Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1993-09-07 - Regular City CouncilMINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING City of Stephenville - City Council TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 7, 1993 - 7:00 P.M. The City Council of the City of Stephenville, Texas, convened in regular session on September 7, 1993 at 7:00 p.m., in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 354 N. Belknap, with the meeting being open to the public and notice of said meeting, giving the date, time, place and subject thereof, having been posted as prescribed by Article 6252 -17, Section 3A, V.T.C.S., with the following members present, to wit: Mayor: Lavinia Lohrmann Mayor Pro Tem: Scott Evans Councilmembers: Alan Nix Donald L. Zelman Sam Taylor II John Wooley William F. (Bill) Johnson Billy Bob Hodges Bill Bailey Absent: None Others Attending: Don Davis, City Administrator Joyce Pemberton, City Secretary Randy Thomas, City Attorney I. CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Lavinia Lohrmann called the meeting to order and declared a quorum present. II. CALAME LINEBARGER GRAHAM & PENA Jeff Brown presented the annual report on the City's delinquent tax collections. Councilman Bailey made the motion, seconded by Councilman Taylor, to accept and approve the report as presented. The motion carried UNANIMOUSLY. III. PUBLIC HEARINGS. Mayor Lohrmann opened the floor for a public hearing to consider rezoning the Clifton Heights Area from B -1 "Neighborhood Business District" and B -2 "Secondary and Highway Business District" to R -2 "One -Four Family Dwelling District." THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE REZONING: None THOSE OPPOSED TO THE REZONING: None There being no one wishing to address this issue, Mayor Lohrmann closed the public hearing. - 72 - IV. ORDINANCES. A. Councilman Evans made the motion, seconded by Councilman Wooley, to pass and adopt Ordinance No. 1993 -28, AN ORDINANCE REZONING THE LAND DESCRIBED FROM THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF B -1 "NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS" AND B -2 "SECONDARY AND HIGHWAY BUSINESS DISTRICT" TO R -2 "ONE -FOUR FAMILY DWELLING DISTRICT." The motion carried UNANIMOUSLY. B. Councilman Taylor made the motion, seconded by Councilman Johnson, to pass and adopt Ordinance No. 1993 -27, AN ORDINANCE LEVYING A TAX RATE FOR THE CITY OF STEPHENVILLE, TEXAS, FOR THE TAX YEAR 1993. The motion carried UNANIMOUSLY. V. COMMITTEE REPORTS. A. Planning & Development: 1. Contract with Fixed Base Operator /Airport Manager Employment Agreement. Councilman Evans made the motion, seconded by Councilman Johnson, to approve the Airport Manager Employment Agreement with C & F Aviation, as recommended by the Planning & Development Committee. The motion carried UNANIMOUSLY. 2. Street Cut Repair Policy. Councilman Taylor made the motion, seconded by Councilman Zelman, to adopt the Street Cut Repair Policy, as recommended by the Planning & Development Committee. The motion carried UNANIMOUSLY. 3. Lease to United Telephone. Councilman Evans made the motion, seconded by Councilman Johnson, to approve the lease agreement @ $1,070 per year with United Telephone, as recommended by the Planning & Development Committee. The motion carried UNANIMOUSLY. B. Public Health & Safety: 1. Food Service and Retail Food Service Sanitation Ordinance. Jamie Jewell, State Health Inspector, addressed the Council stating that he would be more than willing to act as a consultant /advisor to get the food inspection ordinance started. He said he would be happy to meet with the Restaurant Association and /or individuals to help them understand the inspection service. Dean Taylor, Interim President of the Restaurant Association, said he appreciated the work the Public Health & Safety Committee had done and the Association would help in any way possible. After discussion, Councilman Zelman made the motion, seconded by Councilman Taylor, to pass and adopt Ordinance No. 1993 -29, AN ORDINANCE DEFINING FOOD, POTENTIALLY HAZARDOUS FOOD, FOOD SERVICE - 73 - ESTABLISHMENTS, TEMPORARY FOOD SERVICE ESTABLISHMENTS, RETAIL FOOD STORES, REGULATORY AUTHORITY, UTENSILS, EQUIPMENT, ETC.; PROVIDING FOR THE SALE OF ONLY SOUND, PROPERLY LABELED FOOD; REGULATING THE SOURCE OF FOOD; ESTABLISHING SANITATION STANDARDS FOR FOOD, FOOD PROTECTION, FOOD SERVICE OPERATION, FOOD