Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutResolution - 4930 - Authorized City Manger To Chang 1994-95 Budget-Transfer Of Funds, E-W Freeway - 08/24/1995Resolution No. 4930 August 24, 1995 Item #22 RESOLUTION WHEREAS, the City of Lubbock and the State of Texas, acting by and through the Texas Department of Transportation, having jointly agreed to pursue construction of an "East-West Freeway Project," along a Highway No. U.S. 62/82 corridor, extending from southwest Loop 289 to east of I-27; and WHEREAS, the City of Lubbock has agreed to pay ten percent (10%) of right-of-way costs, including ten percent (10%) of railroad relocation costs; and WHEREAS, the State of Texas is suggesting a commitment and payment of the City's estimated share of right-of-way costs for the project; NOW THEREFORE; BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LUBBOCK: THAT the Mayor is hereby authorized to execute an agreement in quintuplicate originals with the State of Texas to commit the City's ten percent (10%) share of the estimated right-of- way costs for the East-West Freeway Project. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LUBBOCK: THAT the City Manager is authorized to change the 1994-95 budget by transferring $1,800,000 from the Streets Capital Projects Undesignated/Unreserved Fund balance (unallocated street bonds) to Capital Project 915-9513 for costs associated with the East-West Freeway. Passed by the City Council this ATTEST: &a,-- - J1 �� wrti Betty 94. Johnsork, City Secretary APPROVED AS TO FORM: (An C. Ross, Jr., City Attrney JCR:da ccdocsUt-con.res August 18, 1995 Resolution No. 4930 Agreement to Contribute Funds THE STATE OF TEXAS County Lubbock Federal Project No. COUNTY OF TRAVIS CSJ No. 0380-01-053 ROW Account No. 8005-1-20 This Agreement by and between the State of Texas, acting by and through the Texas Department of Transportation, hereinafter called the State, and Lubbock, Texas, acting by and through its duly authorized official under Ordinance dated the 24th day of August , 199 5 , hereinafter called the City, shall be effective on the date of approval and execution by and on behalf of the State. WHEREAS, the State has previously requested the City to enter into a contractual agreement and acquire right of way for a highway project on Highway No. U.S. 62/82 with the following project limits: From Southwest Loop 289 To East of I-27; and WHEREAS, the City has now requested that the State assume responsibility for acquisition of all necessary right of way for said highway project; and WHEREAS, the City desires to voluntarily contribute to the State funds equal to ten percent (10%) of the cost of the said right of way for the proper development and construction of the State Highway System; WHEREAS, the City wishes to contribute this ten percent (10%) of the cost of the right of way in incremental payments in accordance with the following schedule: ($2,000,000.00) Two Million and No/ 100 Dollars upon execution of agreement. ($2,000,000.00) Two Million and No/100 Dollars on or before April 30, 1998. ($2,000,000.00) Two Million and No/100 Dollars on or before October 31, 2000. ($2,000,000.00) Two Million and No/100 Dollars on or before April 30, 2003. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing premises and the mutual benefits to be derived therefrom, the City shall contribute to the State an amount equal to ten percent (10%) of the cost of the right of way to be acquired by the State and shall transmit to the State with the return of this agreement, executed by the City, a warrant or check payable to the Texas Department of Transportation in the amount of Two Million and No/100 Dollars ($2,000,000.00) as partial payment of the aforementioned ten percent (10%) cost. The City will contribute to the State the balance of the ten percent (10%) which is estimated to be Six Million and No/100 Dollars ($6,000,000.00) pursuant to the above schedule. The Six Million and No/100 Dollars ($6,000,000.00) shall be placed in one or more certificates of deposit or other interest bearing account at the choice of the City. The above contributions constitute Eight Million and No/100 Dollars ($8,000,000.00) which represents ten percent (10%) of the estimated cost of the right of way; however, if it is found that this amount is insufficient to pay the City's obligation, the interest earned on the $6,000,000.00 from and after October 1, 1996 shall be used to supplement the City's obligation in an amount requested by the State. If the total amount of interest earned is insufficient to supplement the City's obligation, the City upon request of the State of a specified amount, shall promptly, to the extent permitted by and in accordance with the laws of the State of Texas, transmit the requested amount to the State. Upon completion of the project and in the event the amount as paid by the City is more than ten percent (10%) of the cost of the right of way, then any excess amount will be returned to the City. Cost of the right of way acquired by the State shall mean the total value of compensation to owners for their property interests either by negotiation or eminent domain. This agreement is approved and executed