. Massey discussed in the previous presentation item. City Secretary Chapa polled the Council for their votes as follows: 32. MOTION NO. 2006-066 Motion authorizing the City Manager or his designee to continue participation in the Nueces River Basin Feasibility Cost Share Agreement with the United States Army Corps of Engineers Fort Worth and Non Federal Co -Sponsors, and authorizing payment of $39,082 for the Phase IIA (Existing Conditions, Alternative Formulation and Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement or Plan Formulation). The foregoing motion was passed and approved with the following vote: Garrett, Chesney, Cooper, Garcia, Kelly, Kinnison, Marez, Noyola, and Scott, voting "Aye". Mayor Garrett opened discussion on Item 33 regarding the Southside Water Transmission Main Project, Phase 5. City Engineer Angel Escobar reported that Phase 5 was comprised of four portions: construction contract; welding inspection; cathodic detection; and the testing of backfill and bedding. He said staff recommended approval of the contract, despite coming in above the consultant's estimate, because it was still within the project budget. The contract would construct 5.4 miles of 42 -inch water line along Yorktown Boulevard from Rodd Field Road to the Laguna Madre to the Island. Mr. Scott asked if staff had resolved a Flour Bluff constituent's concern regarding the destruction of a number of trees. Mr. Escobar replied staff was still working with her. He said the city needed to acquire three more parcels of land, hopefully within the next 45 days. There were no comments from the public. City Secretary Chapa polled the Council for their votes as follows: Minutes — Regular Council Meeting February 28, 2006 — Page 23 33.a. MOTION NO. 2006-067 Motion authorizing the City Manager or his designee to execute a construction contract with S. J. Louis Construction, Ltd., of San Antonio, Texas in the amount of $8,476,046 for the Southside Water Transmission Main - Phase 5. The foregoing motion was passed and approved with the following vote: Garrett, Chesney, Cooper, Garcia, Kelly, Kinnison, Marez, Noyola, and Scott, voting "Aye". 33.b. MOTION NO. 2006-068 Motion authorizing the City Manager or his designee to execute an agreement for welding inspection to Base Line Data, Inc., of Portland, Texas in the amount of $101,893 for the Southside Water Transmission Main - Phase 5, from Rodd Field Road to Whiteley Drive. The foregoing motion was passed and approved with the following vote: Garrett, Chesney, Cooper, Garcia, Kelly, Kinnison, Marez, Noyola, and Scott, voting "Aye". 33.c, MOTION NO. 2006-069 Motion authorizing the City Manager or his designee to execute an agreement for corrosion engineering construction support with V & A Consulting Engineers, Inc., in the amount of $48,910 for the Southside Water Transmission Main - Phase 5, from Rodd Field Road to Whiteley Drive. The foregoing motion was passed and approved with the following vote: Garrett, Chesney, Cooper, Garcia, Kelly, Kinnison, Marez, Noyola, and Scott, voting "Aye". 33.d. MOTION NO. 2006-070 Motion authorizing the City Manager or his designee to execute a Testing Agreement with Kleinfelder, Inc., of Corpus Christi, Texas in the amount of $121,319 for the Southside Water Transmission Main - Phase 5, from Rodd Field Road to Whiteley Drive. The foregoing motion was passed and approved with the following vote: Garrett, Chesney, Cooper, Garcia, Kelly, Kinnison, Marez, Noyola, and Scott, voting "Aye". Mr. Scott asked if the pipeline was being placed beside Whiteley Drive, a dead end street. Mr. Escobar answered affirmatively. Mr. Scott stated the Whiteley Drive residents had complained for several years about the insufficient turning radius for traffic at the end of the street. He asked if the pipeline construction might present an opportunity to widen Whiteley Drive by 15 feet. Mr. Escobar replied he would look into it. * * * * * * * * * * * * * Mayor Garrett opened discussion on Item 34 regarding the relocation of the Broadway Wastewater Treatment Plant. City Manager Noe stated today's item was a follow-up to the Council's directive on January 31, charging staff to further investigate the feasibility of Sites 3 (Citgo) and 4 (Flint Hills) for the new plant. City Engineer Escobar reported that staff met with Citgo, Flint Hills, and the Port of Corpus Christi Authority to discuss the issue. As a result of the Citgo discussions, staff would be presenting a new site layout, Site 3A. Minutes — Regular Council Meeting February 28, 2006 — Page 24 Mr. Escobar briefly referred to a timeline outlining the city's actions on the Broadway Treatment Plant relocation. He highlighted the June 2005 closed session that resulted in staffs meetings with Hillcrest area residents between August and October 2005. The citizens presented a signature petition against locating the new plant near their neighborhood. Staff consequently reviewed additional sites, including previously evaluated sites. According to