SERVICE PERSONNEL, RETAIL FOOD STORE PERSONNEL, FOOD STORAGE, FOOD PREPARATION, FOOD DISPLAY, FOOD TRANSPORTATION, FOOD EQUIPMENT AND UTENSILS, SANITARY FACILITIES AND CONTROLS, AND OTHER FACILITIES; ESTABLISHING STANDARDS FOR CLEANING AND SANITIZATION OF EQUIPMENT AND UTENSILS; REQUIRING PERMITS FOR THE OPERATION OF FOOD SERVICE ESTABLISHMENTS, REQUIRING PERMITS FOR THE OPERATION OF RETAIL FOOD STORE ESTABLISH- MENTS; REGULATING THE INSPECTION OF SUCH ESTABLISHMENT; PROVIDING FOR THE EXAMINATION AND CONDEMNATION OF FOOD; PROVIDING FOR INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE OF THE TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, DIVISION OF FOOD AND DRUGS "RULES ON FOOD SERVICE SANITATION 229.161 - 229.171" AND RULES ON RETAIL FOOD STORE SANITATION 229.231- 229.239" AND PROVIDING FOR ENFORCEMENT OF THIS ORDINANCE, AND FIXING OF PENALTIES. The motion carried UNANIMOUSLY. C. City /County Negotiations. Councilman Nix presented a detailed account of the meetings he and Councilman Evans had with County Commissioners regarding services pro- vided by the City and equitable payment for said services. He said six contracts were presented to the Committee, four of which were found to be acceptable; i.e., municipal judge, tax collections, city priso- ners, and the library. The unacceptable ones were for fire suppression and emergency medical services. Councilman Nix outlined the different proposals and formulas presented to the Committee payment for fire suppression and EMS, all of which were rejected by the Committee. (copy attached) Councilman Evans read a prepared statement in which he expressed his and Councilman Nix's frustration in trying to negotiate equitable pay- ment for services received and be fair to both city and county residents. In their statement, Mr. Evans and Mr. Nix asked permission to prepare a statement to be mailed to every resident of the City explaining the county's position and the possible ramifications to the residents inside the city limits. It was the consensus of the Council for them to prepare a statement and bring it to the October Council meeting for approval. VI. CONSENT AGENDA: Councilman Evans moved approval of the items listed below, seconded by Councilman Johnson. The motion carried UNANIMOUSLY by roll call vote. A. Approval of Minutes of August 3 and August 17, 1993, council meetings. B. To award the bid for Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition System to Automated Computer Systems of Arlington, Texas, in the amount of $38,000. C. To reject the bids for repairs on the Young Water Well. - 74 - D. To approve the specifications for the appointment of the city depository. E. Approval of the Site Development Plans for Lot 1, Block 1, Christy Plaza. F. Approval of the Site Development Plans for Lot 3, Block 94, City Addition. VII. HARBIN DRIVE RIGHT -OF -WAY ACQUISITION POLICY. Councilman Evans moved to authorize the Staff to proceed with the acquisi- tion of right -of -way for the extension of Harbin Drive, when available, for tax roll value or less. Councilman Bailey made the second. The motion carried UNANIMOUSLY. Councilman Evans moved approval of the purchase of Lot 11, Block 19, South Side Addition, 1715 Groesbeck, from Mrs. Almarene Purvis for $15,268 and that appropriate budget amendments be made to accommodate this purchase. Councilman Wooley seconded the motion. The motion carried UNANIMOUSLY. VIII. COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS. Mayor Lohrmann proposed the appointment of Councilman Hodges to the Planning & Development, Public Health & Safety and Nominations Committees. Councilman Nix moved approval of the committee assignments, as proposed by Mayor Lohrmann. Councilman Johnson seconded the motion. The motion carried UNANIMOUSLY. IX. CITY ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT. Don Davis, City Administrator, reported that staff had met with the engi- neers, as instructed by Council, regarding the specifications and plans of the Wolfe Nursery Road Extension Project. Through these meetings and negotiations, it was concluded that the street can be built for con- siderably less than what the original proposal indicated. We are now in the process of seeking approval from Wal -Mart for their engineers to pro- ceed with making some adjustments and changes in the plans and specifica- tions and to agree to go out for a public bid for