by and on behalf of the State on the date shown hereinafter. ATTEST: Be M.7ohnson Ci ecret tty , ty �y APPROVED AS TO FORM: C. Ross, Jr., City Attorney JCR:da cityatt\a-funds.doc August 23, 1995 EXECUTION RECOMMENDED: THE STATE OF TEXAS Certified as being executed for the purpose and effect of activating and/ or carrying out the order, established policies, or work programs hereto- fore approved and authorized by the Texas Department of Transportation Commission under the authority of Minute Order VS/3 By: Dirctor of Right of Way Date: 9 — 7- 9s City Council Meeting Item #22- August 24, 1995 Page 1 Consider a resolution authorizing the Mayor to execute an agreement with the State of Texas to commit the City's ten percent (10%) share of estimated East-West Freeway right-of-way costs. Cass: Mayor, we placed this item on the agenda at the request of the Texas Department of Transportation. As we have indicated in the agenda comments, previous actions of City Councils in 1989 and 1991 committed the City to bear certain percentages of the costs of the East-West Freeway and those are laid out in your agenda comments. We now have a record decision that approves the project and the local TxDOT office is asking that we come up with our 10% share of the right-of-way acquisition costs. The total right-of-way costs are estimated at $80 million; that means we would need to come up with $8 million. You can see in your agenda comments that they want $2 million upon execution of the agreement and then $2 million at three different times, culminating in 2003. Basically, I need to make you aware that at the present time we have $6.4 million budgeted for that process. Through a series of project delays and a variety of other factors, we budgeted $6.4 million. The costs are now estimated to be $8 million for the City's share. Ince: Mr. Cass, are you telling me that the estimated cost in 1989 or 1991 for right-of-way was $6.4 million? Cass: Can you bring us up to speed on that, Larry or Marsha? Larry Hertel: Yes, sir. It is my understanding that that is true. The $6.4 million was the previous estimate.... Ince: Instead of $64 million, the project, or this part of the project, is now estimated at $80 million? Hertel: Yes, sir. Ince: And when is the acquisition of the right-of-way supposed to begin by the state? Cass: Is Mr. Kneisley here? Is Claude here? Kneisley: We will begin this fall. Ince: For the acquisition of that right-of-way, are you actually trying to acquire that right-of-way this fall? City Council Meeting Item #22- August 24, 1995 Page 2 Kneisley: Yes, sir. Ince: Is your estimate still $80 million for that acquisition? Kneisley: Yes, sir. Ince: I think one thing that concerns me, this has been a moving target. We started out at $64 million and now we're at $80 million. What we're agreeing to is a percentage. Cass: That's correct, and I need to make you aware that we pointed out to the state that we did not think that we could commit to an open-ended number. Basically, the City Attorney can give you all the legalese you want on that, but basically that's the layman's version. Now, what they are requesting that we do is that, in lieu of being able to commit to an open-ended number, that we make an immediate payment of $2 million, that we put in a City fund, the remaining $6 million, and that we agree to plow back into that fund the interest that would accrue each year, save and except its first year when we already have those interest dollars budgeted in the City General Fund budget. I need to make you aware.... Ince: We have some of this money available? It is on deposit right now? Cass: We have $6.4; they would want $2 now. That means we need to come up with the balance. Ms. Forte' and Mr. Hindman can explain that to you. Ince: We are drawing interest which is going into General Fund, which we are not going to be able to under this scenario? Cass: That is correct. There may be another question there that I think you would have, too. You've got $6.4; they are wanting you to commit $8 million and put $6 on deposit. $2 from $6.4 leaves $4.4. Where is the other $1.6 coming from. Hindman: The resolution presented to you this morning would move approximately $1.8. We wanted to make sure we had enough in there of unallocated bond proceeds from the street bonds that were sold in 1993. It would move them into this fund for the time beginning. What we would anticipate is, as we need that $1.8 million for those three projects, we would move those funds back in. The idea would be to try to set aside some reserves at the end of the year or, if necessary, we would have to issue some other type of debt for that. The intent is to use year-end City Council Meeting Item #22- August 24, 1995 Page 3 reserves and to come up with that additional $1.6 to $1.8 million difference that we have there. Ince: If we do not make it with interest or earned income off of this, that's what we're trying to do with the $1.6, isn't it? Cass: No, sir. We need to come up with the $1.6. They want the investment income on top of that in the event that the project costs exceed $80 million, is my understanding. So basically what we have to do is shift the unallocated bond funds