MINUTES

LAWTON CITY SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING

MAY 5, 1998 - 5:30 P.M.

WAYNE GILLEY CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBER

Cecil E. Powell, Mayor    Also Present:

Presiding    Gil Schumpert, City Manager

    Felix Cruz, City Attorney

    Sandra Rench, Deputy City Clerk

The meeting was called to order at 5:30 p.m. Notice of meeting and agenda were posted on the City Hall notice board as required by State law.

ROLL CALL

Present:    G. Wayne Smith, Ward One

        Richard Williams, Ward Two

        Jeffrey Sadler, Ward Three

John Purcell, Ward Four

        Robert Shanklin, Ward Five

        Charles P. Beller, Ward Six

        Carol Green, Ward Seven

        Randy Warren, Ward Eight

Absent:    None.

1.    Receive presentation and discuss an ordinance repealing Section 18-1001 through 18-1032, Article 10, Chapter 18, Lawton City Code 1995, and enacting a new ordinance relating to floodplain management regulations. Exhibits: 1. Proposed Ordinance (provided separately); 2. Summary of Amendments; 3. Ordinance No. 98 -      (final format on file in City Clerk's Office); 4. LMAPC Minutes of January 14, January 28, February 4 and February 11, 1998; 5. Council Minutes of March 10, 1998.

Schumpert said he was directed to look at changing the ordinance from the standpoint of the final approval authority, during review of the ordinance there had been some additional changes from the state and federal level so those were incorporated into the ordinance. The ordinance was taken to LMAPC, and LMAPC met with the Public Works/Engineering Director, the City Engineer and the planning staff and further modifications were made to the ordinance after which it was considered by the LMAPC who voted 6-1 recommending denial. He said it is their understanding that there were no real specific issues of controversy that reflected the vote with the exception of comments made by one of the commissioners as reflected in the minutes. He said the Planning Director, City Engineer and the Public Works/Engineering Director are present to answer questions.

Beller said he was concerned with the LMAPC vote of 6-1 to deny the ordinance because they must have had some rational or reason for the vote and asked if Bigham could tell them what the gist of discussion was that caused the 6-1 vote of denial.

Bob Bigham, City Planner said the Planning Commission initially held a public hearing on February 14, and at their January 28, meeting requested a workshop to discuss the ordinance which was held on February 4. He said at the February 4, meeting the ordinance was reviewed in detail and suggestions were provided by the commissioners which staff agreed to and incorporated those changes into the final draft which is under consideration at this time. He said the LMAPC considered the final draft at their meeting of February 11, one commissioner made comments after which time the Commission voted to recommend denial to the Council. He said the Commissioner pointed out that with the change in the appeal process it would take longer to go through the process and some of the changes were more regulatory than the current ordinance. He said the appeal process has another body added which does take longer and as to the regulatory changes, 98% of the changes are for clarification purposes or to match the Federal Emergency Management Association (FEMA) regulations they have to abide by.

Beller said there are FEMA regulations and the need to follow federal guidelines and asked what the difference is between regulations and guidelines. Bigham said the way the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) is set up, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is the arm of the government that administers this program and essentially they have a set of regulations dealing with the regulatory control and insurance and in the regulatory side there are minimum standards that a city must comply with to be eligible to be in the National Flood Insurance Program. He said those are minimum guidelines the city has to meet.

Cruz asked if the guidelines he is referring to are the regulations they have to comply with so when they use the term guidelines they are talking about following the regulations as published in the Federal Register. Bigham said that was correct.

Beller said some of the concern of the LMAPC was over the regulatory aspect of the ordinance. Bigham said that is what was said but staff does not feel there were any substantial changes in the language being presented with a couple exceptions. He said the standard section in the ordinance has very few changes.

Beller said he hoped the City Council would understand his concern because the less regulations they can place on construction and still meet the federal guidelines is what he is in favor of. He said there is a portion where it said that at one time if it were less than an acre it wasn't under this regulation and now they have changed it to cover any portion of that property and it seems the less burdensome or cumbersome they could make it for potential builders or developers the better off they would be.