the construction of this street. Critical to the whole process is the timing. The tax abatement agreement has to be in place prior to the completion of the improvements and issuance of the Certificate of Obligation or final permit. X. CITY COUNCIL /GENERAL DISCUSSION. Councilman Wooley reminded everyone of the city -wide clean -up the week of September 19th thru 25th. Don Davis advised that the second council orientation would be next Friday at 1:00 p.m. Mayor Lohrmann announced that Lynn Fancher is working on a drawing for the Council's mission statement. K. H. Conaster commended Councilman Nix and Councilman Evans for the work they are doing and have done in their negotiations with the county. - 75 - Bee Bentley asked about obtaining landfill permits to haul trash for some of the elderly that cannot do it themselves. There being no other business to come before the Council, Mayor Lohrmann adjourned the meeting at 8:50 p.m. ATTEST: c P berton, City Secretary - 76 - 'Lavinia L mann, Mayor NO. 1993 -27 AN ORDINANCE LEVYING A TAX RATE FOR THE CITY OF STEPHENVILLE, TEXAS, FOR THE TAX YEAR 1993. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF STEPHENVILLE, TEXAS: That we, the City Council of the City of Stephenville, Texas, do hereby levy or adopt the tax rate on $100.00 valuation for this city for tax year 1993, as follows: $ .4140 for the purpose of maintenance and operation. $ .0227 for the payment of principal and interest on bonds. $ .4367 The Tax Assessor /Collector is hereby authorized to assess and collect the taxes of the City of Stephenville, Texas, employing the above tax rate. PASSED and ADOPTED this 7th day of September, 1993. �- Lavinia. rmann, Mayor ATTEST: Joyce\/ //Pemberton, City Secretary Reviewed by Donald B. Davis, City Administrator Randy TTomas, City Attorney Approved as to form and legality ORDINANCE NO. 1993- 28 AN ORDINANCE REZONING THE LAND DESCRIBED FROM THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF B -1 "NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS DISTRICT" AND B -2 "SECONDARY AND HIGHWAY BUSINESS DISTRICT" TO R -2 "ONE -FOUR FAMILY DWELLING DISTRICT." BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF STEPHENVILLE, TEXAS: That certain land in the City of Stephenville being Lots 7 through 12; Blocks 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, Clifton Heights Addition; All of Blocks 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 18, Clifton Heights Addition; Lots 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, Block 16, Clifton Heights Addition; Lots 1A, 2, 3, 6, 8, Block 75, City Addition, Erath County, Texas. and it is hereby rezoned and the zoning classification changed from the classification of B -1 "Neighborhood Business District" and B -2 Secondary and Highway Business District" to R -2 "One -Four Family Dwelling District," in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Stephenville. PASSED AND APPROVED this the seventh day of September, 1993. L /ate vinia rmann, Mayor ATTEST: (2/v P -� j �e�— Joy Pemberton, City Secretary a Reviewed by Donald B. Davis, City Administrator Randy Thomas, City Attorney Approved as to form and legality ORDINANCE NO. 1993- 29 CODE ON FOOD SERVICE SANITATION AND CODE ON RETAIL FOOD SERVICE SANITATION AN ORDINANCE DEFINING FOOD, POTENTIALLY HAZARDOUS FOOD, FOOD SERVICE ESTABLISHMENT, TEMPORARY FOOD SERVICE ESTABLISHMENT, RETAIL FOOD STORE, REGULATORY AUTHORITY, UTENSILS, EQUIPMENT, ETC.; PROVIDING FOR THE SALE OF ONLY SOUND, PROPERLY LABELED FOOD; REGULATING THE SOURCE OF FOOD; ESTABLISHING SANITATION STANDARDS FOR FOOD, FOOD PROTECTION, FOOD SERVICE OPERATION, FOOD SERVICE PERSONNEL, RETAIL FOOD STORE PERSONNEL, FOOD STORAGE, FOOD PREPARATION, FOOD DISPLAY, FOOD TRANSPORTATION, FOOD EQUIPMENT AND UTENSILS, SANITARY FACILITIES AND CONTROLS, AND OTHER FACILITIES; ESTABLISHING STANDARDS FOR CLEANING AND SANITIZATION OF EQUIPMENT AND UTENSILS; REQUIRING PERMITS FOR THE OPERATION OF FOOD SERVICE ESTABLISHMENTS, REQUIRING PERMITS FOR THE OPERATION OF RETAIL FOOD STORE ESTABLISHMENTS; REGULATING THE INSPECTION OF SUCH ESTABLISHMENT; PROVIDING FOR THE EXAMINATION AND CONDEMNATION OF FOOD; PROVIDING FOR INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE OF THE TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, DIVISION OF FOOD AND DRUGS "RULES ON FOOD SERVICE SANITATION 229.161 - 229.171" AND RULES ON RETAIL FOOD STORE