Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1964/11/02-Agenda-Pre-Council r AGRNDA PRE-ODUBM AUC$ 8:30 A.M., IDVXH= 2, 1964 1) Alternative Methods of Financing C7uch hater System Purchase (Me C-393) 2) Oakland Boulevard Widening and Paving (MC C-392) 3) Paving at 13 Locations on the Southeast side (MC G-714) 4) Ione Star Gas - Operating Agreement Aanwal (MW C-394) 5) Proposed Massage Parlor Ordinance (HW G-716) 6) Paving Assessments on Kent Street (1.R. #634) 7) Sale of City-Owned Surplus Property (M&C L-490) S) Proposed Assessment Ruction - Northwest 21st Street (MC G-717) 9) Other M 's of November 2, 1964 10) Other Items MINUTES PRE-COUNCIL CONFERENCE NOVEbVER 2, 1964 Present: Late: Absent- 7 I7riedman 7 . ',. ties (Item ' ) None 2. Shannon 8 . Barr (Item 2) 3. Kemble 9. Hoover (Item 2) 4. Stovall. 5. Harding 6. ]lain I T E M Follow-['p Proposed Massage Parlor Ordinance (M&C G-716) NAN No questions were raised b,• the Council re- garding the proposed Massage Parlor ordinance, and council adopted Ordinance at regular Council meeting. 2. Alternate Methods of tina;icing Couch Water NAN System Purchase (M&C C-393) The City Manager reported that the Council had considered the purchase of the Couch '.tiater System In august, 1964, and had requested the staff to review possihle alternatives of reducing the cost in connec- tion with acquisition of this water system. The C:tv Manager also reported that the only workable alterna- tive as outlined in the M&C was Alternative one which provided for the use of the existing mains in the system at the present, and which would reduce the City's initial cost by approximately $5,000. Councilman Kemble inquired if this proposed purchase would be the last of the private water systems operating in the city, and was informed by the C ty Manager that there would still be several water s' stems remaining after purchase of this system. It was indicated that the largest of the private water systems still remaining to be pur- chased was the Tarrant Supply Compan-, serving several hundred customers in three separate systems . Councilman Siannon inquired if the City had not previously purchased part of the Couch Water System. ne City Manager reported that several separate systems owned by the Couch Water Cumpany had been purchased in 1961, and that this was the last Couch Water System to be purchased. Councilman Hamm stated that he still felt the expenditure in connection with the purchase of this system was excessive, and questioned the desirability of purchasing the s}stem at this time. The City Manager reported that the City had expended funds in connection with the purchase of other pri- vate systems, and that this was in accordance with the Cit_; Council policy to purchase all private systems within the City. Councilman Stovall inquired about the attitude of the customers served by this system, and was informed that the customers of the Couch Water System were in favor of the City purchasing the system. In response to a question concerning the proposed income to the City from the approximately ten customers served by this system, the Water Department Director reported that the estimated income would be approximately $80 per customer per year. The Mayor stated that he did not feel the purchase could be ,justified on an economic basis, but that he was in favor of purchasing the system. Councilman }larding stated that if the City should purchase the s,stem, he felt the existing lines should be replaced at once. The Water Depart- ment Director reported that the lines purchased in other Couch systems had been good, but that the}, were not adequate in size . Councilman Jones inquired about the 3,000 foot frontage on Mansfield Highway in connection with the proposed main extension, and was infornc:d by the Water Department Director that the :tire main extension would be 3,000 feet, but that all the frontage would not be on Mansfield Highway. Council approved the purchase of the Couch Water S•.•stem under Alternative One at regular Council iueeting. 3. Paving at 13 Locations on the Southeast NAN Side (M&C G-714) Council had no questions concerning; this project, and benefit hearing was closed and assessments levied at regular Council meeting. 4. Oakland Blvd Widening & Paving (M&C C-392) NAN Council had no questions concerning this proposed project, and contract was awarded at regular Council meeting. 5 . Lone Star Cas - Operating Agreement JLB - Augh - restudy and compile Renewal (M&C C-394) additional information desired by Council Mayor Friedman reported that he had been contacted by officials of Lone Star Gas Compam , and that they were in agreement with the proposed gas contract renewal . Councilman Kembel stated that he had not had an opportunity to study the proposed agreement, and requested that the matter be postponed for two weeks. Councilman Harem also stated that he had not had time to fully sued . a... 3 the proposed agreement, and that it was not urgent that the Council act this week since the contract would not expire until 1966. Councilman Hoover stated that he was opposed to the City ownership and operation of the gas facilities as proposed under the Lumar proposal . Mayor Friedman stated that Coastal States had originally approached the City regarding submitting a proposal in connection with the gas contract, but had lost interest and were not coming back giving them the opportunity to snipe at the Lone Star contract. Councilman Hamm stated that he thought a Committee of tht- Council should be appointed to meet with the staff in order to be fully briefed on the proposed contract, and suggested an executive session for this purpose . Councilman Hamm stated that he did not folly under- stand Item 2 which provided for the adjustment of gas rates upward or downward, and that he would like additional information on this item. Councilman Tones stated that he also was not sure tie understood tate adjustment schedule, and referred to the statement in the M&C: that it was not proposed that any rate adjustment would be made in the immediate future. Councilman Harding referred to tete contract with United Gas and stated that it was his under- standing; under this agreement with Lone Star that the industrial customers would 1,e exempt from paying; the street rental fee . Councilman Harding inquired why the fee for industrial customers was being excluded under the proposed agreement, and the City Manager replied that this is the best proposal the staff could obtain from Lone Star and that it was consistent with the agreements in other cities . The City Manager reported that the overall return to the City under this agreement would be approximately 3 per cent, and that the Gas Company preferred to excIL)CIi industrial customers under the agreement . Councilman Harding stated that he was not interested in waiting for a proposal to be recieved from Coastal States . Later in the pre-Council conference, the Council again discussed the D)ne Star Gas contract, and Councilman Barr stated that he was concerned about the provision providing for rate adjustments without a public hearing. Councilman Harding also inquired it the contract provided that the Gas Company would pruvide adequate storage for gas in order that industrial customers would not be required to convert to oil for power purposes during peak periods . The Utilities Supervisor reported that the contract contained nothing specific ahout storage facilities, but that the Lone Star Gas Company had )een continually adding to their underground storage facilities . The Utilities Supervisor reported that there was no guarantee that industrial customers would not be „/. 4 required to convert to oil during peak periods . Councilman Jones again referred to the rate adjustment provision, and inquired if the prc,;ision was the same as the City now has with Texas Electric Service Company. Councioman Jones also inquired if the provision was the same as the Lone Star Gas Com- pany had with the City of Dallas . The Utilities Supervisor reported that the Lone Star Cas Cumpam. had no escalator provision for rate adjustments in its con- tract with the City of Dallas, but that a similar provision was provided in contracts between the Dallas Power b Light and the City of Dallas, and the Houston Power & Light and the City of Houston. The Utilities Supervisor also reported that many gas companies contained similar adjustment agreements, and referred to the contract in Columbus, Ohio. The Utilities Supervisor reported that the rate adjustment provision was identical in intent with the provision for rate adjustments contained in the Texas Electric Scrvice Company contract with the City. Councilman Barr stated that there were several items which lie was concerned about in the proposed contract, and listed: 1) The proposed contract bypassed the present gate rate provisions, 2) khat control does the distributor have over the cost of gas at the well, 3) There should be adequate notice to the C! ty from the Cas Company of any proposed rate adjustment, and 4) The Gas Company should be required to pro- vide public notice by legal a: :vertisement of any proposed rate increa�;e. The Utilities Supervisor reported tliat in reference to the point regarding what control the dis- trihutor might have over the gas rates at the well , the Texas Railroad Commission regulated such rates , and that the Federal Power Commission also regulated rates of gas in interstate commerce which also included intra-state commerce since the gas could not be separated for this purpose . Consensus of Council was to postpone considera- tion of the Lone Star Gas agreement until November 16, 1964. 6. Paving Assessments on ?"ent Street (I.2. 634) NAN The City Manager inquired if any Council Member had questions concerning the informal report on the paving assessments on Kent Street. Councilman )ones • �,, •k,, stated that one of the property owners had called him and informed flim that she had a bro; en arm and would be unable to attend the Council meeting, but chat she proposed to get an independent appraisal of the increased value to her propert) from the paving. The City Manager reported that the city had obtained two qualified independent appraisers who had indicated Lhat Lhe benefits would exceed the proposed assessments, and that the staff recommended no change in the proposed assessments which had been levied b� the Council . The City Manager reported that the benefit acaring; on this project iiad alread.--. been closed by the Council , but that reductions in the assessments could fie reconsidered I, . the Council at any time . i. Stile of City-owned Surplus Propert% (M&C L-490) NAN The (:it: Manager inquired if Lhe Council had an- questions concerning; the sale of this surplus propert; . Councilman Barr stated that he felt poss ii)l y Lhe sa l.e of the property shoo ld be re- advertised, since the original advertisement had :stated a minimum price to be considered of $15,000. The City Mana,,;er reported that this property was inaccessable except trom adjacent property, and that there were onl, three possible bidders for purchase of the propert). The Cit% Manager also reported that the ether two property o%;hers lead been contacted by the land lt,vision, and had indicated that they were not ;nterested i,n the purchase of the property at a price aL or near the ,'.8,900 bid h. the firm of Carter L tiury,ess . council approved the sale of the property to Carter & Burgess at regular Counc i 1 meeting. Il . Proposed Assessment Induction - N.W. 21st NAN Street (M&C G-717) Council raised no questions concerning this proposed reduction in assessment, and the reduction :as apj2roved by Council at re&ular Council meeting. 9 . Ordinance Regulatint, the Keeping of Animals NA 14 within the city (I.lt. 533) Councilman Kemble referred to this informal report, and requested information why one of the two horses kept at this location was bei;it-, required to be removed. rhe City Manas;er reported that there had been several complaints received regarding this horse lot aL :lunt3 11 i,,ht Street, and that the liealth Depart- ment in reviewing the ordinances had determined that the :.oniug Ordinance provided that only one horse per � 6 � h 19,000 square feet of lot area could be kept in a district zoned \-1 Famil, Residential . It was also reported that the Health Department had compared the provisions of the City ordinance relating to the keeping; of animals with the ordinances of several other Texas cities, and that the Health Department did not recommend any changes in the proposed ordinance .