Purcell said this ordinance has been going through this process for six to nine months and they have spent a year or more on flood regulations. He said he sees three things in this ordinance that are being changed, 1. The entire ordinance is being moved from Chapter 18 to Chapter 19; 2. This item is to cover the main reason this was started which was to change the appeal process where the Council is the final authority on variances because this Council and the citizens are the ones who are sued when something goes wrong and should be the ones making the decision rather than an appointed appeal board; and 3. Administrative changes. He said he didn't see any problem with moving the ordinance to Chapter 19 or with being the final authority. He said they may need to review the ordinance to see if there are any administrative changes they didn't count on. He said he hoped they weren't going to start the process all over again.

Shanklin said they should go over every change that has been made.

Mayor Powell asked if there were any objections to proceeding in that matter. There were no objections.

Bigham said Purcell identified the three major changes; they are moving the ordinance from Chapter 18 in the Zoning Code to Chapter 19.1 which was established to include water regulations and includes the Stormwater Detention Ordinance that had been adopted previously. He said as they were reviewing the appeal process they received the latest requirements from FEMA, dated March 20, 1997 and the current ordinance had language from the 1994 FEMA publication so they reviewed the ordinance for changes in the language that were parallel to the federal guidelines and cleaned up some areas for clarification. He said the agenda included a list of all the changes in the ordinance.

Bigham reviewed the list of changes with the following additional information:

Page 6 - A. 7 - The "Base flood elevation" definition is the projected elevation of what is referred to as the 100-year flood or the flood which would have a 1% occurrence in any given year.

Page 8 - The definition of exception was removed as a house-keeping item because an exception is only granted by a FEMA administrator and has nothing to do with Lawton's floodplain ordinance. If the community wishes to file for an exception to the federal guidelines this would be the procedure and is not something they have in their local ordinance.

Page 9 - 23. "Floodplain" - Definition is to clarify the floodplain area.

Shanklin asked what was changed. Bigham said nothing was substantially changed, floodplain has been provided as a generic term for the whole area that is possibly inundated by a 100-year flood. He said this was included for clarification purposes because some people have a tendency to use the terminology wrong.

Shanklin said he thought the floodway was the creek and the flooplain was the area adjacent to the creek and asked what the flood fringe is, who engineered the maps with the gray areas and if there isn't a little guesswork involved. Bigham said the FEMA maps or the FIRM's, Flood Insurance Rate Maps, are produced under strict guidelines by FEMA. He said as they participate in the National Flood Insurance Program they are to provide the flood maps. Shanklin said if an engineer comes in with a model from his computer and says the map is wrong asked if it is corrected and they accept that information. Bigham said if the engineer has different technical information that is not reflected on the current maps there are procedures that go through FEMA to make changes to the maps which include the Letter of Map Amendment and Letter of Map Revision, etc. Shanklin said they have done that before. Bigham said yes, numerous times. Shanklin said he doesn't believe the maps are written in concrete because an engineer can change it. Bigham referenced the map projected on the wall and pointed out the cross section of the creek and the floodplain area which is broken into the floodway and flood fringe on both sides.

Williams asked what the difference is between floodplain and flood prone areas. Bigham said the terms are interchangeable.

Shanklin said the topography on the maps can't be that close, that is what they are going by and will be inundated by the flood. Bigham said the base data used for the flood study includes the two-foot aerial contours they had flown for the study so they use this to show the contours to a two foot interval and that is the topography of the land that was in question.

Shanklin asked if that is two feet in width or two feet in depth. Bigham said they have two-foot contours to show what the topography of the land is and then used actual field surveys and plans they had for bridges and that information is fed into a computer model that generates the information that produces the projected flood plain elevations. Shanklin asked if they field surveyed Lawton at one time. Bigham said they surveyed the areas they needed additional information for that the maps didn't provide. Shanklin said there is plenty of room for error. Schumpert said yes. Bigham said in any computer modeling it is the input that goes into it and the precision of the engineer putting that data in and there is a potential for human error that can create some problems.

Schumpert said if a half block is shown in the flood plain and an engineer developing that block models it and comes up with the fact it isn't in the flood plain, the data is checked by them and they comment on it. The information is then sent to FEMA where it is included in the model and if they agree they modify the map. He said the map is not etched in granite or set in concrete, it is somewhat of a living model.

