Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1967/11/27-Agenda-Pre-Council ? .t; ' s ;• MINUTES Pre-Council Conference f November moi, 196/ Present Late Absent ' 1. Kersnick 7, Guinn (Item 1) 9. Stovall '.I. Wilson 8. Hoover (Item 2) 3. Kemble 4. Dunham 5. McKinley 6. Sarsgard 1 t e m Follow-►lp 1. Alternate Dates for City Council Meetings Scheduled ROY & GENE - Draft resolution for Monday. December 25, 1967 and Monday, January 1, resetting meetings and list on 1968 agenda/ for 12/4/67. T1ie City Manager asked the Council which alternate 6 .CL'or dates it would prefer to meet. After some discussion, the consensus appeared that the meetings Should be scheduled for the Wednesday following each holiday. 2. Continuation of Neighborhood Improvement Program ERROL - Draft memo to Shepherd (IR #1i0l - held over from previous week) requesting that he begin pre- paration of application to HUD. The Mayor brought up the continuation of the Neigh- borhood Imptuvement Program. He said that two areas in the city had been tentatively selected, one in the near southea:•t section of the city and one on the north side. He also said t11:1t the Planning Commission agreed with the selection of the two areas. The City Manager pointed out the current estimates of the co:<t of public facilities and said that the cost estimate would not be final until the application to the Federal government was finished. He said that the object of the request was to seek authoriza- tion from the city Council to prepare an application which would be submitted to the City Council in approximately 6 : o b weeks for approval and later submission to the De- partment of Housing and Urban Development_ Dr. Guinn asked the City Manager 1►ow the boundaries of the south side project had been determined. The City Manager replied that the freeway was considered a natural boundary and pointed out that the area between the freeway and the railroad tracks is changing in character and is beyond the scope of the Neighborhood Improvement Program, which is primarily concerned with residential neighborhoods. He said that the area selected shows evidence that it will remain resi- dential in use for a long time. Mr. Sarsgard observed that the IR appeared to be asking only for approval to prepare an application. Mr. Kersnick asked if it would require three years to complete the project. The City Manager replied that it would require about three years to Complete the program after approval for it is received from the Federal government . He also said that approval is anticipated within six to nine months from its sub- mission, which would tie in well with the closing out of the current Neighborhood Improvement Program projects. 2- The City Manager said that the staff was hoping to stmt in the new project areas sometime next fall. Mr. Wilson asked if the City Manager had any idea of how much property owners had spent improving their own property in ,addition to what Federal/City funds had been expended in the area. Mr. Shepherd replied that he did not have any accurate figures showing ex- penditures by property owners within the areas. Mr. `'Itepherd did say that "considerable" value had been ,{dried to the city by the property owners themselves. 10,r. Hoover :;ugge!4ted that increased tax values of the area would be a good index. Mr. Kersnick sug- gested that the change in value of vacant land in the area would provide an indication. The City Manager :.aid OWL the City has good data on the arca:; before the program began and could make a comparison. Mr. lloover said that buildings needing painting alone were not considered substandard and requested whit success the program had met with in getting property oi.ners to paint their buildings. Mr. Shepherd replied that the clean-up and painting phase of the Neighbor- hood Improvement project has been very successful. Mr. Hoover asked whether it was Inorally right" to collect two-thirds of the cost of paving in the areas and not pass it along to the abutting property owners. Ile asked whether procedures concerning the tinancing of Public facilities had been finally determined. The City Manager replied that the Federal government has issued guidelines limiting assessments to pay for the City':; share of the improvements to one third of the cost of the project. lie said that the City could not .assess for more than its share of the Federal grant. Mfr. Hoover began a dir,cussion concerning interpre- tation:; of assessment paving policies, suggesting that the assessment cost of the raving projects be prorated as they are in normal paving projects. He said that according to his calculations homeowners would receive only 12 per cent of the 662/3 per cent grant. The City Manager disagreed with Mr. Hoover 's conclusions and ,;aid that changing the ..is_;essment paving policies in the project areas would make it extremely diffi- cult to assess for paving elsewhere in the City. The Mayor asked what the money received from the Federal government was to be used for. Mr. Hoover said that the help should go primarily to the local homeowners, and Mr. Guinn replied that the City could not underwrite the total expense of the projects itself. The Mayor said that the program was for the benefit of low income people and said that it wa:, included in the Capital Im- provement Program. The City Manager replied that the Neighborhood Improvement Program uas not in the Capital Improvement Program because it was not approved by the Congress at that time. The City Manager said, however, that some money in the Capital Improvement Program for general assessment paving projects was being used to finance the City's share of the Neighborhood Improve- ment Program. Mr. Dunham said that the City should stick to its present rules concerning assessment paving, even in the project areas. Mr. Hoover replied that the 3 A*% "sk rules had been changed because of the maximum one third of the project that