Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMIN JUN 10 1986 REGULAR SESSION CITY COUNCIL - CITY OF BEAUMONT HELD JUNE 10, 1986 - 1:15 P.M. BE IT REMEMBERED that the City Council of the City of Beaumont, Texas, met in regular session this the 10th day of June, 1986, with the following present: HONORABLE: Maurice Meyers Mayor Bob Lee, Jr. Councilman At Large Andrew P. Cokinos Councilman At Large Nell Pruitt Weisbach Councilman, Ward I Mike Brumley Councilman, Ward II Audwin Samuel Councilman, Ward III David W. Moore Councilman, Ward IV Albert E. Haines City Manager Tyrone Cooper Asst. City Attorney -000- The Invocation was given by the Reverend Hurley Clayton, St. John's Missionary Baptist Church. The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Mayor Meyers. -000- Several proclamations were issued: "Neighborhood Housing Services Month" - June, 1986; "Fraternal Week" - June 8-14, 1986 with "Flag Day" - June 14th; a proclamation recognizing Valery Butcher for her outstanding achievements in Basketball while attending McNeese University and "NAACP Membership Month" - June, 1986. -000- The following Consent Agenda items were considered: Approval of the Minutes of the regular City Council session held June 3, 1986; Resolution 86-182 authorizing an annual contract with Jones Chemical, Inc. , for the purchase of approximately 220 tons of Liquid Chlorine at $345.00 per ton for use by the Water Treatment and Sewage Treatment Plants; Resolution 86-183 authorizing an annual contract with Allied Chemical for the purchase of 165,000 pounds of Liquid Polymers at $0.13 per pound for use by the Water Utilities Department; - Resolution 86-184 authorizing purchase of Parcel 84, 3,600 square feet out of Lot 1, Block 2, Gentz Addition from Anthony and Rose Lovoi Luperallo at _';,, r $21,903.00 and Parcel 136, 12,250 square feet out of Lot 19 and the north 37.5 feet of Lot 20, Block 10, Ogden Addition from Mary Nell Watson at $49,990.00 for the M. L. King, Jr. , Parkway/Spur 380 Project; and -120- June 10, 1986 Resolution 86-185 authorizing purchase of Parcel 1, easement rights on 0.861 acres of land out of the Southern Pacific Railroad Sabine Branch right-of-way in the J. W. Bullock Survey, Abstract 7, from the Southern Pacific Transportation Company at $13,126.0.0 and two temporary working easements: 1, a 0.08 acre tract out of Lot 21 of the Annie T. Warren Subdivision from Louis Sager Hunsucker at $366.00 and 2, a 0.34 acre tract out of Lot 21 of the Annie T. Warren Subdivision from Florence S. Hunsucker at $1,555.00. for the South Park Drainage Project. The Consent Agenda was approved on a motion made by Councilman Cokinos and seconded by Councilman Weisbach. Question: Ayes: All Nayes: None -000- There were no citizens who wished to address City Council on Agenda Item 1. -000- Ordinance No. 86-62 amending the fiscal year 1985-1986 budget by transferring $30,000 from Public Works Department, Traffic Division, to Code Enforcement Division of the Community Development Department for demolition of Dangerous Structures was considered: ORDINANCE NO. 86-62 ENTITLED AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE BUDGET OF THE CITY OF BEAUMONT FOR THE FISCAL PERIOD COMMENCING OCTOBER 1, 1985 AND ENDING SEPTEMBER 30, 1986 TO TRANSFER $30,000 FROM THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, TRAFFIC DIVISION TO THE CODE ENFORCEMENT DIVISION OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT FOR THE DEMOLITION OF DANGEROUS STRUCTURES; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY AND PROVIDING FOR REPEAL. The ordinance was approved on a motion made by Councilman Moore and seconded by Councilman Lee. Question: Ayes: All Nayes: None -000- Councilman Moore requested a report concerning projected utility rates for all Departments, especially electrical rates. A brief discussion was held concerning flooding caused by the recent heavy rains. Council requested a report showing the areas where flooding occurred and one member mentioned the 4700 Block of Gladys, generally between Rikisha and Howell Streets. -000- -121- June 10, 1986 Mr. C. L. Sherman, 585 Belvedere, addressed Council to say that property values in Beaumont have decreased and complained that the Jefferson County Tax Appraisal District does not use realistic values when setting property appraisals. Mr. Allen Burch, 4610 Barton Lane, addressed Council to request consideration for additional time being granted for the rehabilitation of the structure located at 1325 Van Buren. -000- There being no further business, the session was recessed before continuing with the City Council Workshop Session. -000- Mayor Meyers called an Executive Session, pursuant to Section II of the Open Meetings Act, to consider pending litigation between the City of Beaumont and the Fire Fighters Union, to be held immediately following the Beaumont Housing Finance Corporation meeting which is scheduled to follow the Council Workshop. -000- -, Rosemarie Chiappe tta, Deputy City Clerk of the City of Beaumont, Texas, certify that the above is a true copy of the Minutes of the regular City Council session held June 10, 1986. Rosemarie Chiappetta Deputy City Clerk -122- June 10, 1986 EXCERPT FROM CITY COUNCIL WORKSHOP