Loading...
1993-09-09 CC MinutesCITY OF FARMERS BRANCH CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING SEPTEMBER 9, 1993 COUNCIL CHAMBER CITY HALL 7:30 P.M. The following members of the City Council were present: Mayor Mayor Pro Tern Councilmembers Dave Blair Calla Davis Bill Moses Bob Phelps Nancy Hardie Ron Pyle The following members of the City Administration were present: City Manager Assistant City Manager Assistant City Manager City Attorney City Secretary Communication Director City Engineer Traffic Engineer Director of Community Services Director of Personnel Library Director Director of Finance Director of Parks & Recreation Police Chief Fire Chief Director of Public Works City Management Assistant Recording Secretary Richard Escalante Steve Carpenter John Burke John Boyle Ruth Ann Parish Donna Huerta Jerry Murawski Dave Davis Tom Scales Judy Conley Mary Jane Stevenson Charles Cox Jeff Fuller Jimmy Fawcett Kyle King Mark Pavageaux David Reedy Cindee Peters Vol. 65, Page 1 Mayor Blair called the City Council Meeting of September 9, 1993 to order at 7:30 P.M.. The meeting was televised. A.1 INVOCATION. Councilman Moses gave the invocation and led the pledge of allegiance to the flag. A.2 CONSIDER PROCLAIMING SEPTEMBER 11, 1993 AS "9-1-1 DAY." Mayor Blair explained the City of Farmers Branch has been providing enhanced 9-1-1 emergency telephone reporting service since April 1, 1988. Since that time there have been several incidents where this sophisticated service has helped provide quicker emergency service within the City of Farmers Branch. September 11th (9-1-1) has been designated as the annual date to recognize this important service. Mayor Blair read the proclamation and proclaimed September 11th as "9-1-1 DAY" A.3 PRESENTATION OF SERVICE AWARDS. Mayor Blair presented a five year employee service award to J. C. Guillory of the Public Works Department. A.4 PRESENTATION OF BOARD APPLICATIONS. No one presented an application. CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING AS CONSENT ITEMS AND TAKE THE APPROPRIATE ACTION B.1 - B. 10. Mayor Blair stated that under the title of consent items are items that are to be considered and action taken that may not need discussion individually. Any member of the City Council or the audience may request to withdraw any item from the consent items and place the item before the Council for full discussion. The concept for the consent items is established in order to speed up discussion for those items that need more time for discussion. Mr. Marty Gierhl stated he would like agenda item B.7 removed from the consent agenda. A motion by Mayor Pro Tem Davis, a second by Councilwoman Hardie, all voting "aye", removed agenda item B.7 from the consent agenda. Volume 65, Page 2 A motion by Mayor Pro Tem Davis, a second by Councilwoman Hardie, all voting "aye", approved the following amended Consent Agenda. B.1 APPROVED MINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 16, 1993. B.2 APPROVED MINUTES OF CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING OF AUGUST 23, 1993. B.3 APPROVED THE REQUEST BY GILLIS THOMAS FOR REPLAT APPROVAL OF THOMAS BETA WEST. B.4 ADOPTED ORDINANCE NO. 2086 PROHIBITING PARKING ON NORTHBOUND DENNIS LANE FOR 780 FEET NORTH OF ITS INTERSECTION WITH VALLEY VIEW LANE; REPEALING CONFLICTING ORDINANCES; PROVIDING A PENALTY; AND A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF FARMERS BRANCH, TEXAS PROHIBITING PARKING ON NORTHBOUND DENNIS LANE FOR 780 FEET NORTH OF ITS INTERSECTION WITH VALLEY VIEW LANE; REPEALING CONFLICTING ORDINANCES; PROVIDING A PENALTY; AND PROVIDING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE. B.5 ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 93-131 APPROVING THE 1993-94 OPERATING AND DEBT SERVICE FUND BUDGET AND CAPITAL PROJECT FUND BUDGET OF THE NORTH DALLAS COUNTY WATER SUPPLY CORPORATION. B.6 ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 93-135 TO ACCEPT A LICENSE AGREEMENT GRANTED TO THE NORTH DALLAS COUNTY WATER SUPPLY CORPORATION BY THE CITY OF DALLAS. B.8 ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 93-138 APPROVING THE INTERIM OUTFALL SEWER AGREEMENT WITH ADDISON FOR THE TRANSPORTATION OF SEWAGE AND FOR THE INDUSTRIAL WASTE PRETREATMENT PROGRAM. B.9 APPROVED THE CONTINUATION OF THE HEALTH SERVICES AGREEMENT BETWEEN DALLAS COUNTY AND THE CITY OF FARMERS BRANCH. B.10 ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO, 93-141 AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANGER TO EXECUTE A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH DENISE Volume 65, Page 3 ARTLEY, AN INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR, FOR DEVELOPING A COMMUNICATION PLAN FOR THE 1993-94 YEAR. C.1 CITY MANAGER REPORTS. City Manager Richard Escalante gave an informative report on the happenings and status of projects in the departments of the City. B.7 CONSIDER ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION NO. 93-136 AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A CONTRACT WITH THE DALLAS SYMPHONY ORCHESTRA FOR A POPS CONCERT, SATURDAY, JUNE 4, 1994 AT 7:30 P.M. IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $27,000 AND TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION. Mayor Blair presented the following information for consideration. Staff has been in contact with the Dallas Symphony Orchestra regarding a 1994 concert date. The 1994 date will be the sixth consecutive year a concert has been offered at the Historical Park. Staff has received and reviewed a contract for the 1994 appearance. The proposed contract provides for a concert date of June 4, 1994. The concert will begin at 7:30 p.m. and ends at 9:45 p.m. A 20 minute break will occur after the first 50 minutes of performance time. As the Dallas Symphony Orchestra has raised its performance rates by $2,000, this year's contract provides for a payment of $27,000. Hotel-Motel funds are available in the 93-94 budget for the concert and for support services, such as transportation support, labor costs, and advertising. The support services are estimated to cost $5,000. The Chamber of Commerce has been notified of the date of the Dallas Symphony Orchestra performance, but at this time they have not set the date for the Folklore Festival. Rain site will be either Newman Smith or R.L. Turner. The Director of the Parks and Recreation Department recommends adopting Resolution No. 93-136 authorizing the City Manager to execute a contract with the Dallas Symphony Orchestra for a Pops Concert, Saturday, June 4, 1994 at 7:30 p.m. in an amount not to exceed $27,000. Mr. Gierhl stated he was curious what the details of the concert were. Mr. Gierhl explained the residents of Farmers Branch would like to know these details. Mr. Gierhl asked if the City provides the shell for the concert. Mayor Blair stated the City does not provide the shell, but the shell is covered under the contract amount of $27,000. Mayor Blair stated the City provides the electrical service, portable bathrooms and employees who provide transportation to and from the concert Volume 65, Page 4 site. Mr. Gierhl asked if the City could utilize the shell earlier in the day for another band. Mr. Jeff Fuller, Director of Parks and Recreation, replied that staff has not discussed this with the Dallas Symphony Orchestra. Mr. Fuller stated last year the DSO allowed the City to use the shell for an earlier concert for a fee of $500.00. There being no other discussion, a motion by Mayor Pro Tem Davis, a second by Councilman Pyle, all voting "aye", adopted Resolution 93-136 authorizing the City Manager to execute a contract with the Dallas Symphony Orchestra for a Pops Concert, Saturday, June 4, 1994 at 7:30 p.m. in an amount not to exceed $27,000. C.2 PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDER THE REQUEST OF CHARLES CROOK, ON BEHALF OF WAL-MART, TO AMEND THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT SIXTY EIGHT (PD-68) ZONING DISTRICT TO ALLOW A GARDEN CENTER AS AN ACCESSORY USE AND TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION. Mayor Blair presented the following information for consideration. The PD-68 zoning district is approximately 17.5 acres in area and is located at the northwest corner of Midway Road and LBJ Freeway. The Centre office park and the Radisson Hotel abut PD-68 to the north and west, respectively. The former PACE store is the primary property located within PD-68 which also includes adjoining pad sites where a Wendy's, a Taco Bell and an Owen's restaurant are located. WAL-Mart has acquired the former PACE store property and is currently in the process of remodeling the existing building to reopen as a Wal-Mart facility. The proposed zoning amendment would allow Wal-Mart to operate an outdoor garden center as an accessory use. PD-68 currently limits accessory uses primarily to utility-type uses such as electrical substations, metering stations and pumping stations. Mayor Blair stated the Planning and Zoning Commission's recommendation was forwarded to Council following the Commission's special meeting earlier tonight at 6:00 p.m. Mayor Blair stated the Planning and Zoning Commission unanimously vote to recommended adoption of Ordinance 2085 amending PD-68 to allow an outdoor garden center as an accessory use. Mayor Blair opened the public hearing. Mr. Charles Crook, representing Wal-Mart, explained he was present in behalf of the request and to answer any questions from the City Council. Volume 65, Page 5 There being no one else wishing to speak, a motion by Councilman Phelps, a second by Mayor Pro Tem Davis, all voting "aye", closed the public hearing. Mayor Blair stated there was some concern with the placement of the garden center and asked if the problems had been worked out with the Planning and Zoning Commission. Mr. Crook replied that everything had been worked out. Mr. Crook displayed a site plan of the proposed store. Mayor Pro Tem Davis asked when the new store would open. Mr. Crook stated November 9th is the target date for the contractors to turn the project over to Wal-Mart for the move-in of the equipment and a target opening date of Thanksgiving. There being no other discussion, a motion by Councilman Phelps, a second by Councilman Moses, all voting "aye", adopted the following captioned Ordinance No. 2085 amending PD-68 to allow an outdoor garden center as an accessory use. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF FARMERS BRANCH, TEXAS, AMENDING THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF FARMERS BRANCH, AS HERETOFORE AMENDED, BY AMENDING SECTION A, SUBSECTION M OF THE PERFORMANCE AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR THE PLANNING DEVELOPMENT NUMBER 68 ZONING DISTRICT (PD-68); SET OUT IN EXHIBIT "B" OF ORDINANCE NUMBER 1965 SO AS TO INDICATE OUTDOOR GARDEN CENTER AS AN ACCESSORY USE; PROVIDING FOR A PENALTY OF FINE NOT TO EXCEED THE SUM OF TWO THOUSAND DOLLARS ($2,000.00) FOR EACH OFFENSE; PROVIDING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; PROVIDING FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF; AND DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. C.3 CONSIDER THE REQUEST OF CHARLES CROOK ON BEHALF OF WAL-MART FOR SITE PLAN APPROVAL OF AN OUTDOOR GARDEN CENTER AT 13307 MIDWAY ROAD AND WITHIN THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT NUMBER 68 (PD-68) ZONING DISTRICT AND TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION. Mayor Blair presented the following information for consideration. Wal-Mart has assumed ownership of the former PACE store located at the northwest corner of LBJ Freeway and Midway Road. The existing building is presently being remodeled and is to reopen later this year as a Wal-Mart facility. Wal-Mart is proposing to replace the existing tire and automobile service center located near the building's northeast corner with an outdoor garden center. Volume 65, Page 6 The proposed garden center would be comprised of a black steel picket fence, 10 feet tall, enclosing approximately 5,600 square feet of space. It will wrap around the building's northeast corner extending 110 feet along the building's east side and approximately 95 feet along the building's north side. Landscaping will be provided along the garden center's entire east side facing Midway Road. Mayor Blair stated the Planning and Zoning Commission's recommendation was forwarded to Council following the Commission's special meeting earlier tonight at 6:00 p.m. Mayor Blair stated the Planning and Zoning Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of the site plan with the condition that the outdoor sale, display and storage of all goods and merchandise, except as may be permitted by other City codes and ordinances, be limited to the area enclosed by the black steel fence and associated landscaping as shown on the attached site plan. A motion by Councilwoman Hardie, a second by Councilman Phelps, all voting "aye", adopted Resolution No. 93-144 as recommended by the Planning and Zoning Commission to approve the site plan for an outdoor garden center at 13307 Midway Road. Mr. Crook asked when he could pick up a signed copy of the resolution. Mayor Blair stated he would sign the resolution in the morning and Mr. Crook could pick up the resolution at that time. C.4 PUBLIC HEARING: TO CONSIDER PROPOSED ASSESSMENTS ON PROPERTY WITHIN THE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT NUMBER ONE AND TAKE THE APPROPRIATE ACTION. Mayor Blair presented the following information for consideration. For the past several years the City has been working to resolve a major capacity problem that exists in the sanitary sewer system serving the eastern commercial and industrial area. It has been determined that the most economical and environmentally sound solution, is a new major trunk sanitary sewer main, financed jointly with the Town of Addison, serving the eastern commercial and industrial area and a portion of Addison. On March 19, 1993, Public Improvement District Number One was created to finance the Farmers Branch portion of the costs. The cost of improvements can be assessed against property within the District. The total cost of the City's share of the project will not exceed $12,145,000. The amount to be assessed against properties within the District is $10,550,000. A proposed assessment roll has been prepared, stating the amount of assessment against each property in the District. The public hearing has been called to consider all comments including written or oral objections to the proposed assessments. Volume 65, Page 7 Mayor Blair gave the procedures that would be followed for this public hearing. Mayor Blair stated that all oral and written objections would be considered during this meeting, there will be no time limit on speakers, the Mayor and City Council reserve the right to limit the speakers to the relevant issues, all testimony is to be directed to the Mayor or City Council including any and all questions, cross examination of witnesses shall not be permitted. Mayor Blair stated the order of the hearings will be as follows: (1) Presentation by City Staff (2) Presentation by City's expert witnesses (3) Comments and objects by land owners (4) Comments from the general public (5) Questions of witnesses by City Council (6) Responses to questions raised by owners and general public by City Staff (7) Close