Meeting of 1999-8-5 Special Meeting

Baker said since the last meeting on the CIP Councilman Shanklin, Councilman Purcell, the Mayor and he met with a couple of their board members, Mr. Beauchamp of Lawton Public Schools. He said they also received a letter from the Lawton Airport Authority requesting consideration for funding through the CIP. He said they asked for legal opinions from the City Attorney's Office concerning questions with ad valorem and the use of ad valorem, what percentage of the vote is required for certain issues and they have three separate legal opinions to help clarify the issue. He said he asked the assistant city manager to compile some documents to provide to the City Council which includes the original documents handed out during the first meeting. He said the Engineering Department completed a water distribution system study in conjunction with Public Works and the Fire Department and sent that to the Council members several days ago. He said they did an outstanding job on the study and it is a very good product and have identified certain water distribution improvements that need to be made in the city and those need to be considered as they develop a package for the CIP.

Mayor Powell said Councilman Shanklin, Councilman Purcell, Bill Baker, and himself met with the president of the Board of Education, board member Patty Nieuwirth, Mr. Braddy and Mr. Beauchamp and the consensus was that they wanted to work with the City in seeking ad valorem taxes. He said if is it the Council's desire they need to move together with the school in a joint effort to seek the ad valorem taxes.

Baker said the discussion involved a possible millage ad valorem issue that would be 5 mills for the city and 5 mills for the school system generating approximately $12 million for each 5 mills. He said they also discussed the length of time the millage would be in effect because if it is spread out over a longer period you could generate a lot more money than if you consolidated it into a short period of approximately 5 years.

Purcell said as well as the representatives of the school board and representatives of the Council could, they agreed the city would go after 5 mills and the school would go after 5 mills. He said if the city got 5 mills, over a 20-year period it would raise the $12.2 million they had in the original packet; the school was originally going for 5 years which would take many more mills and that wasn't very realistic so they are now going to see if they can spread their 5 mills out over 20 years. He said the total they would be asking for would be 10 mills which puts them well below most of the cities in the State of Oklahoma as far as ad valorem taxes and mills.

Baker said one additional document that has been provided to the Council shows the total ad valorem for the County, the information provided previously was just the city's portion and the second page of the new document, (Page 1) is the total ad valorem rate is 72.43 and that includes the city, county, school and other and when they note the 10 largest cities in Oklahoma, Lawton is 10th in total ad valorem. He said even if they approved 10 mills Lawton would still be the lowest.

Mayor Powell said the board is going to have a board meeting on August 9, and he has called another meeting for August 10 with the same group so hopefully by that time they will have the desires of the Council and the School Board. He asked if it is the consensus of the Council to work with the Lawton Public Schools Board of Education in this endeavor.

Williams said it sounds good on paper and was willing to work with the school system but needed more information so he could become comfortable and know more. He said it appears the City and the school have special needs and asked if this will be two line items on the same ballot with two separate votes or one separate vote to include either total passage or total failure. Mayor Powell said it was his understanding that the school still had to have their simple majority which is 60% and the City would be 50% plus one.

Baker said the discussion they had was that they would simply have the election on the same date and the items would be separate ballots, it would not be on the same ballot so the voters could approve all of it, one or the other it would just be on the same election date.

Shanklin said the same people own both the school board and the City Council and can tell them what their problems are in a convincing fashion that it benefits them and isn't something the Council enjoys doing. He said they can't have another 4,000 water main breaks this next year, some of the citizens must be tired that their streets have been torn up and six weeks later they get torn up again and the only way they can remedy that is with some type of a dollar that will be pledged to take care of that. He said there are some people that favor it and some that don't but the same people own both of them and they will tell them what they have and what they need to do and if they don't want to do it the issue will have to be addressed with some other alternative.

Williams said he was under the impression that if there was an ad valorem vote of the people through the city that the school system could fall under the less than a majority umbrella and that seemed like a risky situation. Mayor Powell said that has been clarified and understood that it couldn't be.

Smith said he had misgivings because the experts have said it won't work if you run two at the same time but Shanklin has a valid point about delivering it as a package to the citizens and explaining it early and have all the facts in place so they can sell the citizens on it.

Purcell referenced the latest opinion from the attorney's, the first paragraph in the opinion dated August 3 from Cherese Bagwell and asked if it is saying they can now have streets and bridges included in ad valorem with a 50% majority vote and don't need a super majority. Vincent said that paragraph says they can have a 50% plus one majority on streets and bridges as long as there is no ODOT involvement. He said Rogers Lane for example has ODOT involvement and could not be on it.