SANITATION 229.231 - 229.239" AND PROVIDING FOR ENFORCEMENT OF THIS ORDINANCE, AND THE FIXING OF PENALTIES. BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF STEPHENVILLE, TEXAS: SECTION I. STATE SANITATION REGULATIONS ADOPTED. The State of Texas Department of Health, Division of Food and Drugs, "Rules on Food Service Sanitation," as adopted by the state board of health, effective November 30, 1977, and "Rules on Retail Food Store Sanitation," as adopted by the state board of health, effective August 17, 1985, and as amended thereafter, are hereby referenced and adopted as part of this Code. Three certified copies of which shall be on file in the office of the City Secretary. SECTION II. DEFINITIONS. A. All definitions included in the regulations adopted in SECTION I above are adopted by reference herein, and applicable to this article. B. All references in this Code to "City" shall be understood to refer to the Citv of Stephenville, Texas. -1- SECTION III. COMPLIANCE REQUIRED. It shall be unlawful for any person or firm to operate any food service establishment or retail food store within the corporate limits of City unless such facility is operated in conformance with the requirements of this Code. A. General. No person or firm shall operate a food service establishment or retail food store who does not have a valid permit issued to him by the City. Only a person or firm who complies with the requirements of this code shall be entitled to receive such a permit. B. Issuance of Permit. 1. Any person or firm desiring to operate a food service establishment or retail food store shall make written application for a permit on forms provided by City. Such application shall include the name and address of each applicant, the location and type of the proposed facility and the signature of each applicant. a. A new application shall be made for a permit at any time there is a change of ownership of the facility. 2. Prior to approval of an application for a permit, City shall inspect the proposed facility to determine compliance with the requirements of this Code. 3. The City shall issue a permit if it determines: a. The facility is determined to be in compliance with the requirements of these rules. b. The facility has obtained a current Certificate of Occupancy from City. C. The permit fee has been paid. 4. Permits are not transferrable and are only valid at the location for which it was granted. 5. Any permit granted under the provisions of this Code shall remain valid for one (1) year from the date of issuance unless sooner suspended or revoked for cause, and shall be displayed in a conspicuous place within the facility. -2- SECTION IV. ENFORCEMENT AUTHORITY; INSPECTIONS; REPORT OF INSPECTION. A. City or its authorized representative, after proper identification, is authorized to enter any facility subject to the provisions of this code at any reasonable time for the purpose of determining compliance with this Code. B. An inspection of a food service establishment or retail food store shall be performed at least once each year or as often as is necessary for the enforcement of these rules. C. Whenever an inspection of a food service establishment or retail food store is made, the findings shall be recorded on an inspection report. The inspection report form shall summarize the requirements of this Code. A copy of the inspection report shall be furnished to the persons in charge of the facility at the conclusion of the inspection. D. City agrees to confer with Stephenville Restaurant Association annually before contracting or appointing a representative of City to perform the inspections required in this code. SECTION V. SUSPENSION OF PERMIT. A Whenever a food service establishment or retail food store is required under the provision of this code to cease operations, it shall not resume operations until the condition that necessitated suspension has been corrected. B. In the event that an inspection by City as provided in Section IV. herein is conducted, and in the opinion of City the inspected facility is in violation of the provisions of this code, City shall have the authority to immediately suspend the facility's permit. C. In the event that an imminent health hazard exists, such as complete lack of sanitization, refrigeration, an extended loss of water supply, an extended power outage, or sewage backup into the facility, the facility shall immediately