ccss 09-14-1976
423
SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL
SEPTEMBER 14, 1976
The Schertz City Council convened in Special Session Tuesday, September 14,
1976 at 7:00 P.M. in the Council Chambers, 401 Oak Street with the following
members present: Mayor Robert C. Bueker, presiding; Richard L. Howe, Donald
J. Seeba, Walter F. Schneider, and Ed L. Sharpe. Absent: Gail Hyatt. Also
present City Manager Denny L. Arnold, City Secretary June G. Krause.
#1 Site location/contract award for a 50 Unit Elderly Housing Project.
Mayor Bueker opened the meeting by bringing up to date the past events
concerning the Housing Authority site location for the Elderly Housing Project.
This project was originally a combined project of low income and elderly housing.
Determination had been made in years past that the need for low income housing
was not prevalent in the city as we had 235 and 236 housing and vacancies existed
in those units. A request was made at that time for conversion to a total elderly
project to fall within the confines of the total appropriation made available.
This was done and resulted in the 50 units discussed here. The original 26
units have been built and are now occupied in the Aviation Heights area. The
additional 50 units coming along somewhat later had certain conditions imposed
upon the location and this is what has presented the problem we have now and
has resulted in differences of opinion. The site locations, presented to the
Housing Authority at bid time, were with 3 exceptions on the east side of Live
Oak Road. Two site locations were offered on the west side of Live Oak Road,
one north of the Val Verde apartments and one directly across from the present
Police Department. Of those two, the Housing Authority was notified by HUD
prior to opening bids that the site location across from the Police Department
was not to be included as an acceptable site because of its location within
the noise pollution zone. The Housing Authority selected the site at the end
of Main Street on the east side of Live Oak Road and submitted this single site
location to HUD. At that time the City Council and Planning & Zoning Commission
felt that a site in close proximity to the existing units would be the most
beneficial it if could be secured. An appeal was made to HUD to allow this
site to be included in the bid, which appeal was denied at the local level.
A phone call ensued to the Dallas Regional Office of EPA, the office that
handles air noise polution; and a letter was sent back to the local office and
City Council that established the Air Force as the determining agency in
establishing air noise zones and that individual entities had the perogative,
in their own powers, to judge what could or could not be contained in those
areas. This left a broad interpretation of just what was meant. The local
area office of HUD construed this to mean that it gave the local office of HUD
the right to make the determination and they wanted to abide by their original
decision. As a result of that letter, contact was made with the legislator,
who in turn has talked back down the line in HUD channels and there are actions
that can be taken. This is the point of consideration against HUD. It mayor
may not be reversible.
Some of the problems the Council is apprehensive about are: (1) the social
environment between the existing 26 units and the site for the new units (2)
present site location has both air and ground noise (3) the unanswered problem
of drainage in the proposed site. Mayor Bueker said at this time the Council
should take a review of these points and make a stand as to where they want
to go.
Mr. John Schaefer, owner of the property on which the bidder has an option, addressed
the Council stating he has several peices of property on Live Oak Road. He considers
some more valuable than the one selected. As he has had little or no activity on
this property, he feels this project would stimulate building on Live Oak Road.
424
Mr. Les Bullock, Executive Director of the Housing Authority, introduced his
Board, Chairman Jack Duncan and members Jim Brown and Bill Scoggins. He went
on to explain this was a "turn key" program, which means basically that certain
monies were allocated, they went out for bids stating the site must be in the
City of Schertz, must be close to shopping (shopping meaning food to Mr. Bullock)
close to transportation and must be a certain type of structure. The bidder
selects a site without the knowledge of the Housing Authority until the time
bids are opened. There were 8 bidders, one was eliminated and others had
certain things to be taken care of before they could be considered. The site
selected did have a noise problem from the railroad but they proposed a nosie
barrier, which under HUD guidelines would eliminate the noise problem. Next
consideration was the bidder himself and what type of work he performed in the
past. After making their selection, they sent a preliminary choice to HUD for
their approval. At that time the Housing Authority went to the Schertz Planning
& Zoning Commission and did not get any answers, nor from subsequent meetings
where the P&Z did not have a quorum. Mr. Bullock stated his directives do not
say to consult with the city but he realizes they should have and hope that
some solution can be arrived at at this meeting. However, his Board of Com-
missioners feel their decision should stand.
Mr. Bullock also said the site on Pfeil street was not considered because it
is in the noise zone. The noise zone line originally was 200 feet on each side
of Live Oak Road but HUD and the Air Force changed it to an existing street -
namely, Live Oak Road in order to have a distinct boundary marker.
Mayor Bueker agreed there had been a lack of communication all around. How-
ever the key point now is what is best for the community.
After further consideration, Mayor Bueker polled the Council members who
unanimously agreed to take another look at this problem and see if something
can be done to prevail on HUD to reconsider the site selection.
Mr. Duncan, speaking for the Housing Authority Board, said they had made their
decision and would stick with it as the best selection offered.
Mr. Bullock said he had nothing in writing but it had been indicated to him that
if this project was turned down it could jeopardize Comrnunity Development funds.
At this time Mayor Bueker recessed the regular meeting of the City
Council in order to call at Executive Session under paragraph 2 (E)
of Chapter 31 of the Open Meeting Law. The meeting was recessed at 8:30 P.M.
The Regular Meeting of the City Council was reconvened by Mayor Bueker at 9:50 P.M.
Mr. Sharpe moved to direct the City Manager to write the Area and Regional HUD
offices requesting them to withhold any action for a fifteen day period, giving
the City Council time to provide further justification for requesting a recon-
sideration of site selection. Mr. Howe seconded the motion which carried with
the following vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Seeba, Mr. Howe, Mr. Schneider and Mr. Sharpe
None
425
#2 Council consideration and discussion of hiring an architect.
As a preliminary to meeting and interviewing an architect, Mr. Arnold
briefed the Council, with the help of Caroll Johnson of CCMA, on the procedures
for applying for Public Works Act monies. CCMA is preparing an application to
file for sewer line grant monies in behalf of the cities in their area and ask
the cities to join in thier application. Mr. Johnson explained that Title I
funds were for sewer lines, municipal complexes etc. and Title II funds were
for general employment and there is no application for Title III funds as
you have to be in the program already for these monies. Therefore, since
the monies available for a municipal complex and sewer lines fall in the same
Title funds, under the Public Works Act, if we join CCMA in their application
and file one of our own, we would in effect be submitting two applications and
would be competing with ourselves for monies.
It was Council concensus to continue in both projects until further determination
can be made as to the best way to go.
#3 Council consideration of settlement of Cibolo Water Contract
negotiations.
This item was delayed until the next Regular Meeting of the City Council for
lack of new information at this time.
#4 Council consideration and input into the CCMA Board Order setting
sewer rates.
After careful review of the proposed CCMA Board Order, it was Council decision
to have the City Manager write the CCMA Board with the following suggestions and
asking for a reply before any action could be taken.
1. Section 4 of the order seems dictatorial.
2. Question the charges for outside city limits.
3. There is no exclusionary clause.
4. Why did they not spell out how to charge new businesses
as previously discussed with CCMA.
There being no further business to come before the Council at this time, on a
motion by Mr. Howe, seconded by Mr. Sharpe, the meeting adjourned at 11:12 P.M.
A3~~
M6yor, City of Schertz, Texas
ATTEST:
~ AA '.! . It! /::"r ~ n
~r'etary,~Ci4:yot Schertz