Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1979-06-05 - Regular City CouncilREGULAR SESSION- TUESDAY JUNE 5, 1979 CHAMBER OF THE CITY COUNCIL CITY HALL, CITY OF STEPHENVILLE, TEXAS The City Council of the City of Stephenville, Texas met in Regular Session at 7 o'clock p.m. with Mayor Donald R. Jones present and pre- siding. Councilmembers Mike Leese, W. M. Irwin, Calvin A. McGee, Charles Riggins, E. W. Ferguson, and Linda Chew were present. Councilmen Raymond Anderson and Larry Hammett were absent. Others attending the meeting were City Administrator Marshall Shelton, Administrative Assistant Kurt Ackermann, Director of Public Works R. Y. Gann, Chief of Police Mike Watkins, Fire Chief Kenneth Haley, Tax Assessor Robert Groves, City Accountant Charlene Young, Direcotr of Utilities Danny Johnson, Building Inspector Hardy Lockhart, City Secretary Joyce Pemberton, Mr. Rick Thompson, Mrs. L. C. Stewart, Mr. Kenneth Currier, Mr. Troy Fenner, Mrs. Virginia Dorris, Mr. Mike Ballow, Mr. Charles Walker, Members of the press and others. Mayor Jones called the meeting to order. ITEM I: APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES Councilman Irwin moved, seconded by Councilwoman Chew, that the minutes of the May 1, 1979, meeting be approved as written. Motion carried unanimously by those members present. ITEM II: MR. TROY FENNER SPEAKS IN REGARD TO SIZE OF REALTORS' Mr. Troy Fenner, speaking in behalf of the Board of Realtors, re- commended to the Council that the signs used by realtors when advertis- ing a house for sale in R -1 and R -2 Districts be of a more uniform size. He recommended a maximum height of 48" with a 30" X 30" surface or dis- play area and 2 riders 6" X 30 ". All signs to be located 10 feet behind the curb line and at an intersection, the sign to be 15 feet from both curb lines to prevent blocking the traffic view. Mr. Fenner said that, at the present time, he doubted there were' very many realtors in compliance with the present sign ordinance. Mayor Jones advised that the existing ordinance states that "signs shall not exceed four (4 sq.ft.) square feet in area for a temporary unlighted sign pertaining to the lease, hire, or sale of a building or premises, provided the sign is immediately removed upon the lease, hire or sale of such building or premises." He said there have been problems of the realtors leaving a sign up for 2 Or 3 weeks with a "sold" rider on it. Mr. Fenner said the Board of Realtors were recommending a limit of 24 hours after a transaction is closed for the sign to be removed. Mr. Fenner further advised the Council that the above recommendations fit the majority of realtors' signs with the exception of a colonial type sign with cross arms that are sometimes as high as 7 feet. He said that the reason for this request and these recommendations was that the ques- tion had been raised about the location and size of the signs. Mayor Jones advised Mr. Fenner that this would be a zoning ordinance change and would have to go through the Zoning Board. After more discussion, Councilman Irwn moved, seconded by Council- man Riggins, to refer this item to the Zoning Board for their consider- ation for an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance and any recommendation be brought before the Council for approval. Motion carried unanimously by those members present. 252 ITEM III: MR. JOHN WILLIS REQUESTS CLEANUP IN NEIGHBORHOOD Mayor Jones asked Mr. John Willis, 1050 N. Paddock Street, to come forward to speak to the Council in regard to a cleanup problem in their neighborhood. Mr. Willis advised the Council that the property in question is located at 695 W. Pecan Street. He said he coame to the Council as a last resort, after exhausing all other avenues to get this property cleaned up. It is a fire and health hazard as there are many junk cars in the yard, high grass and weeds, garbage piled in the front yard and on the porch. The odor from the garbage and the many small dogs and cats tied and in cages is terrible. Mr. Will said there were five, sometimes six, people living there. (3 or 4 adults and 2 minors) Could possibly be child neglect also. Mr. Willis said his question is, What can be done about this? Mayor Jones advised the Council that numerous attempts by the City Administrator, the City Health Officer and the Police Department have failed to get anything done. There is a provision pertaining to in- sanitary conditions and nuisances, weeds, and animals. Mayor Jones read from Chapter 10, Article II, Sections 10 -16 through 10 -23 of the Code of Ordinances. it up. Councilman Riggins commented that he thought the city should clean Councilman Irwin made the motion, seconded by Councilman Riggins, that the city clean up the property at 695 W. Pecan, owned by Mrs. Dorine Carter, figure the cost and charge the cost against the property. The motion carried unanimously by those members present. Councilman Irwin commented that there were a number of lots around