Baker directed the Council to page 15 of the handout and said it is the latest staff recommendation to Council on projects which would be included in the sales tax initiative CIP and they have four projects listed for ad valorem. He said this reflects the changes that were made from the original recommendation, they wanted to make sure all the projects under ad valorem would only require the 50%, simple majority and based on his understanding of the City Attorney's opinion the four projects would qualify. He said this is staff's recommendation, they tried to select the highest priority projects and to make sure they are included they have a more realistic number on the water treatment plant based on the consultant's work 35.5, it is certainly Council's discretion if they want to move the street projects up to replace one of those in the sales tax, it is their package to put together. He said the Greer Street Drainage project, which is the top priority project because it has been identified for years and couldn't put it under ad valorem because that would require 60%.

Warren said he thought ad valorem 50% plus one required no participation from ODOT but under ad valorem they have major arterial's and asked if those don't require ODOT participation. Vincent said if ODOT will fund a portion of 38th Street or Flowermound Road then ODOT would have control and it can't be ad valorem without going to the 60%. Baker said his interpretation of the City Attorney's memorandum was that if it isn't a state highway it isn't ODOT control but if the City Attorney says they won't qualify for ad valorem simple majority then they need to be moved.

Vincent said they can look at it again and asked Cherese Bagwell if she had the case. Cherese Bagwell said she didn't have the case but had the most recent house law but the cases have indicated that if it is a matter that is not under the exclusive control of the municipality that ODOT has a say so in how that road will be operated, repaired, controlled in any form or manner with street signs, etc. they run into a problem and it isn't under the exclusive control of the municipality. She said therefore it isn't a public utility and doesn't fall under Section 27 of Title 10 for Article 10 of the Oklahoma Constitution. She said it is a fine line so they have to be careful but they have amended where it includes streets and improvements to streets.

Purcell asked if that excluded drainage but not street improvements. Vincent said this is a special amendment for streets only and it allows streets to be funded under this mechanism. Purcell said water and sewer are utilities and landfill but drainage is not a utility. Vincent said not the way it is set up in Lawton, they could make some modifications but not in time to get it on the ballot.

Mayor Powell asked if they were saying 38th Street and Flower Mound could remain where it is. Bagwell said if it isn't under the control of the City of Lawton, they can't if ODOT has control of how it is to be repaired. Vincent said this will have ODOT funding for construction.

Purcell said ODOT is going to pay 80% and the City 20% to construct the street, it is a city street not a state road, etc. and asked if that means it falls under ODOT control. Bagwell said she would like to go back and research that before she gives them a definitive answer but with an 80/20 split with ODOT doing the 80% her first impression would be that it could fall back out of the ad valorem and go under the general and require simple majority.

Williams asked what would classify Greer as a drainage project, is it more than 50% drainage versus street repair or how does it work if it couldn't be classified as a street project that has drainage involved if it is 51% street versus 49% drainage. Baker asked if Public Works or Engineering could address why it is classified as a drainage project as opposed to a street project.

Shanklin referenced Item #4 and said they need to scratch the first word, East Side, it needs to be parks and in those parks they should include some funds for the lakes, $1,500,000, because if they do that they will reach more people that would be interested in going to the polls to vote if they knew there was going to be some improvement at the lakes and the parks throughout the City. He said the only reason why he picks on that is because he has been out there and would hate to see them spend a million dollars on grading on tractor and caterpillar work.

Purcell said it isn't the East Side Park he is pushing. He said the problem is that they are getting into it with the school system, they are going to build a new school if it all passes so where are the people going to play ball. He said that was the whole purpose of trading the land where they are going to build the school behind Shoemaker and the land that is "Eastside Park", they have to build all those ball fields and those will benefit a whole lot more people. Shanklin said they will lose 17th and "G". Purcell said that is why the land was traded and if it passes the minute they start building the school they have to move the ballfields. Shanklin said they had a better horse trader than the city did because the city got a canyon. Purcell said the school will say the city stuck it to them.

Mayor Powell said Shanklin is saying not to declare the whole $1.5 million and what they are talking about is four ball parks they will lose. Purcell said they needed to build four to replace those they will be losing behind the school and this included enough for that and some other things because you have to get into the ball park, etc. He said when you talk about who it will benefit the most there are some people that use the lake but the ball fields will be used by a lot more people than some of these other things they are talking about because when they lose 17th and "G" where are they going to play ball.

Shanklin asked Gary Salva, Parks Director, if he had been at that location on top of the hill and asked how much dirt work he had seen. Salva responded that there would be some. Shanklin said it would be quite a bit. Salva said the plans are for 5 ballfields, parking lots and a restaurant facility to be built for $1.5 million.