the public hearing (8) City Council will review and deliberate an ordinance levying assessments by the City Council. Mr. Escalante stated Mr. Scales has copies of the ordinance if anyone wishes to get a copy. Mr. Jerry Murawski, City Engineer, presented the elements of public improvement districts and the improvements to benefit the east side commercial properties within Farmers Branch. Mr. Murawski explained in the 1960's the commercial properties on the east side, generally from Marsh Lane to the Tollway, was a warehouse district. At that time the infrastructure that was put in was to support only a warehouse district. The infrastructure included sanitary sewer and a street system. In the late 1960's LBJ Freeway was constructed, in the early 1970's the Dallas North Tollway was constructed to LBJ and in the 1980's the Dallas North Tollway was extended north of LBJ. Mr. Murawski stated the net effect was that the area grew, and redevelopment from warehouse to office, and hotel and retail development. The infrastructure did not keep pace with the growth. Sanitary sewer improvements are needed now and street improvements will be needed soon. Mr. Murawski stated in 1984 cost recovery districts (impact fees) were considered and adopted. Mr. Murawski stated fees were levied for water and sewer and for transportation as development occurred. The water and sewer fee was levied at .33C per square foot and transportation at .50C per square foot. Insufficient funds were collected to make improvements in advance of development and the cost recovery district was not sufficiently successful. State law changed which put serious constraints on how those funds could be spent. The sanitary sewer system poses the most pressing problem because the system is at capacity. Mr. Murawski stated on some days it surcharges. In July of 1985 a study of the east side sanitary sewer system was conducted by staff which identified the problem. In June of 1986 the City of Farmers Branch entered into an agreement with the Town of Addison to work towards a solution. The sanitary sewer Volume 65, Page 8 system not only serves the commercial district but also the Town of Addison. Today, Addison puts in very little into our system in comparison to Farmers Branch. Removal of Addison from the system was reviewed, but that only buys us very little time. Mr. Murawski showed a map of the area affected. In March of 1987 a feasibility study was conducted by Freese and Nichols, consulting engineers. They looked at what was needed to carry that area of the city into the future. They looked at tunnels, and conventional replacement of the lines. The best solution was a combination of both tunnels and replacement of the existing lines. The total estimated cost amounted to a $27 million dollar project. Farmers Branch would be responsible for $14 million dollars and Addison would be responsible for $13 million dollars. Mr. Murawski stated that no other area of Farmers Branch would directly benefit from this project. Mr. Murawski stated the first thing the City had to look at was to fund this project. The funding mechanisms were considered were: 1. Developer financing a. cost recovery district/impact fees b. tax incremental financing Mr. Murawski stated both methods do not work because of the limited duration, no obligation for anyone in that area to pay until development occurs and that there is no income to support the debt the City would incurred. Conventional Financing 2. (Existing users pay for future users) a. sewer rate increase - 63% increase to all users b. water and sewer rate increase - 19% increase to all users 3. General Obligation bonds a. requires voter approval 4. Municipal Utility District a. separate taxing authority created by the State Legislature 5. Creation of Public Improvement District a. created by City Council b. special assessment district c. one time assessment based on benefits Mr. Murawski stated the last option was the recommended option for the City of Farmers Branch. Mr. Murawski stated the public improvement district was created April 19, 1993. Mr. Murawski stated $4.2 million is committed by the City to make water improvements on the east side, increase volume and pressure, funding is from the 1985 bond program, and there is no special assessment levied in the district for these Volume 65, Page 9 improvements. Mr. Murawski stated there are street improvements needed which total $3.4 million that the city is committed to make. Mr. Murawski stated these improvements include widening Midway Road from LB7 to Spring Valley from 6 to 8 lanes, widening of Spring Valley west of Inwood between Inwood and Dallas North Tollway from 6 to 8 lanes, and to improving the intersections on Alpha Road. The funding will come from the State, Dallas County and DART local assistance program. There will be no special assessment to the east side property owners. Mr. Murawski stated there will also be drainage improvements totaling $1 million. The City will make improvements to Winn Park on the north-south channel that runs to the west side of Home Interiors. Mr. Murawski stated the public improvement district has been created as a means of financing the improvement by a special assessment. Mr. Murawski explained how the PID was created. The law says it can be created by receipt of a petition from the property owners in the bounded area. There is a two tier formula that the petition has to represent, more than 50% of the appraised value, more than 50% of the property owners or more than 50% of the land area. The assessment has to be based on benefits. The benefit is the ability of properties to grow. Sanitary sewer services are provided for now, but there is no capacity to grow. The City then looked at the methodology of how you can identify benefit and determine the assessment. The City has a comprehensive plan with a vision of the east side to grow. The ability of each parcel to grow is the difference between the highest use of that property as determined by the City's comprehensive plan which was adopted in 1989 and the current use of the property. The assessment formula has been developed and is essentially a five step calculation. The total cost of the improvements times each parcel percent of the total demand in the district. The makeup of the district is almost 340 parcels of land with approximately 175 owners. To get the improvement program underway, to work towards the creation of the public improvement district, City staff undertook a massive effort to communicate with the people on that side of town, the property owners. In October of 1991, five separate public meetings were held. Additional meetings were held after that. Mr. Murawski and Mr. Scales met with over 100 property owners between August of 1991 through March of 1993. In 1993 alone, before creation of the public improvement district in April 7 individual mail outs were made. At the City Council meeting on April 199 1993, 63 petitions were received representing 142 parcels, the petitions represented 68.7% of appraised value within in the district, it also represented 62.2% of the total land area. This satisfied the all of the requirements under the State law for creation of public improvement district. Some of the petitions submitted conditions. By Resolution 93-071 the public improvement district was created to fund and construct the sanitary sewer. The cost recovery districts for both water and sewer and transportation were terminated by Ordinance 2045. The thoroughfare plan was amended by Ordinance No. 2031. We had seven zoning districts amended. We had seven developer's contracts that were amended. We also created a reinvestment zone for tax abatement under Ordinance No. 2046. Consequently, all of the conditions setforth in the petitions that were received were met with one exception. That one exception was a condition setforth in the petition Volume 65, Page 10 that was submitted from Prudential who owns the Centre properties because they had one platted area that is a lake. Since that meeting on April 19, 1993, we had started in preparation with funds available and with the cooperation of Addison on the engineering of the first phase of the improvement program for the sanitary sewer, which is the tunnel. When the engineering was completed, the bids were put out and the bids were received on the tunnel in July of this year. The tunnel came in $7 million under budget. The cost to Farmers Branch for the overall improvement program was reduced from the $14 million to $12,145,000. This is reflected in the overall cost that we have on the slide. The schedule for the remaining improvements is that the engineering on the conventional lines would begin in November of this year and be completed in June of 1994 and construction of the conventional lines to be completed in March of 1995. The tunnel which has the longest duration of construction is a two year project. With the award of the contract tonight, it is anticipated that the construction on the tunnel would actually begin in December and be completed in November of 1995. Consequently, since that is the longest lead time and the other lines would be completed in advance of that, the total project will be completed in November of 1995. At this meeting tonight, is for the assessment ordinance which is the major element for making this project work. When we presented this at the meeting in April, and at our individual meetings the total cost to Farmers Branch was $14 million. I neglected to mention as we had presented before that we also had available monies that the City was putting into this project of approximately $1.4 million. Consequently for those who were told that their assessment at that time would be based on $12.6 million that actually assessment will be $10,550,000 which is a substantial reduction in the assessment. As a matter of business and for the record there are a series of things that we have presented and we want to present to the City Secretary. These items include: 1) reports that identified the sanitary sewer system deficiencies and the remedy to those deficiencies; 2) three exhibits - the east side sanitary sewer study dated July 1985, the Farmers Branch-Addison wastewater interceptor study by Freese & Nichols dated March 1987, and the east side sewer study that was conducted by City Engineering staff in August of 1992; 3) a map of the entire district that fully delineates the area that would be assessed. Mr. Murawski stated he would like to make a very clear statement of benefits about this improvement program. It is in my professional opinion as City Engineer for the City of Farmers Branch that without the improvements undeveloped properties cannot develop, under utilized properties cannot grow and existing businesses cannot expand. Additionally, each and every parcel within the district is benefitted to the extent of the assessment. Also on file with the City Secretary and also contained is a memorandum dated April of 1993, from our consultants who helped us put together this entire program. The consultants were led by George Schrader of Schrader Investment Company. That document identifies the benefit assessment and the assessment methodology. Mr. Murawski present the above documents to Ruth Ann Parish, City Secretary. Volume 65, Page 11 Mr. Tom Scales, Director of Community Services, stated the public improvement district was created on April 19, 1993 by the City Council by adopting Resolution 93-071. Mr. Scales stated that resolution was published in the Dallas Morning News on April 22, 1993. Mr. Scales stated that, prior to this meeting to consider assessments, the law requires that the City give notice by publication in the newspaper as well as mailed notices to property owners within the public improvement district. The law requires at least 10 days notice. The 10 day notice has to be published after or at the time the assessment roll is filed with the City Secretary. The proposed assessment roll was filed with the City Secretary on August 27, 1993. A notice was published in the Dallas Morning News of this public hearing on August 27, 1993. Mr. Scales stated that notices were mailed to property owners notifying them of this public hearing on August 26, 1993. Mr. Scales stated that all legal requirements for notification and publication of this public hearing has been met. Mr. Murawski stated the one condition submitted in the Prudential petition had to do with the platted property identified as the Centre Lake. Mr. Murawski showed an overhead slide of the lake property. Because that lake is there and it won't and can't be removed because of the method of flow that comes in. The petitioner has asked that the assessment on this particular property be waived. Mr. Charles Jones, Rauchser, Pierce, Refsnes, financial adviser to the City came forward. Mr. Jones stated he would address three areas relative to the public improvement district. The first is just a quick overview from a financing perspective of how a public improvement district functions. I'm going to talk about an ordinance that the Council will be considering later on this evening and then talk about the specifics of the actual financing that we are contemplating right now. As to a public improvement district itself, Jerry touched on this. A public improvement district is a vehicle through which important public benefits may be provided to a specific area within a city. The project or improvement although public, usually benefits a specific group of property owners exclusively or to a greater extent than other city property owners. Examples are parks, roads, lights, signage, parking, water or waste water or drainage and sometimes security. Property owners in the benefits area choose to become a district and may petition the City to form a public improvement district. The objective of which is to provide the specific public benefit. The capital cost of the project are allocable to the members of the district in direct correlation to the level of benefit received by members as a result of the improvement or the project. As Jerry indicated this is typically determined through a benefit survey which is followed up by assessment methodology. Mr. George Schrader will address the specifics of how that was done here in just a minute. If the members choose to pay the assessment once determined in a lump sum, the improvement can be paid for at the time it is completed. That is not typically done and a more common approach is to finance the cost of the improvement using the assessments as the source of repayment for the financing. The city who sponsors the district may use its authority to issue tax exempt bonds to finance the project and use the assessments to service the debt. Thus the members of the district can enjoy the reduced Volume 65, Page 12 financing cost in providing the improvement. The ordinance that we will be looking at later tonight as to levying the specific assessment has several different dimensions to and I want to briefly review those. In April the owners of the real property within what we are calling Public Improvement District Number One of the City of Farmers Branch delivered a petition requesting the creation of this particular Public Improvement District Number One. The petition was determined to be lawful and executed and was held to be valid. A public hearing was held in April