Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC 1981-10-12 Minutes MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS, TEXAS, HELD IN THE CITY HALL, 7301 NORTHEAST LOOP 820 OCTOBER 12, 1981 - 7:30 P.M. 1. Mayor Faram called the meeting to order October 12, 1981, at 7:30 p.m. 2. Present: Dick Faram Jim Wood J. C. Hubbard Wiley Thomas Dave Freeman Sharyl Groves Mayor Councilmen Councilwoman Staff : Chuck Williams Jeanette Moore Rex McEntire Dennis Horvath Richard Albin City Manager City Secretary City Attorney Assistant City Manager City Engineer Absent: Jim Ramsey Jim Kenna Councilman Councilman 3. The invocation was given by Councilman Thomas. 4. Councilwoman Groves moved, seconded by Councilman Hubbard, to approve the minutes of the emergency meeting September 22, 1981. Motion carried 3-0; Councilmen Thomas and Wood abstaining due to absence from the meeting. 5. Councilman Hubbard moved, seconded by Councilwoman Groves to approve the minutes of the September 28, 1981 meeting. Motion carried 5-0. 6. Mayor Faram advised the Council this was a Mayor's appointment and asked for a recommendation from the Council. Councilman Freeman recommended the appointment of Mr. Bill Burk to the Park and Recreation Commission. All Councilpersons voted for the appointment of Mr. Bill Burk. 7. Mayor Faram advised the Council the Planning and Zoning Commission had approved this request subject to the engineer's comments. The owners would sign a covenant for pro rata for future paving and drainage. CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL INVOCATION APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF THE EMERGENCY MEETING SEPTEMBER 22,1981 APPROVED APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING SEPTEMBER 28, 1981 APPROVED CONSIDERATION OF APPOINTMENT TO THE PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION PLANNING & ZONING PS 81-49, REQUEST OF A.T. ADOCK FOR FINAL PLAT OF BIRARWOOD ESTATES ADDITION, 4th FILING APPROVED October 12, 1981 Page 2 Councilman Freeman moved, seconded by Councilman Thomas to approve PS 81-49, as recommended. Motion carried 5-0. 8. Mayor Faram advised the Council the Planning and Zoning Commission had approved this ordinance. Councilman Wood moved, seconded by Councilwoman Groves, to approve Ordinance No. 924. CONSIDERATION OF ORDINANCE AMENDING ZONING ORDINANCE - PARKING REGULATIONS APPROVED ORDINANCE NO. 924 City Attorney McEntire stated this ordinance would require only two parking spaces instead of four for each unit in duplex zoning. Motion carried 5-0. 9. Mayor Faram advised the Council this ordinance was proposed because of a change in law pertaining to replatting. Mr. McEntire stated the new law was that everyone within 500 feet of the proposed replat had to be notified and it also had to be published in the newspaper. Mr. McEntire stated this would be time consuming and expensive. CONSIDERATION OF ORDINANCE CONCERNING FEES FOR REPLATS IN SINGLE FAMILY AND DUPLEX ZONING DISTRICT APPROVED ORDINANCE NO. 925 Councilman Freeman asked if this would apply to quick plats. Mr. McEntire stated yes. Councilman Wood stated he could see no problem with the Ordinance. The city was only trying to recover the cost. Councilman Hubbard moved, seconded by Councilman Freeman, to approve Ordinance No. 925. Motion carried 5-0. 10. Councilman Hubbard moved, seconded by Councilman Thomas, to approve Ordinance No. 926. Motion carried 5-0. CONSIDERATION OF ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 381, RULES, REGULATIONS, POLICIES AND PROCEDURES FOR THE CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS WATER AND SEWER SYSTEM APPROVED ORDINANCE NO. 926 11. Councilman Thomas moved, seconded by Councilman Hubbard, to approve Ordinance No. 927. Motion carried 4-1; Councilmen Hubbard, Thomas, Freeman, and Wood, voting for; Councilwoman Groves voting against. 12. Mayor Faram stated it had been recommended that the City cast their vote for Mr. Herb Leach. Councilman Freeman moved, seconded by Councilman Hubbard, to nominate Mr. Herb Leach and further, that the City cast their vote for Mr. Leach. Councilman Thomas asked if Mr. Leach was being voted on at this time or was he being nominated. Mayor Faram stated that according to the resolution Mr. Leach had already been nominated. Mr. McEntire stated it was his understanding that Mr. Leach had already been nominated. Councilman Freeman stated the way he read the resolution the City was casting their vote. After further discussion, Mr. McEntire stated the Council should pass over this item until he could check and see if Mr. Leach had been nominated. 