to come up with the difference between $6.4 and $8 million, realizing that we do not make the final payment until the year 2003. Between now and then we would want to either sell certificates of obligation to cover that $1.8 million or through the year-end process. As most of the Council is familiar, we typically have an excess of revenues over expenses; use that money to build that back up. Ince: Do we have to make this decision today? Do we have a time frame on this? Cass: I would have to defer to the state on that. They requested that we place that on here today, but I don't know what their time line is. Kneisley: [inaudible] We would like for a decision to be made today. Ince: I couldn't hear that. Cass: Basically, I heard him to say he would like to have the decision today, but if you want to delay it until another meeting, that would not cripple the project. Is that correct? Patterson: We don't want to be guilty of crippling the project. Marsha Allen: There is going to be a change September 1 in the process the state uses for selecting projects to go forward into what they are going to be calling Phase II, which is to make them able here at the district office to purchase right-of-way and to begin design work for the freeway. What the state is asking is that hopefully they can go back to their Austin office. If the City is willing to put up their $8 million and say the City has gone ahead and said yes, we are definitely in support of this project by putting up the, or agreeing to signing this agreement, and they can use that as leverage to go ahead and start purchasing right-of-way for the entire East-West Freeway project. City Council Meeting Item #22- August 24, 1995 Page 4 Langston: I can't emphasize to you enough, as a Council and as a community, how important it is for us, with the Texas Department of Transportation, to emphasize to them that we are committed to this project. We need to send a strong signal to them that the Lubbock community is going to hold up their end of the bargain and we expect them to hold up their end of the bargain. Patterson: Will you accept my motion, Mr. Mayor? Ince: One more question. Ms. Allen, of this $80 million, of which 10% is ours, are you aware that the state has set aside that money? Allen: It is my understanding that yes they have. If we go ahead and agree to this and put up the $8 million that they have the additional $70 million or $72 million on hand. Cass: There is a question, though, in the agenda comments, and it may not be exactly on point, but I think we nevertheless need to make the Council aware. Let me just read from our agenda comments. "The state in the February 1991 agreement only agreed to pay 90% [that's $10.8 million] of the railroad relocation costs originally estimated at $12 million." That is currently estimated to be $19 million, of which the state's share would be $17,200,000, leaving an uncommitted state shortfall of $6.4 million. I need to be open with you and point that out to you, telling you I don't anticipate that the state is going to be bad for that debt. I think they will eventually come back and honor that commitment, but for now, do I have a written document that commits them to that? No, I don't. Sitton: Is there no way that we can be guaranteed that a year from now it's not going to be $12 million we have to come up with? That's my concern. I'm definitely committed to the project, Mr. Mayor, but, just an open-ended 10% of whatever anybody decides.... Langston: That's not what we're committing to, Ms. Sitton. What we're committing to is that we're committing that we'll put $8 million up and that we will plow the interest into that fund. Cass: That is correct, sir. Langston: It's not an open-ended 10%. Patterson: Mayor, I so move. City Council Meeting Item #22- August 24, 1995 Page 5 Langston: I have a motion by Councilman Patterson. Do I have a second? Neugebauer: Clarification. [inaudible] Ross: This contract says two things. First of all, the problem I had with it was that we have a $1.6 million shortfall. We can't sign that contract unless we have the money in hand or we create a debt, in violation of Art. 11., Sec. 5, without sufficient funds to cover the debt. Mr. Hindman says they can transfer the funds. You have a motion on the resolution to transfer funds to cover that. In addition, the state says, "Well, we may have to have more money because this is right-of-way. We think it's going to be $64, now it's $80." So it could be a little more expense. So the state wants to create the interest of the $6 million, take the $6 million and put the interest in this fund. So you create a fund in being so that you don't have a debt that you can call on. In addition to that, they say, "Well, we still may need to come back. We don't think we'll need to, but we want to put that in here. Then, if the right-of-way is more, we'll come back to you." But, I have it in here that that requirement is subject to the laws of the state of Texas, which means you still have to go back to Art. 11, Sec. 5, and it means that it still has to come back to you all and you have to approve it because you have controlling the finances. So I have taken care of that legal gem