the city that need to be cleaned up. To which the Mayor said most people were responsive to letters from the city. A few were owned by persons living out of town and these caused some problems. The Mayor asked that the City Administrator report back to the Council as to what was done and the amount of expenses incurred in the cleanup of the Carter property. ITEM IV: ACCEPTANCE OF FINAL PLAT OF DALE AVENUE NORTH ADDITION Mayor Jones explained that Dr. Harlan Raley and the Church of Christ were joining in the plat dedication and restrictions, along with all the others involved with any land or streets in this addition. The Mayor also pointed out that Mr. Currier is making an effort to get the electric highline moved or readjusted that goes across the pro- perty. Said highline presently affects Lots 6, 7, 17, & 18, Block 2, in which .event, he would come back and file an amended plat as to the lots affected. Whether or not a house could be built on the lots under- neath said highline would be determined by whether or not they comply with the building code. Councilman McGee moved, seconded by Councilman Leese, that the final plat of the Dale Avenue North Addition be accepted as recommended by the Director of Public Works and as presented. The motion carried unanimously by those members present. V: SIDE YARD VARIANCE DENIED MIKE BAI T.T170M nnvn ON LOT 1A, BLOCK 9, Mayor Jones explained that the Zoning Board had recommended, in a 4 to 1 vote, that Mr. Mike Ballow be granted a 5 foot side yard variance on Lot 1A, Block 9, West Oaks Addition, which is located at the corner of Harbin Drive and Overbill Drive. Mayor Jones then opened the floor for any comments from anyone in the audience. Mr. Charles Walker, 1150 Harbin Drive, came before the Council advising them that his home was immediately adjacent to this lot on the south. He said the only objections he had was that Mr. Ballow wanted to face the building onto Overhill Drive and the back yard would be right at the front of his lot. He said he was not objecting to the house, if Mr. Ballow would face it onto Harbin Drive. Mayor Jones asked Mr. Ballow if there was any problem to facing the house onto Harbin Drive rather than Overhill Drive. Mr. Ballow said there was no possible way to put the house he was planning on this lot if he faced it onto Harbin Drive because of the squaru� footage of the lot. It would throw the back of the lot onto Lot 1B. Mayor Jones read from the Zoning Ordinance the requirements for a side yard on a corner lot. He said, basically, this meant that on this particular lot the minimum requirements for a side yard on Harbin Drive would be 25 feet as the other houses on Harbin Drive set back 30 to 40 feet. The variance in question is 5 feet off said 25 feet assuming the house faces onto Overhill Drive. Mrs. Virginia Dorris, a member of the Zoning Board and the Planning Commission, addressed the Council to state her reasons for being the only member of the Zoning Board to vote against the 5 foot side yard variance requested by Mr. Ballow. In her statement, Mrs. Dorris said that a decision regarding variances is to be based on the Zoning Ordinance only. That outside factors cannot be taken into consideration. This is the only manner in which the Zoning Board and City Council can make recommendations and decisions. The very text of the Zoning Ordinance speaks for every citizen fairly and without special favor. Mrs. Dorris said that Sections 5 and 11 of the Zoning Ordinance clearly state the property demensions of building lines in an R -1 District. Mr. Ballow 's request for a yard variance for this property does not follow the guidelines set out by the ordinance. Quoting from the Zoning Ordinance, Page 40, Section 19, Article E -2, Mrs. Dorris read "When a property owner can show that a strict application of the terms of this ordinance relating to the use, construction or alteration of buildings or structures for the use of land will impose upon him practical difficulties or particular hard- ship, the Board may consider and allow variations of the strict application of the terms of this ordinance if the variations are in harmony with the general purpose and intent of this ordinance, and the Board is satisfied, under the evidence heard by it, that a granting of the variation will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but will alleviate some demonstrable hardship or difficulty so great as to warrant a variation from the comprehensive plan by this Ordinance created." Mrs Dorris pointed out that this is not a hardship created by the particular lie of the land, or because of a peculiar shape, or it is too shallow. The problem is very simple said Mrs. Dorris. Mr. Ballow pur- chased one lot which he divided in half. He knew when he divided the lot that his square footage would be limited and that he could not put as large a house on a smaller lot as he could have had he left it as one lot. Mr. Ballow was aware of this when he divided the lot. He