cease operations and shall immediately notify City. D. In the event that a permit is suspended or a facility ceases operation hereunder said facility shall not resume operation until it receives approval of City and any suspension is discontinued. -3- SECTION VI. REVOCATION OF PERMIT. A. City may, after providing notice of and opportunity for a hearing, revoke a permit for serious violations of this article. Serious violations are herein defined as those violations that in the opinion of City should cause the facility in question to cease operations immediately. City shall give notice to the holder of the permit, in writing, of the reason for which the permit is subject to revocation and that the permit shall be revoked at the end of ten (10) days following the service of such notice unless a written request for hearing is filed with City by the holder of the permit within such ten (10) day period. B. A notice is properly served when it is delivered to the holder of the permit or when it is sent by registered or certified mail, return receipt requested, to the address of the holder of the permit as shown on the permit. C. A copy of the notice shall be filed in the records of City. D. If no request for hearing is filed within the ten (10) day period, the revocation of the permit becomes final. E. Whenever a revocation of a permit has become final, the holder of the revoked permit may make written application for a new permit. SECTION VII. FOOD SERVICE MANAGER'S TRAINING CERTIFICATION. Those facilities permitted herein that serve or store potentially hazardous foods shall employ no less than one (1) responsible employee in charge of food service operations who shall possess a certificate for food service manager training from a program as determined by City. The food service manager training certification should comply substantially with the food service manager training and certification program recommendations published by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration, as amended. SECTION VIII. HEARINGS. The hearings provided for in this article shall be conducted by City at a time and place designated. City shall record evidence of such hearing, make a final finding, and shall sustain, modify or rescind the permit. A notice of the hearing decision shall be furnished to the holder of the permit by City. SECTION IX. REMEDIES. A. Penalties. Any person who violates a provision of these rules _ and any person who is the permit holder of or otherwise operates a food service establishment or retail food store that does not comply with the requirements of these rules and any responsible officer of that permit holder or those persons shall be fined not more than one thousand dollars ($1,000), and each day such violation shall be permitted to exist shall constitute a separate offense. B. Injunctions. City may seek to enjoin violations of these rules. C. Repeal and Date of Effect. These rules shall be in full force and effect 30 days after their adoption and publication as provided by law; and, at that time, all ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict with these rules are hereby repealed. D. Unconstitutionality Clause. Should any section, paragraph, sentence, clause, or phrase of these rules by declared unconstitutional or invalid for any reason, the remainder of said rules shall not be affected thereby. PASSED and APPROVED this 7th day of September, 1993. r) Lavinia Loh ann, Mayor ATTEST: i by-,' Pemberton, City Secretary Reviewed by Donald B. Davis, City Administrator Randy Thomas, City Attorney Approved as to form and legality -5- CITY OF STEPHENVILLE COST OF FIRE SUPPRESSION Total Budget for 10/01/93 through 09/30/94: Average Annual Man -Hours for Fire Suppression: Inside City Limits (Hours) 44.93% 567 Outside City Limits (Hours) 55.07% 695 TOTAL AVERAGE ANNUAL MAN -HOURS 100.00% 1,262 PROPOSED COST FOR COUNTY FIRE SUPPRESSION $419,218 55.00% $230,570 NOTE: Total time spent fighting fires (both inside and outside the city limits) was computed for a five year period. This time was averaged and expressed in percent for inside the City versus outside. The percentage was multiplied by the approved budget for F.Y. 1993 -94. Man hours were compiled from an average five year history using fiscal years ending 09/30/87, 09/30/88, 09/30/89, 09/30/91, and 09/30/92. -1- 08/30/93 CITY OF STEPHENVILLE COST OF FIRE SUPPRESSION Total