Shanklin said only someone with the wherewithal can contest it. Schumpert said an engineer would have to come in anyway if there is any type of developing being done and if the engineer agreed the model or data had changed, if some work had been done in the area or if anything had changed upstream or downstream it will have an impact and is the reason FEMA revises the maps. Bigham said the initial flood study for Lawton is dated 1979, they finally were revised in 1992 and there have been numerous changes to the panels of the flood maps.

Shanklin asked if they ever had a 100-year flood. Jerry Ihler, Public Works/Engineering Director, said they have records that somewhere between a 100 and 200-year storm fell in the Cache Creek Basin in 1983 according to the data supplied in the study after the rainfall. He said the storm also fell on the East Cache Creek Basin but did not necessarily fall on the Wolf Creek Basin. Shanklin said they have areas that have never been flooded, probably within 8 or 10 feet that are under the gray line. Bigham said in 1978 they missed a major storm by 14 miles in the Wolf Creek Basin according to the weather bureau when a post study was done of that storm which well exceeded the 100-year storm.

Beller read the February 4, 1998, LMAPC Minutes, last paragraph of Page 236 and Page 237 and said if there is a plus or minus one foot then how accurate can it be. Ihler said there are two separate issues, when they have the City flown and aerials, photographs and topography taken of the city the accuracy of those photos is within plus or minus one foot. He said the Corps of Engineers then uses this information to put together a computer model to dictate where the base flood elevation should be established for the different drainage basins within the City of Lawton. The computer model then provides the different information that gives elevations and establishes the boundaries for the floodplain, including the floodway, which is the channel way and the area called the flood fringe, which is the area where there can be development as long as it is one foot above the 100-year storm elevation. He said when a person wants to do a development or improvement in a flood fringe or floodplain area they typically take the same computer model provided by the Corps of Engineers, or recreate the information in the model. He said they take the model and change the information depending on what is being developed. He said for example if there were a grass lined channel being improved to a concrete channel those numbers would be put into the computer model. The computer model is a datum which has a tolerance of one hundredth of a foot so when they put information in the model changing the coefficients based on the improvement that will be done and then run a model the model will show a difference in elevation based on the information in comparison to that original existing data, concrete versus grass may change the elevation. The plus or minus one foot is a totally different issue.

Mayor Powell said using the same scenario Ihler just described, asked if it comes within a foot in the flood fringe can they build there. Ihler said the Code states they can build, fill in or do improvements in the flood fringe if the computer model shows that the improvement does not cause to flood anything upstream that does not flood already or if there is a structure upstream that already floods, that it does not cause it to flood any greater than it does today. Mayor Powell asked what is the difference in the future and now with the changes that are being made. Ihler said nothing with regard to the engineering technical aspect, what is asked to be changed is the appeals board that hears the variances.

Shanklin asked what if there are errors in the base mark. Ihler said it would be the same datum and if the changes are made from the improvements it will include the error and would still show any differences.

Bigham continued from Page 10 with the review of the changes.  

Page 15 - A46. "Special flood hazard area" - Included flood fringe and floodway area.

Beller asked how this definition will effect buildings if it will be more restrictive. Bigham said there is no change it is simply for clarification.

Page 19 - Warning and Disclaimer of Liability - Information that must be provided to a prospective buyer.

Beller asked what happens if a violation occurs in this section where a seller is attempting to transfer property and doesn't notify the potential purchaser. Bigham said if the City has knowledge the seller did not provide that information to a buyer, charges can be filed in municipal court under the violation section of the City Code. Beller asked whose responsibility it is to follow that up. Bigham said it can be the citizens or a city staff member if they had knowledge of that. He said the language parallels the State Statute information on disclosure information when you sell your house. Schumpert said in order for them to be fined or be taken to municipal court it would have to be an official of the city who sited them, the homeowner can't site a person.

Purcell said all they are changing under this is a word.

Page 23D. This Section was reworded to be under the responsibilities of the City Engineer; where they have detailed data on the flood maps the City Engineer would review the data in the flood study and determine what the lowest floor elevation would be on the proposed structure.