created the hardship himself. It was not due to circumstances beyond his control. That's really all there is to it said Mrs. Dorris. Mrs. Dorris further stated that she felt that the Zoning Board and City Council owes every citizen their consideration on their requests, but also owe them quality in the recommendations and decisions made whether the applicant is a personal friend or not. The only fair way anyone can serve the city is not to give special treatment to political or personal friends but just treat everybody the same. It is a very sad situation when the Zoning Board or City Council uses the Zoning Ordinance to grant favors to personal or political friends because they are not being fair and equal to all persons the Zoning Ordinance applies to. Mrs. Dorris said that, if the City Council votes to deny Mr. Ballow's request, she will assume they agree with what the ordinance states. If they vote to grant this request, she will ask each member, personally, to justify what the reason is for granting this request. Mrs..Dorris read the following definition of a variance: "A variance is a device which grants a property owner relief from certain provisions of a zoning ordinance when, because of the particular physical surroundings, shape, topographical condition of the property, compliance would result in a particular hardship on the owner, as distinguished from a mere inconven- ience or a desire to make more money." Mrs. Dorris said 5 feet is not much needs the Council's respect and careful look at the plat restrictions concerning states "No building shall be located on the street line as shown by the building feet to the side lot line." space, but the Zoning Ordinance : onsideration. Also, they need to the property in question which a lot nearer than 25 feet from setback line or nearer than.8 1 1253 i 25 In conclusion, Mrs. Dorris said she would feel very neglect in her duty as a Zoning Board member if she did not try to follow the Zoning Ordinance because it was an ordinance approved by the citizens of Stephenville and she would like to see it followed. She asked the Council to consider the requirements for an R -1 zoning and the issuance of a variance. Mr. Mike Ballow addressed the Council presenting his reasons for requesting a 5 foot side yard variance on Lot 1A, Block 9, West Oaks Addition. Mr. Ballow e developer of West before buying the divide Lot 1 into on them. He said Harbin Drive side iplained that he had checked with Dr. Nathan Cedars, Oaks Addition and owner of -the lot in question, lot. Dr. Cedars had told him that he could sub - two lots (lA & 1B) and two houses could be built.� he was only asking for a 5 foot variance on the of Lot 1A. Mr. Ballow said he thought the Zoning Ordinance was set up by the city to protect the people's vision, etc. as to the right of ways of particular roads, etc. On Harbin Drive there is a 100 foot right of way, whereas, the normal is 50 foot and Overbill is a 50 foot street which the front of this particular lot has a 15 foot setback. He said he could go ahead and build a house on this particular lot by cutting the house plans down to a 50 foot front house. With real estate as his profession, he said he knew what was a marketable house - what sets the pace for particular neighborhood - how a house will look in a particular neighborhood. A house on this lot that is only 50 feet wide would not be anywhere near the width of the other homes in this area. He did not think it would be a house the neighbors would be proud of. As he passed around a copy of the floor plans, he said he did not feel that his re- quest was at all unreasonable. Mr. Ballow stated that he had been informed that the ordinance in effect at the time these particular covenants of this addition were filed was repealed by the city and a new zoning ordinance was brought into effect which, in effect, makes the covenants of the West Oaks Addition supercede anything that the city would have now. Mayor Jones pointed out that was partially correct, if the plat or subdivision restrictions were filed of record before there was an ord- inance. If a house was built in accordance with said restrictions then, obviously, the plat restrictions would supercede any subsequent ordinance. If an ordinance is drawn subsequent and prior to the building then, of course, the ordinance would supercede the plat restrictions. The Mayor also pointed out another problem. He said that in the Subdivision Ordinance, Article 5, Section E, Paragraph 10, the ordinance states: No lot shall be replatted to reduce the size of the lots origin- ally platted by a common dedicator, unless the consent of all property owners in the same addition has been obtained. No lot will be reduced in width, depth or area to a standard less than prescribed in the Zoning Ordinance as applicable to the area in which the property is located." The Mayor said that the purpose of this is to protect the integrity of the subdivision when there are certain size