with the state. I can't tell you they won't come back to you because I don't know what right-of-way will cost. In that case, we have a prior contract that says we'll pay 10%. Langston: Okay, I have a motion by Council Patterson to approve. I don't have a second. Ince: Mr. Mayor, under the circumstances, I would like to move to table this until our next meeting. Hernandez: Second. Langston: I have a motion by Councilman Ince and a second by Councilman Hernandez to table. Patterson: I'm concerned about us not being able to hold up the project. Hear my point? After hearing Ms. Allen speak about what's happening in Austin, these metropolitan areas we're in competition against, I don't want them to use that against us, not being committed to the project, that is my concern. Allen: And there is no guarantee at this time that this will, in fact, let them go ahead with the freeway, purchase of the right-of-way. This is something City Council Meeting Item #22- August 24, 1995 Page 6 that they're hoping to use if they have to in order to do that, so we have no guarantee one way or the other right now. Ince: Along Mr. Patterson's thought, if we delay this to the next meeting in September, two weeks from now, does that present a problem in your mind as far as something changing? Allen: No, just the process with the state in house is all that is going to be changing as of September 1, but still... Ince: Does that cause us a problem, in your opinion? Allen: No. Ince: My reason for making this motion, I just have some questions and I've heard two or three statements, I've heard the legal opinion, but I'm still just a little bit fuzzy, and I don't want to proceed on this until I know that I'm clear in my mind just exactly what we're committing to, where the funds are coming from. The `93 bond election for resurfacing the streets; the East-West Freeway wasn't in that bond election, and I want this thing clarified, and that's why I'm making the motion that I'm making. Langston: I have a motion and a second on the table. Any further discussion? Patterson: Understand what I said. Langston: Without objection, I'll call for the question. All in favor respond by saying aye. All opposed by nay. I think we had a 4-3 vote to table. Do you want to call for a head count? All in favor respond by raising their right hand. Three in favor of tabling. All those opposed to tabling, raise their right hand. The count is 4-3. The motion fails. Do I have another motion on this item. Patterson: I go back to my previous motion, Mr. Mayor. Langston: I have a motion by Councilman Patterson to pass the resolution. Do I have a second? Cooke: Second. Langston: Second by Councilman Cooke. Any further discussion on this item? All in favor respond by saying aye [ Langston, Patterson, Sitton, Neugebauer, Cooke]. Any opposed by nay [Hernandez, Ince]. Passes 5-2. City Council Meeting Item #22- August 24, 1995 Page 1 Consider a resolution authorizing the Mayor to execute an agreement with the State of Texas to commit the City's ten percent (10%) share of estimated East-West Freeway right-of-way costs. Cass: Mayor, we placed this item on the agenda at the request of the Texas Department of Transportation. As we have indicated in the agenda comments, previous actions of City Councils in 1989 and 1991 committed the City to bear certain percentages of the costs of the East-West Freeway and those are laid out in your agenda comments. We now have a record decision that approves the project and the local TxDOT office is asking that we come up with our 10% share of the right-of-way acquisition costs. The total right-of-way costs are estimated at $80 million; that means we would need to come up with $8 million. You can see in your agenda comments that they want $2 million upon execution of the agreement and then $2 million at three different times, culminating in 2003. Basically, I need to make you aware that at the present time we have $6.4 million budgeted for that process. Through a series of project delays and a variety of other factors, we budgeted $6.4 million. The costs are now estimated to be $8 million for the City's share. Ince: Mr. Cass, are you telling me that the estimated cost in 1989 or 1991 for right-of-way was $6.4 million? Cass: Can you bring us up to speed on that, Larry or Marsha? Larry Hertel: Yes, sir. It is my understanding that that is true. The $6.4 million was the previous estimate.... Ince: Instead of $64 million, the project, or this part of the project, is now estimated at $80 million? Hertel: Yes, sir. Ince: And when is the acquisition of the right-of-way supposed to begin by the state? Cass: Is Mr. Kneisley here? Is Claude here? Kneisley: We will begin this fall. Ince: For the acquisition of that right-of-way, are you actually trying to acquire that right-of-way this fall? City Council Meeting Item #22- August 24, 1995 Page 2 Kneisley: Yes, sir. Ince: Is your estimate still $80 million for that acquisition? Kneisley: Yes, sir. Ince: I think one thing that concerns me, this has been a moving target. We started out at $64 million and now we're at $80 million. What we're agreeing to is a percentage. Cass: That's correct, and I need to make you aware that we pointed