SESSION HELD JUNE 10, 1986 CITY MANAGER ALBERT HAINES: Mayor, this first item is a request of Mr. Cokinos. He's asked that a presentation of the Fire Fighters Union be presented to the Council relative to some pending litigation. I'd probably defer to Councilmember Cokinos for that intro. COUNCILMAN COKINOS: Thank you, Mr. Haines. I think Mr. Heartfield and your Co-Counselor is in the Chamber? MR. THAD HEARTFIELD: Yes, George Kirk . . . COUNCILMAN COKINOS: Glad to see you, George. MR. GEORGE KIRK: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council. We appreciate your hearing from us today. We are here on a rather unusual mission and that is to come and talk to this Council about some, I suppose, some opportunity that is unrealized at the present time that should probabaly be dealt with. We are scheduled for a hearing Monday, as you know, and we also wish to communicate a flexibility. The Council . . . this is a real unusual presentation for us today in that we do have litigation pending. I'd also like to say at the outset that the Council has been very adequately by Counsel for the City Attorney's Office and we haven't had any problems communicating with regard to the issues presented in the case. In fact, this presentation was arranged by and through our discussions with the City Attorney's Office since the suit was filed. And, I think our ground rules for this presentation are basically that the Council . . . we are not asking the Council to react individually to the points we would make today at this time because of the unique circumstances which generates our meeting; but, we did want to come and try to see if there was any desire or flexibility in this Council to resolve this thing informally without all of the kinds of things that go along with a lawsuite. MAYOR MEYERS: May I do something . . . I appreciate your reference and I think it is appropriate to probably, for the benefit of those in attendance . . . Counsel is referencing the fact that the litigation, and correct me if I am wrong so that it will be properly stated, that would actually determine if in fact the action taken by Council some year or so ago which repealed that ordinance which had been passed by the vote of the citizens was legal and that it's this legal question that has been scheduled for the courts on Monday. EXCERPT FROM CITY COUNuIL WORKSHOP SESSION HELD JUNE 10, 1986 Page 2 MR. KIRK: You are right, Mr. Mayor. That is exactly what we are not going to talk about today because we don't want to bring to you a question of law. The Council is very well represented and I am confident that the lawyers representing the City will communicate, hopefully have communicated, the position of the Fire Fighters Union as we articulate it and I think we are here not to address questions of law or to have some kind of dress rehearsal for a hearing that is going to happen later. There is another thing we are not here about to talk about and that is management functions and prerogatives. I represent the Fire Fighters Union and they are a Union and the City Council is basically the management function of the City but there are some new City Councilmen on the Council and a new City Manager in the City of Beaumont. So much change has taken place that I think it bears a second look. As you approach your job of management, the Union isn't going to say that you should capitulate to any Union position - in other words, you are charged with responsibility and obligation to be as firm in your management responsibilities as any management group could be. I think the point we are trying to make with this presentation is that you have a responsibility as does the Union to play within the framework of the rules. In other words, you need to be tough and hard in your management roll. The Union needs to be zealous in its representation of its membership as they attempt to achieve increased salaries and benefits for their members; but management and labor have a structural framework within which they work and that framework was adopted by the citizens of Houston years ago and that framework works. It's good and it's designed to accommodate the competing degree of power as between the two groups - management and labor. There was some confusion right after the act was passed and adopted in Beaumont as to this arbitration issue and that confusion was resolved in an election held in Beaumont. Now, where the confusion has been generated again is with the unilateral repeal of this initiated ordinance . . referendum which had placed arbitration into the management equation of Beaumont and that is the subject of the lawsuit now. As I understand it, there . . . on your Council . . . MAYOR MEYERS: The one we didn't want to talk about. MR. KIRK: Yes, sir. This is not a question of law now but, as I understand it, of the present City Council there is just a single sitting member who voted for that repeal. In other words, there are at least two members of the Council who were present - and I just have this information from reading the Minutes of the Council, it is public information, that two of the members voted no who are here today. We don't know their motivation. We don't speculate about it but we know that the