lots. He asked Mr. Ballow if all the people in the subdivision consented to the reduction in the size of these lots. Mr. Ballow replied that he had not requested their consent as he knew nothing of this requirement in that other lots had been subdivided and other lots had received variances. Mr. Ballow further stated that he had come to the City Council because he wanted to do what was right. That he did not want to get a permit on a bogus plan then build whatever he wanted to, which had been done in some instances. That he was trying to come up with some- thing that was cognizant to the addition and a house that would look nice. He said he really couldn't see any big problem in it. Mr. Ballow further advised Block 144 think that, possibly, he is building on Lot 1B. He s, is not a designated alley. The not plan to block this proposed leave his fence as it is now. the Council that some residents in he is blocking an alley with the house aid that, in checking the city map, this utilities are in the back but he did alley anyway, if Mr. Osborn decides to Councilman Leese said that the city had approved and issued a building permit for a house on Lot 1B, Block 9, West Oaks Addition, now Mr. Ballow has a lot (1A) that maybe is too small for the house he is planning, but if.the variance is not approved, what is he to do with the lot? The lot is not deep enough to build a house to face onto Harbin Drive. The only thing he could do is build a house with a 50 foot front, right? 255 Councilman Leese asked Mrs. Dorris what Mr. Ballow is to do with the lot as the city has approved the house on Lot 1B. He said he agreed with what Mrs. Dorris had said previously but did want to know what Mr. Ballow could do with the lot. Mrs. Dorris replied that he was forgetting the basic issue. That Mr. Ballow had bought one lot and one lot only and, if the Subdivision Ordinance is to be complied with, he can have only one lot: .Mayor Jones said there was no doubt that, if there was undivided lots that have not been built on at the time of the passage of the ord- inance, the ordinance supercedes anything else. Mrs. Dorris said that the basic issue was the fact that this was just one lot, just like the others around it, and he chose to divide this lot and when you do that, you know you can not put a great big house on a small lot. Councilman Leese said he agreed, but his question was, should the city have issued a building permit for the house on Lot 1B, knowing that a second house was going on Lot 1A? Mr. Ballow said that, as the ordinance reads regarding the decreasing of lot sizes, there are a great number of houses in the city that should be torn down and Mrs. Dorris' house being one of them. Mr. Ballow stated that he was told by Dr. Cedars (who originally set out the covenants of this particular addition and seller of the lot) when he bought the lot that he could build 2 houses on the lot as long as he was 8 feet off the property line. He also asked if everything was always black and white as far as the ordinances, plat restrictions, etc. were concerned. Or was there some flexibility? Mayor Jones replied that was the reason for the provision for a variance under certain conditions. Also that he, like Mrs. Dorris, was concerned with the integrity of the ordinance and also of setting a precedent. Mrs. Dorris said it really gets down to the fact of whether or not the Council wants to follow the ordinance or do someone a special favor. Mr. Ballow said that was the reason he asked for a variance was to get a favor and if this doesn't pass he would like to file that Mrs. Dorris' house be torn down. Councilwoman Chew said she was in agreement with Mrs. Dorris that very careful consideration should be given to this request as to the setting of a precedent,. if one hasn't already been set. Councilman Riggins advised that the corporation he works for has a very direct interest in the lot in question and he would not vote on the issue due to a conflict of interest. Councilman McGee made the motion that the City Council deny the recommendation of the Zoning Board and not grant a 5 foot side yard variance on Lot 1A, Block 9, West Oaks Addition, as requested by Mr. Mike Ballow. Councilwoman Chew made the second. The motion carried by a voice vote, with Councilman Riggins abstaining. Mayor Jones asked that the newspaper reflect that there is a pro- vision in the Subdivision Ordinance that anytime there has been a dedi- cation of property in a subdivision and either an increase or decrease in lot size has to be in compliance with the provisions of the Subdivision Ordinance. He pointed out that the city can control this by not issuing a building permit until a final plat has been approved. Mr. Ballow asked the Council should he proceed with the house on Lot 1B which he has a building permit for or not? He said he was thoroughly confused. Mayor Jones reviewed the provision in the Subdivision Ordinance pertaining to the reduction in the size of a lot which states that no lot shall be reduced in width, depth or area without the consent of all property owners of the area in which it is located. Councilman Leese commented that, if there was a mistake made, it was in granting a building permit for Lot 1B, and he felt that, as far along as the house is on Lot 1B, Mr. Ballow should go ahead with the house on Lot 1B, and, since the variance has been denied, he should look for a plan that could be built on Lot 1A. To be marketable, it might have to be a two -story house. 