the Council directive issued on January 31, 2006, Mr. Escobar stated that the Council directed staff to negotiate with Flint Hills and Citgo and any ancillary entities regarding the location of a new Wastewater Treatment Plant on Site 3 or Site 4, and report back in 30 days Staff was to eliminate as many variables as possible. Mr. Escobar displayed an aerial photograph of Site 3, the Citgo Port terminal, an irregularly shaped site. He said staff was considering leasing property from the Port of Corpus Christi and acquiring property to mitigate the wetlands area located near the site. Mr. Escobar displayed an aerial photograph of Site 4, the Flint Hills Resources tank farm, bordered by the Union Pacific railroad tracks, and the ship channel. He said the track was more rectangular, and the outfall ended into the Salt Flats ditch. In the plans, he said all the treatment units were moved to the rear end of the property, creating the maximum distance of 660 feet from the closet residential unit. Mr. Escobar introduced Mr. Govind Nadkarni with MEI Govind to provide the cost updates on Sites 3 and 4. Mr. Nadkarni pointed out that both cost estimates had increased due in part to higher steel costs. Both sites experienced linear cost increases of 11.5 to 11.7 percent, but 0 & M costs remained relatively stable. The estimated cost for Site 3 increased from $43,783,280 to $49,027,080, and from $41,173,150 to $45,874,750 for Site 4. In a cost comparison with a 20 -year life cycle, the Site 3 total cost increased from $76,444,280 to $83,680,080, and the Site 4 total cost increased from $73,072,150 to $79,559,750. Mr. Nadkarni provided a list of the meeting dates in which staff met with Citgo, the Port of Corpus Christi, and Flint Hills staff. Staff's renewed meetings with Citgo identified a new alternative Citgo site, called Site 3A, because of operational changes allowing for the relocation of an $80,000 tank which improved the configuration of the site. He noted, however, that the new configuration did not surpass the Flint Hills site. Mr. Escobar added that because of the new configuration, the city no longer needed to lease 1.19 acres of land from the Port of Corpus Christi shown in the Site 3 plan. The city would nevertheless still to negotiate with the Port of Corpus Christi for exchange of the property on the eastside of the Salt Flats ditch. Mr. Nadkarni reported that staff prepared new estimates comparing Site 3, 3A, and 4. The cost estimates were as follows: Site 3 (Citgo) - $49,027,080; Site 3A (Citgo)- $48,407,080; and Site 4 (Flint Hills) - $45,874,750. In a cost comparison with a 20 -year life cycle, the estimated costs were as follows: Site 3 - $83,680,080; Site 3A - $82,824,080; and Site 4 - $79,559.750. Mr. Nadkarni reviewed the construction timelines for each site. Site 3 was estimated for completion in November 2011, Site 3A in December 2010, and Site 4 in March 2010. He emphasized that Site 3A would take nine months longer to construct than Site 4 because a new tank would have to be constructed and relocated. Mr. Nadkarni presented a site selection matrix rating each site on a scale of 1 to 5 with 5 being "most desirable". The cumulative scores based on 14 criteria were as follows: Site 3 — 43 points; Site 3A — 50 points; and Site 4 — 54 points. Minutes — Regular Council Meeting February 28, 2006 — Page 25 Mayor Garrett asked if Site 3A's new configuration eliminated the need for wetlands mitigation. Mr. Escobar replied negatively, saying the wetlands mitigation was not eliminated but was postponed to a future expansion phase. Mr. Nadkarni discussed the benefits of the Flint Hills site. First, he said it was the largest site that could be acquired in the shortest amount of time. Second, the site preparation was superior because it allowed for future expansion and had the best geometric configuration. Third, the site met the 150 -foot buffer from the nearest treatment unit along the site's south property line required by the TCEQ. Fourth, the nearest residential lot was over 500 feet from the treatment units. Fifth, the Flint Hills site construction could be completed more quickly than the other sites. Finally, he said the site provided the least overall costs for capital and 0 & M 20 -year life cycle expenditures. Staff was therefore recommending that the city proceed with the purchase of the Flint Hills Tank Farm site (Site 4) for the new wastewater treatment plant. To move forward with the plan, staff needed to begin assembling a team to help with negotiations to purchase the property and to address issues specific to the land purchase. Mr. Escobar thanked Citgo for their cooperation in updating the cost estimates and for their assistance in addressing the wetlands mitigation. Mr Escobar briefly mentioned a number of issues yet to be resolved for the Flint Hills site. The environmental clean-up and/or closure of the site had not been discussed. Additionally, he said property access issues to be addressed included the acquisition of