out to the state that we did not think that we could commit to an open-ended number. Basically, the City Attorney can give you all the legalese you want on that, but basically that's the layman's version. Now, what they are requesting that we do is that, in lieu of being able to commit to an open-ended number, that we make an immediate payment of $2 million, that we put in a City fund, the remaining $6 million, and that we agree to plow back into that fund the interest that would accrue each year, save and except its first year when we already have those interest dollars budgeted in the City General Fund budget. I need to make you aware.... Ince: We have some of this money available? It is on deposit right now? Cass: We have $6.4; they would want $2 now. That means we need to come up with the balance. Ms. Forte' and Mr. Hindman can explain that to you. Ince: We are drawing interest which is going into General Fund, which we are not going to be able to under this scenario? Cass: That is correct. There may be another question there that I think you would have, too. You've got $6.4; they are wanting you to commit $8 million and put $6 on deposit. $2 from $6.4 leaves $4.4. Where is the other $1.6 coming from. Hindman: The resolution presented to you this morning would move approximately $1.8. We wanted to make sure we had enough in there of unallocated bond proceeds from the street bonds that were sold in 1993. It would move them into this fund for the time beginning. What we would anticipate is, as we need that $1.8 million for those three projects, we would move those funds back in. The idea would be to try to set aside some reserves at the end of the year or, if necessary, we would have to City Council Meeting Item #22- August 24, 1995 Page 3 issue some other type of debt for that. The intent is to use year-end reserves and to come up with that additional $1.6 to $1.8 million difference that we have there. Ince: If we do not make it with interest or earned income off of this, that's what we're trying to do with the $1.6, isn't it? Cass: No, sir. We need to come up with the $1.6. They want the investment income on top of that in the event that the project costs exceed $80 million, is my understanding. So basically what we have to do is shift the unallocated bond funds to come up with the difference between $6.4 and $8 million, realizing that we do not make the final payment until the year 2003. Between now and then we would want to either sell certificates of obligation to cover that $1.8 million or through the year-end process. As most of the Council is familiar, we typically have an excess of revenues over expenses; use that money to build that back up. Ince: Do we have to make this decision today? Do we have a time frame on this? Cass: I would have to defer to the state on that. They requested that we place that on here today, but I don't know what their time line is. Kneisley: [inaudible] We would like for a decision to be made today. Ince: I couldn't hear that. Cass: Basically, I heard him to say he would like to have the decision today, but if you want to delay it until another meeting, that would not cripple the project. Is that correct? Patterson: We don't want to be guilty of crippling the project. Marsha Allen: There is going to be a change September 1 in the process the state uses for selecting projects to go forward into what they are going to be calling Phase II, which is to make them able here at the district office to purchase right-of-way and to begin design work for the freeway. What the state is asking is that hopefully they can go back to their Austin office. If the City is willing to put up their $8 million and say the City has gone ahead and said yes, we are definitely in support of this project by putting up the, or agreeing to signing this agreement, and they can use that as leverage to go City Council Meeting Item #22- August 24, 1995 Page 4 ahead and start purchasing right-of-way for the entire East-West Freeway project. Langston: I can't emphasize to you enough, as a Council and as a community, how important it is for us, with the Texas Department of Transportation, to emphasize to them that we are committed to this project. We need to send a strong signal to them that the Lubbock community is going to hold up their end of the bargain and we expect them to hold up their end of the bargain. Patterson: Will you accept my motion, Mr. Mayor? Ince: One more question. Ms. Allen, of this $80 million, of which 10% is ours, are you aware that the state has set aside that money? Allen: It is my understanding that yes they have. If we go ahead and agree to this and put up the $8 million that they have the additional $70 million or $72 million on hand. Cass: There is a question, though, in the agenda comments, and it may not be exactly on point, but I think we nevertheless need to make the Council aware. Let me just read from our agenda comments. "The state in the February 1991 agreement only agreed to pay 90% [that's $10.8 million] of the railroad relocation costs originally estimated at $12 million." That is currently estimated to be $19 million, of which the state's share would be $17,200,000, leaving an uncommitted