56 Mr. Ballow asked that, if he could find a house plan with a 50 foot front and he complied with the 25 foot setback, could he get a building permit for Lot 1A? Councilman Irwin said the Subdivision Ordinance has already been violated when the lot was subdivided and a building permit issued on Lot 1B and to give permission for a building permit on Lot lA would be another violation to get Mr. Ballow out of a bind. After more discussion, Councilman Leese moved, seconded by Council- man Irwin, that a building permit be issued for Lot 1A, Block 9, West Oaks Addition, if /when Mr. Ballow has a floor plan that will comply' with the Zoning Ordinance requirements pertaining to the house and yard measurements. Mayor Jones pointed out that what this Council action would do is to eliminate any problem Mr. Ballow might have with the city on the en- forcement of the Subdivision Ordinance by abatement proceedings, but, by the city giving authorization for a building permit would not keep anybody in the subdivision from enforcing the Subdivision Ordinance. Mayor Jones then called for question on the above motion. The motion carried unanimously by those members present. ITEM VI: AUTHORITY GIVEN TO INVITE BIDS FOR ROLLER FOR STREET DEPARTMENT _ Mayor Jones advised the Council that $20,000 had been budgeted for a roller for the Street Department. Councilman McGee made the motion, seconded by Councilwoman Chew, that authority be given to invite bids for a roller for the Street Department. Motion carried unanimously by those members present. ITEM VII: EXCHANGE OF EASEMENT WITH SAM MANGRUM City Administrator Shelton explained that Mr. Sam Mangrum, owner of Mangrum Air Conditioning, wanted to enlarge his building at 633 Lingleville Road. To do so, he would have to build onto the rear of the building and would overlap the proposed easement area. There are no utilities in this area and he would like to echange 16 feet directly behind his building for 16 feet to the east. Mr. Shelton said he recommended the exchange. Councilman Irwin moved, seconded by Councilwoman Chew, that the exchange of a 16 foot width easement for 16 feet presently set up be granted as requested by Mr. Sam Mangrum and recommended by Mr. Shelton. Motion carried unanimously by those members present. ITEM VIII: RATE INCREASE GRANTED TO WARNER CABLE TV. Mayor Jones reminded the Council that at the last meeting, Warner Cable TV had submitted a request for a rate increase of 750 per primary set. This had been referred to a committee consisting of Councilmen McGee, chairman, Anderson and Leese. The Mayor also advised that this is a public hearing on said rate increase. He said he would hear the committee's report then open the floor for anyone that might have a com- ment on the rate increase. Councilman McGee reported that his committee had met on two occasions and he had met with Mr. Rick Thompson, local manager of Warner Cable TV. He said there had been some very thorough discussion and there were some items he would like to point out. (1). He said the committee had received complaints pertaining to Star Channel - a) that the rate increase was to subsidize the cost of Star Channel -. This is not so. After looking at their financial statement, he thinks Star Channel will pay its own way. b). The content of the movies shown during prime time on Star Channel - the FCC regulates and authorizes Star Channel. The city, county nor state does not have any jurisdiction over the oper- ation of Star Channel except for the setting of rates. c). That some residents were receiving Star Channel free - this was true to some degree because of improper equipment, but that has been corrected now that they have the proper equipment. Councilman McGee said that the committee's recommendation is to approve the increase of 750 per month per primary connection. Said increase will provide a return on assets of 15.9 %. The rate increase does exceed the 7% guidelines. The committee did take into consideration the fact that Warner Cable TV has not requested a rate increase in 22 years. This is lower than the rest of the utilities have requested and received. The second request by Warner Cable TV was to be able to adjust the rates in accordance with the inflation index. The committee recommends no action on this request at this time. That any rate increase be sub - mitted to the Council in normal fashion. 