an easement through Union Pacific Railroad property and an access easement through the property adjacent to North Port Avenue. Mr Kelly asked for the distance between Site 3A and the nearest residence. Mr. Escobar replied the distance between the closest treatment unit and the nearest residential home was 1,125 linear feet. The distance between Site 3's nearest treatment unit to a residential unit was 1,350 linear feet. Mr. Kelly pointed out that either Citgo site would double the distance between the treatment units and the Hillcrest neighborhood. Mr. Escobar replied affirmatively, saying that the Flint Hills site was 650 feet from the nearest residence. In response to Ms. Cooper's question, Mr. Escobar replied staff very strongly recommended the Flint Hills site, even when laking Site 3A into consideration. Mr. Chesney thanked staff for their efforts in updating the information and ultimately discovering a new alternative. Site 3A. He had hoped, however, that the cost difference between Site 3A and Site 4, would be closer, but it had actually remained $3 million. If the Council chose Site 4, he asked if the city could invest a portion of the savings to minimize the plant's impact on the Hillcrest neighborhood, with landscaping and buffering improvements. City Manager Noe replied affirmatively, saying that regardless of which site was chosen, the city would make every effort to minimize the impact of the plant on the neighborhood. Mr Scott stated that he had driven by the proposed Flint Hills site recently, and he thought that landscaping and other buffer improvements on and offsite could potentially benefit the neighborhood. Mayor Garrett asked if the odor control at the new plant would be comparable to the Whitecap Plant. Mr. Escobar answered that the Whitecap Plant enclosed the front-end headworks of the plant, where the majority of the odor was produced, to prevent any odors from escaping outside. Mayor Garrett asked for public comment. The following individuals spoke against locating the new plant at the Flint Hills site (Site 4) because of its proximity to the Hillcrest area: Minutes — Regular Council Meeting February 28, 2006 — Page 26 Lamont Taylor, 1701 Stillman; Jerome Bradford; Otis Moseley, 1519 Peabody; Henry Williams, Hillcrest Residents Association president; Abel Alonzo; Daniel Pena (PowerPoint presentation); Andrew DuArte, 1203 Van Loan Ave.; Kelly Archdine; and Gloria Metcalf. Mr. Williams, Mr. Pena, and Mr. DuArte asked the Council to consider placing the new plant on Site 12, the existing Broadway Wastewater Treatment Plant site. A discussion ensued because the Council had directed staff to focus only on Sites 3 and 4, so there were no updated figures on Site 12. Mr. Marvin Leary stated that if the Council chose to locate the plant at the Flint Hills site, then the city should make an effort to help the Hillcrest area, making it productive again. Mr. Noyola spoke in favor of Site 3A, the Citgo site, despite the higher cost, because he felt it would be in the best interest of the Hillcrest neighborhood, which had suffered numerous economic setbacks. He said landscaping and other cosmetic improvements would not improve the quality of life for the residents, which was already marginal. He asked the Council not to force the residents out of their homes by locating the new plant at the Flint Hills site. Ms. Cooper stated that while she respected the Hillcrest residents immensely, she could not overlook that the current Broadway Wastewater Treatment Plant was in dire need of replacement. She was therefore in favor of staffs recommendation for the Flint Hills site based on time and cost considerations. With the new odor control technology, the new wastewater plant would not intrude on their lives as was typically the case. She also spoke in favor of the landscaping improvements that Council Members Scott and Chesney had mentioned. Mr. Kelly stated that while the city as a whole benefited economically from the Port and the refineries, the Hillcrest area disproportionately bore the burden of living next to these industries. The residents preferred that the plant be located on the north side of the channel, but we were willing to compromise by accepting a site on their side of the channel as long as it was further removed from them. He felt, therefore, that the city should be sensitive to their needs by moving the new wastewater treatment plant farther from their area, as they requested. Mr. Kelly made a motion to direct staff to begin negotiations to relocate the Broadway Wastewater Treatment Plant to Site 3A (Citgo), seconded by Mr. Noyola. The motion failed with the following vote: Kelly, Marez, and Noyola, voting "Aye"; Garrett, Chesney, Cooper, Garcia, Kinnison, and Scott, voting "No" Mr. Marez spoke in favor of locating the new wastewater plant in Site 3A (Citgo) rather than the Flint Hills site. He felt the stigma of locating a wastewater treatment plant in the Hillcrest area could kill the neighborhood. The city had