Budget for 10/01/93 through 09/30/94: $419,218 Average Annual Man -Hours for Fire Suppression: Inside City Limits (Hours) 567 Outside City Limits (Hours) 695 TOTAL AVERAGE ANNUAL MAN -HOURS COST PER MAN HOUR 1,262 $ 332 NOTE: Total time spent fighting fires (both inside and outside the city limits) was computed on an annual average for a fire year period. The total average man hours per year was divided into the approved budget for F.Y. 1993 -94 to arrive at a cost per man hour. As an example, if two men fought a fire in the county for four hours, the bill would be $2,656. Man hours were compiled from an average five year history using fiscal years ending 09/30/87, 09/30/88, 09/30/89, 09/30/91, and 09/30/92. -2- 08/30/93 CITY OF STEPHENVILLE COST OF FIRE SUPPRESSION Total Budget for 10/01/93 through 09/30/94: Average Annual Runs for Fire Suppression: Inside City Limits (Runs) Outside City Limits (Runs) TOTAL AVERAGE ANNUAL RUNS COST PER RUN 227 184 $419,218 411 $ 1,020 NOTE: The total number of runs (both inside and outside the city limits) was computed for a six year period. These runs were averaged on an annual basis. Dividing the approved budget for F.Y. 1993 -94 by the annual average number of runs equals $1020 per run. * Runs were compiled from an average six year history using fiscal years ending 09/30/87 through 09/30/92. -3- 08/30/93 CITY OF STEPHENVILLE COST OF EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICE (E.M.S.) Total Budget for 10/01/93 through 09/30/94: LESS: Estimated Revenue for Ambulance Service NET ESTIMATED COST FOR E.M.S. Average Annual Man Hours for E.M.S.: Inside City Limits (Hours) 74.98% 887 Outside City Limits (Hours) 25.02% 296 TOTAL AVERAGE ANNUAL MAN HOURS PROPOSED COST FOR COUNTY E.M.S. 100.00% 1,183 $415,599 (65,000) 350,599 25.00% $ 87,650 NOTE: The time on E.M.S. (both inside and outside the city limits) was computed for a five year period. This time was averaged and expressed in percent for inside the City versus outside. The percentage was multiplied by the approved budget for F.Y. 1993 -94. Man hours were compiled from an average five year history using fiscal years ending 09/30/88 through 09/30/92. -4- 08/30/93 CITY OF STEPHENVILLE COST OF EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICE (E.M.S.) Total Budget for 10/01/93 through 09/30/94: Average Annual Man Hours for E.M.S.: Inside City Limits (Hours) Outside City Limits (Hours) TOTAL AVERAGE ANNUAL MAN HOURS COST PER MAN HOUR VNIM on $415,599 1,183 $ 351 NOTE: The time on E.M.S. (both inside and outside the city limits) was computed for a five year period. The total average man hours per year was divided into the approved budget for F.Y. 1993 -94 to arrive at a cost per man hour. As an example, if two men responded to an E.M.S. call in the county for four hours, the bill would be $2,808. Man hours were compiled from an average five year history using fiscal years ending 09/30/88 through 09/30/92. -5- 08/30/93 CITY OF STEPHENVILLE COST OF EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICE (E.M.S.) Total Budget for 10/01/93 through 09/30/94: Average Annual Runs for E.M.S.: Inside City Limits (Runs) Outside City Limits (Runs) TOTAL AVERAGE ANNUAL RUNS COST PER RUN 654 153 $415,599 $ 515 NOTE: The total number of runs (both inside and outside the city limits) was computed for a six year period. These runs were averaged on an annual basis. Dividing the approved budget for F.Y. 1993 -94 by the annual average number of runs equals $515 per run. Runs were compiled from an average six year history using fiscal years ending 09/30/87 through 09/30/92. -6- 08/30/93 CITY OF STEPHENVILLE COST OF LIBRARY SERVICE Total Budget for 10/01/93 through 09/30/94: Total Patrons for Library (6/91): Inside City Limits 55.05% 6,245 Outside City Limits 44.95% 5,099 TOTAL PATRONS 100.00% 11,344 PROPOSED COST TO COUNTY FOR LIBRARY SERVICE $115,000 44.00% $ 50,600 NOTE: Outside the City patrons equal 44% of the total patronage. Therefore, the County should pay 44% of the total budget. * The sample of patrons was conducted in June, 1991. -7- 08/30/93 CITY OF STEPHENVILLE COST OF LIBRARY SERVICE Total Budget for 10/01/93 through 09/30/94: Total Patrons for Library: Inside City Limits Outside City Limits TOTAL PATRONS COST PER PATRON 6,245 5,099 $115,000 11,344 $ 10 NOTE: As of June, 1991, the total number of patrons was 11,344. Dividing this number into the approved