13. City Engineer Albin read the following statement: "At the first public hearing, citizens of this community were given an opportunity to help establish the needs of this City and their neighborhoods. Questionnaires were provided, and are still available for anyone wishing to participate in establishing community needs and in helping to develop programs using Community Development Block Grant funds that Tarrant County will request from the Department of Housing and Urban Development. The purpose of this public hearing is to consider projects which will satisfy those needs. There is only one area in the City of North Richland Hills which in the past has met the low to moderate income needs criteria established by HUD. This area is bounded on the south by Rufe Snow Drive; and on the west by Rogene Street. This designated target area contains a relatively high percentage of low to moderate income facilities (55%), and is subject to extensive physical decay and deterioration. Several problems have been identified in this area including the drainage channel which passes through the area is grown up with extensive vegetation due to its earthen condition. Also, the channel is experiencing large amounts of erosion due to upstream improvements. Some houses on the channel are subject to flooding during heavy rains. September 12, 1981 Page 3 CONSIDERATION OF ORDINANCE AMENDING LONE STAR GAS COMPANY'S FRANCHISE ORDINANCE APPROVED ORDINANCE NO. 927 CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION APPOINTING DIRECTOR TO THE TARRANT COUNTY APPRAISAL DISTRICT PASSED OVER AT THIS TIME PUBLIC HEARING - DISCUSSION OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROJECTS September 12, 1981 Page 4 The City Staff, in the absence of citizen input, has proposed a continuation of the 3-year Community Development Projects, which began in 1978, to provide concrete channel liner improvements to this channel known as Mackey Creek. Phase I of these channel liner improvements included channel liner construction from Onyx Drive South to Jerrell Street. Phase II included channel access ramp and culvert construction at Jerrell Street, and Phase III, which is presently being designed, includes channel liner construction along Mackey Creek upstream from Jerrell Street. We are recommending a continuation of the first 3-year project to complete the channel liner improvements further upstream to the upper boundary of the target area near Glenview Drive. The first increment of this three year program would include channel liner construction to Onyx Drive to Harmonson Road to Glenview Drive. Approximately $90,000 has been budgeted for each increment of construction." At this time we are accepting any comments, questions or other statements regarding this proposal. Mayor Faram opened the public hearing and called for anyone wishing to speak to please come forward. There being no one wishing to speak, Mayor Faram closed the public hearing. 14. Councilman Thomas moved, seconded by Councilman Wood, to approve Resolution No. 81-19. Motion carried 5-0. CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION APPROVING & ENDORSING THREE YEAR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS APPROVED RESOLUTION NO. 81-19 15. Councilwoman Groves moved, seconded by Councilman Freeman, to approve payment to J.D. Griffith Construction Company. Councilwoman Groves stated that since there was a deviation from the 10% retainage down to 5%, she had a problem with this because if the city started deviating for this policy there might be a problem with others wanting to do this. CONSIDERATION OF PARTIAL PAYMENT TO J.D. GRIFFITH CONSTRUCTION COMPANY IN THE AMOUNT OF $27,764.01 RUFE SNOW WATER LINE EXTENSIONS APPROVED Councilwoman Groves moved, seconded by Councilman Wood, to amend the motion to 10% retainage. Councilman Wood asked the City Engineer what he based his recommendation on. Mr. Albin stated that first of all the city did have a performance bond in the amount of 100% of the construction costs to fall back on if for some reason the contractor did not fulfill all of his obligations. In addition to the performance bond there was a maintenance bond. in the amount of 20% of the contract for a period of two years which covered a lot of things that were not covered under the performance bond, to give the city assurance that the project met the specifications. Mr. Albin stated the project was substantially