5 _ Mr. Rick Thompson came before the Council for discussion of the rate increase request. Mayor Jones questioned Mr. Thompson pertaining to the copyright expense paid yearly by Warner Cable TV. Also why would there be an increase of administrative, copyright, etc, expenses if the rate increase were granted? Mr. Thompson explained that a number of their fees were based on their income. Also, if the rate increase were granted, sal- aries would be increased and maybe more personnel added. 'Mr. Thompson also advised Mr. Shelton that the 2% gross tax receipts would be paid on Star Channel also. Mayor Jones asked for comments, either for or against the increase, from the floor. There being no comments, Mayor Jones closed the public hearing. After considerable discussion, Councilman. -McGee moved, seconded by Councilman Irwin, that a rate increase of 754 per month per primary con- nection be granted as requested by Warner Cable TV. Motion carried un- animously by those members present. ITEM IX: EQUALIZATION BOARD APPOINTED AND DATE SET FOR FIRST MEETING. Councilman Irwin moved, seconded by Councilman McGee, with the re- commendation that the city express its appreciation to Mr. Curtoys for his participation last year, that Mrs. Helen Martin be appointed to re- place Mr. Jeremy Curtoys on the Board of Equalization and the first meet- ing be set for June 15, 1979 at 10:00 a.m. in City Hall. Motion carried unanimously by those members present. ITEM X: MONTHLY REPORT - ROBERT GROVES, TAX DEPARTMENT. Mr. Robert Groves, Tax Assessor - Collector, presented a department report to the Council. In his report, Mr. Groves advised the .Council of the progress being made on the new city tax map which he thought the pencil copies would be finished this summer. In his report pertaining to the reappraisals, he said that he did not think he would be able to use the reappraisals of the north west section of the city because of the 1500 parcels of property to be ap- praised only approximately 500 had been completed. Mr. Groves also advised the Council of the Bills (passed by both the House and the Senate) that provides for a county wide central tax appraisal office. This will include all the taxing authorities in the county. The county has an option of whether or not to be included.: This will consist of a board of 5 persons which will actually be the Board of Equalization for all the taxing authorities in the county. Mr. Groves also mentioned the House Bill #18, TRUTH IN TAXATION, _ but said he did not know much about this bill, but would be glad to get copies of the pamphlet for the Council, if they so desired. ITEM XI: DELINQUENT WATER ACCOUNT POLICIES APPROVED FOR THE CTTSTnMAfR ST::RVT CR. TIRPAP rmvTF Mayor Jones explained that copies of these recommendations had been mailed to himself and councilmembers the preceding week for study and copies of costs had been passed out prior to the meeting. City Secretary Joyce Pemberton came forward for discussion of said recommendations. During the discussion of the policy pertaining to requests for extra time to pay delinquent water bills after the disconnect date, Councilman Irwin suggested that, in cases of extreme emergencies, that Mr. Shelton, Mrs. Pemberton and someone else (Danny Johnson) should meet to discuss whether or not this person's hardship was valid emergency or reason to give more time for payment of delinquent bill and leave the water on until payment is made. This discussion and reason to be documented and a file kept on these persons. This would eliminate one person having all the responsibility for making said decision. Mayor Jones.said he thought some sort of evidence would be needed to verify the hardship. Councilman Irwin said he would like to instruct the City Administrator to write a letter to the businesses that have been delinquent stating that if the water bills are paid after the 10th of each month to include the 10% penalty and if not paid by the 25th (or disconnect date), water service will be discontinued until payment in full has been received, if all the Council agrees, which they did. NM Mayor Jones said he liked all the recommendations, but thought there should be some provisions made for serious hardships. He would like for Mr. Shelton:;. Mr..Johnson and Mrs. Pemberton, as the ones who have dealt with these problems in the past, to establish some guidelines for the criteria that will be taken into consideration when granting an extension of time for a hardship. These guidelines or criteria to be presented to the Council for approval. Councilman McGee recommended and the Council agreed that cash, cashier's check or money orders only be accepted to pick up insufficient checks and, if three insufficient checks are received on any one person, checks will not be accepted for payment of water bills thereafter. After more discussion, Councilman Riggins moved, seconded by Council- man Leese, that the following policies pertaining to delinquetn water accounts be adopted, effective with the July 15, 1979 billing. Motion carried unanimously by those members present. DELINQUENT WATER ACCOUNT POLICIES 1. The disconnect date for all unpaid water bills will be the 25th of each month - unless the 25th falls on a Saturday or Sunday, then the disconnect date will be the.following Tuesday. The payment schedule is as follows: a. original bill - 1st through 10th of each month. b. Original bill plus 10% penalty - 11th through 24th of each month. C. Original bill - plus 10% penalty - plus $10.00 delinquent charge - 25th at 8:00 a.m. and thereafter. 