state shortfall of $6.4 million. I need to be open with you and point that out to you, telling you I don't anticipate that the state is going to be bad for that debt. I think they will eventually come back and honor that commitment, but for now, do I have a written document that commits them to that? No, I don't. Sitton: Is there no way that we can be guaranteed that a year from now it's not going to be $12 million we have to come up with? That's my concern. I'm definitely committed to the project, Mr. Mayor, but, just an open- ended 10% of whatever anybody decides.... Langston: That's not what we're committing to, Ms. Sitton. What we're committing to is that we're committing that we'll put $8 million up and that we will plow the interest into that fund. Cass: That is correct, sir. City Council Meeting Item #22- August 24, 1995 Page 5 Langston: It's not an open-ended 10%. Patterson: Mayor, I so move. Langston: I have a motion by Councilman Patterson. Do I have a second? Neugebauer: Clarification. [inaudible] Ross: This contract says two things. First of all, the problem I had with it was that we have a $1.6 million shortfall. We can't sign that contract unless we have the money in hand or we create a debt, in violation of Art. 11., Sec. 5, without sufficient funds to cover the debt. Mr. Hindman says they can transfer the funds. You have a motion on the resolution to transfer funds to cover that. In addition, the state says, "Well, we may have to have more money because this is right-of-way. We think it's going to be $64, now it's $80." So it could be a little more expense. So the state wants to create the interest of the $6 million, take the $6 million and put the interest in this fund. So you create a fund in being so that you don't have a debt that you can call on. In addition to that, they say, "Well, we still may need to come back. We don't think we'll need to, but we want to put that in here. Then, if the right-of-way is more, we'll come back to you." But, I have it in here that that requirement is subject to the laws of the state of Texas, which means you still have to go back to Art. 11, Sec. 5, and it means that it still has to come back to you all and you have to approve it because you have controlling the finances. So I have taken care of that legal gem with the state. I can't tell you they won't come back to you because I don't know what right-of-way will cost. In that case, we have a prior contract that says we'll pay 10%. Langston: Okay, I have a motion by Council Patterson to approve. I don't have a second. Ince: Mr. Mayor, under the circumstances, I would like to move to table this until our next meeting. Hernandez: Second. Langston: I have a motion by Councilman Ince and a second by Councilman Hernandez to table. Patterson: I'm concerned about us not being able to hold up the project. Hear my point? After hearing Ms. Allen speak about what's happening in Austin, City Council Meeting Item #22- August 24, 1995 Page 6 these metropolitan areas we're in competition against, I don't want them to use that against us, not being committed to the project, that is my concern. Allen: And there is no guarantee at this time that this will, in fact, let them go ahead with the freeway, purchase of the right-of-way. This is something that they're hoping to use if they have to in order to do that, so we have no guarantee one way or the other right now. Ince: Along Mr. Patterson's thought, if we delay this to the next meeting in September, two weeks from now, does that present a problem in your mind as far as something changing? Allen: No, just the process with the state in house is all that is going to be changing as of September 1, but still... Ince: Does that cause us a problem, in your opinion? Allen: No. Ince: My reason for making this motion, I just have some questions and I've heard two or three statements, I've heard the legal opinion, but I'm still just a little bit fuzzy, and I don't want to proceed on this until I know that I'm clear in my mind just exactly what we're committing to, where the funds are coming from. The `93 bond election for resurfacing the streets; the East-West Freeway wasn't in that bond election, and I want this thing clarified, and that's why I'm making the motion that I'm making. Langston: I have a motion and a second on the table. Any further discussion? Patterson: Understand what I said. Langston: Without objection, I'll call for the question. All in favor respond by saying aye. All opposed by nay. I think we had a 4-3 vote to table. Do you want to call for a head count? All in favor respond by raising their right hand. Three in favor of tabling. All those opposed to tabling, raise their right hand. The count is 4-3. The motion fails. Do I have another motion on this item. Patterson: I go back to my previous motion, Mr. Mayor. City Council Meeting Item #22- August 24, 1995 Page 7 Langston: I have a motion by Councilman Patterson to pass the resolution. Do I have a second? Cooke: Second. Langston: Second by Councilman Cooke. Any further discussion on this item? All in favor respond by saying aye [ Langston, Patterson, Sitton, Neugebauer, Cooke]. Any opposed by nay [Hernandez, Ince]. Passes 5-2.