recent Council members, recently on Council, have never really had to deal with this issue directly. You haven't had to vote on it yet and I suppose the point we are going to leave you with is that, after today, we don't think the sitting Council - the Council as it is constituted today, is going to be able to defer back to a prior Council action because what we are specifically asking for you today is to get with your Counsel. EXCERPT FROM CITY COUNCIL WORKSHOP SESSION HELD JUNE 10, 1986 Page 3 MR. KIRK continued: We intend to continue discussions with your Counsel prior to this hearing. Get with them and see if there is room to resolve this situation. Now, as a takeoff point for discussion, we have a proposed, or just a draft, of an ordinance that we feel could be a step in the right direction and I would like to give your Counsel a copy of it. And, we would appreciate if you would just consider this as a takeoff point for discussion as you deliberate over this issue. Should we get any feedback from Counsel representing the City in the next few days, then we can announce to the Council that there's flexibility in terms of rescheduling the hearing that's currently set for Monday and would be our Goal. If the . . . . . . MAYOR MEYERS: Let me interrupt, if I may, because you are starting to confuse me. The question relative to the hearing is, I think, an attempt to answer a legal question as to is it appropriate for a Council to repeal an ordinance. I have to say I don't really see that that, for example, the outcome of that, I guess to be honest, would in no way influence my feelings say towards the issue of binding arbitration. It is a legal question which I don't know the answer to and I know we can't get that answer here today, but that's where you are getting me confused. MR. KIRK: Well, I think it's . . . the point we are making is that we are not going to let you dodge the bullet that easily, Mr. Mayor. I think there is an easy way to do it by deferring to an act of a prior Council and then calling it strictly a question of law and letting the judge decide it. As we have been discussing this thing recently, we felt we had an obligation to bring this issue to this Council. It is an issue that's ripe for a decision by this Council rather than . . . Now, if this Council decides that it simply wishes to defer to the Courts to decide these kinds of matters, then that will be the position of this Council. This Council will do nothing in response to this initiative and this Council will be sending a signal as we view it that it doesn't wish to deal with this issue directly or that it has in fact ratified the position of the prior Council. That's the only logical way to determine it but we wanted to make sure that we had tried everything that we could to avoid having to take this last step with regard to litigation. The Council is limited and we are limited in terms of our being able to get together and talk with the various laws that apply to Council meetings and so forth but this was one way, where we saw we could come and put it directly and open up candidly to see if this Council wishes to deal with the issue. On the other hand, if we don't hear, and we will be back in touch with Counsel, but if we don't hear that there's any initiative in that way, then we won't have any other choice except to go ahead and resolve it the way that it is postured now but we did want to make the one last run at you. Appreciate your attention and I'd like to reintroduce Mr. Heartfield in case he has any comments he'd like to make to the Council. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. MR. THAD HEARTFIELD: I really hadn't, George, but since you put it that way . . . . . . EXCERPT FROM CITY COUNCIL WORKSHOP SESSION HELD JUNE 10, 1986 Page 4 MAYOR MEYERS: Let me ask if there are any questions of Council? Thank you, Mr. Kirk. MR. HEARTFIELD: I can only summarize what I think you probably already heard and most of you know I have been on both sides of governmental litigation for many years. I have not seen many cases, particularly in governmental litigation, that could not have been resolved - 60 to 70% of the cases could have been worked out by a sitdown meeting with some of the .. between management and whoever the other litigators are. Certainly, this is no exception. What George said is absolutely right. This City Council has a step to take before the Court takes its first step. That step is to exercise its discretion to one, ratify the last City Council's actions by doing nothing or two, to reinvoke and pass this ordinance that's been submitted to you bringing life back into arbitration as it had been intended by the citizens of Beaumont. Fourth step, obviously, is to pitch the ball to the Court and let the Court make that decision. We think the decision rests with this Council here and today and it can avoid further litigation, it can avoid costs, it can avoid further discussion on this subject. It puts us back in the place that that Electorate placed us back in 1974 . . . 1974. That's it. Thank you. MAYOR MEYERS: Is there any further discussion? Any questions of anybody? Thank you, appreciate your attendance. END OF EXCERPT. Requested by Councilman Wei'sbach.