Shanklin asked if there is any interpretation to this section, are these the numbers that are found on the maps.  Mike Johnson said two people can always read the same thing different ways but this isn't subject to much interpretation.

Bigham said F. was reworded for clarity and would be a case where they don't have the detailed data, for example there are Zone A's in Southwest Lawton in the undeveloped areas of the city limits where FEMA didn't do a detailed study. He said if a subdivision was going to be built the applicant or the developer would be required to provide the engineering study to insure they would conform to this regulation to prevent future homes from possibly flooding.

Mayor Powell asked whose responsibility that has been in the past. Bigham said if there is no flood plain elevation provided then it has been the applicants responsibility to provide it.

Shanklin said in reference to interpretation, Page 18, asked why they had A.2 "Liberally construed in favor of the governing body . ." Cruz said it is basically so they would know that if there is any interpretation to be made that it will be construed to be in favor of the City, in the public interest and if the appeal board or the council were to construe in favor of the public interest and the person does not agree with that they can go to court. He said it is just to establish a burden of proof.

Bigham reviewed the appeal process beginning on Page 27 and said Page 28 provides 3 items of criteria that have to be met in order to file an appeal.

Shanklin asked for an example. Bigham said under item 1. (Page 28) anyone can have a disagreement with any staff member on how they interpret the Code and would have jurisdiction to file an appeal if it were the code official or city engineer; under 3. hardship to the applicant is not a financial hardship, it is a hardship where someone couldn't use their land or have a unique situation where it would impair the development of the property.

Bigham reviewed Page 30 and said the findings the council will have to make in the appeal process are listed 1-5 ending on Page 31 and is the criteria to be used as the final appeal body in this process. He said the council will have to find that these things have happened before they can grant a variance and if they find they have not fulfilled all of these items their action would have to be denial of the appeal.

Purcell referenced number 1 and asked what the definition is of not increasing the flood levels because that was the issue, whether 1/8 of a foot was an increase or not. He asked if there is a definition that will solve that problem. Bigham said the language is "shall not increase" so anything above 0.0 is an increase in staff's opinion.

Purcell said the last time this came up it was only 1/8 of a foot and the appeal board said it wasn't an increase so they approved it and according to the regulation 1/8 or 1/16 of a foot is an increase and they should deny it and asked if that is what was being stated. Bigham said that would be staff's recommendation.

Bigham said the most significant change to number 1 is that they have expanded the increase to not only the floodway but the whole entire special flood hazard area so it is both the flood fringe and the flood way.

Beller said they talked about the 60-day time frame within the filing of the original appeal and asked if is it 60 days for each board. Bigham said the Flood Appeal Board, which is the Planning Commission, under the current regulations have to render a judgment within 60 days of filing an appeal, in the proposed section the Flood Appeal Board holds a public hearing within 30 days and renders a recommendation to the council within 60 days of the filing of the appeal and are adding a public hearing, the council would have to take action on the recommendation within 30 days so they are adding time to the process. Mayor Powell asked if 30 days is the only additional time. Bigham said yes.

Purcell said it would not necessarily be 30 days because Bigham could probably get it on the agenda within five days depending on when the Council's next meeting was being held. Bigham said they allowed a buffer for two council meetings after that date in the event of a holiday, etc.

Shanklin asked if the special flood hazard area is FEMA's language or the staff's language. Bigham said it is the staff's language. Shanklin said they have increased the area from what it was before. Ihler said the technical requirement, the criteria and standard that need to be followed is still the same, it doesn't change whether it is in the flood fringe or the flood way from the way it is today. He said the variance procedure has changed to fall within the flood fringe area but they still have to follow the same technical and engineering requirements as they did before where if it floods upstream it can't flood any greater than it does now or if it doesn't flood it can't cause it to flood. Shanklin said there is no hidden agenda then. Ihler said there was no hidden agenda.

Cruz asked if there was no variance in the flood way under this. Ihler said in the special flood hazard area. Cruz said to clarify this area, no variance can be given in the flood way or the flood fringe. Ihler said provided it doesn't raise the levels of flooding.