the City could assess for. Mr. Sarsgard pointed out that the percentage distribution paid on regular assessment paving projects saying that the figures were only averages. Mr. Dunham asked how many property owners in the project areas had received grants. The City Manager and Mr. Shepherd replied that approximately 112 grants have been made and almost twice as many loans for a total of approximately 300 grants and loans. At this point a consensus appeared to authorize the administrative staff to prepare an application for additional program areas. The City Manager said that during the preparation of the application, Mr. Hoover 's com- ments concerning the assessments against local property owners would be considered. Mr. Hoover said that under the previous program the City got some extra money but now can realize only 100 per cent of the cost from all sources. `17he Mayor asked if the new guidelines from HUD would have any effect on the cur- rent program. The City Manager replied that the guidelines would have no effect on the current program; but, under the new program, the City's direct share of the cost would be increased. The City Manager went on to point out that the amount of the assessment paving necessary will not be as great as in the current projects. He said that there would have to be more reconstruction and resurfacing work than as- sessment paving. The City Manager in response to Mr. Hoover said that the Federal government will participate in the cost of reconstruction and resurfacing, but not repair costs such as filling chug holes. Mr. Wilson a,* ed if the home- owners in the areas would get credits for curb and gutters and other facilities now in place. The City Manager said that the regular assessment policy would be applied in the areas. Mr.. Shepherd said that there were very few county roads in the areas. The City Manager said that some special assessments would be necessary, but most of the street work will be for reconstruction. 3. Amendment to Contract - Cedar Creek Project GENE - Reschedule item on agenda (M&C C-1104) for next week. The Mayor turned the discussion to the Cedar Creek ERROL - Draft reminder to Hardy to project. The City Manager said that the effect of the provide Hoover with additional in- amendment to the contract was to reduce the cost of water formation as necessary. to users outside of the water district to whom the City of Fort Worth was supplying water. The City Manager said that the raw water ratesare reviewed each five years, and a re- study of them will be presented to the Council within the next three to four weeks. The City Manager said that if the contract were adjusted as proposed the rates outside of the water control district would go down, but the rates inside the water control district will go up. Mr. Hoover objected to the idea that cities outside of the water con- trol district should be given "a free ride". The City M:uiager said that the rate to the City of Fort Worth is being reduced from 8 cents to 5 cents. He also said that under the contract whenthe pipeline is installed from Cedar Creek, the rates within the district will increase to 8 cents and the rates outside of the district will in- crease to 16 cents , but the proposal is for a one cent differential in the rates between users inside and outside of the water control district. Mr. Kemble said that the ' Ad- 4 Afth, line was not going Lo be built until the City is down to a three year supply of water. Mr. Kersnick said that the nine cent rate was only for raw water purchases, and that rhe cities purchasing it distribute it themselves. The City Manager said that the rates that the City of Fort Worth charges for water sales outside of the City are based on maximum demand and total u age which is added to the rate that the water control district charges Fort Worth. He said that with the change, the City will add 5 cents to that rate ins Lead of the current 8 cents. The City Manager said Lhat there would be no change in Fort Worth rates for users outside of the city, that the proposal in question was only to change the rates for the purchase of raw water. Mr. Sarsgard said that if the contract is amended, it wouldn't make any differ- ence to City of Fort Worth revenues but will affect only raw water purchases sold through Fort Worth. Mr. Hoover wanted to know how the Fort Worth taxpayer would not be affected by the change. He again objected to the "free ride" by outsiders inasmuch as they would pay only a one cent differential in the water, and residents of the water control district were being assessed 24 cents on their advalorem tax rate. The City Manager replied that none of the 24 cents assessed on the ad valorem tax rate was being used for the Cedar Creek project. He said that if a tax is levied it will be prorated among raw water purchasers of the district as an additional charge. Considerable discussion followed among the Council- men as to whether the amendment to the contract would in fact be more costly to the City of Fort Worth. The City Manager said that the present contract allows the water control district to charge the same rates for raw water to outside users as it charges the City of Fort Worth. Mr. Hardy said that the proposed filter plant to service the cities located in the northeastern section of Tarrant County was abandoned when Fort Worth said it would charge wholesale rates to other cities in the county. Mr. Hardy said that after the pipeline is installed from Cedar Creek, Fort Worth is obligated to pay 16 cents, but other users of the raw water supplied by the water control district only have to pay 8 cents. Mr. Hardy said that the proposal is presented to obviate the need to raise the ad valorem tax rate later. The Mayor suggested that Lhe contract amendment be held over, and Mr. Hoover suggested that he would like to get together with Mr. Hardy to discuss the contract in more detail sometime during the week.