heeded the requests of other neighborhood associations opposed to zoning and other issues, and he asked the Council to heed the Hillcrest Resident Association's request. As good as the current technology was, he felt the responsible action was to locate the plant at the Citgo site, despite the cost difference. He asked the Council to reconsider their motion. Mr Scott strongly disagreed with Mr. Marez's comments. Mr. Scott asked if the Council should include provisions for landscaping on and off site if the Flint Hills site was selected. City Manager Noe replied the Council could emphasize the landscaping requirement in their motion today. The Council would soon review the project budget, and staff would include landscaping in the design and funding. He said the neighborhood would be included in the dialogue regarding improvements. Mr. Garcia thanked staff and the residents for airing their views today. While Site 3A was an improvement over Site 3, Mr. Garcia could not see how an additional 600 linear feet could be worth $3 million. In his opinion, odor problems, if any, would not be detectable from 600 feet away. He told the residents that the city did not take these decisions lightly. Working Minutes — Regular Council Meeting February 28, 2006 — Page 27 with the city manager, Mr. Garcia said the city was willing to make efforts to help the neighborhood. Mr Kelly stated that if the Council chose the Flint Hills site, he wished to emphasize that the city had to make every effort to minimize the negative impact to the community. He wished to see a number of projects to offset any negative effect on their property values. Mr. Noyola stated that he would continue to support the Hillcrest area. He pointed out how economically disadvantaged the area was and how few options the residents had. He wished the Council would heed the residents' request for help, but acknowledged that he could only cast one vote. Mr. Chesney took exception to the personal comments being made in this discussion. He pointed out that the Council did not always side with the neighborhood associations, such as during the skate park issue affecting the Del Mar neighborhood. As an at -large Council member, he represented the city as a whole, and had to make decisions that benefited the entire community. He pointed out that he had asked staff to postpone action for 30 days hoping that staff could find a viable alternative to the Flint Hills site. Ultimately, he said the logical decision was to place the plant at the Flint Hills site based on the facts, not emotions. He again spoke in favor of landscaping and other amenities around the plant for the neighborhood. Mr. Marez took exception to Mr. Chesney's comments about the skatepark issue because he did not it could be compared to today's issue. He said placing a skatepark near the Del Mar area was not comparable because it would not create the perception that the city did not care about them. City Secretary Chapa polled the Council for their votes as follows on Item 34 as follows: 34. MOTION NO. 2006-071 Motion authorizing the City Manager or his designee to enter into negotiations to purchase Flint Hills Tank Farm site (Site 4) for the location of the new Wastewater Treatment Plant. The foregoing motion was passed and approved with the following vote: Garrett, Chesney, Cooper. Garcia, Kinnison, and Scott, voting "Aye"; Kelly, Marez, and Noyola, voting "No", Mayor Garrett referred to Item 30, the Building Standards Board appeal, and asked if staff had completed their discussions with the property owners. City Manager Noe provided a draft motion and attachment for the Council's consideration. Mr. Scott asked why staff didn't include a provision in which Mr. Ismael Garcia would compensate the city for the costs expended in pursuing the case. Mr. Hal George replied staff had indicated that they did not have those figures. Assistant City Manager Margie Rose added that staff did invoice Mr. Garcia for mowing high weeds, and Mr. Garcia had paid the fees. Staff was unable, however, to arbitrarily develop a figure for staff's time. Council Member Garcia agreed with Ms. Rose. A motion was made and seconded to approve the proposed motion with the following vote: Minutes — Regular Council Meeting February 28, 2006 — Page 28 30. MOTION NO. 2006-065 Motion to deny the appeal in part, thereby, upholding the order of the Building Standards Board requiring the demolition of the structure, and to sustain the appeal in part, thereby, reversing the requirements to (1) demolish the foundation, driveway, and underground utilities and (2) obtain a demolition permit within 30 days, and in lieu thereof based on the evidence offered and as a modification to the Board's order, the terms of the attached agreed order, including a restrictive timeline, are hereby submitted. The foregoing motion was passed and approved with the following vote: Garrett, Chesney, Cooper, Garcia, Kelly, Kinnison, Noyola, and Scott, voting "Aye"; Marez was absent. * * * * * * * * * * * * * Mayor