Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1967/10/02-Agenda-Pre-Council A► - 00% V MINUTES Pre-Council Conference Monday, October 2, 1967 Prusent Late Absent 1. 1[cKinley 8. Guinn (Item 1) None 2. Sarsgard 9. Hoover (Item 1) 3. Dunham 4. Kem")le 5. Stovall 6. Wilson 7 . Kersni�_k I t e m Follow-Up 1. Changes in Community Facilities Policies DEF - 1) Obtain information frog Hardy regarding refunds to de- Discussion was opened by the City Manager who velopers in connection with Watet directed attention to a letter from a representative and Sewer Contracts . 2) Ask of the Wedgwood Enterprises indicating that some of Graham for specific instances of the suggestions of the developer were helpful and street failure as a result of could be added as alternatives to some of the recom- poor backfill material. 3) Obtai mendatio ns posed in the original communication to the the policies of other Texas citie City Council. regarding policies on major thor- There was considerable discussion about the oughfare costs . 4) Prepare in- $50 tap fee and there was general consensus that the terim report on possible proposed developer should be given the option of obtaining policy changes on major thorou, h- the taps based upon bids by a private contractor or fare and storm drainage costs. a routine installation at the $50 fee by the City. There was discussion about the advisability of EHD - agenda, October 23, 1967 requiring a community facilites contract ahead of final plat approval . The problems of various developers with regard to obtaining financing in advance of plat approval was considered, and Councilman Dunham suggested that alternatives be explored by the City ManL6er which would require the proper installation of facilities without requiring the advance community facilities con- tract ahead of the plat. The City Manager offered to delay several weeks while the Wedgwood Enterprises explore financing alter- natives and for the purpose of the staff to examine other alternatives F,)1 assuring compliance with com- munity facilities p,,licies. Mayor McKinley questioned whether the City added 25 per cent as a contingency upon estimates for water and sewer facilities. Water Director Hardy stated that approximately 15 per cent contingency was added to general estimates given for water and sewer facilities. Mr. Hardy said that the final cost of in- stalling facilities was adjusted at the completion of the project when all quantities were counted and refunds or extra charges made in accordance with the outcome of the contract. In response to the question regarding frequency of such refunds to contractors, it was suggested that the Water Department submit a list to the City Council indicating those contracts whirrs had resulted in refunds to developers in recent months, Discussion then turned to the need for class A backfill in trenches as discussed by the City Council ' . 2 ' ,00k. PN during a previous meeting. Councilman Dunham inquired whether it was the intention of the Cuur:eil to change the policy to require class A backfill in all trenches on future co!atracts. Mayor McKinley discussed the expansive qualities of soils and reported his opinion that approximately one year would be needed to properly settle trenches if type B or lesser materials were used. There was general consen- sus, except for Councilman Dunham, that high quality back- fill would be needed to avoid a bridging or dip in the trench when the street area is paved. Councilman Dunham recalled that Public Works Director Jack M. Graham had reported no specific instance where paving failure was caused by the use of class B backfill material and therefore questioned the need for adding ap- proximately $70 to the cost of a given lot for the purpose of adding sandy backfill instead of original material. It was suggested that the City Manager submit to the City Council any instances where the use of class B material resulted in paving failures. Other questions regarding variations in developer policies were raised by Councilman Dunham including the following: a) The City's policy with regard to major thoroughfares and b) storm drains to determine if the City's portion of the cost was equitable. The City Manager replied that there was a general review of policies underway which would concern storm drainage in connection with the master plan naw being de- veloped. Councilman Sarsgard indicated he desired additional information about the sharing of cost on thoroughfares with reference to practices in other cities. There was also reference made to the possibility of adjusting the sharing of costs in thoroughfares to the adjacent zoning. In order to provide the additional information re- quested by Council Members, it was agreed that further consideration of changes in the community facilities poli- cies be delayed for three weeks. 2. Consideration of City Employees ' Salary -increases JBF - Prepare necessary appro- priation items in ordinance a:i _ It was the consensus of the Council Members that a M&C for action by the City pay adjustment for City employees should be granted, but Council at meeting of 10/9/67. there was difference of opinion on the method of financing. Councilmen Dunham, 1!ilson, Sarsgard, Guinn and Stovall ex- RNL - Implement s,--e disposal pressed support for the revenue source mentioned in the rate increase. proposal by Councilman Stovall distributed to City Council- men the previous week. Mayor McKinley and Councilman Hoover favored delay of revenue producing measures until such time as the year ending financial report were available to determine if there was sufficient surplus to finance the salary increases. The approach of waiting for possible use of surplus, proposed by Councilman Hoover, was opposed by Councilmen Sarsgard, Guinn, and Kemble on the basis that the fiscally sound approach would be to provide sufficient revenues to cover the additional expenditures anticipated. TL was generally agreed that the increase in the fee could be re- duced if sufficient surpluses did accrue in the rep r_ '._ of 3 the full fiscal year, which was reported by the City Manager as anticipated on appro.: I.mately November 15, 1967. In response to a question, the City Manager reported his expectation that the amount of unappropriated funds at the end of the fiscal year would be betwc,-n $1.6 and $1.8 million. Councilman Dunham said tit hesit ted to depend upon a surplus because there were. one Lime revenue items in the current budget which would requ re T),,,, financing in the next fiscal year. He emphasized that it would be necessary to provide additional revenue in the current year in order to avoid a financial crisis in the budget year of 1968-69. This opinion was concurred in by Councilmen Stovall and Kemble. Councilman Kemble suggested that one method to alleviate pos- sible increases in garbage fees as i::_ 11 as tax increases against real estate would be adoption of a City sales tax. At the regular meeting the City Council adopted the recommendations of Councilman Stovall providing for a one step increase for all City employees not otherwise receiving a salary adjustment and for the increase in the waste disposal collection fee of 10 per cent.