F.Y. 1993 -94 budget equals a cost per patron of $10. The sample of patrons was conducted in June, 1991. -8- 08/30/93 CITY OFSTEPHENVILLE MEMORANDUM TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council DATE: 09/07/93 FROM: Councilmembers Alan Nix and Scott Evans SUBJECT: City /County Negotiations The City and County have been sharing services for many years and, for as long as we can remember, there has been disagreement about the formula for distri- buting cost equitably. We were charged to meet with the County to negotiate six contracts and we spent a great deal of time becoming prepared. It was apparent immediately that the County did not take us seriously. Four contracts were found to be acceptable to members of the committee based upon unit costs, which were established by formulas which both parties agreed upon. With regard to fire suppression, the City determined that the County's share, based on different formulas, would range from $187,000 to $230,000. The County never offered a formula, but offered to continue at $64,000 per year. In December of 1981, the City and County agreed to $400 per run. In 1991, at the County's request to help with the County's budget process, the City and County agreed to $64,000 per year instead of $400 per run. Now, because of an increased number of runs to the County, the average revenue per fire call is $357. We do not think this is equitable. The County thinks they can provide fire service for $64,000 per year. One pro- posal to do this is to provide more pagers to existing volunteer fire depart- ments and establishing a volunteer fire department at the county barn equipped with modified army surplus water trucks. We have serious concerns about the county residents' willingness to accept the substantial decline in the quality of equipment, trained manpower and response time this proposal would offer. Another proposal is for county residents in unincorporated areas to establish fire districts. These districts would levy a tax on themselves and use these funds for fire protection. Many questions about these fire districts remain unanswered. One of which is how this proposal would be cost efficient as opposed to contracting with the city. To us this shows the County Commissioners' unwillingness to take responsibility for fire protection in many parts of the county. Using the established formula, Judge Hailey called his nephew, who used to drive an ambulance, and established that $65 per run for EMS was probably too cheap. The County's Committee offered to pay the City $150 per run or what we antici- pate would be $22,950 per year. As you will recall, the City's numbers for EMS range from $78,000 to $103,000. Again, we find this proposal unacceptable. As with fire suppression, the Commissioners propose to use EMS from other parts of the area. Dublin, Hico and an unidentified-service from the northern part of the county were mentioned. Again, we have serious concerns about the equipment, trained personnel and response time this proposal would provide. We think you can understand the frustration we experienced by the Commissioners' haphazard approach to our discussion. The Commissioners have backed the City into a corner. We do not feel it is fair for the City to provide fire suppression and EMS to the county without the county's willingness to adopt an equitable formula for determining the value of these services. We also find ourselves in a moral dilemma. On the one hand, citizens of the city should not subsidize services to county residents. On the other hand, our friends and families that live outside the city limits should not be held hostage by the Commissioners' unwillingness to negotiate an equitable solution. We would like permission to prepare a statment that would be mailed to every resident of the city explaining the county's position and the possible ramifica- tions to the residents inside the city limits. In our negotiations, we have many questions that were left unanswered. The Commissioners Court felt no obligation to answer us, but the citizens of the county which include the residents of Stephenville should demand to know how many homes will be lost and how many lives sacrificed before the County Judge and Commissioners Court accept their responsibility to protect their citizens with well equipped, well trained, responsive, fire suppression and emergency medical service. Alan and Scott