Garrett opened discussion on Item 36 regarding a donation agreement for the Columbus Ships. City Attorney Mary Kay Fischer reported that the Spain-U.S.A. Foundation wished to donate the Columbus Ships to the City of Corpus Christi. She said all five interested entities have signed a Consent and Release form in regard to the ships. Staff prepared a donation agreement to donate, transfer, and assign the ships as is to the City of Corpus Christi. She said today's resolution would authorize the City Manager or his designee to sign the agreement. No one in the audience commented regarding the item. City Secretary Chapa polled the Council for their votes as follows: 36. RESOLUTION NO 026670 Resolution authorizing the City Manager or his designee to sign a donation agreement donating Columbus Ships to City of Corpus Christi. The foregoing resolution was passed and approved with the following vote: Garrett, Chesney, Cooper, Garcia, Kelly, Kinnison, Noyoia, and Scott, voting "Aye"; Marez was absent. ************* Mayor Garrett called for the City Manager's report. City Manager Noe stated that a Neighborhood Pride Meeting would be held this evening at 6:00 p.m., Oso Recreation Center. He noted that the Council should have received a copy of the scheduled Neighborhood Initiative meetings scheduled for the next several months. Mr. Noe reported that the deadline to submit applications for the Citizen University Program was tomorrow at 5:00 p.m. Applications could be submitted online through the city's website or at the Public Information Office, 5th floor City Hall. The seven-month program was designed to educate citizens on city programs. Mr. Noe stated that staff could schedule an update on the improvements to the development services process either on March 21 or April 11. Mayor Garrett recognized Cullen Middle School for their technological savvy, noting that students did most of their schoolwork on laptop computers rather than using textbooks. He said Baker Middle School also used laptops. Mr. Noe replied that the city was working with CCISD, Minutes — Regular Council Meeting February 28, 2006 — Page 29 Cullen Middle School, and Intel to allow students to access the internet through a special portal in the WiFi network. Mayor Garrett asked for Council reports. Mr. Noyola pointed out that hurricane season was almost here, and he asked for an update on the city's evacuation plans for persons with disabilities. Mr. Noe replied a special group was currently developing an evacuation plan for persons with disabilities. Mr. Scott asked for a status report on the riding stables on the Island, stating that he had received a report that the situation was worsening. Director of Development Services Barbara Holly replied that the city had currently filed 52 citations against the property owner. She said his attorney, John Bell, was working with the property owner so he would comply with the law. Mr. Scott asked for an update on the Meldo Park code enforcement issue. Ms. Holly replied that Neighborhood Services was taking the lead on the issue with Development Services providing support services. She said the property had been cited for illegal land use by running a group home in a residential area. The issue would then be referred to Municipal Court if the property owner did not comply within 60 to 90 days. City Manager Noe said staff would follow the case closely. Mr. Scott referred to an article in the newspaper stating that the Council was dismissing Mr. Scott's Citizen of the Year award presented at the last Council meeting. He said the Council was only being facetious, and he was not offended in any way. Mr. Garcia asked about the racial profiling report in the City Manager's report. Acting Police Chief Bung was not present, so Mr. Noe said he would set up a meeting. Mr. Garcia said he was pleased with the report overall. Mr. Garcia thanked City Engineer Escobar for promptly responding to his concerns on a number of street issues in northwest Corpus Christi. He also thanked Ms. Yvonne Haag for handling a code enforcement issue involving a boat dumped in a subdivision. Mr. Garcia asked Assistant City Manager Oscar Mai iinez about zoning issues related to the Memorial Coliseum RFP. Mr. Martinez replied the zoning was a non -issue at this point, but might need to be addressed later in the negotiations. In response to Mr. Garcia's question, Mr. Martinez replied that at no time did staff state that the city preferred to keep the existing zoning in the area. Mr. Martinez also clarified that the city had not committed to helping anyone apply for additional funding, and had made clear that the city was not going to invest any money in the project, besides city incentives. Mayor Garrett recognized Ms. Kaye Noyes, 930 Coral, who spoke in support of preserving the Memorial Coliseum. There being no further business to come before the Council, Mayor Garrett adjourned the Council meeting at 4:00 p.m. on February 28, 2006. * * * * * * * * * * * * *