2. Increase Delinquent Charge from $5.00 to $10.00. 3. If the water bill is not paid by 8 :00,a.m. on the morning of disconnect date, the $10.00 delinquent charge will be added automatically. The total bill, including 10% penalty and $10.00 delinquent charge, is u and payable. Only in an extreme em- ergency will the water service not be disconnected. 4. The water will not be turned back on after disconnect for non- payment until the total bill si paid in full. 5. There will be no adjustments of water bills, except for billing errors. 6. All businesses will be subject to these policies as are all residents. 7. The SERVICE MAN shall not take payments in the field. SERVICE CALL CHARGES 1. Turn on /off for repairs - 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.- - - - - $ 5.00 After 5:00 p.m. - weekends and holidays------------- - - - - -- $10.00 2. Check meter readings - - $5.00 charge if there is no error No charge if there is an error in reading. 3. Increase the INSUFFICIENT CHECK charge from $2.00 to $5.00. Cash, Cashier's Check or Money Orders only will be accepted to pick up an insufficient check. If three (3) insufficient checks are received on any one person, no checks will be accepted on that person thereafter. ITEM XII: BUDGET COMMITTEE APPOINTED. Mayor Jones explained that Mr. Shelton had requested that as the city staff goes through the budget process, he would like to have Council guid- ance on priorities, salaries and general areas of emphasis. Mayor Jones appointed Councilmen Irwin, Riggins, and Leese as a committee to work with Mr. Shelton pertaining to the coming budget,when needed. ITEM XIII: DISCUSSION OF COUNCIL'S RETREAT PLANS. Mayor Jones advised that, if the Council was agreeable, he would like to set 2 days (a Friday and Saturday) about the middle of July for the Council Retreat to discuss the budget and long range plans. He said he would like to have one day to meet with Department Heads on their budgets and one day to look at the overall long range plans, ordinances or whatever. It was the consensus of the Council that this would be fine. He asked that the Councilmembers give Mr. Shelton any imput they might have as to what they would like discussed in this retreat so that he might make up an agenda. ITEM XIV: ANY OLD BUSINESS (NOT ON THE AGENDA) Mayor Jones asked for discussion on a Resolution passed by the Council in November, 1978, pertaining to the disposal of asbestos dust and solvents in the city sanitary landfill by Genaut Industries, Inc. Mayor Jones reminded the Council that the State Health Department would not let Genaut dispose of their asbestos dust and solvents in the landfill without a permit and unless the city would provide a section of the landfill for this purpose. That said portion would be so designated by signs stating that area does contain buried drums of asbestos dust and solvents. Mayor Jones also advised the Council that there are only two places in the State of Texas that permit the burying of hazardous waste at the present time. Also that the city had participated in assisting Genaut to obtain this permit which would allow them to use the landfill for their hazardous material. Of the cities contacted, all of them stated they would absolutely not allow this material to go into their landfills. Mayor Jones said he was afraid the city would get into the situation of misleading Genaut Industries, Inc. in the event we ride through on this permit and then they come and say we're ready to start disposing of our asbestos dust and solvents and the city says no you can't. Councilman Irwin, made the motion that the city not ever accept any hazardous material in the city sanitary landfill and what is hazardous material is to be determined by the City Council. Councilman Riggins made the second, along with the comment that he had given second thought to said Resolution as the state or federal government could come back and change the rules and make them much more strict on the handling of the hazardous materials. Also he thought it would make the property much harder to sell when the city was finished with it as a landfill. At this time, the city does not know the long range effect or the long range cost. After more discussion, Mayor Jones called for question on the above motion. The motion carried unanimously by those members present. There being no other business, the meeting adjourned at 10:20 p.m. ATTEST: F C,eJ u. ity Aecretary 253 Ma r ATTEST: F C,eJ u. ity Aecretary 253