Bigham said the other reason they recommended the change was because of the 1995 addition to the ordinance for development in the flood plain or the flood fringe, if there was a record of flooding upstream it could not increase or cause flooding upstream so it is parallel to that requirement which was recommended by the Stormwater Mitigation Committee.

Schumpert said the significant change is the fact that the tolerance is 0.0.

Sadler said the bank at 40th and Gore that brought a lot of this up, if that building is .01 of a foot are they saying they can't grant a variance, would that stop the project. Bigham said if the information provided to the council shows an increase in the base flood elevation it would prohibit them from granting a variance to that development. Sadler said if that project had come up that would not have been allowed. Bigham said if it would have been interpreted that there would be a rise in the base flood elevation they could not have issued it under this provision in the Code. Sadler asked if there was a margin of error at that time and asked if that would be the big issue, the margin of error in the computers. Bigham said there will be a lot of technical information provided to the council to make that determination.

Schumpert said there won't be any interpretation because the standard will be that from 0 to any other number they will not be able to change it. Bigham said the intent behind this is that they do not want to raise, by the variance process, the projected base flood elevation or make things more critical upstream for those homeowners.

Beller asked if they really want to put that tough of a regulation in the ordinance and tell them that if it changes a smidgen they don't want to consider it. Sadler said when your house is flooding those smidgen's add up. Beller said it is based on guess work and the engineer may come up with one tenth of one tenth of one tenth and to just arbitrarily say they aren't listening seems to him like it isn't the proper way to go.

Schumpert said in the case that has been mentioned here with the bank, both parties agreed with the change so there wasn't one party saying the change was .001 and the other saying it was .01, both parties agreed as to the data and when both parties agree to the data and it is point anything it is over the 0.0.

Beller asked for a consensus of the Council, do they want to put into the ordinance that there is absolutely no variance whatsoever because he can't support that. Bigham said if they are dealing with the floodway, it is a FEMA requirement that they do not issue any variances in the floodway that raise the BFE, the floodway only. Beller said 1. states "special flood hazard area" and he can't support that.

Purcell said he agrees that it should be zero tolerance in the floodway but if they are going to expand it to the special flood hazard area then they don't need an appeal board, someone does the model and it shows up .001 of a foot it is denied they can't give a variance. He said it needs to go back to floodway and would agree with zero tolerance in the floodway but otherwise can't support it.

Mayor Powell said they can get a consensus of the council in a few minutes and requested they move on to number 2 unless there is further discussion.

Beller asked if that is what they want to do to get out of the special flood hazard area. Bigham said if they change it back to floodway it would meet the minimum FEMA guidelines.

Mayor Powell asked Shanklin to respond.

Shanklin said Col. Hawthorne and Mr. McCaffree walked Wolf Creek almost all the way to Bishop Road, there is 500 feet of water coming through at 45th and Gore at 5 feet deep, 10 feet across and 5 feet high. He said if they go 1 mile to the south, at 5 feet the most you can count is 275 feet, how can they get 500 feet of water through a 275-foot sleeve without raising the water all the way back. Shanklin said when 500 square feet of water is traveling south and hits the bridge, when the most it can be is 275 feet, asked how high it has to get before it backs up. Ihler said it will back up. Shanklin said he has pictures of what he is referring to and to say that one individual has violated or raised the level when they raised it themselves when they didn't build a big enough bridge, just isn't right.

Bigham continued from Page 34.

Page 36 item C. - Bigham said the changes in this section are not a FEMA requirement, it was recommended by staff many years ago where if any part of the lot was in a special flood hazard area then they should take that extra step to insure it wouldn't flood. If there was a 50-foot by 150-foot lot and the back 10 feet was in the flood plain it wasn't regulated by this Code and a special flood hazard permit wouldn't have been required. The change was made where if there is any portion of a lot less than an acre that is in the floodplain the owner will have to insure that it will be safe from flooding and built one foot above base flood elevation. He said it has been suggested in this ordinance to take the one acre requirement out.

Beller said it is overly restrictive to place that on the property owner.

Shanklin asked for that to be explained again because he can understand having three acres and selling two so they don't have to build a detention pond and that should be stopped. Bigham said this doesn't have anything to do with the two acres. Shanklin asked if that is in this. Bigham said it isn't in the report.

Bigham said in the original ordinance there were cases where someone would come in for a building permit on a standard 50-foot by 150-foot lot. He said only the back 20 to 30 feet of the lot was in the special flood hazard area but the lot was level so if it was going to flood in the back 20 feet it would probably flood in the middle of the lot where they would build the house so they included this requirement where if the lot is less than one acre then they have to apply the 1 foot above the base flood elevation of the adjacent creek, stream or river, etc.

Mayor Powell said when they have this requirement if you have a lot that is 50 feet by 150 feet there are a lot of properties in Lawton where the back 10 or 15 feet is the little stream running through it, and it may be in the flood fringe but the house would set up from it and Bigham is saying that would be inclusive and is not fair. Bigham said the concept behind it was that for anything above one acre they could determine by the maps whether the structure would be safe from flooding. He said it was a number that was small enough where if there was floodplain on the property they wanted to apply the floodplain regulations to insure safety to the house.

Beller said it isn't required by FEMA so they are going to put a little more restrictions on it and asked why they can't take government out where they can and why do they have to be more restrictive than they have to be and appreciated the explanation but didn't think it needed to be there.

Purcell said he thought leaving it in would be worse and taking it out would make it better for the home owner. He said if they have a 50-foot by 150-foot lot and the back 10 feet is in the flood fringe asked if they have to have some special rules and regulations to build on that lot when you take the words, as recommended, less than 1 acre out of this ordinance. Bigham said it is only applicable to lots that have some kind of floodplain in it, the current language is if it is 1 acre or larger there are no additional requirements but if it is 1 acre or less they will impose the safety regulation of having the finished floor of the house 1 foot above the base flood elevation. Purcell said the way it is right now. Bigham said yes, if they change it then any lot of any size that has any floodplain area on it will have the 1 foot of finished floor imposed on it.

Shanklin said if it is raised a foot they can build on it. Bigham said if any part of the lot is in the floodplain with the proposed change they would have to have the finished floor one foot above the adjacent base flood elevation to insure safety, where if you are adjacent to a creek they want to insure a one foot buffer of the adjacent stream or flood fringe.

VOTE ON MOTION: AYE: Sadler, Purcell, Shanklin, Beller, Green, Smith, Williams. NAY: None. MOTION CARRIED.

Bigham continued with the review beginning with Page 41.

Shanklin asked if they can ever fill more than one foot on the flood fringe or raise it more than one foot. Bigham said yes they have had cases where they have raised it using dirt fill. Shanklin asked if the engineer was able to prove by raising it three feet and increasing the dam that it didn't raise the water to back up somewhere. Bigham said he thought they had cases to that effect and they may have had to do some type of improvement to the adjacent channel but it is permissible under the code and have to meet the requirement where it won't increase the flooding upstream.

Bigham concluded the review of the proposed changes.

Beller said if a motion was in order would move to approve the ordinance and asked if they could approve it tonight or bring it back with the changes.

Cruz said the agenda allows the Council to approve the ordinance, however, based on the major changes that have been approached they may want to bring it back.

Second to Motion by Smith.

Bigham said on March 10 the City Council tabled the public hearing to the second meeting in May which is required before they adopt the ordinance and suggested the Council give staff direction and the ordinance will be on the May 26 Council meeting for adoption.

Cruz said the way it is written on the agenda they could enact an ordinance but if they have tabled it for a public hearing then they have to wait until that meeting to continue the public hearing.

Beller withdrew his motion and Smith withdrew his second.

Mayor Powell said the ordinance will be brought back to the May 26 meeting.

Bigham said they have applied and have been approved for the Community Rating System (CRS) which is an additional federal program relating to the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). He said there has been discussion on the higher standards from the FEMA regulations which includes a chart of points under the CRS program and for every 500 points the community receives a lesser rating for flood insurance. He said one of the items they get points for is in regard to higher regulatory standards and the citizens are benefiting because they get a 10% reduction in their flood insurance premiums.

Beller said while they are increasing the regulatory actions on builders, developers and construction asked if there isn't a back lash because even though they get points someone will suffer for them to get those points. Bigham said there are a lot of other factors they are getting points for, this is just one of them and he just wanted them to know of the other considerations. He said they haven't changed any of the standards significantly that will impact the rating. He said the other item they will have on the May 26 meeting is a companion resolution to increase the filing fees of $100 for a floodplain appeal to cover the additional cost of publishing the notice in the Lawton Constitution. He said if the Council adopts the ordinance they will then forward it to FEMA for their approval to insure they are meeting the minimum standards of the NFIP program.

ADDENDUM

1.    Consider adopting a resolution in support of an agreement being worked out between Cameron University and the Lawton Public School System to permit the Lawton Public School System to use Cameron Stadium for football games. EXHIBITS: Resolution No. 98-74.

Shanklin said the Mayor, Purcell and he attended a meeting on Sunday and there was a lot of one sided information. He said the Resolution is not taking sides, it is just to recognize the fact that there are only so many tax dollars in Southwest Oklahoma to be garnered and spent. He said there is a stadium that should be used, it was built with tax dollars, it is maintained with tax dollars and Oklahoma City and Edmond high schools use the Oklahoma University Stadium. He said they are not unique in sharing a stadium and they are simply asking that they express support for the agreement to be worked out between Lawton Public Schools and Cameron University to permit the Lawton Public School system to use the Cameron Stadium.

Mayor Powell read the resolution:

RESOLUTION NO. 98-74

A Resolution expressing support of an agreement being worked out between Cameron University and the Lawton Public School System to permit the Lawton Public School System to use Cameron Stadium for football games.

    WHEREAS, questions have arisen concerning the continued use of Cameron Stadium by the Lawton Public School system, and

    WHEREAS, continued use of Cameron Stadium for football games involving the Lawton Public School System would be in the best interest of the community,

    NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Mayor and Council of the City of Lawton that this resolution be adopted expressing support for an agreement being worked out between Cameron University and the Lawton Public School System to permit the Lawton Public School System to use Cameron Stadium for football games.

ADOPTED and APPROVED by the Mayor and Council of the City of Lawton this 5th day of May, 1998.

ROLL CALL: AYE: Purcell, Shanklin, Beller, Green, Smith, Williams, Sadler. NAY: None. MOTION CARRIED.

COMMENTS/REPORTS

Schumpert said tomorrow is the first budget meeting at 5:30 pm.

Shanklin asked what the format for the meeting will be. Schumpert said the purpose of the meeting would be to answer any questions about the City Manager's recommendations and establish procedures and methods they want to use on the budget. He asked how the Council wants to proceed, if they want the directors present to make a presentation or do they want them here for questions. He said for tomorrow's meeting he didn't anticipate that any specific budget would be discussed but more of how the Council intends to approach the budget review for this year.

Mayor Powell asked if the meeting will be for a procedure format of how they will proceed.

Purcell asked if they can't have a few of the budgets to review as they have before such as the City Manager and City Attorney.

Shanklin agreed and said he would like to see the revenue they may generate from the landfill which Ihler said would be around $650,000 which hasn't been included in the budget and there are some other areas that he read in the preliminary budget that are not germane to what they are going to do tomorrow because some things have changed.

Mayor Powell said in order to be somewhat organized asked for discussion of those things they definitely want to do at the meeting. He asked if they could request the revenues coming in. Schumpert said that is in the budget except for the landfill fees and there will be an agenda item at the next council meeting that deals with those fees again so whatever revenues they discuss tomorrow would not be complete revenues because there are more fees to be considered.

Williams said they need to look at different departments as far as doing their own initiatives and paring down instead of looking for more ways to increase revenues to pay for funding of city government and maybe look at some ways to reduce the revenues or expenses of city government so they don't have to continually ask for money.

Shanklin asked if they have had any RFP's on mowing. Dan Tucker, Code Administration Director said the bids were opened this afternoon.

Williams asked where they were on the proposals for the health care plans and if they had those pared down because it is one of the expenses that has had an increase in the last couple of years. Schumpert said it has been narrowed down to five and the committee is in the process of interviewing those and making a recommendation. Williams asked if there is any idea of what the cost will be. Schumpert said he doesn't have any figures as yet but will see if he can get that information.

There was no further business and the meeting adjourned at 7:15 p.m.