regarding the advisability of the improvements and the creation of the district. Testimony was heard at that time as to the feasibility and the overall desirability of the district. Subsequently the City Council passed Resolution No. 93-071 authorizing the creation of the district. An assessment roll was filed with the City Secretary and notice provided of a public hearing to be held today, September 9, 1993. In the ordinance the Council specifically will consider whether it finds the assessment should be made and levied against the respective parcels of property within the district and against the owners thereof and that these assessments are substantially in proportion to the benefits received and the burdens imposed by this assessment. It goes on to say that there shall be an assessment levied against the parcel of property within the district and against the real and true owners of these parcels of properties. The assessments are a first, prior and superior lien and this lien is superior to all other liens and claims except State, County, School District and City ad valorem taxes. These assessments will be due and payable in full on or before October 1, 1995. The assessments levied are a personal liability and a charge against the real and true owners of the property. The total cost of the project to the City of Farmers Branch will not exceed $12,145,000. Since the assessment will be the source of repayment for debt issued to finance this cost, the amount assessed could be equal to the total cost of the project. Until final costs are determined, actual assessment levels cannot be finalized, only estimated at this time. It is anticipated that the assessments will be due as mentioned on October 1, 1995. They can be paid at that time in full with no interest on the two year period that they are delayed. The reason we are picking two years is that we will be putting the new sewer interceptor into service at that time and we are correlating the payment of the assessment to the timing of actually beginning to receive the benefit from that. If the property owner chooses not to pay the entire assessment on October 1, 1995, they can pay the first installment of twenty installments at that time. If they choose to pay it in installments over the twenty year term beginning October 1, 1995 there will be interest charged on that assessment that is equal to one-half percent over the bond rate or the interest rate on the bonds that are issued to finance the debt. If any time during the twenty year period when that assessment is being carried, if the property owner chooses to pre-pay that, they may do so at anytime and example of wanting to pre-paying it would if they choose to sell the land or for any other reason want to remove that lien by pre-paying that assessment they may do so at anytime by notifying the City who if it is determined that the payment of the assessment is adequate in light of the lien that is being released it will be partially released. But the lien on the land that has been paid or contemplated to be sold will be released in full so that land can then be transferred. As to the specifics of the financing right now it is our intention to issue tax exempt certificates of obligation with a primary source of repayment being the Volume 65, Page 13 assessments. Additionally, all or a part of the water and sewer revenues may be pledge to the repayment of this debt. However, the principal repayment source will be the assessment themselves and the amount of that assessment will be correlated directly to the amount of the debt. Right now we are anticipating issuing rated certificates of obligation. We can't be positive what that rating will be until we actually make our presentation and determine the final levels. That will be done within the next two weeks and at that time we will know the final rating level. We also intend to pursue the purchase of municipal bond insurance which would elevate our rating to AAA so that we would pay a premium but the interest rate savings of issuing AAA debt over what we would expect A+ debt would be more than sufficient to justify payment of that bond insurance premium. The term of the debt will be 22 years and the reason for that is we have the two year period during which we will be constructing the sewer interceptor and then we will begin the actual 20 year amortization of the debt. Mr. George Schrader, 10820 Allder Circle, Dallas, stated he was here on behalf of his associates Susan Meade, Attorney with the firm of Fulbright and 7aworski and Michael Levinson, Principal of Innovative Financial Services, Inc. I am here to provide information on the work that we did to assist with this program. I am here to describe the work and express the opinions that we have at the conclusion of it. My associates and I were engaged to assist in considering the feasibility of using the public improvement district as a vehicle for making these improvements in financing. We were engaged to assist in developing and implementing the program to establish this district if it were feasible. And very specifically we were engaged to develop assessment methodology that fairly apportioned the cost of the improvements to the benefitting properties and their owners. This was done. At the completion of the development of a methodology we examined it internally and critique it internally and critique it with your staff and then we met individually with property owners to review it and apply it in specific instances. We presented it at meetings and we listened to reaction to the methodology at hearings some of which you conducted. In this performance we considered the existing sanitary sewage service network. We considered the basis for projecting the future requirements for sanitary sewer service that the 1989 comprehensive plan. The needs as determined by your consultants for service and the plans as determined them for meeting these needs. And then of course we considered alternatives to allocating the costs to finance these improvements. We reviewed precedent including contractual assessment on a per acreage basis, a very traditional front foot basis, we considered area based on area of the site, we considered as a ratio of value of the properties to benefitted but we selected a methodology based on future need for additional sanitary sewer service. We have with the City staff followed a procedure in developing this program which satisfies the standards set out in the statutory authorization to establish a public improvement district. We determined the advisability, the necessity for these improvements. We determined there nature, an interceptor tunnel and collector system. We determined the properties receiving special benefits, we determined boundaries of a district that enclosed those benefitting properties but did not enclose any that did not benefit from the improvements. The costs were determined in large part by Volume 65, Page 14 competitive bids. We apportioned the costs between the City and the private property owners and we apportioned the cost between the benefitting property owners. Our report on this methodology was presented and filed with you and approved at your April 19, 1993 hearing. It is important that I put before you some detail about this assessment methodology and provide it for the record. That is why I want to take from the approved policy a few paragraphs here for that purpose. It has generally been held that an appropriate measure of benefit is the increased value of property basic principals of real estate valuation conclude that infrastructure improvements to real estate such as the installation of sanitary sewer or the addition of sanitary sewage capacity increases property value. The premise upon which the benefit conclusions are based is that the provision of additional capacity will add value to all property that has yet to realize its full development potential in this public improvement district. A property's value is expected to increase during the useful life of the project in direct relation to its projected need for additional capacity. Therefore, vacant parcels should generally benefit the most from the installation of additional capacity, while fully developed properties should benefit the least. The allocation of cost among the properties within this public improvement district reflect these benefit conclusions and are to be levied in proportion to the property's projected needs. In conformance with the City's adopted comprehensive plan, the district has been divided into 5 development zones to reflect the notably different patterns of development occurring and being expected and planned for in the district and thereby to minimize the disparities and inequities that would otherwise result from an aggregated assessment approach. Properties within each zone exhibit commonality with respect to permissible development intensity as measured by floor area ratio and the highest and best use. Each zone therefore, is assigned a maximum floor area ratio and a highest and best use consistent with the comprehensive plan that are applied uniformly to all the parcels within that zone and those are parcels which are developed or undeveloped. The development potential for each parcel has been determined by multiplying its land area by the zones maximum floor area ratio. Each parcel's development potential measured in square foot of building floor area is then converted into potential total discharge by multiplying the development potential by the average number of gallons of discharge per square foot of building floor area, given the parcels highest and best use and consistent with industry standards for such measurements. Generally accepted engineering standards for the use of the parcel. Total discharge is then broken down into estimates of existing discharge and additional discharge. The existing additional discharge is calculated by multiplying a parcel's existing square footage of building floor area by the assigned discharge factor for its zone. Additional discharge is therefore the difference between total discharge and existing discharge. By summing the gallons of additional discharge for every parcel within the district, and equating the total amount to the provision of additional capacity, one can determine each parcels pro rata share of the cost of added capacity. Each parcel is then assessed to pay the cost of constructing its share of the added capacity less the apportionment of the cost that has assumed by the City. There is one exception to that general methodology. Properties demonstrating excessive discharge into to the existing Volume 65, Page 15 system, that is existing discharge in excess of the computed total discharge are treated differently. These properties will have their excess requirement treated as additional discharge. This excessive demand on the system which now functions at limited capacity is being considered as borrowed capacity by a property from the district at large and thus will be converted into additional capacity for these properties and assessed accordingly and they are assessed accordingly in the assessment roll that has been presented to you. This full report has been presented for you as a matter of record. I believe at this point that this is a feasible program. That in the development of the program in the establishment of a public improvement district that we have met the standards of the law in developing that program in creating the district. I believe the apportionment of the cost between the City and the private properties is appropriate and I believe the apportionment between the private properties is appropriate and it is fair. I believe that the benefit to each and everyone of these properties exceeds the cost assessed against it. I said earlier that we examined the methodology and its application internally and externally and just for illustration purposes it certainly is not a statistical product to present to you, but for illustration purposes we selected more random than anything else, four properties that are in very different circumstances. One is a property that is a rather large property, it is undeveloped, it has an assessment of more than $265,000 under this public improvement district assessment. It has a potential for the development of 1,768,960 square feet of improvements on that property. That property with an assessment of more than $265,000 will pay the equivalent of .15 cents per square foot for this opportunity in the future. We looked at two underdeveloped properties of different sizes and different amounts of assessment and just to summarize and then we looked at one rather fully developed property. The smallest opportunity for growth was the addition of 112,024 square foot of improvements and the largest was the one I described in detail of 1,768,960 square feet. The cost to be assessed under the ordinance before you for consideration ranges from .03 cents per square foot to .15 cents per square foot and if you amortize that cost over 50 years, the life of this facility is indefinite, it ranges from .006 (six ten thousandths) of a cent per square foot to .04 (four thousandths) of a cent per square foot. We believe it enhances the property considerably more than the assessed cost. Robert Goudge, representing Luby's Cafeterias, Inc., stated he had written a letter which I think all of you have received. I guess to keep it brief the one thing I keep hearing over and over out there and I think Mr. Murawski said it the best was that those who benefit pay. The whole premise of this assessment is based on those who benefit pay. Our bottom line is we won't benefit $55,000 plus from our assessment. We are a cafeteria company, we are not a real estate company although our property has been indicated by the comprehensive development plan as a 4:1 ratio. We are not ever going to develop it as that, we have no intention of doing that, we have never relocated a cafeteria which we own the property on, we intend to stay there. We would be willing to reduce that 4:1 to our 11,000 square foot cafeteria and be assessed accordingly. I agree with those who benefit, I think that's a great premise to allow those who are going to benefit to pay, but that's not going to be us. In fact on the 4:1 ratio I asked our Volume 65, Page 16 architect to just work up what could be developed. That is a 383,152 square foot office building. If you tried to develop that on that tract of land we have which is kind of an odd shaped tract of land, you would end up with a 100 x 240 foot office building 16 stories which is not a very practical office building shape but it does give you a 24,000 square foot floor plan. But 16 stories with a 23 story parking garage. I don't think that is economically feasible. It will never be developed to a 4:1 ratio even if we chose to become a real estate company which we have no intentions of doing. We have a cafeteria that is run very well there and we intend to do a major remodel there in the next year so we intend on staying there. I'm not real sure what the, my request is I stated in my letter is that you would reconsider the assessment and that you would hold fast to the premise that those who benefit pay and recognize that we are not benefitting to the tune of $55,828.82 and I would just request that we be assessed based on what we currently have there. I guess my question is when do I find out what the answer is. Mayor Blair stated that after we hear from other property owners we will have a presentation by Staff on your particular property. We have the details as you have. We have your letter and we have looked over it carefully and we will have a presentation by our people on that particular property and whatever questions needs to be answered we could do it at that particular time. Mr. Robert Hall, representing Amelang/Hall, stated he was one of the owners of the parcel number 75, 14219 Inwood Road which is a small retail center and at this point could we let Mr. Aune introduce himself also and he would be available for questions and then I will go ahead with my presentation. Mr. Warren Aune, General Manager for General Furniture Leasing at 14215 Inwood Road, the neighbor to the south of Mr. Hall. Mr. Aune stated that for the interest of time, General Furniture has designated Mr. Hall as our spokesperson. However, Mr. Aune is available should you have any questions about General Furniture Leasing. Mr. Hall stated our case is that due to the particular nature of these two properties, neither of them can benefit to the degree of the assessment. Now I understand that you did receive the little 3 page letter with the architectural drawing. Since you have that, then I'll not take the time to explicitly go through that, but I will briefly summarize that and then mention a couple of other points that were not mentioned in this material. As I said, our case is that these two properties cannot benefit to the degree of the proposed assessment. The properties are basically now fully developed and just briefly although perhaps you have already done this, but for the record you could look at the Plan 2 which is the General Furniture Leasing building and you see that every square foot of the property is used by the building and by the available parking and the same is true for the little retail center which is Plan 1. There is no other room to build anymore building and/or parking on the single level. The next question would be well, what about multi- level. So Plan 3 looks at the General Furniture property and just hypothetically sketches out a building footprint allowing for the setbacks that the city advised would be Volume 65, Page 17 appropriate for a high-rise structure and there is room for an 18,000 square foot building footprint and no room for any parking. Then the question might be well, what about constructing a parking garage under the building and maybe the first I believe it was a 15 floors might be for parking and it turns out that using the architectural standards for parking garages in the back there is physically is not room to have an up and down ramp to get in the 75 feet for the building. Regardless of who owns the property or what their purpose might be it cannot be built. Someone pointed out well there is enough room for a single ramp you could build one going up and then bringing the cars back down would be another question. It would be impossible to construct that. Then well what about going underground with a multi-level parking facility down deep in the earth and that would be in the order of as I recall 10 to 12 stories down into the rock. Certainly not a practical or economically possible development. We don't doubt that perhaps a good engineer could physically design such a structure but certainly no lender or developer would attempt such a structure. The same general course of discussion applies to the shopping center that would with a little footprint that we sketched with no room for amenities, no room for sidewalks or architectural features. You could get a parking garage of 20 to 24 stories to accommodate 1200 to 1300 cars but a 24 story parking garage doesn't make sense. Then if you went down we worked that out into the ground depending on the parking that is required, 10 to 12 levels down just does not make sense and would not be economic. Those positions are respective of who owns the property. It is General Furniture's plan to continue their furniture business that site is satisfactory for that purpose and they wish to continue that. This is a very long range project. What if things do change. Someone could sell property. If they sold the property it still would not work. The point I might mention that was not discussed in the little paper was that whenever extraordinary construction techniques are used, and which occasionally they are around the world for very special locations it takes precisely that, a very special location. These two sites do not front on a freeway, they do not front on a toll road, they do not even front on Belt Line Road, they do not even front on a high traffic intersection. All they do front is on Inwood Road which now is a 2 lanes in each direction, might perhaps be 3 lanes someday if it is widened but there are no plans for it to become a freeway or major traffic artery. If someone wanted a very special building with extraordinary engineering and extraordinary construction techniques, they would want also a special location. This is at best a good location for the purpose that it is now, it works. It would certainly not work for an extraordinary construction that would be required to reach a benefit of 4:1 ratio. I will conclude since you have most of the material. Incidentally, that both of us are available to respond to questions and would certainly appreciate, in fact I would do better because then I would know which direction your interest would and would really rather respond to a questions frankly. You can tell I do not make my living making public speeches. But in conclusion any development for these two properties which would attempt to achieve an FAR of 4:1 is clearly out of the question regardless of who owns the property. Because the special benefits upon which the assessment is based are not available to these two properties then we respectively request that you grant us an exception and we are not asking to have no assessment, we are proposing that even though we cannot expand and do not propose to Volume 65, Page 18 expand and do not propose to get any benefits in the foreseeable future, we are saying assess our property on the basis of a 1:1 FAR which it was the way it was developed and which is the current zoning for that property even though it might theoretically be expanded to 4:1. The shopping center for example is 22,000 to 23,000 square feet under the FAR of 1:1 which is what it is now and which is what it is now and which is the way it was when it was developed it would be allowed to be built to 81,426 square feet. That is the way it was when we developed it. Believe me, if we could have built it larger than the current 22,000 square feet we would have done so and still been able have some amenities and have a desirable product. You know real estate developers that is what we would do. 22,000 or 23,000 square feet is all we could get on the property. The same is true for the General Furniture building. Our company was the contractor for that building at the time it was constructed so we were familiar with it and the FAR allowable at the time would have allowed a building of 47,000 square feet. The building is only 14,000 square feet. Again, that is all that will fit on there due to the shape and the setbacks. They would have liked a slightly larger building if we could have built 16,000 feet at the time we would have done so. We did construct some other buildings for them that were 16,000 feet. So we respectfully request your consideration of reducing our assessment to that based on an FAR of 1:1. Mr. Pat Haggerty stated he would have to say one thing about this property. Only John Boyle may remember when Bob first came for zoning on that property. That was a slum, it was a residential area without plumbing and he did the City one great service when he developed that from scratch he blocked it up and dedicated the road that goes into the property to the west and it was something he eluded to that he was a real estate developer but he did a great public service when he developed it and the way he developed it. I am here to talk about Sigma Road. This is a property that is 63,000 feet on 3.9 acres of land. It backs up to the drainage easement and you will notice in the photographs the leave out at the bottom is where part of the sewer interceptor is to be constructed and that is why it was left out. The actual property fee ownership goes to the center that sewer line and it was developed 25 years ago by Computer Language Research. R. F. Monolithic within the last 30 days signed a 10 year lease for 45,000 square feet. There were in 27,000 and they expanded that. It's just a manufacturing building, the building was $2.53 industrial gross which typifies that type of use. The assessment on that property is based upon a 2:1 FAR which was for retail and office which I don't think by looking at that photograph you could ever imagine such use. The master plan was started during the office boom and I almost felt guilty coming up here with Mr. Schrader's announcement of how minuscule the per square foot assessment really is, but you have to realize that's also based upon 80,000,000 square feet. Right now there is 20,000,000 and God help us if that ever developed out to 80,000,000 square feet. The benefit of the area and those who find for the petition for the most part were those who also will get the benefit of a tax abatement. You can't get a tax abatement on this property unless you tore down the building and fully developed it. What I would just like to say and go over the zoning on that property is 1:1 FAR, the taxes are $16,000, the city taxes are $3,000. This would increase the taxes nearly ten times even Volume 65, Page 19 based upon the reduced assessment and I think a 1:1 assessment is fair that's consistent with everything else in the area. The assessments in that neighborhood have been consistent. They are generally $2,000 to $3,000 per property but this at nearly $30,000 is just blatant and I won't go on but I think this certainly merits the exception under the method we have been talking about. Mayor Blair asked if there was anyone else in the audience who would like to address the Council at this time on this issue. This is a public hearing. Mr. Brian Davenport, I have tract at 14111 Inwood Road. That tract is fully developed at this point. For its size and parking its both fully developed. In fact for the building we had to lease tracts 20, 21, 22, 23 from Davenport Enterprises that I'm not an owner of to have the parking to meet the City requirements that the building would need. I would also like to go on record that notification of the public hearing was not totally met as Davenport Enterprises, T. E. Davenport and Joyce Davenport were not notified of this hearing. I received my notice at 14111 Inwood Road. Mayor Blair stated at this time we did have a written objections on two parcels of land 14219 Inwood Road and 14215 Inwood Road by Mr. Hall. We also had submitted an objection to one parcel located at 13455 Midway Road which is the Luby's Cafeteria. We have a petition from Prudential Corporation which is based on the condition that the lake be removed from the assessment. Those are the written ones and we do have two oral comments, one from Mr. Davenport and one by Mr. Haggerty. The staff has looked at each one of these particular pieces of property and I would like either Mr. Murawski or Mr. Scales to address each one of those properties individually. Mr. Scales stated as we have heard tonight, there have been two written objections and then one conditional objection or condition submitted on the petition. Two written objections were from Mr. Hall who represents these two parcels (points to map), from Luby's Cafeteria who represents this parcel (points to map), the conditional petition that was submitted to the City was from Prudential Properties which represents that parcel (points to map). Again, Mr. Hall's property is in an area indicated to develop at a 4:1 ratio, Luby's Cafeteria is at the 4:1 ratio, and Prudential Properties is at the 4:1 ratio. In looking at these properties, what we have tried to do is to find buildings that actually been built in the City, that would be comparable to the size of lot and acreage or perhaps the size of the building that would be allowed on the properties that we have just discussed. We think the best example that we have found is the Digital building which is located at LBJ and Dallas Parkway in the shaded area (points to map). Mr. Scales presented a site plan of the Digital building and stated that this is a 12 story building. The white area indicates the footprint of the building, out to the property line is parking lot either subsurface or surface parking. The limits of the property are there (points to map). The building is 191,833 square feet in area. It has a land area of 1.17 acres or 51,061 square feet. It has a parking structure, at grade, of 11,000 square feet and has Volume 65, Page 20 a parking structure below grade of 235,743 square feet. It has an FAR of 3.97:1 which is essentially a 4:1. We've used this as an example to compare to some of the other properties that we are going to discuss tonight. Very quickly, and I don't have a floor plan to show you, but the Providence Towers building which is at the corner of Inwood Road and Dallas Parkway actually bounded by Inwood, Spring Valley and Dallas Parkway. This is a data sheet from the plans, it has a land area of 159,763 square feet or 3.67 acres, office area of 505,000 square feet. That building is made up two towers, twin towers which are joined at the top. The footprint for those buildings are approximately 40,000 square feet that's 20,000 per tower, 11 story building, FAR of 3.18:1 and a parking structure, below grade, of a 6 levels. What I would like to do first is to talk about Mr. Hall's property, PID number 75 which is owned by Amelang/Hall. Mr. Scales presented a drawing of the site. What we tried to do is using current planned development zoning standards and using the Digital building as an example. We tried to develop a "what you can build" type scenario on these properties. The perimeter of the property is here (points to map) it is a 1.869 acre site, that is 81,426 square feet in area and at a 4:1 FAR and you can build a building 325,704 square feet in area. You would be required to have a parking garage that is 978 spaces in size and that's an area of 325,704 square feet. We have used 30 foot setbacks around the entire perimeter. That is a 30 foot setback for buildings above grade. That would give you a footprint leftover after subtracting those setbacks of 50,110 square feet. That equates to a 6.5 story building. A floor of 50,000 square feet is pretty large for an office building, so what we have done is to draw a footprint of a 14 story building and that footprint would be 23,265 square feet, which is not an exceptional footprint for a multi-story building. That's this building right here (points to map) sitting on the property. It complies with all the setbacks and you see there is open space around the building. It would also mean that you would have to have a sub-grade parking structure of about 6 levels to get the 978 parking spaces. That parking structure area is arrived at by using the 1 space = 400 square feet of area standard that Mr. Hall has given us and also that is the standard used throughout the planning industry. Mr. Scales presented a drawing of the site. The second parcel is the parcel owned by General Furniture Leasing Company. Again that parcel is 47,000 square feet in area. It is about 1.08 acres in size. At a 4:1 ratio the building area allowed would be 188,000 square feet. Parking required would be 565 cars. That would equate to about a 9 story building with a footprint of 21,094 square feet. The parking garage required would be about 6.8 levels in depth. Mr. Scales presented a drawing of the Luby's site. Midway Road would be here (points to map), McEwen Road here (points to map). The property is 2.199 acres in area, 95,790 square feet. At a 4:1 ratio you could build a building of 383,000 square feet in area. You would have to have 1,151 parking spaces. Subtracting building setbacks you could have a building footprint of 58,800 square feet which would equate to 6.5 stories in height. If you decided to go to a 20,000 square foot footprint you would have to have Volume 65, Page 21 19 stories. You also require parking of 6 levels which would give you 1,062 spaces. You would have room at the surface for 177 spaces. The footprint that you see here is a 27,368 square foot footprint, 14 stories tall. So this would be a 14 story building located on this property. I would like to indicate one thing and I think Mr. Hall's property would be a good example of that. I know it is difficult to see both of these properties together, but in planned development zones particularly, there is a provision for parking reductions for mixed use parking. As an example, when an office building and a retail building are built together in a planned development zone you can get as much as 25 % to 50 % reduction in required parking. When a hotel and a office building or a hotel and retail building are put together in a PD zone, there is a possibility of that parking reduction also. So it's possible that these parking structures we are talking about could be reduced depending upon the uses that are put inside the building. Another example, is if there was a high-rise residential structure built on those properties or a multi-family or condominium development, the parking ratio would again be greatly reduced, as much as perhaps a third as required for office uses. Mr. Scales presented a drawing of the next two properties. Mr. Davenport's property is located here (points to drawing) at Spring Valley and Inwood Road and then the property Mr. Haggerty discussed which is located along Sigma (points to drawing). Mr. Davenport's properties consist of 14 different parcels of property and they are owned by various entities of the Davenport family. They total 151,201 square feet and have an existing building area of 4,886 square feet which is currently being used as jewelry store. With the 4:1 FAR you could build a building 604,804 square feet, required parking would be 1,816. Applying the setbacks and the various things we talked about previously you could have a buildable footprint maximum of 105,000 square feet which equates to 5.7 stories tall. Using for instance a 14 story building with a footprint of 43,200 would give you that maximum area also and that would be very similar to the Providence Towers building at Spring Valley and Inwood Road. This property by the way is 3.471 acres in size which is very similar to the Providence Towers building. The reason why we have grouped these properties together is that in 1984 the Davenport family applied for a zoning change on this property to a 4:1 FAR from the 1:1 and submitted a site plan for a 15 story building on the site, so for our discussion grouped these properties together. In 1984 the request was denied because of some problems with the site plan and some utility problems in the area. But it was denied without prejudice so that they could go back and work those problems out P & Z and the staff. Mr. Scales presented a drawing of the site. The last parcel of property that we have is 4343 Sigma. This is the property Mr. Haggerty discussed with you. It is a 3.9 acre site, its in an area which would allow a 2:1 FAR or a maximum of 340,000 square foot of building area on the site. If you built an office building you would have to have 1,222 parking spaces. Applying the setbacks we previously discussed, you would have a maximum building area of 116,100 square feet which equates to 3 stories. Using a 20,000 square foot floor area equates to 17 stories. The square that we have indicated there (points to map) is a 30,000 square foot footprint with 11 stories. So this indicates Volume 65, Page 22 an 11 story building with it's required underground parking structure of 3.5 levels below grade. Mayor that is all I have unless there are some questions. Mayor Blair stated at this time would any of the property owners like to make a response. Mr. Hall first. Mr. Hall stated this is the first instance I have seen these examples from the staff people even though we have met on numerous occasions and visited about properties. So I will very quickly try to assimilate a few thoughts as they relate. The very first thought that comes to mind is the point that I made about the location. His first example was a building located at the intersection of the Parkway and LB7. One of the prime locations maybe on the planet. The other example perhaps not quite as prime, but certainly an excellent location is at a major intersection of Spring Valley and the Dallas Tollway. We do not have locations of that order of magnitude. We are not even on a decent intersection. Technically there is a little street there that goes back into the property behind us and you are familiar with that. So with that technical observation we are basically not on an intersection at all. We're up on relative small, relative to LB7 and the Parkway and relative to Spring Valley, relatively small street and Inwood Road. Can you imagine dumping 2,000 cars out on Inwood Road from a major structure. He actually reiterated one of my points of a 9 level parking garage going 9 levels down with basically no room for any parking on the surface in case of the GFL property. A rather extraordinary construction feat and I would concede that a good engineer can certainly design such a facility. A reasonably competent banker would certainly not make a loan on it and by any stretch of the imagination. Another point as best I could determine from the picture and again they did not share this information with me even though they had multiple opportunities to do so, so I have had no opportunity to review in detail that particular information. But it appeared that the building at the corner of LB7 and the Parkway was a fairly rectangular site and it appeared that the building footprint was fatter, deeper than the building that could theoretically be built on the GFL site. Maximum depth there even by his own footprint is about 70 or 75 feet. This is an awfully skinny building of 18 or 19 stories high. Even by his own information it really does not make sense. High rise residential, twenty stories of apartments with parking underneath, seems to me that would be a rather extraordinary use for a secondary location. Then he mentioned multi-use retail or with retail, perhaps he was thinking of you know I don't see exactly how that works, maybe like the Galleria, with a hotel and office building but it is a little tough to do that on a site where you have an 18,000 foot maximum footprint or 19,000. He came up with 20,000 feet, I respectfully think he pushed the limits on the arithmetic but perhaps you can jam it in if you use every inch and get the surveyor real close. There are certainly no room for amenities left. So most of his points were similar to my own points and would point out that it is just not a feasible structure at that location. I'm just going to have to add one other comment. As you know I have been here twice before, in the approximate year that this has been under conversation, I have had more meetings with Mr. Murawski and Mr. Scales than I could really count, but quite a few, half a dozen maybe plus or minus and I have showed them Volume 65, Page 23 every single thought that we have had in regard to this. This material that was presented to you was worked up actually two or three times and presented to them and showed it and talked about it and kicked around and I asked more times than I can count do you know of any examples of structures around that would enable us to do this type of development. Any they could never think of any, not any. Where I going on this is that I don't think I have been dealt with honestly and fairly by the staff. Now I have been highly complimentary because they have been extremely nice to me and very sympathetic to our plight seemingly and to sit there in a meeting as recent as last week and say no we don't really have anything comparable that is like this. And I inquired what will your response be to the City Council, I know you can't vote but will you be supplying information to City Council or expressing opinions. They said no it's completely up to the Council. We are neutral, we just present the information and we don't present opinions. That was last week. This is a bit of a personal shock at me and I really don't feel with 30 second to prepare for this rather sophisticated presentation of so called rebuttal that it is really not a very good rebuttal most of the points would fit in my original presentation. Anyway I'm disappointed with that but nevertheless on the merits of the case the merits haven't changed. It won't work on this site. I don't care who owns it, you can't do it by any rational business logical point of view. We will grant you that some very good engineer could in fact design such a structure. Ten levels into the ground for parking on that location. Are there any questions. Thank you. Mr. Davenport stated that nine years ago a proposal was made in 1984 for this property to be rezoned to 4:1. I didn't own this property. To group property together that is owned by different land owners that is like saying your going to group my property with Ike Harris's property that is down the road. You can't do that. Your saying your going to group my property together with Ty Davenport's property or Joyce Davenport's property there. You can't do that. Mr. Pat Haggerty stated that Mr. Murawski and Mr. Scales again pretty much confirmed what I eluded to when the fact, as I understand it, is 20,000,00 feet of development on the east side. If the property is developed out in accordance with the comprehensive plan there would be 80,000,000 square feet. Every one of those incredible buildings would be on every site. We can't go back and reinvent the wheel as to methodology, they had to use something, but just for the number of meetings that we have come to the good faith and the spirit I think that those of us who have been through this process and I think shown a reasonable exception. They talk about a three level parking garage below the surface as you can see from that exhibit. That property is generally in the flood plain except for the immediate footprint of the building. The flood plain extends across Sigma Road. There is no way logically you could ever responsibly approve a building like that. The 2:1 was based upon a retail, maybe they thought there was a water feature. Again the flood plain changed in 1990. You can't have a water feature. You can't back up that creek it would endanger all the buildings. I can empathize and have always had a lot of respect for Tom Scales and Jerry Murawski. They were put in a very difficult position when the whole process floundered a couple of years ago. They brought it to Volume 65, Page 24 life and through a lot of efforts, some which I agree with and some of which I don't, they brought it across the goal line. They were doing their job. I appeal to you and I think the others who have made this exception appeal to you as reasonable human beings elected by the voters of Farmers Branch to say what would you think is fair. Thank you. A motion by Mayor Pro Tem Davis, a second by Councilman Pyle, all voting "aye", closed the public hearing. Mayor Blair explained that for some time that this has been a trying and difficult process not only for the City staff and those who have put more than a year's worth of effort into this program. Mayor Blair stated that there is absolutely no doubt that the sewer capacity is at its maximum in that area. Mayor Blair stated for the regional to grow at all, whether it was from .5 FAR to .6 FAR or whether it was 1:1 to 1.5:1 it is not possible to do that under the present conditions because the sewer system is full. We have looked into all kinds of options of how to put a sewer system in place to resolve that problem on the east side. Some years ago the State of Texas allowed, by state law, impact fees and it was the action of City Council back in the early 1980's to put an impact fee on properties over in the east side area and other areas that would help pay for improvements such as the sewer system. There was a fee to be charged to developers per square foot to help offset the cost for those improvements. The state government decided to make impact fees almost impossible to use. The City looked into the procedure to going into using impact fees and concluded after 6 months of hard work that it was just going to be impossible for us to get an impact fee type of situation in Farmers Branch. The City looked into all kinds of options, we looked at taxation, water and sewer fees, and looked at public improvement district. It has not been hours that we spent it has been months and months that the City spent going over these particular options. The City finally decided that the public improvement district was a reasonable way to go. The City knew in the beginning that there was going to be some problems along the line, properties that would have the kind problems that you are discussing but in fairness there are a lot of properties within that district that probably will never grow bigger than they are today and some of those properties signed the petition. The City was very pleased to have well over 60% participation in the petition drive by property owners and by land area owners. The City has a partner that is going to pay half of the cost of this particular facility. The City also looked at what kind of facility it needed. We looked at putting a line down LBJ Freeway, lift stations, putting a line down the middle of Rawhide Creek. In every instance where we looked, the cost was either prohibited, the engineering problems were prohibited, or the State would not give us right-of-way on LBJ Freeway. The logical solution that we came up with, was to build this tunnel. We were extremely pleased with the bids on this tunnel because they were $7 million dollars under budget of what the City anticipated it would cost to build the tunnel. Mayor Blair stated the whole process on the comprehensive plan was a fair one. Mayor Blair stated it was difficult to speculate on what it going to happen in the future. What we do know is that we need the sewer capacity and we need it today. Volume 65, Page 25 Mayor Pro Tem Davis stated that when Mr. Hall and Mr. Haggerty and the letter from Luby's came in, I had concerns about those properties too because I had worked in a commercial real estate company for 10 years and understood that. I also had to look at what the City side was doing and Mr. Goudge, I know that Luby's doesn't plan to ever do any development on that property, but Rodger Meier's is always going to be car dealership, but when the boom was going, he was going to put two 25 story buildings there with his showroom on the first floor. So what is going to happen in the next 22 years, I don't know, and if it ever comes back to the 1980's I don't know, and Mr. Hall, I understand that your costs are high but one of the things that I think the City has done to try to mitigate this is that there is no payment for the next two years and then you have 20 years basically to pay that out and roughly, doing long math and without a calculator, that is about $5000 a year and on your present property I don't think that is going to make or break and I think those figures are reasonable and like the Mayor said I don't know how else we can ever do anything else on that site and all the things that were happening in the early 80's when it was fun to be in real estate may come back again and if they do maybe a really smart engineer will figure a way to get you that 4:1 ratio that you need. Councilman Phelps asked how the City arrived at grouping the Davenport property together. Councilman Phelps stated we have one person representing the whole family. Mr. Tom Scales stated there are at least three property owners. Mr. Scales stated that based upon the rezoning in 1984 the entire site was grouped together and for the presentation tonight staff elected to group the entire site together. Mr. Murawski stated whether it was one property or several entities it would not make any difference in the formula. A motion by Mayor Blair, a second by Mayor Pro Tem Davis, all voting "aye", to make no change to the assessment roll for PID Number 89, PID Number 59, PID Number 60, PID Number 61, PID Number 62, PID Number 63, PID Number 64, PID Number 65, PID Number 66, PID Number 67, PID Number 68, PID Number 69, PID Number 70, PID Number 71, PID Number 72, PID Number 106, PID Number 75, and PID Number 76. A motion by Mayor Blair, a second by Mayor Pro Tem Davis, all voting "aye", excluded PID Number 87 from the assessment roll. C.5 CONSIDER ORDINANCE NUMBER 2087 WHICH LEVIES AN ASSESSMENT AND ESTABLISHES THE METHOD OF PAYMENT OF THE ASSESSMENT ON PROPERTIES WITHIN PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT NUMBER ONE AND TAKE THE APPROPRIATE ACTION. Volume 65, Page 26 Mayor Blair presented the following information for consideration. Proposed Ordinance Number 2087 levies an assessment on properties within Public Improvement District Number One and establishes the method of payment of the assessment. The amount of the assessments were determined using the methodology established by Resolution Number 93-071, on April 19, 1993, which created Public Improvement District Number One. The City Staff recommends that the assessment roll be approved by adopting Ordinance Number 2087. A motion by Mayor Pro Tern Davis, a second by Councilwoman Hardie, all voting "aye", adopted the following captioned Ordinance No. 2087 which excludes PID Number 87 and finding no benefit to that property. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF FARMERS BRANCH, TEXAS, CLOSING HEARING AND LEVYING ASSESSMENTS FOR THE COST OF CERTAIN IMPROVEMENTS TO BE PROVIDED IN PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT NUMBER ONE (1); FIXING CHARGES AND LIENS AGAINST THE PROPERTY IN THE DISTRICT AND AGAINST THE OWNERS THEREOF; PROVIDING FOR THE COLLECTION OF THE ASSESSMENT; PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE; AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY. C.6 CONSIDER ADOPTING RESOLUTION NO. 93-140 AWARDING THE BID FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE SANITARY INTERCEPTOR SEWER PHASE I TO SEVEN K CONSTRUCTION COMPANY WITH CERTAIN CONDITIONS AND TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION. Mayor Blair presented the North Dallas County Water Supply Corporation was created by the City of Farmers Branch and the Town of Addison for the purpose of improving the sanitary sewer collection system that serves the east side of Farmers Branch and part of the Town of Addison. On July 29, 1993, twelve (12) bids were received and opened for the construction of the first phase of the sanitary interceptor sewer consisting of 22,390 linear feet of 60" pipe with manholes, using both open cut trenching and tunneling. The lowest bid was submitted by Seven K Construction Company in the amount of $11,046,890.00, with a contract time of 720 calendar days. The consulting firm of Consoer Townsend and Associates audited all bids and found the bid submitted by Seven K Construction Company to be the lowest responsive and responsible bid. At it's September 2, 1993, meeting the Corporation awarded the bid for constructing the sanitary interceptor sewer Phase I to Seven K Construction Company contingent and conditioned upon the sale of Municipal Bonds by the City of Farmers Branch on or Volume 65, Page 27 before the 15th day of December, 1993 and concurrence of the City of Farmers Branch and the Town of Addison. The City of Farmers Branch and the Town of Addison must also award the bid to Seven K Construction to be assured that the project will be sales tax exempt. The pro rata share of this contract for Farmers Branch is $4,773,361.17 with the Town of Addison funding $6,273,528.83. The City Staff recommends adoption of Resolution No. 93-140 awarding the bid for construction of the sanitary interceptor sewer Phase I to Seven K Construction Company in the amount of $11,046,890.00 contingent and conditioned upon the sale of Municipal Bonds by the City of Farmers Branch on or before the 15th day of December, 1993. Councilman Phelps stated the City of Farmers Branch' share is $4,773,361.17 and the Town of Addison's share is $6,273,528.83 for a total of approximately $11,000,000 but the project was estimated to be $13,000,000. Councilman Phelps asked if the remaining $2 million was for testing, design and what has already been completed. Councilman Phelps ask if Addison would pay part of this. Mr. Jerry Murawski, City Engineer, stated the $13 million is the entire project. Mr. Murawski replied the remaining $2.2 million will be paid by both Farmers Branch and Addison which does include the design and construction services for the project. There being no other discussion, a motion by Councilwoman Hardie, a second by Mayor Pro Tem. Davis, all voting "aye", adopted Resolution No. 93-140 awarding the bid for construction of the sanitary interceptor sewer Phase I to Seven K Construction Company in the amount of $11,046,890.00 contingent and conditioned upon the sale of Municipal Bonds by the City of Farmers Branch on or before the 15th day of December, 1993. C.7 CONSIDER ADOPTING RESOLUTION NO. 93-141 AUTHORIZING THE PUBLICATION OF NOTICE OF INTENTION TO ISSUE CERTIFICATES OF OBLIGATION TO FUND IMPROVEMENTS TO THE CITY'S WATERWORKS AND SEWER SYSTEM AND TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION. Mayor Blair presented the following information for consideration. Funding arrangements for the City's Public Improvement District (PID) are near completion. Rauscher Pierce Refsnes and staff have developed a plan to issue certificates of obligation for the improvements. These certificates will be repaid over 22 years by PID assessments and backed by a pledge of excess revenues of the City's waterworks and sewer system in order to secure an attractive interest rate. The first step in issuing certificates of obligation is to publish a "Notice of Intention to Issue Certificates of Obligation" in a newspaper of general circulation at least 14 days before the date set for passage of an ordinance authorizing the issuance of such Volume 65, Page 28 certificates. The notice must provide a maximum issuance amount which may be lowered, but not raised, at any time prior to the adoption of the ordinance authorizing the debt. The actual bond issue, after calculating the effect of interest earnings and the use of $1.4 million from prior sewer bond proceeds, is expected to be approximately $119270,000. Staff recommends the adoption of Resolution No. 93-141 authorizing the Notice of Intention to Issue City of Farmers Branch, Texas, Certificates of Obligation, Series 1993, in an amount not to exceed $12,145,000. There being no discussion, a motion by Councilman Phelps, a second by Councilman Moses, all voting "aye", adopted Resolution No. 93-141 authorizing the Notice of Intention to Issue City of Farmers Branch, Texas, Certificates of Obligation, Series 1993, in an amount not to exceed $12,145,000. C.8 PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDER THE REQUEST BY RICHARD A. CALVERT, ON BEHALF OF ASLAN RAFIZADEH, FOR APPROVAL OF A SPECIFIC USE PERMIT (SUP) FOR "AUTO REPAIR AND USED CAR SALES" AT 2409 VALWOOD PARKWAY AND WITHIN THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT NUMBER 33 (PD-33) ZONING DISTRICT AND TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION. Mayor Blair presented the following information for consideration. The applicant intends to occupy the existing building at 2409 VALWOOD Parkway and operate an auto repair and used car sales business. The subject property is a 0.4385 acre parcel located on the north side of Valwood Parkway approximately 100 feet east of Denton Drive. It is the present site of a vacant gasoline service station. The Planning and Zoning Commission considered the applicant's request at its August 23, 1993 meeting. At that time Staff was still working with the applicant in attempting to resolve some site plan related issues. Consequently, the Commission continued the public hearing until September 27, 1993. The City Council must receive a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission before taking action on any zoning amendment. The Commission has not made a recommendation, therefore, no action may be taken by the City Council at this time. City Staff recommends the public hearing be continued to the October 4, 1993 City Council meeting. A motion by Councilman Pyle, a second by Mayor Pro Tem Davis, all voting "aye", postponed the public hearing until October 4, 1993. Volume 65, Page 29 C.9 PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDER AMENDING THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT NUMBER 30 (PD-30) ZONING DISTRICT TO ALLOW "USED CAR SALES LOT" WITHIN THE DISTRICT AND TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION. Mayor Blair stated that Councilman Moses had a conflict of interest with this agenda item and left the Council Chambers. Councilman Moses did sign a conflict of interest affidavit. Mayor Blair presented the following information for consideration. The Council initially considered amending PD-30 to allow used car sales at its May 17, 1993 meeting. However, because the Council was still awaiting a report from the Old Farmers Branch Area Task Force which would have some bearing on the amendment, action was postponed until a recommendation concerning this matter could be obtained from the Task Force. Council now has received a recommendation from the Task Force. The PD-30 zoning district is generally bounded by the City of Carrollton to the north, Stemmons Freeway to the west, Denton Drive to the east and Valley View Lane to the south. At present, PD-30 allows a broad range of uses including light industrial, office, retail and limited automotive related uses but prohibits the sale of used cars. Planning and Zoning Commission: The Planning and Zoning Commission, by a 6 to 1 vote, recommends that PD-30 be amended to allow "Used Car Sales Lot" subject to approval of a Specific Use Permit. Old Farmers Branch Task Force: The Old Farmers Branch Task Force recommends the PD-30 zoning district not be amended to allow "Used Car Sales Lot". Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends the PD-30 zoning district not be amended to allow "Used Car Sales Lot". However, should Council desire to amend the district, Staff recommends, in addition to a Specific Use Permit being required, that special standards be established to ensure compatibility with neighboring properties and that used car sales lots be prohibited from fronting on Valley View Lane, Valwood Parkway, and Stemmons Freeway. Mayor Blair opened the public hearing. Mr. W. H. Miller stated he could not understand some of what was explained. Mr. Miller asked what part of the area would be exempt. ~J Volume 65, Page 30 Mayor Blair stated the City Council has made no decision on this. Mayor Blair stated there are several recommendations and one of those recommends used car sales lots be prohibited from fronting on Valley View Lane, Valwood Parkway and Stemmons Freeway. There being no other discussion, a motion by Councilman Phelps, a second by Mayor Pro Tem Davis, all voting "aye", closed the public hearing. Councilman Phelps stated the Task Force Committee's report was due in October and would like to review the report before considering this agenda item. Councilman Phelps stated he would like to continue this item until the report could be reviewed. Mayor Pro Tem Davis asked that Staff to contact the owners of the used car sales lots on Valley View and inform them of the proposed amendment. Mayor Pro Tem Davis asked also to see what would make it totally prohibitive and what may cause an operator to go out of business. City Manager Richard Escalante stated staff could certainly do this. Mr. Escalante stated there is one non-conforming use in this district on the south side of Valley View. Mr. Escalante stated staff would probably want to set out under the terms of the ordinance how it would impact certain parcels. Mayor Blair asked the staff to try and determine what standards would be reasonable. There being no other discussion, a motion by Councilman Phelps, a second by Mayor Pro Tem Davis, all voting "aye", continued this item until October 18, 1993. C.10 CONSIDER REQUEST OF WILLIAM R. MUHR TO DISCUSS TRAFFIC ON VILLA CREEK DRIVE AND TAKE THE APPROPRIATE ACTION. Mayor Blair presented the following information for consideration. This item has been placed on the agenda at the request of Mr. William R. Muhr, Chief of Administration Division, of the Army and Air Force Exchange Service located at 2727 L.B.J. Freeway. Mr. Muhr gave a presentation and slide program which showed the traffic problems experienced by employees who work in this building. Mr. Dave Davis, Traffic Engineer, stated the situation at this office complex is a standard problem. Mr. Davis stated this type situation happens when you have a commercial driveway exiting onto a street that allows parking on the street. Mr. Davis stated the State Law allows parking on streets right up to the driveway. Volume 65, Page 31 Mr. Jimmy Fawcett, Police Chief, stated erecting signs to prohibit parking would create a nightmare for enforcement. Mr. Fawcett stated if a chain was removed from another driveway it would help the situation. Mr. Fawcett stated his officers have checked the area and found there were no high profile vehicles parked there as shown in the slides. Mr. Davis stated this a very common problem and staff has four pending cases with similar requests. Mayor Blair asked Mr. Muhr if he would open the adjacent parking lot driveway. Mr. Muhr stated two cars had been stolen from that parking lot and the management to close that particular parking lot. Mr. Muhr stated during peak traffic periods these gates are opened. Mr. Escalante stated staff has recommended that signs be installed to prevent the driveway from being blocked. Mayor Blair asked if there was anyway to prevent cars parking right next to the drive approach. Mr. Davis stated painting the curb to make it look like parking is prohibited and may solve the problem. Mr. Davis felt that most people would not park next to a curb that was painted. Mayor Blair asked if there was a problem with extending the line. Mr. Davis stated if the line were extended and someone parked over the line there would be nothing the police department could do. Mayor Blair stated there were several instances where Farmers Branch had erected signs stating "No Parking from Here to Curb". Mayor Pro Tem Davis felt if you painted the curb and put a "Do not block drive" most people would not park by the painted curb. Mayor Blair asked Mr. Muhr and the City staff to sit down and come up with something reasonable to solve this problem. C.11 PUBLIC HEARING ON THE 1993-1994 OPERATING AND CAPITAL PROJECTS BUDGET FOR THE CITY. Mayor Blair presented the following information for consideration. A public hearing is being held to consider the 1993-94 budget. A preliminary public hearing for the budget was held on June 7, 1993. The proposed budget was filed with the City Secretary on Volume 65, Page 32 July 15, 1993, and copies of the proposed budget were made available for public inspection at the Farmers Branch Manske Library. Open work sessions of the City Council were held on August 5 and August 10, 1993, to discuss the budget. The following procedure will follow: 1. Mayor will open hearing. 2. Hear comments from the citizens. 3. Close the hearing. 4. City Council discussion. Mayor Blair opened the public hearing. Mr. Juan Rodriquez, 2539 Richland, representing his father on Fruitland asked if plans for reconstruction of Fruitland were included in the budget. Mr. Jerry Murawski, City Engineer, stated the reconstruction of Fruitland is included in the budget with construction starting in late Spring and completion in early fall. Mr. Marty Giehrl, 3404 Bevann, stated he fully supported the concept of user fees for voluntary services. Mr. Giehrl stated he does not feel emergency services should be charged fees. Mr. Giehrl asked how the budget treats emergency services such as ambulance service. Mr. Giehrl stated the fee for this has been as low as $17 and has progressed to the current fee of $65. Mayor Blair responded that any 9-1-1 call has an ambulance dispatched sent to that call, and if someone is injured they are transported to the hospital. Mayor Blair explained that the City does not ask that person to pay the ambulance bill before they are taken to the hospital. At a proper time, the City does bill the patient for that ambulance service. In most cases insurance covers the ambulance fee. If the injured person cannot pay, the City does not go to any expense to make that person pay. The City is trying to adjust the ambulance rates to be reasonable with other ambulance rates in the area. Mayor Blair stated the City is not raising them as high as other cities. Mayor Blair felt this was a reasonable way to recover the cost of sending an ambulance on a call. Mr. Giehrl stated an ambulance fee in a residential area was directed more towards the sick and elderly. Mr. Giehrl stated there were a lot of good reasons why people live in Farmers Branch and so a fee comparison with other cities should not be involved. Mr. Giehrl stated that not everyone has insurance and insurance is totally out of control now. Mr. Giehrl stated that bill forgiveness is a form of charity. Mr. Giehrl replied if just one person might be hesitant to call 9-1-1 because they could not afford to pay the $125.00 and didn't call because of that and that person did not make it, that is something none of us want. Volume 65, Page 33 Mrs. Glenna Grimmer, requested support for the Metrocrest Chamber Symphony from the Farmers Branch City Council. A motion by Mayor Pro Tem Davis, a second by Councilman Moses, all voting "aye", closed the public hearing. Mayor Blair stated the City has supported certain arts programs in the past. Mayor Blair stated these have been very successful. Mayor Blair stated the Metrocrest Chamber Symphony has now made concerts available to Farmers Branch. A motion by Mayor Blair, a second by Councilwoman Hardie, approved the City Manager to enter into a contract with the Metrocrest Chamber Symphony in an amount not to exceed $6,900.00 and page 3-1 of the budget to reflect this expenditure and 4-37 to add a line item of $6,900.00. D.1 CONSIDER ORDINANCE NO. 2075 ADOPTING THE CAPITAL AND OPERATING BUDGET FOR THE 1993-94 FISCAL YEAR AND TAKE THE APPROPRIATE ACTION. Mayor Blair presented the following information for consideration. Ordinance No. 2075 adopts the capital and operating budget for the 1993-94 fiscal year. All applicable laws and charter provisions necessary for adoption of the budget have been followed. Copies of the budget document are available for public inspection at the Library. Staff recommends the adoption of Ordinance No. 2075 adopting the 1993-94 operating budget. There being no discussion, a motion by Mayor Pro Tem Davis, a second by Councilman Moses, all voting "aye", adopted the following captioned Ordinance No. 2075 adopting the 1993-94 operating budget with amendments to pages 3-1 and 4-37 to include the Metrocrest Chamber Symphony. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF FARMERS BRANCH, TEXAS, PROVIDING FUNDS FOR THE FISCAL YEAR BEGINNING OCTOBER 1, 1993, AND ENDING SEPTEMBER 30, 1994, BY APPROVING THE BUDGET FOR SAID PERIOD AND APPROPRIATING AND SETTING ASIDE THE NECESSARY FUNDS OUT OF THE GENERAL AND OTHER REVENUES OF THE CITY OF FARMERS BRANCH FOR SAID FISCAL YEAR FOR THE MAINTENANCE AND OPERATION OF VARIOUS DEPARTMENTS AND FOR VARIOUS ACTIVITIES AND IMPROVEMENTS OF THE CITY. D.2 CONSIDER ORDINANCE NO. 2076 TO APPROVE THE 1993 TAX ROLL CERTIFIED BY THE DALLAS CENTRAL APPRAISAL DISTRICT AND TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION. Volume 65, Page 34 Mayor Blair presented the following information for consideration. Ordinance No. 2076 approves the tax roll certified by the Dallas Central Appraisal District. The certified tax roll sets forth the taxable value (after qualified exemptions) for all real and business personal property in the City of Farmers Branch at $2,477,800,992 (two billion, four hundred seventy-seven million, eight hundred thousand, nine hundred ninety-two). Staff recommends the adoption of Ordinance No. 2076 approving the tax roll certified by the Dallas Central Appraisal District. There being no discussion, a motion by Councilman Pyle, a second by Councilman Moses, all voting "aye", adopted the following captioned Ordinance No. 2076 approving the tax roll certified by the Dallas Central Appraisal District. AN ORDINANCE TO APPROVE THE 1993 TAX ROLL CERTIFIED BY THE DALLAS CENTRAL APPRAISAL DISTRICT. D.3 CONSIDER ORDINANCE NO. 2079 TO LEVY THE TAX RATE FOR 1993 AND TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION. Mayor Blair presented the following information for consideration. Ordinance No. 2079 sets the tax rate for the 1993 tax year at 44 cents per $100 of assessed value on all real and business personal property within the City. This represents the same tax rate in place during 1992. The City of Farmers Branch has one of the lowest rates in the metroplex. Staff recommends the adoption of Ordinance No. 2079 to levy the tax rate for the 1993 fiscal year at 44 cents per $100. There being no discussion, a motion by Councilwoman Hardie, a second by Mayor Pro Tem Davis, all voting "aye", adopted the following captioned Ordinance No. 2079 to levy the tax rate for the 1993 fiscal year. AN ORDINANCE TO LEVY THE TAX RATE FOR THE 1993 TAX YEAR AT 44 CENTS PER $100. DA CONSIDER ADOPTING ORDINANCE NUMBER 2069 AMENDING ORDINANCE FOR VARIOUS FEES AND TAKE THE APPROPRIATE ACTION. Mayor Blair presented the following information for consideration. Several of the various fees collected by the Community Services Department were established by Ordinance Number 1685 adopted on May 18, 1987 and have not been increased since that time. Proposed fee increases were included as part of the 1993-94 budget review. Ordinance Volume 65, Page 35 Number 2069 amends Ordinance Number 1685 and adopts certain fee increases which were discussed during the 1993/94 budget review. The proposed ordinance increases apartment and contractor licensing fees, Zoning Board of Adjustment fees, sign permit fees, and fees charged for semi-public pool operation. In addition to the actual mowing costs, an administrative fee of $50.00 will now be charged to offset expenses, such as registered letters, newspaper notices, etc., incurred when the City has to mow private property. Water and sewer tap fee provisions have been amended to provide the City the option of allowing the developer to install the tap and service. The proposed fee increases are compatible with fees charged by other surveyed cities in the metroplex. The Community Services Department and the Public Works Department recommends that Ordinance Number 2069 be adopted. Councilman Moses asked how the City would collect for the non-residents in the Easter Egg hunt. City Manager Richard Escalante stated fees to be adopted tonight only involved Community Services. Mr. Escalante stated the fees from Exhibit 2a are included in the adoption of the proposed budget and the city can collect this fee administratively. There being no other discussion, a motion by Mayor Pro Tem Davis, a second by Councilman Moses, all voting "aye", adopted the following captioned Ordinance No. 2069 increasing various fees. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF FARMERS BRANCH, TEXAS, AMENDING AND ESTABLISHING MINIMUM FEES TO BE COLLECTED ON APPLICATION FOR: ZONING CHANGE, SPECIFIC USE PERMIT, ZONING VARIANCE, BUILDING CODE APPEAL, TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION WATER METER, COMMERCIAL CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY, TEMPORARY CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY. WATER OR SEWER METER/TAP ESTIMATE FEES, CERTIFYING CITY RECORDS, SITE PLAN REVIEW, AFTER HOUR INSPECTION, ELECTRICAL PERMIT, ELECTRICAL REINSPECTION, WATER METER, SEWER TAP; AMENDING ALL ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT HEREWITH; PROVIDING A PENALTY OF FINE NOT TO EXCEED THE SUM OF TWO THOUSAND DOLLARS ($2,000.00) FOR EACH OFFENSE; PROVIDING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY. D.5 CONSIDER ADOPTING ORDINANCE NO. 2077 ESTABLISHING WATER RATE CHARGES AND TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION. Volume 65, Page 36 Mayor Blair presented the following information for consideration. The 1993-94 budget includes an overall increase of 3 % in water rate charges and an elimination of the volume discount given to high-end water users. Ordinance No. 2077 increases water rate charges by 3% for use of less than 10,000 gallons of water in a month. It increases rates 12- 13 % for water consumption above 10,000 gallons used each month. Also included is a 5% penalty charge on accounts which remain unpaid after 30 days and an increase in deposits for apartment complexes. The following agenda item, Ordinance No. 2078, includes an increase of 8 % in sewer service rates. Both Ordinances will be effective on October 1, 1993. The monthly utility bill of an average residential customer with 10,000 gallons water consumption, considering both the water and sewer rate change, will increase from $37.58 to $39.37. The $1.79 per month difference represents a 5% average increase. Staff recommends the adoption of Ordinance No. 2077 establishing water rate charges. There being no discussion, a motion by Councilwoman Hardie, a second by Councilman Pyle, all voting "aye", adopted the following captioned Ordinance No. 2077 establishing water rate charges. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF FARMERS BRANCH, TEXAS, REPEALING CERTAIN ORDINANCES, SETTING FORTH THE MONTHLY RATES OR CHARGES FOR SERVICES FURNISHED BY THE WATER WORKS SYSTEM OF THE CITY FOR VARIOUS TYPES OF RESIDENTIAL DWELLINGS, BUSINESSES OR COMMERCIAL ESTABLISHMENTS, OR COMBINATION THEREOF WHEN SUCH COMBINED UNITS ARE TO BE CHARGED SEPARATELY FOR SERVICE; AND PROVIDING FOR PENALTY CHARGES FOR LATE PAYMENT, AND SETTING DEPOSIT REQUIREMENTS FOR APARTMENTS, AND PROVIDING THAT ALL PORTIONS OF OTHER ORDINANCES NOT IN CONFLICT WITH THIS ORDINANCE SHALL REMAIN IN FULL FORCE AND EFFECT. D.6 CONSIDER ADOPTING ORDINANCE NO. 2078 ESTABLISHING SANITARY SEWER RATE CHARGES AND TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION. Mayor Blair presented the following information for consideration. Ordinance No. 2077, previously considered, increases water rates. Ordinance No. 2078 increases sewer service rates by 8%. Both ordinances will be effective on October 1, 1993. The monthly utility bill of an average residential customer with 10,000 gallons water consumption, considering both the water and sewer rate change, will increase from $37.58 to $39.37. The $1.79 per month difference represents a 5% average increase. Volume 65, Page 37 This increase is necessary in order to balance the Utility Fund over the next two years. Staff recommends the adoption of Ordinance No. 2078 establishing sanitary sewer rate charges. There being no discussion, a motion by Councilman Pyle, a second by Councilman Moses, all voting "aye", adopted the following captioned Ordinance No. 2078 establishing sanitation sewer rate charges. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF FARMERS BRANCH, TEXAS, REPEALING CERTAIN ORDINANCES AND SETTING FORTH THE MONTHLY RATES OR CHARGES FOR SERVICES FURNISHED BY THE SANITARY SEWER SYSTEM; PROVIDING THAT ALL PORTIONS OF OTHER ORDINANCES NOT IN CONFLICT WITH THIS ORDINANCE SHALL REMAIN IN FULL FORCE AND EFFECT. D.7 CONSIDER RESOLUTION NO. 93-133 INCREASING EMERGENCY AMBULANCE FEES TO $125 FOR RESIDENTS AND $200 FOR NON- RESIDENTS AND TAKE THE APPROPRIATE ACTION. Mayor Blair presented the following information for consideration. Ordinance No. 1343 was adopted in 1981 and set the transport fee for emergency ambulance service at $65.00 for residents and non-residents. A recent survey of area cities indicates that the average ambulance fee is approximately $210.00. Ordinance No. 1343 also allows the fee charged for emergency ambulance service to be reestablished periodically by City Council resolution. During the 1993-94 City Council budget review meetings the ambulance fees were discussed. Among the reasons presented for increasing the ambulance fees are: 1. Attempts to have user fees pay for an appropriate portion of the service cost rather than placing the cost on all taxpayers. 2. The cost of equipment and personnel far exceed the current and proposed fees. The average cost for medical supplies and materials alone is approximately $70.00 per run. 3. The lower City of Farmers Branch ambulance fee reduces the regional reimbursement fee paid by Medicare to area cities. For this reason an increase is recommended by the Dallas County Emergency Medical Director. 4. Future medical care regulations may limit or restrict future ambulance fee increases. Volume 65, Page 38 5. Insurance companies and Medicare reimburse other communities a greater amount for ambulance services than they do Farmers Branch, because of Farmers Branch's low rates. Thus, a greater portion of this cost is placed on all taxpayers. Resolution 93-133 will increase rates for emergency ambulance fees to $125.00 for residents and $200.00 for non-residents. In the vast majority of cases the cost of Emergency Ambulance Service will be covered by insurance or Medicare, depending upon the age of the patient. The Fire Chief recommends adoption of Resolution No. 93-133, increasing emergency ambulance fees to $125.00 for residents and $200.00 for non-residents. There being no other discussion, a motion by Councilman Phelps, a second by Mayor Pro Tem Davis, all voting "aye", adopted Resolution No. 93-133, increasing emergency ambulance fees to $125.00 for residents and $200.00 for non-residents. D.8 CONSIDER ADOPTING RESOLUTION NO. 93-143 APPROVING A CHANGE ORDER TO RELOCATE A WATER LINE ON THE ROYAL LANE RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT AND TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION. Mayor Blair presented the following information for consideration. The 1985 Dallas County Bond Project provided for constructing Royal Lane as a six lane divided street from IH-35E to Luna Road. An interlocal agreement between Dallas County and the City of Farmers Branch was executed on January 12, 1987. This agreement assigned responsibilities to each participant in the implementation of the project. Farmers Branch's responsibility included paying for traffic control devices and sod in the Farmers Branch portion of the project and a prorated share of other costs above the amount appropriated by the County. On February 17, 1992, the City Council approved Resolution No. 92-031 obligating the City to provide supplemental funding in the amount of $59,705.01 for traffic control items and sod, and additional funding required above the amount appropriated by the County. A change order is proposed on the project to relocate an existing water line that is too shallow and in conflict with the new pavement and new storm sewer. The cost of the change order is $35,100. Funding is available in the Water Bond Fund contingencies. The City Engineer recommends adoption of Resolution No. 93-143 approving a change order to relocate a water line on the Royal Lane Reconstruction project in the amount of $35,100. Councilman Phelps asked if the water line relocation was in the city limits of Farmers Branch. Volume 65, Page 39 Mr. Jerry Murawski, City Engineer, stated the entire relocation of the water line was in Farmers Branch. There being no further discussion, a motion by Councilman Phelps, a second by Councilman Moses, all voting "aye", adopted Resolution No. 93-143 approving a change order to relocate a water line on the Royal Lane Reconstruction project in the amount of $35,100. D.9 CONSIDER ADOPTING RESOLUTION NO. 93-134 AWARDING THE BID FOR RECONSTRUCTION OF AMBER LANE AND OXFORDSHIRE LANE TO CAMINO CONSTRUCTION, INC. AND TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION. Mayor Blair presented the following information for consideration. Six bids were received and opened on August 23, 1993. The low bidder was Camino Construction, Inc. submitting a bid of $253,205.50 with contract time of 135 calendar days. The improvements at Amber Lane from Birchlawn Drive to Heartside Place includes reconstruction of the pavement, sidewalks and barrier free ramps. The reconstruction of Oxfordshire Lane from Webb Chapel Road to Teekskill Place includes reconstruction of the pavement, replacement of water lines and services. The proposed sidewalk for this street was deleted from the project due to the residents request. Camino Construction, Inc. has provided adequate qualifications and references for similar work. They have successfully completed the construction of two alleys for the City of Farmers Branch. The reconstruction of these two streets are part of the 1992-93 Non-Bond Capital Improvement Program, budgeted in the amount of $325,000. Expenditures for design, surveying, and materials testing total $16,600 which leaves $308,400 available for construction. The City Engineer recommends awarding the bid for reconstruction of Amber Lane and Oxfordshire Lane to Camino Construction, Inc. in an amount of $253,205.50. There being no discussion, a motion by Councilman Moses, a second by Mayor Pro Tem Davis, all voting "aye", adopted Resolution No. 93-134 awarding the bid for reconstruction of Amber Lane and Oxfordshire Lane to Camino Construction, Inc. in an amount of $253,205.50. D.10 CONSIDER ADOPTING RESOLUTION NO. 93-139 AWARDING THE BID FOR HOLIDAY LIGHTING INSTALLATION, MAINTENANCE, AND REMOVAL TO AMTECH LIGHTING SERVICES AND TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION Volume 65, Page 40 Mayor Blair presented the following information for consideration. The 1993 Holiday Lighting Program includes lighting trees and buildings at Holiday Park, Tompie Dyer Park, City Hall, and the Historical Park. There is $94,000.00 available in the 1992-1993 Hotel-Motel fund for the installation, maintenance, and removal of the holiday lighting. Six bid packets were distributed, three bidders attended the mandatory pre-bid meeting. Two contractors submitted bids, one met specifications and the other responded with a "No Bid". The contractor bidding the "No Bid" stated that they did not have time to complete the bid. The remaining four bidders stated that the job was too big for their company. The bid meeting specifications was received from Amtech Lighting Services in the amount of $80,350.00. Amtech Lighting Services has provided the lighting installation, maintenance, and removal for the City for the last two years and has specialized in commercial holiday lighting for the past 19 years. The City Engineer recommends adopting Resolution No. 93-139 awarding the bid for holiday lighting installation, maintenance, and removal to Amtech Lighting Services in the amount of $80,350.00. There being no discussion, a motion by Mayor Pro Tem Davis, a second by Councilman Moses, all voting "aye", adopted Resolution No. 93-139 awarding the bid for holiday lighting installation, maintenance, and removal to Amtech Lighting Services in the amount of $80,350.00. D.11 CONSIDER ADOPTING RESOLUTION NO. 93-142 AWARDING THE BID FOR THE HOLIDAY LIGHT STRING PURCHASE TO LECO ELECTRIC MANUFACTURING COMPANY AND TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION. Mayor Blair presented the following information for consideration. The 1993 Holiday Lighting Program provides for light strings to be installed on buildings and trees at Holiday Park, Tompie Dyer Park, City Hall and the Historical Park. There is $20,400.00 budgeted in the Hotel-Motel fund for the purchase of replacement strings at the various locations. Seven bid packets were distributed to suppliers. Four bids were received, two of which met specifications. The two low bidders submitted bids on materials other than those specified, these materials do not meet specifications. The specifications require a 2000 hour lamp and the alternate material provided only a 700 hour lamp. The lowest qualified bid was received from Leco Electric Manufacturing Company in the amount of $11,281.00. Volume 65, Page 41 The City Engineer recommends adopting Resolution No.93-142 awarding the bid for the the Holiday Light String Purchase to Leco Electric Manufacturing Company in the amount of $11,281.00. There being no discussion, a motion by Mayor Pro Tern Davis, a second by Councilwoman Hardie, all voting "aye", adopted Resolution No.93-142 awarding the bid for the Holiday Light String Purchase to Leco Electric Manufacturing Company in the amount of $11,281.00. D.12 CONSIDER ADOPTING ORDINANCE NUMBER 2019 REQUIRING STERILIZATION OF ALL DOGS AND CATS ADOPTED FROM THE CITY ANIMAL SHELTER AND TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION. Mayor Blair presented the following information for consideration. The Texas Legislature has adopted a law requiring animal pounds and shelters in cities exceeding 10,000 population to require sterilization of all dogs and cats which are acquired by new owners. Proposed Ordinance Number 2019 requires that persons adopting dogs or cats from the City animal shelter sign an agreement to have the dogs or cats surgically sterilized by a veterinarian within thirty (30) days after adoption. If animals are too young to be sterilized within 30 days, then they must be sterilized within 30 days after they are six months old. Failure to return proof of sterilization of an adopted animal will be a violation of this ordinance. The sterilization requirement applies only to adopted animals and does not apply to animals redeemed by owners from impoundment at the animal shelter for animal control violations. The SPCA of Texas which receives some dogs and cats from the City shelter through the City's agreement with Meyer/Taylor will be exempt from the requirements of this City ordinance. The SPCA of Texas and other humane organizations are required by State law to have their on sterilization program. The City Staff recommends that Ordinance Number 2019 be adopted. There being no discussion, a motion by Mayor Blair, a second by Councilwoman Hardie, all voting "aye", adopted the following captioned Ordinance No. 2019 requiring sterilization of all dog and cats adopted from the City animal shelter. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF FARMERS BRANCH, TEXAS, ENTITLED "DOG AND CAT STERILIZATION"; PROVIDING FOR DEFINITIONS; PROVIDING FOR REQUIREMENT FOR ADOPTION; PROVIDING FOR STERILIZATION AGREEMENT; PROVIDING FOR CONFIRMATION OF STERILIZATION; PROVIDING FOR FAILURE OF NEW OWNER TO DELIVER PROOF; PROVIDING FOR RECLAMATION; Volume 65, Page 42 PROVIDING FOR EXEMPTION; PROVIDING FOR ENFORCEMENT RESPONSIBILITY; PROVIDING FOR PENALTY; PROVIDING FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF; AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY. D.13 CONSIDER RECOMMENDING LEGISLATIVE RESOLUTIONS TO BE SUBMITTED FOR CONSIDERATION AT THE 1993 TEXAS MUNICIPAL LEAGUE ANNUAL CONFERENCE AND TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION. Mayor Blair presented the following information for consideration. The City of Farmers Branch is an active member of the Texas Municipal League. The TML Region 13 meeting will be held on September 16, 1993, and at that meeting resolutions recommending legislative action will be considered. After the regional meeting the resolutions must be submitted to TML headquarters no later than September 20, 1993 for consideration at the TML Annual Conference in November, 1993. Last year, the City of Farmers Branch submitted a resolution supporting legislation allowing the State Comptroller to provide cities with detailed sales tax information paid by businesses. A resolution supporting sales tax information will be submitted to TML again this year. City Council may wish to consider recommending any additional resolutions for submittal to TML. City staff recommends that the City Council consider recommending any legislative resolutions to be submitted for consideration at the 1993 TML Annual Conference. There being no discussion, a motion by Mayor Pro Tem Davis, a second by Councilman Moses, all voting "aye", approved any legislative resolutions be submitted for consideration at the 1993 TML Annual Conference. D.14 CONSIDER CITY MANAGER TRAVEL POLICY AND TAKE THE APPROPRIATE ACTION. Mayor Blair stated City Council has discussed eliminating the requirement that the City Manager request approval for travel. Mayor Blair replied Mr. Escalante has proven in the past he does not abuse travel requests. There being no further discussion, a motion by Mayor Blair, a second by Mayor Pro Tem Davis, all voting "aye", eliminated the requirement for the City Manager to request approval for travel. D.15 CONSIDER COUNCIL TRAVEL REPORTS AND REQUESTS AND TAKE THE APPROPRIATE ACTION. Volume 65, Page 43 City Manager Richard Escalante stated he attended a North Texas City Manager's retreat in Granbury the weekend of August 20, 1993. Mr. Escalante explained he found this retreat to be very informative. Mr. Escalante stated one of the issues discussed was the Metroplex legislative initiatives and how suburban communities can work together better to pass legislation. Mr. Escalante stated he attended a meeting in Austin with the Town of Highland Park and the Texas Water Commission on August 30, 1993. Mr. Escalante stated this meeting pertained to a permitted landfill that the Town of Highland Parks owns but is currently unused with approximately 100 acres just adjacent to the Camelot landfill. Mr. Escalante stated they would like to maximize the use of both landfills by working jointly. Mr. Escalante explained on September 23, 1993, he would be attending a New York bond rating for the City. A motion by Mayor Blair, a second by Mayor Pro Tem Davis, all voting "aye", approved travel for any member of City Council who desires to attend the bond rating meeting in New York on September 23, 1993. A motion by Councilwoman Hardie, a second by Councilman Pyle, all voting "aye", approved travel for any member of City Council who wished to attend the MIDAS marketing trip to Canada on October 4-8, 1993. D.16 CITIZEN PARTICIPATION. There was no one who came forward. MAYOR BLAIR ANNOUNCED AT 11:30 P.M. THAT THE ITEMS ON THE AGENDA FOR THE GENERAL SESSION HAVE BEEN CONCLUDED. AFTER A SHORT RECESS, THE MEETING WILL RECONVENE FOR ITEMS IN THE EXECUTIVE SESSION. THE MEETING WILL RECONVENE INTO GENERAL SESSION AFTER THE ITEMS HAVE BEEN DISCUSSED IN THE EXECUTIVE SESSION. ARTICLE 6252-17, SECTION 2 OF THE OPEN MEETING LAW PROVIDES THAT SUCH ITEMS AS PERSONNEL MATTERS, LAND ACQUISITION AND PENDING AND CONTEMPLATED LITIGATION MAY BE DISCUSSED IN CLOSED SESSION. E. la DISCUSS PERSONNEL MATTERS - ARTICLE 6252-17, SEC. 2(g) 1. DISCUSS APPOINTMENT FOR MUNICIPAL COURT JUDGE. 2. DISCUSS APPOINTMENT TO THE ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND BUILDING CODE BOARD OF APPEALS. Appointment of Municipal Court Judge and appointment to the Zoning Board of Adjustment and Building Code Board of Appeals were briefly discussed. Volume 65, Page 44 THE MEETING WAS RECONVENED INTO GENERAL SESSION AT 11:33 P.M. E.2 CONSIDER NECESSARY ACTION ON PERSONNEL MATTERS DISCUSSED IN THE EXECUTIVE SESSION. Mayor Blair stated that the Council Committee of reviewing and interviewing applicants for the Municipal Court Judge would be continued until the next meeting. Mayor Blair called for action for appointment to the Zoning Board of Adjustment and Building Code Board of Appeals. A motion by Councilman Phelps, a second by Councilman Moses, all voting "aye", moved Joe Patterson from his present position as an alternate to serve Place 5 on the Zoning Board of Adjustment and Building Code Board of Appeals for a term to expire December 1, 1994. F.1 ADJOURNMENT. A motion by Mayor Pro Tem Davis, a second by Councilman Moses, all voting "aye", adjourned the City Council meeting of September 9, 1993, at 11:34 P.M. Mayor City Secretary L1 Volume 65, Page 45