Purcell said if they had to level the whole thing they would need a lot more dozer work but the original plan was to leave a lot of it like it is for walking or a nature trail not part of the five ballfields and he was told they wouldn't need that much dirt work. He said to construct the whole Eastside Park over the next 15 to 20 years they may need some other stuff and it would be a lot more than $1.5 million. He said this was only to do the four or five ballfields to take the place of those they will lose by Shoemaker Center.

Williams said there are a tremendous amount of needs in the community and parks are one of them, not only to reinvest in the parks they have but to make sure they are kept up to date and providing a good service to citizens and expanding them as well. He said whether or not the Eastside Park stays in the program or not he would like Council to consider at some future date a request to the citizens for some type of a funding for a total parks program, an ongoing percent of sales tax dedicated to parks and recreation and that is something to think about.

Shanklin said he didn't want to get locked into the fact that they have to spend the money on the Eastside when they get out there. He said he would be happy to get on top of the hill, drive to the Great Plains ball park and count their parks. He asked how they are going to do the park when there is a lot of dirt work and they got into that on the McMahon softball diamond and they just happened to have some deep pockets or they wouldn't have been able to do that at 38th and Lee. He said there is more dirt work than they are thinking about. He said they are not hung up on that right now and will go and look at it and if anyone wants to go with him he will take some pictures and they can discuss it next time.

Williams said they received the report from Engineering on the fire hydrants and that is an unfunded need, they don't have anything in the sales tax area for water distribution and they could spend scads of money on water distribution and streets and didn't know where they would draw the line as to how much money for the projects but if they are talking items that need to be identified they need to get into some type of continuing funding mix for replacement of water meters, there are thousands of water meters that are probably running too slow or not running properly. Shanklin said according to the American Water Rights Association they were right up there on accountability.

Williams said if they had their facilities metered they could probably have more accountability but the fact of the matter is that it is one project that could pay for itself whether it is in this package or not, his pet project is water distribution and it needs to be done.

Baker said the question is whether the $6 million shown under Water Distribution includes or addresses the items in the study and he indicated in his cover memo that a portion of the funding, if Council put $6 million and the voters approved it, would be used to replace some of the lines and plugs. He said they would have to set the priorities which Public Works would do but $6 million would address water lines that need to be replaced in addition to those indicated in the study they could find a use for any amount of money included but they tried to come up with a package that addresses the needs of the communities. He said they can't spend all of their money on water improvements and neglect the other needs so with $6 million they would have a program over five years and could start replacing the lines.

Williams said in regard to landfill/water treatment they received a report on water treatment which would be to rework Medicine Park. He asked if the landfill can be done in phases, do they need to spend $5 million in the five year period or can they spend $2.5 million in a five year period and phase 2 in the next capital improvement project.

Baker provided a handout to the Council concerning the landfill issue which had been broken down into cells, the engineering study and permitting and said when he looked at the report there appeared to be $200,000 that they wouldn't have to have in this CIP and that $200,000 is for the permitting and design of the next cell that would be in the new landfill site, the rest of it needs to be done within the next five years.

Purcell said he didn't have any problem with the list but in regard to the ad valorem, asked how Fire Station No. 5 relocation fit under utilities. Vincent said it gets complicated but there was a case out of Tulsa where the Oklahoma Supreme Court said if the city can own the fire station and all the equipment in it and it is used exclusively by the city for the citizens of the city it is a utility and they said the same thing for a parking garage in Oklahoma City.

Baker said they need to know what projects the Council wants in the sales tax and which in the ad valorem and if in fact these are the projects they want. He said they will have to get back to Council on the two streets, he was under the impression those could be funded by ad valorem under simple majority but if not they need to move them.

Purcell asked if they could fund part of the water treatment plant with ad valorem and part with the sales tax and break them into phases. He said he thinks everyone agrees that $57.7 million is the program with these projects and it is now a matter of where the projects will go.

Baker said the Subtitle D regulations mandate that they improve the landfill and provide for certain construction so that is definitely a federal unfunded mandate. He said on the water treatment plant the portion that pertains to higher more stringent standards and the part of the renovation that would have to be applied to that would be, the expanding of the capacity is not an unfunded mandate.

Purcell said there isn't any difference if it is an unfunded mandate or not because all it means is if they give you an unfunded mandate from Congress they have to go back and take another vote to do a recorded vote and it is still and unfunded mandate and now they know how they will vote.

Williams said it sends a signal to the citizens that this isn't just something the City Council wants to do and it would be nice to have a larger capacity water treatment facility or a new cell to put trash in the ground, these are real deals that came down the pike the last 10 or 15 years that they try to fund through a sales tax or some other alternative way.