complete, the line was complete and had been for sometime. The only hold up at this time was some trench density testing required. Mr. Albin stated the amount of retainage, approximately $28,000.QO, was more than enough to cover the cost of any additional testing and also require the contractor to come back and do any recompaction that was necessary. Councilman Wood asked if the City had accepted the project. Mr. Albin replied no. Councilman Wood asked if the City did not accept a project, normally what was done. Mr. Albin stated there was a retainage that was withheld, but the policy was changing from 10% to 5% because of the new State law. Councilman Wood asked who change the law. Mr. Albin stated the State changed it, but there were some contingencies on it, for example, if the total project was less than $400,000.00 then you could withhold retainage up to 10% without having to pay interest on the retainage. If the contract exceeded $400,000.00, which in this case did not, you would be required to pay the contractor interest earned on the retainage withheld. If 5% retainage was withheld no interest was required to be paid to the contractor. Mr. Albin stated that because of this all of the contract documents were going to be modified to 5%. Councilman Wood asked Mr. Albin if he was making an agreement to reduce the retainage from 10% to 5% even though the State law did not forbid it. Mr. Albin stated that was correct. Councilman Wood asked what the City's contracts stated. Mr. Albin stated the City contracts stated 10% retaínage. Councilman Wood asked if the city had ever given anyone else this particular consideration. Mr. Albin stated yes. Mayor Faram asked Mr. Albin if he was talking about the bond holding up in the event that at one point and time it was accepted and a street was to be built over the trench and there were two different contractors, two different bonding companies, who became responsible if there were a failure. September 12, 1981 Page 5 September 12, 1981 Page 6 Mr. Albin stated if there were a failure due to trench settlement because the trench was not compacted to specifications, then the bonding company for that contractor would be responsible. Councilman Freeman asked if the paving contractor went ahead and performed work on top of this particular trench, as he understood it, the bonding company would be responsible for the compaction of the trench. But, not for the damages concurred to the paving contractor. Councilman Freeman stated by damages he meant material and time lost while the trench contractor would be re-preforming his duties. Councilman Freeman asked if the City would pick up that particular cost. City Attorney McEntire stated that as he understood the plan, there was no intention to let anyone go ahead with any contract ove'r this trench until it passed the compaction test, even if the contractor refused to do it two or three months from now and the city had to go in and do it with $12,000.00 of the contractor's money. Mr. McEntire stated there was no intention to allow the construction over the trench unless it did pass the test. Mr. Albin stated that was correct. Mayor Faram stated that all he wanted to do was to see that the City got performance on the contract and if the 10% retainage encouraged better performance and a street was going to be constructed, he would like to see the city protected as much as possible. Motion to approve the amended motion to retain 10% retainage carried by a vote of 5-0. Original motion with 10% retainage instead of 5% carried 5-0. 16. Councilman Freeman moved, seconded by Councilman Wood, to approve final payment to Leonard Hazel Construction Company in the amount of $29,602.85. Motion carried 5-0. CONSIDERATION OF FINAL PAYMENT TO LEONARD HAZEL CONSTRUCTION COMPANY IN THE AMOUNT OF $29,602.85 PRECINCT LINE WATER SYSTEM EXTENSION APPROVED 12. Mr. McEntire stated he had talked with Mr. Leach and he had not yet been nominated. Therefore, the Council needed to make the nomination. Councilman Freeman withdrew his motion. Councilman Hubbard withdrew his second. CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION APPOINTING DIRECTOR TO THE TARRANT COUNTY APPRAISAL DISTRICT September 12, 1981 Page, 7 Councilman Freeman moved, seconded by Councilman Hubbard, to nominate Mr. Herb Leach to the Tarrant County Appraisàl District. Motion carried 5-0. 17. None CITIZEN PRESENTATION 18. Mayor Faram adjourned the meeting of October 12, 1981. ADJOURNMENT / øt-þ,-Ju(~ ick aram - Mayor ATTEST: