12/02/2019-CC-Minutes-RegularCITY OF SANGER, TEXAS
MINUTES: REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday, December 2, 2019 7:00 PM
502 Elm Street, Sanger, Texas
REVISED AGENDA
COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT:
Mayor Thomas Muir; Mayor Pro Tem Bilyeu; Councilmember Marissa Barrett; Councilmember
Dennis Dillon; Councilmember David Clark, Councilmember Allen Chick.
COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT:
None.
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
City Manager Alina Ciocan; City Secretary Cheryl Price; City Engineer Tracy LaPiene; Planner
Muzaib Riaz; Police Officer Josh Bishop.
1.Call Meeting to Order, Invocation, Pledge of Allegiance.
There being a full quorum present at the December 2, 2019 Regular City Council Meeting, the
meeting was called to order at 7:02 p.m. The invocation was given by Councilmember Dillon and the
Pledge of Allegiance was led by Councilmember Clark.
2.CITIZEN INPUT:
No citizens approached the podium wishing to speak
3.CONSENT AGENDA:
a.Approval of Minutes
1.City Council Work Session Minutes 11042019
Approve City Council Minutes for November 4, 2019 Work Session.
2.City Council Regular Meeting Minutes 11182019
Approve City Council Regular Meeting Minutes for November 18, 2019 Meeting.
A motion was made by Councilmember Clark to approve the Consent Agenda as presented. The
motion was seconded by Councilmember Dillon. Motion carried unanimously (50 vote).
4.Consider Any Items Removed from Consent Agenda.
No items were removed from Consent Agenda.
REGULAR AGENDA
Page 1
CITY OF SANGER, TEXASMINUTES: REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETINGMonday, December 2, 2019 7:00 PM502 Elm Street, Sanger, TexasREVISED AGENDACOUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT:Mayor Thomas Muir; Mayor Pro Tem Bilyeu; Councilmember Marissa Barrett; CouncilmemberDennis Dillon; Councilmember David Clark, Councilmember Allen Chick. COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT:None.STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:City Manager Alina Ciocan; City Secretary Cheryl Price; City Engineer Tracy LaPiene; PlannerMuzaib Riaz; Police Officer Josh Bishop. 1.Call Meeting to Order, Invocation, Pledge of Allegiance.There being a full quorum present at the December 2, 2019 Regular City Council Meeting, themeeting was called to order at 7:02 p.m. The invocation was given by Councilmember Dillon and thePledge of Allegiance was led by Councilmember Clark. 2.CITIZEN INPUT:No citizens approached the podium wishing to speak3.CONSENT AGENDA:a.Approval of Minutes1.City Council Work Session Minutes 11042019Approve City Council Minutes for November 4, 2019 Work Session. 2.City Council Regular Meeting Minutes 11182019Approve City Council Regular Meeting Minutes for November 18, 2019 Meeting. A motion was made by Councilmember Clark to approve the Consent Agenda as presented. Themotion was seconded by Councilmember Dillon. Motion carried unanimously (50 vote).4.Consider Any Items Removed from Consent Agenda.No items were removed from Consent Agenda.
REGULAR AGENDA
5.Neil Harris WWTP Stream Impact/Restoration
Discussion and Presentation by Mr. Neil Harris Regarding Wastewater Treatment Plant, Stream
Impact, and Stream Restoration.
Mayor Muir provided an introduction giving a brief summary of the proposed stream restoration
project for the Wastewater Treatment Plant.
Mr. Neil Harris was recognized and noted that his brother and some of his cousins were with him
tonight and they represent the families that own Greentree Farms. He provided a packet of
information to Councilmembers which included a letter from Haynes and Boone, LLP their
environmental attorney with a review of findings. A map and a historical timeline outlining their
interpretation of events beginning in 2016 regarding the Wastewater Plant and Green Tree Farms
and Ranger Creek, and a copy of the TCEQ Proposed Agreed Order. They wanted to make sure
that the Council understood the extent of contamination they have seen come down the creek and
the effect of it on their creek and stream bed. Dub Newman was recognized and stated that the
farm has been in the family from 1960 and provided a short history of the farm. He directed Council
to look at the map and provided a description of the property. He proceeded to read from the
summary provided and regarding the Sanger Wastewater Treatment Plant and Green Tree Farm and
Ranger Creek noting their concerns regarding water contamination from effluent released by the City
into the creek. His presentation ended in demand that the City of Sanger needs to adhere to the
enforcement letter of the TCEQ to clean up Ranger Creek and pay the penalty and that Green Tree
Farm is demanding that the City of Sanger pay them in the amount of $277,500 for damages to their
property for value loss and creek and stream bed contamination. At this point Mayor Muir noted
that given the nature of claim, he would advise City Council to take this under advisement and not
comment on it at this point without legal counsel. He thanked the Harris Family for coming and
presenting and noted that the City will take it under advisement and that the City does want to be a
good neighbor. No action was taken on this item.
At this point in the meeting Mayor Muir noted that he had a Volleyball banquet for this daughter
tonight to attend and turned the meeting was over to Mayor Pro Tem Bilyeu and left at 7:20 p.m.
6.Sanger Meadow Addition Phase 2 Preliminary Plat
Consider, Discuss and Act on the Preliminary Plat of Sanger Meadows Addition Phase 2, Being
Approximately 145 Acres of Land, and Generally Located NorthWest of the Intersection of View
Road and Metz Road.
Ramie Hammonds was recognized to summarize. She advised that this is the preliminary plat which
was discussed at the last meeting where we saw Phase 1 of the Sanger Meadows Addition at the
last Council meeting which contained the ten lots facing View. Road. At the time this report was
written the applicant had not addressed any of staff's comments and that is the reason for the
recommendation of denial. On Tuesday of last week they did resubmit it to planning and it has been
reviewed, and all planning comments have been addressed with the exception of the following three
variances:
1.City of Sanger Code of Ordinances Chapter 10 Exhibit A Section 5.04 (D) (1) to allow Residential
lots to front on nonresidential class streets (Shared parking on Metz Road).
2. Code Chap. 10 Exhibit A Section 5.06 B. to exceed Block Length.
3. Code Chap. 10 Exhibit. A Section 5.04 C. Lot shape: for Lots to exceed two and one
half to one (2 1/2:1).
Page 2
CITY OF SANGER, TEXASMINUTES: REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETINGMonday, December 2, 2019 7:00 PM502 Elm Street, Sanger, TexasREVISED AGENDACOUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT:Mayor Thomas Muir; Mayor Pro Tem Bilyeu; Councilmember Marissa Barrett; CouncilmemberDennis Dillon; Councilmember David Clark, Councilmember Allen Chick. COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT:None.STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:City Manager Alina Ciocan; City Secretary Cheryl Price; City Engineer Tracy LaPiene; PlannerMuzaib Riaz; Police Officer Josh Bishop. 1.Call Meeting to Order, Invocation, Pledge of Allegiance.There being a full quorum present at the December 2, 2019 Regular City Council Meeting, themeeting was called to order at 7:02 p.m. The invocation was given by Councilmember Dillon and thePledge of Allegiance was led by Councilmember Clark. 2.CITIZEN INPUT:No citizens approached the podium wishing to speak3.CONSENT AGENDA:a.Approval of Minutes1.City Council Work Session Minutes 11042019Approve City Council Minutes for November 4, 2019 Work Session. 2.City Council Regular Meeting Minutes 11182019Approve City Council Regular Meeting Minutes for November 18, 2019 Meeting. A motion was made by Councilmember Clark to approve the Consent Agenda as presented. Themotion was seconded by Councilmember Dillon. Motion carried unanimously (50 vote).4.Consider Any Items Removed from Consent Agenda.No items were removed from Consent Agenda.REGULAR AGENDA5.Neil Harris WWTP Stream Impact/RestorationDiscussion and Presentation by Mr. Neil Harris Regarding Wastewater Treatment Plant, StreamImpact, and Stream Restoration.Mayor Muir provided an introduction giving a brief summary of the proposed stream restorationproject for the Wastewater Treatment Plant.Mr. Neil Harris was recognized and noted that his brother and some of his cousins were with himtonight and they represent the families that own Greentree Farms. He provided a packet ofinformation to Councilmembers which included a letter from Haynes and Boone, LLP theirenvironmental attorney with a review of findings. A map and a historical timeline outlining theirinterpretation of events beginning in 2016 regarding the Wastewater Plant and Green Tree Farmsand Ranger Creek, and a copy of the TCEQ Proposed Agreed Order. They wanted to make surethat the Council understood the extent of contamination they have seen come down the creek andthe effect of it on their creek and stream bed. Dub Newman was recognized and stated that thefarm has been in the family from 1960 and provided a short history of the farm. He directed Councilto look at the map and provided a description of the property. He proceeded to read from thesummary provided and regarding the Sanger Wastewater Treatment Plant and Green Tree Farm andRanger Creek noting their concerns regarding water contamination from effluent released by the Cityinto the creek. His presentation ended in demand that the City of Sanger needs to adhere to theenforcement letter of the TCEQ to clean up Ranger Creek and pay the penalty and that Green TreeFarm is demanding that the City of Sanger pay them in the amount of $277,500 for damages to theirproperty for value loss and creek and stream bed contamination. At this point Mayor Muir notedthat given the nature of claim, he would advise City Council to take this under advisement and notcomment on it at this point without legal counsel. He thanked the Harris Family for coming andpresenting and noted that the City will take it under advisement and that the City does want to be agood neighbor. No action was taken on this item. At this point in the meeting Mayor Muir noted that he had a Volleyball banquet for this daughtertonight to attend and turned the meeting was over to Mayor Pro Tem Bilyeu and left at 7:20 p.m.6.Sanger Meadow Addition Phase 2 Preliminary PlatConsider, Discuss and Act on the Preliminary Plat of Sanger Meadows Addition Phase 2, BeingApproximately 145 Acres of Land, and Generally Located NorthWest of the Intersection of ViewRoad and Metz Road.Ramie Hammonds was recognized to summarize. She advised that this is the preliminary plat whichwas discussed at the last meeting where we saw Phase 1 of the Sanger Meadows Addition at thelast Council meeting which contained the ten lots facing View. Road. At the time this report waswritten the applicant had not addressed any of staff's comments and that is the reason for therecommendation of denial. On Tuesday of last week they did resubmit it to planning and it has beenreviewed, and all planning comments have been addressed with the exception of the following three variances: 1.City of Sanger Code of Ordinances Chapter 10 Exhibit A Section 5.04 (D) (1) to allow Residential lots to front on nonresidential class streets (Shared parking on Metz Road). 2. Code Chap. 10 Exhibit A Section 5.06 B. to exceed Block Length. 3. Code Chap. 10 Exhibit. A Section 5.04 C. Lot shape: for Lots to exceed two and one
half to one (2 1/2:1).
Each variance was explained by Ms. Hammonds, she noted that the variances were being requested
by the applicant, so, by approving the plat, Council would be approving the variances. City
Engineer Tracy LaPiene was recognized and provided a list of engineering comments which needed
to be addressed. After lengthy discussion it was noted that the items could be addressed with the
final plat review. He stated that it could be approved if Council wishes with the condition that all of
the engineering comments be addressed with the final plat review.
Ms. Hammonds wanted the Council to know that in the future all of the plans will be reviewed
before it gets to this process because of the new regulations staff has put into place. She advised,
that if the plat is denied and there is something that the Council does not like, as far as the variances
go, the applicant needs to be notified of what exactly it is the Council has a problem with.
Councilmember Chick requested clarification regarding each of the variances. Councilmember
Chick noted his concern regarding the number of lots being added to the traffic on the roads, access
to the development, and the drainage. It was noted that the drainage could be addressed with the
final plat, There was discussion regarding parkland/recreational space. It was noted they would be
dedicating park fees in lieu of land. Discussion ensued regarding the lots facing Metz and it was
noted that they would have shared drives and that they were one acre lots (it was noted this was
also approved by the County). Councilman Clark noted concerns regarding having the shared
driveways going onto Metz Road which would ultimately be a four lane undivided arterial road. Mr.
Tim Fleet, property owner was recognized and provided a summary of the plat submission, the
processes he has been through, and addressed some of the issues brought up by the
Councilmembers.
A motion was made by Councilmember Barrett to approve the Preliminary Plat of Sanger Meadows
Addition Phase 2, being approximately 145 acres of land and generally located northwest of the
intersection of View Road and Metz Road with the following variances; and, subject of all
engineering comments being addressed with the final plat:
1.City of Sanger Code of Ordinances Chapter 10 Exhibit A Section 5.04 (D) (1) to allow Residential
lots to front on nonresidential class streets (Shared parking on Metz Road).
2. Code Chap. 10 Exhibit A Section 5.06 B. to exceed Block Length.
3. Code Chap. 10 Exhibit. A Section 5.04 C. Lot shape: for Lots to exceed two and one
half to one (2 1/2:1).
The motion was seconded by Councilmember Dillon. The motion carried with a 3 to 2 vote
(Councilmember Clark and Councilmember Chick voting in opposition).
7.521 S Stemmons Street FLUM Amendment
Conduct a Public Hearing and Consider, Discuss and Act on Ordinance # 113419 Regarding an
Amendment of Future Land Use Map (FLUM) from Commercial to Industrial on Approximately
1.952 Acres of property, Generally Located West of I35 and Approximately 300 Feet North of the
Intersection of Duck Creek Road and I35 Service Road.
Mayor Pro Tem Bilyeu read the agenda item and opened the public hearing at 8:18 p.m. Ramie
Hammonds Director of Development Services was recognized and presented a summary. This is an
amendment to the future land use map from Commercial to Industrial. She noted that a portion of
the property is already zoned Industrial that the back portion is zoned Commercial and the land
around it is zoned Commercial The applicant is wanting to use the entire piece as industrial. The
whole lot is 1.9552 acres with .993 of the land already zoned Industrial. This request is to amend the
Page 3
CITY OF SANGER, TEXASMINUTES: REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETINGMonday, December 2, 2019 7:00 PM502 Elm Street, Sanger, TexasREVISED AGENDACOUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT:Mayor Thomas Muir; Mayor Pro Tem Bilyeu; Councilmember Marissa Barrett; CouncilmemberDennis Dillon; Councilmember David Clark, Councilmember Allen Chick. COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT:None.STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:City Manager Alina Ciocan; City Secretary Cheryl Price; City Engineer Tracy LaPiene; PlannerMuzaib Riaz; Police Officer Josh Bishop. 1.Call Meeting to Order, Invocation, Pledge of Allegiance.There being a full quorum present at the December 2, 2019 Regular City Council Meeting, themeeting was called to order at 7:02 p.m. The invocation was given by Councilmember Dillon and thePledge of Allegiance was led by Councilmember Clark. 2.CITIZEN INPUT:No citizens approached the podium wishing to speak3.CONSENT AGENDA:a.Approval of Minutes1.City Council Work Session Minutes 11042019Approve City Council Minutes for November 4, 2019 Work Session. 2.City Council Regular Meeting Minutes 11182019Approve City Council Regular Meeting Minutes for November 18, 2019 Meeting. A motion was made by Councilmember Clark to approve the Consent Agenda as presented. Themotion was seconded by Councilmember Dillon. Motion carried unanimously (50 vote).4.Consider Any Items Removed from Consent Agenda.No items were removed from Consent Agenda.REGULAR AGENDA5.Neil Harris WWTP Stream Impact/RestorationDiscussion and Presentation by Mr. Neil Harris Regarding Wastewater Treatment Plant, StreamImpact, and Stream Restoration.Mayor Muir provided an introduction giving a brief summary of the proposed stream restorationproject for the Wastewater Treatment Plant.Mr. Neil Harris was recognized and noted that his brother and some of his cousins were with himtonight and they represent the families that own Greentree Farms. He provided a packet ofinformation to Councilmembers which included a letter from Haynes and Boone, LLP theirenvironmental attorney with a review of findings. A map and a historical timeline outlining theirinterpretation of events beginning in 2016 regarding the Wastewater Plant and Green Tree Farmsand Ranger Creek, and a copy of the TCEQ Proposed Agreed Order. They wanted to make surethat the Council understood the extent of contamination they have seen come down the creek andthe effect of it on their creek and stream bed. Dub Newman was recognized and stated that thefarm has been in the family from 1960 and provided a short history of the farm. He directed Councilto look at the map and provided a description of the property. He proceeded to read from thesummary provided and regarding the Sanger Wastewater Treatment Plant and Green Tree Farm andRanger Creek noting their concerns regarding water contamination from effluent released by the Cityinto the creek. His presentation ended in demand that the City of Sanger needs to adhere to theenforcement letter of the TCEQ to clean up Ranger Creek and pay the penalty and that Green TreeFarm is demanding that the City of Sanger pay them in the amount of $277,500 for damages to theirproperty for value loss and creek and stream bed contamination. At this point Mayor Muir notedthat given the nature of claim, he would advise City Council to take this under advisement and notcomment on it at this point without legal counsel. He thanked the Harris Family for coming andpresenting and noted that the City will take it under advisement and that the City does want to be agood neighbor. No action was taken on this item. At this point in the meeting Mayor Muir noted that he had a Volleyball banquet for this daughtertonight to attend and turned the meeting was over to Mayor Pro Tem Bilyeu and left at 7:20 p.m.6.Sanger Meadow Addition Phase 2 Preliminary PlatConsider, Discuss and Act on the Preliminary Plat of Sanger Meadows Addition Phase 2, BeingApproximately 145 Acres of Land, and Generally Located NorthWest of the Intersection of ViewRoad and Metz Road.Ramie Hammonds was recognized to summarize. She advised that this is the preliminary plat whichwas discussed at the last meeting where we saw Phase 1 of the Sanger Meadows Addition at thelast Council meeting which contained the ten lots facing View. Road. At the time this report waswritten the applicant had not addressed any of staff's comments and that is the reason for therecommendation of denial. On Tuesday of last week they did resubmit it to planning and it has beenreviewed, and all planning comments have been addressed with the exception of the following three variances: 1.City of Sanger Code of Ordinances Chapter 10 Exhibit A Section 5.04 (D) (1) to allow Residential lots to front on nonresidential class streets (Shared parking on Metz Road). 2. Code Chap. 10 Exhibit A Section 5.06 B. to exceed Block Length. 3. Code Chap. 10 Exhibit. A Section 5.04 C. Lot shape: for Lots to exceed two and onehalf to one (2 1/2:1). Each variance was explained by Ms. Hammonds, she noted that the variances were being requestedby the applicant, so, by approving the plat, Council would be approving the variances. CityEngineer Tracy LaPiene was recognized and provided a list of engineering comments which neededto be addressed. After lengthy discussion it was noted that the items could be addressed with thefinal plat review. He stated that it could be approved if Council wishes with the condition that all ofthe engineering comments be addressed with the final plat review. Ms. Hammonds wanted the Council to know that in the future all of the plans will be reviewedbefore it gets to this process because of the new regulations staff has put into place. She advised,that if the plat is denied and there is something that the Council does not like, as far as the variancesgo, the applicant needs to be notified of what exactly it is the Council has a problem with. Councilmember Chick requested clarification regarding each of the variances. CouncilmemberChick noted his concern regarding the number of lots being added to the traffic on the roads, accessto the development, and the drainage. It was noted that the drainage could be addressed with thefinal plat, There was discussion regarding parkland/recreational space. It was noted they would bededicating park fees in lieu of land. Discussion ensued regarding the lots facing Metz and it wasnoted that they would have shared drives and that they were one acre lots (it was noted this wasalso approved by the County). Councilman Clark noted concerns regarding having the shareddriveways going onto Metz Road which would ultimately be a four lane undivided arterial road. Mr.Tim Fleet, property owner was recognized and provided a summary of the plat submission, theprocesses he has been through, and addressed some of the issues brought up by theCouncilmembers.A motion was made by Councilmember Barrett to approve the Preliminary Plat of Sanger MeadowsAddition Phase 2, being approximately 145 acres of land and generally located northwest of theintersection of View Road and Metz Road with the following variances; and, subject of allengineering comments being addressed with the final plat:1.City of Sanger Code of Ordinances Chapter 10 Exhibit A Section 5.04 (D) (1) to allow Residential lots to front on nonresidential class streets (Shared parking on Metz Road). 2. Code Chap. 10 Exhibit A Section 5.06 B. to exceed Block Length. 3. Code Chap. 10 Exhibit. A Section 5.04 C. Lot shape: for Lots to exceed two and onehalf to one (2 1/2:1). The motion was seconded by Councilmember Dillon. The motion carried with a 3 to 2 vote(Councilmember Clark and Councilmember Chick voting in opposition).7.521 S Stemmons Street FLUM AmendmentConduct a Public Hearing and Consider, Discuss and Act on Ordinance # 113419 Regarding anAmendment of Future Land Use Map (FLUM) from Commercial to Industrial on Approximately1.952 Acres of property, Generally Located West of I35 and Approximately 300 Feet North of theIntersection of Duck Creek Road and I35 Service Road.Mayor Pro Tem Bilyeu read the agenda item and opened the public hearing at 8:18 p.m. RamieHammonds Director of Development Services was recognized and presented a summary. This is anamendment to the future land use map from Commercial to Industrial. She noted that a portion ofthe property is already zoned Industrial that the back portion is zoned Commercial and the land
around it is zoned Commercial The applicant is wanting to use the entire piece as industrial. The
whole lot is 1.9552 acres with .993 of the land already zoned Industrial. This request is to amend the
Future Land Use Map (FLUM) so the applicant can then request the zoning change. This is for a
business that is being relocated from FM 455 where the Stephens Town Crossing Project is
proposed.
Mr. Ray Haliburton, Owner of Tuff Powdercoating, was recognized. He stated they have already
purchased the property and summarized their plans for the improvements to the property. He noted
that there was one opposition to the request which was a resident who bought the house behind the
property. After they spoke with the resident and discussed with them plans for the property, the
resident told Mr. Haliburton that they would email a formal withdrawal of opposition to City
Planner, Muzaib Riaz, that they did not have any problems with the request.
Mayor Pro Tem Bilyeu solicited any other citizens who wished to speak regarding this request.
There being no citizens coming forward, the public hearing was closed at 8:23 p.m.
Councilman Chick had some questions regarding the property configuration. There was minor
discussion regarding access to the property.
A motion was made by Councilmember Barrett approving Ordinance # 103419 regarding an
Amendment of Future Land Use Map (FLUM) from Commercial to Industrial on approximately
1.952 Acres of property, generally located west of I35 and approximately 300 feet North of the
Intersection of Duck Creek Road and I35 Service Road. The motion was seconded by
Councilman Clark. The motion carried unanimously(50 vote).
8.521 S Stemmons Street Rezoning
Conduct a Public Hearing and Consider, Discuss and Act on Ordinance # 103519 Regarding a
Zoning Change From B2 (Business District 2) to I1 (Industrial District) for Approximately 0.959
Acres of Land, Generally Located West of I35 and Approximately 300 Feet North of the
Intersection of Duck Creek Road and I35 Service Road.
Mayor Pro Tem Bilyeu read the agenda item and opened the public hearing at 8:27 p.m. Director
of Development Services Ramie Hammonds summarized noting this is the companion case to the
previous request for Future Land Use Plan revision. This request is for the actual zoning change
from Business to Industrial1 zoning. Mayor Pro Tem Bilyeu solicited anyone wishing to come
forward and speak on the public hearing item. There being no citizens coming forward, the public
hearing was closed at 8:28.p.m.
Ms. Hammonds noted the Ordinance Number should be changed from 113519 to 103519 and
also noted the previous Ordinance should be changed from 113419 to 103419.
A motion was made by Councilmember Barrett to approve Ordinance # 103519 Regarding a
Zoning Change From B2 (Business District 2) to I1 (Industrial District) for Approximately 0.959
Acres of Land, Generally Located West of I35 and Approximately 300 Feet North of the
Intersection of Duck Creek Road and I35 Service Road. The motion was seconded by
Councilmember Clark. The motion carried unanimously (50 vote).
9.2820 FM 455 FLUM Amendment
Conduct a Public Hearing and Consider, Discuss and Act on Ordinance # 113619 Regarding an
Amendment of Future Land Use Map (FLUM) from Urban Low Density Residential to Commercial
on Approximately 1.00 Acre of property, Generally Located 1300 Feet East of the Intersection of
Page 4
CITY OF SANGER, TEXASMINUTES: REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETINGMonday, December 2, 2019 7:00 PM502 Elm Street, Sanger, TexasREVISED AGENDACOUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT:Mayor Thomas Muir; Mayor Pro Tem Bilyeu; Councilmember Marissa Barrett; CouncilmemberDennis Dillon; Councilmember David Clark, Councilmember Allen Chick. COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT:None.STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:City Manager Alina Ciocan; City Secretary Cheryl Price; City Engineer Tracy LaPiene; PlannerMuzaib Riaz; Police Officer Josh Bishop. 1.Call Meeting to Order, Invocation, Pledge of Allegiance.There being a full quorum present at the December 2, 2019 Regular City Council Meeting, themeeting was called to order at 7:02 p.m. The invocation was given by Councilmember Dillon and thePledge of Allegiance was led by Councilmember Clark. 2.CITIZEN INPUT:No citizens approached the podium wishing to speak3.CONSENT AGENDA:a.Approval of Minutes1.City Council Work Session Minutes 11042019Approve City Council Minutes for November 4, 2019 Work Session. 2.City Council Regular Meeting Minutes 11182019Approve City Council Regular Meeting Minutes for November 18, 2019 Meeting. A motion was made by Councilmember Clark to approve the Consent Agenda as presented. Themotion was seconded by Councilmember Dillon. Motion carried unanimously (50 vote).4.Consider Any Items Removed from Consent Agenda.No items were removed from Consent Agenda.REGULAR AGENDA5.Neil Harris WWTP Stream Impact/RestorationDiscussion and Presentation by Mr. Neil Harris Regarding Wastewater Treatment Plant, StreamImpact, and Stream Restoration.Mayor Muir provided an introduction giving a brief summary of the proposed stream restorationproject for the Wastewater Treatment Plant.Mr. Neil Harris was recognized and noted that his brother and some of his cousins were with himtonight and they represent the families that own Greentree Farms. He provided a packet ofinformation to Councilmembers which included a letter from Haynes and Boone, LLP theirenvironmental attorney with a review of findings. A map and a historical timeline outlining theirinterpretation of events beginning in 2016 regarding the Wastewater Plant and Green Tree Farmsand Ranger Creek, and a copy of the TCEQ Proposed Agreed Order. They wanted to make surethat the Council understood the extent of contamination they have seen come down the creek andthe effect of it on their creek and stream bed. Dub Newman was recognized and stated that thefarm has been in the family from 1960 and provided a short history of the farm. He directed Councilto look at the map and provided a description of the property. He proceeded to read from thesummary provided and regarding the Sanger Wastewater Treatment Plant and Green Tree Farm andRanger Creek noting their concerns regarding water contamination from effluent released by the Cityinto the creek. His presentation ended in demand that the City of Sanger needs to adhere to theenforcement letter of the TCEQ to clean up Ranger Creek and pay the penalty and that Green TreeFarm is demanding that the City of Sanger pay them in the amount of $277,500 for damages to theirproperty for value loss and creek and stream bed contamination. At this point Mayor Muir notedthat given the nature of claim, he would advise City Council to take this under advisement and notcomment on it at this point without legal counsel. He thanked the Harris Family for coming andpresenting and noted that the City will take it under advisement and that the City does want to be agood neighbor. No action was taken on this item. At this point in the meeting Mayor Muir noted that he had a Volleyball banquet for this daughtertonight to attend and turned the meeting was over to Mayor Pro Tem Bilyeu and left at 7:20 p.m.6.Sanger Meadow Addition Phase 2 Preliminary PlatConsider, Discuss and Act on the Preliminary Plat of Sanger Meadows Addition Phase 2, BeingApproximately 145 Acres of Land, and Generally Located NorthWest of the Intersection of ViewRoad and Metz Road.Ramie Hammonds was recognized to summarize. She advised that this is the preliminary plat whichwas discussed at the last meeting where we saw Phase 1 of the Sanger Meadows Addition at thelast Council meeting which contained the ten lots facing View. Road. At the time this report waswritten the applicant had not addressed any of staff's comments and that is the reason for therecommendation of denial. On Tuesday of last week they did resubmit it to planning and it has beenreviewed, and all planning comments have been addressed with the exception of the following three variances: 1.City of Sanger Code of Ordinances Chapter 10 Exhibit A Section 5.04 (D) (1) to allow Residential lots to front on nonresidential class streets (Shared parking on Metz Road). 2. Code Chap. 10 Exhibit A Section 5.06 B. to exceed Block Length. 3. Code Chap. 10 Exhibit. A Section 5.04 C. Lot shape: for Lots to exceed two and onehalf to one (2 1/2:1). Each variance was explained by Ms. Hammonds, she noted that the variances were being requestedby the applicant, so, by approving the plat, Council would be approving the variances. CityEngineer Tracy LaPiene was recognized and provided a list of engineering comments which neededto be addressed. After lengthy discussion it was noted that the items could be addressed with thefinal plat review. He stated that it could be approved if Council wishes with the condition that all ofthe engineering comments be addressed with the final plat review. Ms. Hammonds wanted the Council to know that in the future all of the plans will be reviewedbefore it gets to this process because of the new regulations staff has put into place. She advised,that if the plat is denied and there is something that the Council does not like, as far as the variancesgo, the applicant needs to be notified of what exactly it is the Council has a problem with. Councilmember Chick requested clarification regarding each of the variances. CouncilmemberChick noted his concern regarding the number of lots being added to the traffic on the roads, accessto the development, and the drainage. It was noted that the drainage could be addressed with thefinal plat, There was discussion regarding parkland/recreational space. It was noted they would bededicating park fees in lieu of land. Discussion ensued regarding the lots facing Metz and it wasnoted that they would have shared drives and that they were one acre lots (it was noted this wasalso approved by the County). Councilman Clark noted concerns regarding having the shareddriveways going onto Metz Road which would ultimately be a four lane undivided arterial road. Mr.Tim Fleet, property owner was recognized and provided a summary of the plat submission, theprocesses he has been through, and addressed some of the issues brought up by theCouncilmembers.A motion was made by Councilmember Barrett to approve the Preliminary Plat of Sanger MeadowsAddition Phase 2, being approximately 145 acres of land and generally located northwest of theintersection of View Road and Metz Road with the following variances; and, subject of allengineering comments being addressed with the final plat:1.City of Sanger Code of Ordinances Chapter 10 Exhibit A Section 5.04 (D) (1) to allow Residential lots to front on nonresidential class streets (Shared parking on Metz Road). 2. Code Chap. 10 Exhibit A Section 5.06 B. to exceed Block Length. 3. Code Chap. 10 Exhibit. A Section 5.04 C. Lot shape: for Lots to exceed two and onehalf to one (2 1/2:1). The motion was seconded by Councilmember Dillon. The motion carried with a 3 to 2 vote(Councilmember Clark and Councilmember Chick voting in opposition).7.521 S Stemmons Street FLUM AmendmentConduct a Public Hearing and Consider, Discuss and Act on Ordinance # 113419 Regarding anAmendment of Future Land Use Map (FLUM) from Commercial to Industrial on Approximately1.952 Acres of property, Generally Located West of I35 and Approximately 300 Feet North of theIntersection of Duck Creek Road and I35 Service Road.Mayor Pro Tem Bilyeu read the agenda item and opened the public hearing at 8:18 p.m. RamieHammonds Director of Development Services was recognized and presented a summary. This is anamendment to the future land use map from Commercial to Industrial. She noted that a portion ofthe property is already zoned Industrial that the back portion is zoned Commercial and the landaround it is zoned Commercial The applicant is wanting to use the entire piece as industrial. Thewhole lot is 1.9552 acres with .993 of the land already zoned Industrial. This request is to amend theFuture Land Use Map (FLUM) so the applicant can then request the zoning change. This is for abusiness that is being relocated from FM 455 where the Stephens Town Crossing Project isproposed. Mr. Ray Haliburton, Owner of Tuff Powdercoating, was recognized. He stated they have alreadypurchased the property and summarized their plans for the improvements to the property. He notedthat there was one opposition to the request which was a resident who bought the house behind theproperty. After they spoke with the resident and discussed with them plans for the property, theresident told Mr. Haliburton that they would email a formal withdrawal of opposition to CityPlanner, Muzaib Riaz, that they did not have any problems with the request.Mayor Pro Tem Bilyeu solicited any other citizens who wished to speak regarding this request. There being no citizens coming forward, the public hearing was closed at 8:23 p.m. Councilman Chick had some questions regarding the property configuration. There was minordiscussion regarding access to the property. A motion was made by Councilmember Barrett approving Ordinance # 103419 regarding anAmendment of Future Land Use Map (FLUM) from Commercial to Industrial on approximately1.952 Acres of property, generally located west of I35 and approximately 300 feet North of theIntersection of Duck Creek Road and I35 Service Road. The motion was seconded byCouncilman Clark. The motion carried unanimously(50 vote).8.521 S Stemmons Street RezoningConduct a Public Hearing and Consider, Discuss and Act on Ordinance # 103519 Regarding aZoning Change From B2 (Business District 2) to I1 (Industrial District) for Approximately 0.959Acres of Land, Generally Located West of I35 and Approximately 300 Feet North of theIntersection of Duck Creek Road and I35 Service Road.Mayor Pro Tem Bilyeu read the agenda item and opened the public hearing at 8:27 p.m. Directorof Development Services Ramie Hammonds summarized noting this is the companion case to theprevious request for Future Land Use Plan revision. This request is for the actual zoning changefrom Business to Industrial1 zoning. Mayor Pro Tem Bilyeu solicited anyone wishing to comeforward and speak on the public hearing item. There being no citizens coming forward, the publichearing was closed at 8:28.p.m. Ms. Hammonds noted the Ordinance Number should be changed from 113519 to 103519 andalso noted the previous Ordinance should be changed from 113419 to 103419.A motion was made by Councilmember Barrett to approve Ordinance # 103519 Regarding aZoning Change From B2 (Business District 2) to I1 (Industrial District) for Approximately 0.959Acres of Land, Generally Located West of I35 and Approximately 300 Feet North of theIntersection of Duck Creek Road and I35 Service Road. The motion was seconded byCouncilmember Clark. The motion carried unanimously (50 vote). 9.2820 FM 455 FLUM AmendmentConduct a Public Hearing and Consider, Discuss and Act on Ordinance # 113619 Regarding an
Amendment of Future Land Use Map (FLUM) from Urban Low Density Residential to Commercial
on Approximately 1.00 Acre of property, Generally Located 1300 Feet East of the Intersection of
Marion Road and FM 455, and 350 Feet North of FM 455.
Mayor Pro Tem Bilyeu read the agenda item and opened the public hearing at 8:31 p.m. Director of
Development Services Ramie Hammonds summarized noting this is a property located off of FM
455 which was annexed in 2017. There were already two commercial buildings on the property and
a building under construction when it was annexed. When the property was annexed it was not
zoned and was Agricultural. This property has a new owner and a change of use and is required to
be in compliance. This request is for an amendment to the Future Land Use Map from Urban Low
Density Residential to Commercial on approximately one acre. This is planned for a corporate office
and a hub for a security company. Staff feels this land is more suited for commercial than residential
and there are already two commercial businesses on the property. Mayor Pro Tem Bilyeu solicited
anyone who wished to come forward and speak on this item.
Todd Benson, Paxica Security Group, was recognized. He stated they have been in the industry for
25 years and picked Sanger Texas to be the Corporate office for their main hub. They do a lot of
governmental facilities as well as security for hospitals, everything security related they can handle.
They hope to be a part of the Sanger family and would like to be involved with the City and the
community with events, etc, in the future. He hoped that Council would grant approval of their
request.
Mayor Pro Tem Bilyeu solicited anyone else who wished to come forward and speak on this item.
There being no citizens coming forward to speak, the public hearing was closed at 8:34 p.m.
Councilmember Chick asked some questions regarding the zoning around the property, the uses on
the property, and access to the property. It was noted that the properties are not platted and they
were annexed into the city with the buildings on them.
A motion was made by Councilmember Barrett to approve Ordinance # 103619 regarding an
Amendment of Future Land Use Map (FLUM) from Urban Low Density Residential to Commercial
on approximately 1.00 acre of property, generally located 1300 feet east of the Intersection of
Marion Road and FM 455, and 350 Feet North of FM 455. The motion was seconded by
Councilmember Clark. The motion carried unanimously (50 vote).
10.2820 FM 455 Rezoning
Conduct a Public Hearing and Consider, Discuss and Act on Ordinance # 113719 Regarding a
Zoning Change From A (Agricultural) to B2 (Business District 2) for Approximately 1.00 Acres of
Land, Generally Located 1300 Feet East of the Intersection of Marion Road and FM 455, and 350
Feet North of FM 455.
Mayor Pro Tem Bilyeu read the agenda item and opened the public hearing at 8:38 p.m. Director of
Development Services Ramie Hammonds noted that this is the actual zoning request from the
previous Future Land Use Amendment request. Mayor Pro Tem Bilyeu solicited for anyone in the
audience who wished to speak on the zoning case. There being no citizens coming forward, the
public hearing was closed at 8:39 p.m.
There was no additional discussion.
A motion was made by Councilmember Dillon to approve Ordinance # 103719 Regarding a
Zoning Change From A (Agricultural) to B2 (Business District 2) for approximately 1.00 Acres of
Page 5
CITY OF SANGER, TEXASMINUTES: REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETINGMonday, December 2, 2019 7:00 PM502 Elm Street, Sanger, TexasREVISED AGENDACOUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT:Mayor Thomas Muir; Mayor Pro Tem Bilyeu; Councilmember Marissa Barrett; CouncilmemberDennis Dillon; Councilmember David Clark, Councilmember Allen Chick. COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT:None.STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:City Manager Alina Ciocan; City Secretary Cheryl Price; City Engineer Tracy LaPiene; PlannerMuzaib Riaz; Police Officer Josh Bishop. 1.Call Meeting to Order, Invocation, Pledge of Allegiance.There being a full quorum present at the December 2, 2019 Regular City Council Meeting, themeeting was called to order at 7:02 p.m. The invocation was given by Councilmember Dillon and thePledge of Allegiance was led by Councilmember Clark. 2.CITIZEN INPUT:No citizens approached the podium wishing to speak3.CONSENT AGENDA:a.Approval of Minutes1.City Council Work Session Minutes 11042019Approve City Council Minutes for November 4, 2019 Work Session. 2.City Council Regular Meeting Minutes 11182019Approve City Council Regular Meeting Minutes for November 18, 2019 Meeting. A motion was made by Councilmember Clark to approve the Consent Agenda as presented. Themotion was seconded by Councilmember Dillon. Motion carried unanimously (50 vote).4.Consider Any Items Removed from Consent Agenda.No items were removed from Consent Agenda.REGULAR AGENDA5.Neil Harris WWTP Stream Impact/RestorationDiscussion and Presentation by Mr. Neil Harris Regarding Wastewater Treatment Plant, StreamImpact, and Stream Restoration.Mayor Muir provided an introduction giving a brief summary of the proposed stream restorationproject for the Wastewater Treatment Plant.Mr. Neil Harris was recognized and noted that his brother and some of his cousins were with himtonight and they represent the families that own Greentree Farms. He provided a packet ofinformation to Councilmembers which included a letter from Haynes and Boone, LLP theirenvironmental attorney with a review of findings. A map and a historical timeline outlining theirinterpretation of events beginning in 2016 regarding the Wastewater Plant and Green Tree Farmsand Ranger Creek, and a copy of the TCEQ Proposed Agreed Order. They wanted to make surethat the Council understood the extent of contamination they have seen come down the creek andthe effect of it on their creek and stream bed. Dub Newman was recognized and stated that thefarm has been in the family from 1960 and provided a short history of the farm. He directed Councilto look at the map and provided a description of the property. He proceeded to read from thesummary provided and regarding the Sanger Wastewater Treatment Plant and Green Tree Farm andRanger Creek noting their concerns regarding water contamination from effluent released by the Cityinto the creek. His presentation ended in demand that the City of Sanger needs to adhere to theenforcement letter of the TCEQ to clean up Ranger Creek and pay the penalty and that Green TreeFarm is demanding that the City of Sanger pay them in the amount of $277,500 for damages to theirproperty for value loss and creek and stream bed contamination. At this point Mayor Muir notedthat given the nature of claim, he would advise City Council to take this under advisement and notcomment on it at this point without legal counsel. He thanked the Harris Family for coming andpresenting and noted that the City will take it under advisement and that the City does want to be agood neighbor. No action was taken on this item. At this point in the meeting Mayor Muir noted that he had a Volleyball banquet for this daughtertonight to attend and turned the meeting was over to Mayor Pro Tem Bilyeu and left at 7:20 p.m.6.Sanger Meadow Addition Phase 2 Preliminary PlatConsider, Discuss and Act on the Preliminary Plat of Sanger Meadows Addition Phase 2, BeingApproximately 145 Acres of Land, and Generally Located NorthWest of the Intersection of ViewRoad and Metz Road.Ramie Hammonds was recognized to summarize. She advised that this is the preliminary plat whichwas discussed at the last meeting where we saw Phase 1 of the Sanger Meadows Addition at thelast Council meeting which contained the ten lots facing View. Road. At the time this report waswritten the applicant had not addressed any of staff's comments and that is the reason for therecommendation of denial. On Tuesday of last week they did resubmit it to planning and it has beenreviewed, and all planning comments have been addressed with the exception of the following three variances: 1.City of Sanger Code of Ordinances Chapter 10 Exhibit A Section 5.04 (D) (1) to allow Residential lots to front on nonresidential class streets (Shared parking on Metz Road). 2. Code Chap. 10 Exhibit A Section 5.06 B. to exceed Block Length. 3. Code Chap. 10 Exhibit. A Section 5.04 C. Lot shape: for Lots to exceed two and onehalf to one (2 1/2:1). Each variance was explained by Ms. Hammonds, she noted that the variances were being requestedby the applicant, so, by approving the plat, Council would be approving the variances. CityEngineer Tracy LaPiene was recognized and provided a list of engineering comments which neededto be addressed. After lengthy discussion it was noted that the items could be addressed with thefinal plat review. He stated that it could be approved if Council wishes with the condition that all ofthe engineering comments be addressed with the final plat review. Ms. Hammonds wanted the Council to know that in the future all of the plans will be reviewedbefore it gets to this process because of the new regulations staff has put into place. She advised,that if the plat is denied and there is something that the Council does not like, as far as the variancesgo, the applicant needs to be notified of what exactly it is the Council has a problem with. Councilmember Chick requested clarification regarding each of the variances. CouncilmemberChick noted his concern regarding the number of lots being added to the traffic on the roads, accessto the development, and the drainage. It was noted that the drainage could be addressed with thefinal plat, There was discussion regarding parkland/recreational space. It was noted they would bededicating park fees in lieu of land. Discussion ensued regarding the lots facing Metz and it wasnoted that they would have shared drives and that they were one acre lots (it was noted this wasalso approved by the County). Councilman Clark noted concerns regarding having the shareddriveways going onto Metz Road which would ultimately be a four lane undivided arterial road. Mr.Tim Fleet, property owner was recognized and provided a summary of the plat submission, theprocesses he has been through, and addressed some of the issues brought up by theCouncilmembers.A motion was made by Councilmember Barrett to approve the Preliminary Plat of Sanger MeadowsAddition Phase 2, being approximately 145 acres of land and generally located northwest of theintersection of View Road and Metz Road with the following variances; and, subject of allengineering comments being addressed with the final plat:1.City of Sanger Code of Ordinances Chapter 10 Exhibit A Section 5.04 (D) (1) to allow Residential lots to front on nonresidential class streets (Shared parking on Metz Road). 2. Code Chap. 10 Exhibit A Section 5.06 B. to exceed Block Length. 3. Code Chap. 10 Exhibit. A Section 5.04 C. Lot shape: for Lots to exceed two and onehalf to one (2 1/2:1). The motion was seconded by Councilmember Dillon. The motion carried with a 3 to 2 vote(Councilmember Clark and Councilmember Chick voting in opposition).7.521 S Stemmons Street FLUM AmendmentConduct a Public Hearing and Consider, Discuss and Act on Ordinance # 113419 Regarding anAmendment of Future Land Use Map (FLUM) from Commercial to Industrial on Approximately1.952 Acres of property, Generally Located West of I35 and Approximately 300 Feet North of theIntersection of Duck Creek Road and I35 Service Road.Mayor Pro Tem Bilyeu read the agenda item and opened the public hearing at 8:18 p.m. RamieHammonds Director of Development Services was recognized and presented a summary. This is anamendment to the future land use map from Commercial to Industrial. She noted that a portion ofthe property is already zoned Industrial that the back portion is zoned Commercial and the landaround it is zoned Commercial The applicant is wanting to use the entire piece as industrial. Thewhole lot is 1.9552 acres with .993 of the land already zoned Industrial. This request is to amend theFuture Land Use Map (FLUM) so the applicant can then request the zoning change. This is for abusiness that is being relocated from FM 455 where the Stephens Town Crossing Project isproposed. Mr. Ray Haliburton, Owner of Tuff Powdercoating, was recognized. He stated they have alreadypurchased the property and summarized their plans for the improvements to the property. He notedthat there was one opposition to the request which was a resident who bought the house behind theproperty. After they spoke with the resident and discussed with them plans for the property, theresident told Mr. Haliburton that they would email a formal withdrawal of opposition to CityPlanner, Muzaib Riaz, that they did not have any problems with the request.Mayor Pro Tem Bilyeu solicited any other citizens who wished to speak regarding this request. There being no citizens coming forward, the public hearing was closed at 8:23 p.m. Councilman Chick had some questions regarding the property configuration. There was minordiscussion regarding access to the property. A motion was made by Councilmember Barrett approving Ordinance # 103419 regarding anAmendment of Future Land Use Map (FLUM) from Commercial to Industrial on approximately1.952 Acres of property, generally located west of I35 and approximately 300 feet North of theIntersection of Duck Creek Road and I35 Service Road. The motion was seconded byCouncilman Clark. The motion carried unanimously(50 vote).8.521 S Stemmons Street RezoningConduct a Public Hearing and Consider, Discuss and Act on Ordinance # 103519 Regarding aZoning Change From B2 (Business District 2) to I1 (Industrial District) for Approximately 0.959Acres of Land, Generally Located West of I35 and Approximately 300 Feet North of theIntersection of Duck Creek Road and I35 Service Road.Mayor Pro Tem Bilyeu read the agenda item and opened the public hearing at 8:27 p.m. Directorof Development Services Ramie Hammonds summarized noting this is the companion case to theprevious request for Future Land Use Plan revision. This request is for the actual zoning changefrom Business to Industrial1 zoning. Mayor Pro Tem Bilyeu solicited anyone wishing to comeforward and speak on the public hearing item. There being no citizens coming forward, the publichearing was closed at 8:28.p.m. Ms. Hammonds noted the Ordinance Number should be changed from 113519 to 103519 andalso noted the previous Ordinance should be changed from 113419 to 103419.A motion was made by Councilmember Barrett to approve Ordinance # 103519 Regarding aZoning Change From B2 (Business District 2) to I1 (Industrial District) for Approximately 0.959Acres of Land, Generally Located West of I35 and Approximately 300 Feet North of theIntersection of Duck Creek Road and I35 Service Road. The motion was seconded byCouncilmember Clark. The motion carried unanimously (50 vote). 9.2820 FM 455 FLUM AmendmentConduct a Public Hearing and Consider, Discuss and Act on Ordinance # 113619 Regarding anAmendment of Future Land Use Map (FLUM) from Urban Low Density Residential to Commercialon Approximately 1.00 Acre of property, Generally Located 1300 Feet East of the Intersection ofMarion Road and FM 455, and 350 Feet North of FM 455.Mayor Pro Tem Bilyeu read the agenda item and opened the public hearing at 8:31 p.m. Director ofDevelopment Services Ramie Hammonds summarized noting this is a property located off of FM455 which was annexed in 2017. There were already two commercial buildings on the property anda building under construction when it was annexed. When the property was annexed it was notzoned and was Agricultural. This property has a new owner and a change of use and is required tobe in compliance. This request is for an amendment to the Future Land Use Map from Urban LowDensity Residential to Commercial on approximately one acre. This is planned for a corporate officeand a hub for a security company. Staff feels this land is more suited for commercial than residentialand there are already two commercial businesses on the property. Mayor Pro Tem Bilyeu solicitedanyone who wished to come forward and speak on this item. Todd Benson, Paxica Security Group, was recognized. He stated they have been in the industry for25 years and picked Sanger Texas to be the Corporate office for their main hub. They do a lot ofgovernmental facilities as well as security for hospitals, everything security related they can handle. They hope to be a part of the Sanger family and would like to be involved with the City and thecommunity with events, etc, in the future. He hoped that Council would grant approval of theirrequest.Mayor Pro Tem Bilyeu solicited anyone else who wished to come forward and speak on this item. There being no citizens coming forward to speak, the public hearing was closed at 8:34 p.m. Councilmember Chick asked some questions regarding the zoning around the property, the uses onthe property, and access to the property. It was noted that the properties are not platted and theywere annexed into the city with the buildings on them. A motion was made by Councilmember Barrett to approve Ordinance # 103619 regarding anAmendment of Future Land Use Map (FLUM) from Urban Low Density Residential to Commercialon approximately 1.00 acre of property, generally located 1300 feet east of the Intersection ofMarion Road and FM 455, and 350 Feet North of FM 455. The motion was seconded byCouncilmember Clark. The motion carried unanimously (50 vote).10.2820 FM 455 RezoningConduct a Public Hearing and Consider, Discuss and Act on Ordinance # 113719 Regarding aZoning Change From A (Agricultural) to B2 (Business District 2) for Approximately 1.00 Acres ofLand, Generally Located 1300 Feet East of the Intersection of Marion Road and FM 455, and 350Feet North of FM 455.Mayor Pro Tem Bilyeu read the agenda item and opened the public hearing at 8:38 p.m. Director ofDevelopment Services Ramie Hammonds noted that this is the actual zoning request from theprevious Future Land Use Amendment request. Mayor Pro Tem Bilyeu solicited for anyone in theaudience who wished to speak on the zoning case. There being no citizens coming forward, thepublic hearing was closed at 8:39 p.m.There was no additional discussion.
A motion was made by Councilmember Dillon to approve Ordinance # 103719 Regarding a
Zoning Change From A (Agricultural) to B2 (Business District 2) for approximately 1.00 Acres of
land, generally located 1300 feet east of the Intersection of Marion Road and FM 455, and 350
Feet North of FM 455.The motion was seconded by Councilmember Barrett. The motion carried
unanimously (50).
11.Sanger Circle Phase 6 Batch Plant SUP
Conduct a Public Hearing and Consider, Discuss and Act on Ordinance # 113819 Regarding a
Specific Use Permit for a Temporary Concrete Batch Plant Use for Sanger Circle Phase 6
Development; Generally Located West of Marion Road.
Mayor Pro Tem Bilyeu read the agenda item and opened the public hearing at 8:40 p.m. Ramie
Hammonds Director of Development Services was recognized and presented a summary. This is an
application to set up a batch plant for construction of streets in Sanger Circle Phase 6 Subdivison.
She noted per the permitting requirement it can not be within 300 feet of any residence and is well
within those guidelines. They have applied for the TCEQ permit and are asking for the SUP for
permit for 180 days. It would start December 14, 2020 and end June 14th, 2020. The subdivision
has 184 single family lots and 56 townhomes. Staff noted that there were two letters received back,
one in favor and one in opposition to the request. Mayor Pro Tem Bilyeu solicited anyone wishing
to come forward and speak on this item. There being no persons coming forward, the public
hearing was closed at 8:41 p.m.
There was brief discussion regarding the opposition and it was noted that safety and traffic was of a
concern for the children in the area. Staff noted that there were several people present for this item
at the Planning and Zoning Meeting and there seemed to be a misunderstanding as to what this
request was for. After it was explained and what the alternatives would be it seemed that the public
was a little more comfortable with the request. It was also noted there were some concerns
regarding the dust and that they have equipment to neutralize the dust.
There was minor discussion regarding TCEQ permitting requirements.
A motion was made by Councilmember Barrett to approve Ordinance # 113819 Regarding a
Specific Use Permit for a Temporary Concrete Batch Plant Use for Sanger Circle Phase 6
Development; Generally Located West of Marion Road. There was minor discussion to include the
start date and it was noted that it is included in the Ordinance and states 180 days starting from
December 14, 2019. The motion was seconded by Councilmember Dillon. The motion carried 41
(Councilmember Chick voting in opposition).
12.INFORMATION ITEMS:
13.FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS:
There was no discussion regarding future agenda items.
14.ADJOURN.
There being no further agenda items Mayor Pro Tem Bilyeu adjourned the meeting at 8:48 p.m.
Page 6
ho yn o sb®®ne
Phone: 512.867.8418
Mary.Mendoza@haynesboone
November 25, 2019
Mr. Neil Harris
2100 Ross Avenue, Suite 1400
Dallas, TX 75201
Re: City of Sanger Wastewater Discharge Impacts to Green Tree Farm
Dear Neil,
You had asked that we review information regarding the City of Sanger's wastewater discharge
and its impacts to your family's property Green Tree Farm. You provided us with a number of
documents regarding the discharges from the City of Sanger's Wastewater Treatment Plant
located at 300 Jones St., Sanger, Texas (the "Plant"), correspondence between the TCEQ and the
Sanger regarding the discharges and your engineer's evaluation of those discharges.
It is evident from the TCEQ's on-line data base and the documents you provided that Sanger has
had a long history of discharges exceeding its permit limitations. The Plant's operations are
limited by its Permit WQ0014372001, issued by the Texas Commission on Environmental
Quality ("TCEQ"), which includes numeric limitations on the effluent discharge in order to
protect human health and the environmental of those downstream from the Plant. The Plant
discharges effluent into an unnamed ditch, where it flows into Ranger Branch and then to
Paddock Lake, again through Ranger Branch and through Clear Creek into Lewisville Lake. We
understand Ranger Branch, which you also refer to as Ranger Creek, runs through Green Tree
Farm.
The Plant has a long history of unresolved noncompliance with its permit limitations and with
the TCEQ rules. A brief review of the TCEQ database regarding the Plant's permit identified at
least twenty-three active notices of violation for the "Failure to meet the limit for one or more
parameters" with respect to the plant's operations. These violations stretch back as far as 2015
and continue into 2019.
As your engineers have documented, the discharges at times have exceeded permit limits, at
times by orders of magnitude. By way of example, your engineers noted that sampling by the
TCEQ of waters downstream from the Plant in July 2018 had E.Coli concentrations of 242,000 ;
the permit limit for E.Coli was 399. You further advised that Green Tree Farm never received
any warning or notice from Sanger that its discharge — which flows through Green Tree Farm —
was in violation of its permit. These issues of noncompliance have negatively impacted the use
Haynes and Boone, LLP
Attorneys and Counselors
600 Congress Ave., Suite 1300
Austin, Texas 78701-3285
Phone: 512.867.8400
Fax: 512.867.8470
www.haynesboone.com
haynesboone
Mr. Neil Harris
November 25, 2019
Page 2
and enjoyment of Green Tree Farm and, as noted by your engineers, have endangered those who
use Green Tree Farm and the receiving waters for recreational use.
We understand that the TCEQ is now pursuing formal enforcement action against the City of
Sanger to force the Plant to come into compliance with it permit and applicable law. We have
reviewed multiple drafts of a proposed Agreed Order that the TCEQ has sent to Sanger to resolve
the violations. Those drafts have been consistent in requiring Sanger to correct the violations,
bring the plant into compliance through equipment upgrades, and remediate the residuals from
the illegal discharges downstream of the Plant. The TCEQ is well within its authority to require
Sanger to correct its violations, including the damages caused by its violations. While we have
seen some comments from Sanger's counsel objecting to the remediation of the creek
downstream of the Plant on the basis that Sanger did not cause the impacts, we have not seen any
documentation from Sanger that supports its position. In fact, the evidence of long term illegal
discharges from the Plant supports the conclusion that the Plant is the cause of the impacts to the
creek on Green Tree Farm.
As we have discussed, the contamination to Green Tree Farm has resulted in significant
damages. The use and enjoyment of the farm has been impaired, parts of the farm had to be
restricted from use, and the contamination has likely resulted in a diminution in value of the
farm. I understand from our conversation that your use of the farm has had to be altered to
prevent exposure to the illegal discharges. You have estimated your damages in the range of
275000 to 300000, which is a fraction of the value of the farm, and is not unreasonable given the
severity and duration of the contamination.
We look forward to discussing appropriate next steps with you.
u
lit
-low F-4
The City of Sanger Wastewater Plant: Green Tree Farm & Ranger Creek
Outline of events, beginning in 2016
The City of Sanger is operating under a permit that allows effluent to be released into Ranger Creek, up
to 980,000 gallons per day. Ranger Creek flows through our family farm, Green Tree Farm, located at
514 Railroad Rd. in Sanger.
Late 2016-mid 2019:
TCEQ investigated complaints from property owners of odor, discolored effluent, and solid waste being
released in Ranger Creek and the adjoining Paddock Lake. This continued release of contaminated
effluent has created an environmental hazard in Ranger Creek and Paddock Lake.
August 2019:
The continued release of contaminated effluent by the City of Sanger Wastewater Plant, resulted in an
"Enforcement Letter" from the TCEQ. The letter includes a penalty of $64,500 and a requirement that
"within 200 days of the effective date of this letter, Sanger has to request and obtain permission from
the private property owners, to mediate the receiving streams, as far down as the spillway for Paddock
Lake, which included the removal of all sludge."
September 2019-current:
The City of Sanger is appealing the TCEQ Enforcement Letter, through legal representation. The City of
Sanger is claiming that the contaminated effluent is coming from another source,. City of Sanger' is
quoted in letter to say, "other sources likely responsible for solids identified downstream of outfall
No.001."
The City of Sanger has had no communication with affected residents. It has yet to contact any of the
property owners regarding potential risks to children, livestock, and small animals that play, drink & live
in the contaminated water.
Due to the sludge and contaminated effluent being released into Ranger Creek through the last few
years, there is a thick layer of black raw sewage, through the creek bed of our property, under rocks,
crevices and tree roots.
Severity of the Contamination, according to the TCEQ:
The permitted "allowable" E-Coli Level is 399 CFU. Here are the TCEQ's results of Ranger Creek:
• 10/2/17
4,840 CFU
12x the allowable level
• 10/6/17
292,000 CFU
731x the allowable level
• 10/17/17
241,960 CFU
606x the allowable level
• 02/1/19
5,600 CFU
14x the allowable level (landowner sample that was tested)
• 05/28/19
"red sludge worms"
identified by TCEQ found often in poor quality water w/high
organic matter. TCEQ noted that these worms are attributed to previous raw waste discharge
The severity of these levels of contamination is not safe and livestock and humans should not be exposed
to it according to our Environmental Engineer.
Example of how North Texas Municipal Water District handled a similar water contamination issue:
12/16/18: North Texas Municipal Water District had a 28,000 gal. spill in nearby lake. They
immediately:
• Hired a 3rd party expert to assess current conditions
• Worked with the TCEQ Texas Park & Wildlife, and US Army Corp of Engineers
• Sent out a Public Notice that private well water within %2 mile of the plant, should be boiled, and
public should avoid contact with the discharged effluent in the lake
By comparison, City of Sanger effluent averages 800,000 gallons per day. During 4 month period,
96,000,000 gallons of varying levels of untreated sewage were dumped into Ranger Creek, with NO
action or communication from the City to the residents and property owners affected.
The RESULTS of the ongoing Negligence of the City of Sanger to contamination of Ranger Creek:
1. Utilization of the Creek: Our grandchildren can no longer play in the creek. Small pets &
livestock are kept away. The beauty of the creek flowing through our property has been taken
away.
2. Damage to fish & wildlife: small fish, turtles found dead in the creek and shoreline
3. Land value has diminished due to the environmental damage that will have to be disclosed to
potential buyers, should we try to sell or develop the property in the future.
SUMMARY:
The City of Sanger has displayed gross negligence in its responsibility to its citizens & neighbors
• To stop the contaminated effluent flowing into of Ranger Creek in a timely manner.
• To not notify and warn all of the affected land owners and residents of the dangers of the
polluted effluent in the creek, for the safety of their children, small animals and livestock.
DEMAND:
• City of Sanger needs to adhere to the Enforcement Letter of the TCEQ: to clean up Ranger Creek
and to pay the penalty.
• Green Tree Farm is demanding that the City of Sanger pay them in the amount of $277,500 for
damages to their property value loss and creek & stream bed contamination.
Jon Niermann, Chairman
Emily Lindley, Commissioner
'ti,.a'
Toby Baker, Executive Director
_
TEXAS COMMISSION ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
Protecting Texas by Reducing and Pre,enting Pollution
July 30, 2019
The Honorable Thomas Muir
Mayor of Sanger
P.O. Box 1729
Sanger, Texas 76266-o017
Re: Revised Proposed Agreed Order
City of Sanger
RN103014155; TPDES Permit No. WQ0014372001
Docket No. 2018-0273-MWD-E; Enforcement Case No. 55766
FOR SETTLEMENT PURPOSES ONLY
Dear Mayor Muir:
In the cover letters for the proposed agreed orders mailed out to the City of Sanger on December
14, 2o18 and January 14, 2018, the City of Sanger was given an opportunity to propose a
Supplemental Environmental Project ("SEP") to offset the payable penalty. Your proposed SEP
has been reviewed and has been incorporated in the enclosed revised proposed agreed order.
Additionally, based on documentation submitted on February 11, 2o19, the following revisions
have been made:
1. Section I (Findings of Fact): Paragraph Nos. 6.c through 6.f were included to recognize
completed corrective actions.
2. Section II (Conclusions of Law): Paragraph No. 9 reflects a revised penalty.
3. Section III (Ordering Provisions): Corresponding technical requirements have been
removed. Paragraph No. 2 has been inserted to implement and complete an SEP, and
technical requirement deadlines have been extended. Ordering Provision No. 3.a.i has
been added.
If you agree with the order as proposed, please sign and return this order with an original
signature to:
Mr. Steven Van Landingham, Enforcement Coordinator
Water Enforcement Section, MC 219
Enforcement Division
Texas Commission on Environmental Quality
P.O. Box 13o87
Austin, Texas 78711-3o87
DO n- V)0Q7 . A-1; . T........ 7071 1 Ono- . r 1 O OOn 1—
The Honorable Thomas Muir
Page 2
July 30, 2019
Once you agree and we are in receipt of the signed proposed agreed order, the City of Sanger
may begin implementing the SEP. Enclosed for your convenience is a return envelope. If the
signed order is not mailed and postmarked within two weeks of the date of this
letter, we will assume that you have elected to participate in the more extended enforcement
process described in previous correspondence, and we will proceed accordingly. Your case will
be forwarded to the Litigation Division and this settlement offer, and possibly the SEP, will no
longer be available.
If you have any questions regarding these matters, please contact Mr. Van Landingham of my
staff at (512) 239-5717•
e Eaves, Manager
•cement Division
Commission on Environmental Quality
LE/sv
Enclosures: Revised Proposed Agreed Order, SEP, Revised PCWs (4), Effluent Violation Table
cc: Mr. Nathan E. Vassar, Attorney, Lloyd Gosselink Rochelle & Townsend, P.C., 816
Congress Avenue, Suite 1900, Austin, Texas 78701
The Honorable Thomas Muir
Page 3
July 30, 2019
bcc: Manager, Water Section, Dallas/Fort Worth Regional Office
Mr. Steven Van Landingham, Coordinator, Enforcement Division, MC 219
Central Records, MC 213, Building E, ist Floor
MWD_WQoo14372001_CP_2019073o_ReNised Proposed Agreed Order
Enforcement Division Electronic Reader File
TEXAS COMMISSION ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
SS;•�C
IN THE MATTER OF AN § BEFORE THE
ENFORCEMENT ACTION §
CONCERNING § TEXAS COMMISSION ON
CITY OF SANGER §
RN103014155 § ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
AGREED ORDER
DOCKET NO. 2018-o273-MWD-E
I. JURISDICTION AND STIPULATIONS
On , the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality ("the
Commission" or "TCEQ") considered this agreement of the parties, resolving an enforcement
action regarding the City of Sanger (the "Respondent") under the authority of TEx. WATER CODE
chs. 7 and 26. The Executive Director of the TCEQ, through the Enforcement Division, and the
Respondent, represented by Mr. Nathan E. Vassar, of the law firm of Lloyd Gosselink Rochelle &
Townsend, P.C., presented this Order to the Commission.
The Respondent understands that it has certain procedural rights at certain points in the
enforcement process, including the right to formal notice of violations, notice of an evidentiazy
hearing, the right to an evidentiary hearing, and a right to appeal. By entering into this Order,
the Respondent agrees to waive all notice and procedural rights.
It is further understood and agreed that this Order represents the complete and fully -integrated
agreement of the parties. The provisions of this Order are deemed severable and, if a court of
competent jurisdiction or other appropriate authority deems any provision of this Order
unenforceable, the remaining provisions shall be valid and enforceable. The duties and
responsibilities imposed by this Order are binding upon the Respondent.
The Commission makes the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law:
I. FINDINGS OF FACT
1. The Respondent owns and operates a wastewater treatment facility located at 300 Jones
Street in Sanger, Denton County, Texas (the "Facility"). The Facility is near or adjacent
to water in the state as defined in TEx. WATER CODE § 26.001(5).
2. During an investigation conducted on September 27, 2017 through October 17, 2017, and
a record review on May 21, 2018 through June 11, 2o18, staff documented that the
Respondent did not comply with permitted effluent limitations, as shown in the effluent
violation table below.
City of Sanger
DOCKET NO. 2018-0273-MWD-E
Page 2
Effluent Violation Table
Dischar e Monitoring Reports
CBOD ( -day)
Ammonia Nitrogen
TSS
Daily
Daily
Daily Avg.
Daily Avg.
Daily
Daily
Daily
Daily
Daily Avg.
Avg.
Max.
Loading
Conc.
Max.
Avg.
Avg.
Max.
Loading
Cone.
Cone.
Cone.
LoadingCone.
Cone.
Month/
Limit =
Limit =
Limit =
Limit =
Limit =
Limit =
Limit =
Limit =
Limit =
Year
10 mg/L
25 mg/L
82 lbs/day
2 mg/L
10
16
15
40
123 lbs/day
m L
lbs da
m L
m L
10 2o16
1 5
c
I c
c
c
c
c
c
c
6 2017
12.2
c
c
C
c
c
c
c
c
7 2017
14.7
c
86.12
e
c
c
c
c
c
H 2O17
10.7
27.3
c
c
c
e
c
c
c
9 2017
35.3
101
172.9
8.28
29.6
4o.66
34.5
67
164.6
Grab Samples
CBOD
Total
Residual
Ammonia
E. coli
DO
(5-day)
Chlorine
Nitrogen
Single
Single
Single
Daily
Single
Grab
Grab
Grab
Max.
Grab
Min.
Limit =
Min.
Date
Limit =
Limit
Limit =
CFU
39oo
Limit =
35 mg/L
1.
15 mg/L
mL/
0L
m L
m
9/27/17
126
0.0
34
ri a
c
10217
na
na
na
>_4,840
1.31
10 6 17
ri a
n a
n a
292,000
ri a
10 1 17
124
n a
38.2
241,96o
2.7
Avg. = Average
c = compliant
CBOD (5-day) = Carbonaceous Biochemical Oxygen Demand (5-day)
CFU/too mL = colony forming units per too milliliters
Conc. = Concentration
DO = Dissolved Oxygen
E. coli = Escherichia soli
lbs/day = pounds per day
Max. = Maximum
mg/L = milligrams per liter
Min. = Minimum
n/a = not applicable
3. During an investigation conducted on March 22, 2018 through April 6, 2o18, staff
documented that:
a. Plant No. 2 had excessive foam in the aeration basin, the clarifier weirs had an
accumulation of sludge which was blocking even flow over the weir and sludge
was present in the clarifier effluent trough;
b. The mixed liquor in Plant No. 3's aeration basin was black in color, and the
clarifier did not appear to be settling out sludge as the clarifier effluent was
cloudy and grey;
City of Sanger
DOCKET NO.2018-0273-MWD-E
Page 3
C. Plant No. 4 had floating solids in the aeration basin and along the clarifier weirs
which blocked flow;
d. The effluent in the weir box appeared turbid and grey;
e. The bar screen area had an accumulation of screenings on the step screen, the
manual bar screen, and on the grates;
f. The screenings container was uncovered; and
g. The staff gauge was illegible.
4. During a record review conducted on May 21, 2018 through June 11, 2018, staff
documented that the discharge monitoring reports ("DMRs") for October 2oi6 through
August 2017 were not submitted by the loth day of the following month.
5. During an investigation conducted on July 17, 2018 though August 7, 2018, and a
supplemental investigation on August 29, 2o18, staff documented that:
a. The Respondent exceeded the permit limitation for the daily average
concentration of carbonaceous biochemical oxygen demand (5-day) in July 2017
by greater than 40% and it was not reported to the TCEQ;
b. E. coli lab result records for January 2017 through September 2017 were not
maintained at the Facility and not available for review;
C. The DMRs for April 2o18 through June 2018 were not submitted by the loth day
of the following month; and
d. Excess solids in other than trace amounts discharged via Outfall No. 001 into the
receiving stream to Paddock Lake.
6. The Executive Director recognizes that the Respondent:
a. Submitted the October 2016 through August 2017 DMRs by June 7, 2018;
b. Drained and reseeded Plant No. 3, built a laboratory room to begin in-house
sample testing, installed new chlorine roto-meters, and marked manholes to
identify tampering by June 8, 2018;
C. Removed the accumulation of screenings from the bar screen area, including the
step screen, the manual bar screen, and on the grates by January 24, 2019;
d. Installed a new staff gauge by January 24, 2019;
e. Installed a new rotary sludge press, two new clarifiers, a new bar screen, a new
pump station, a raw water station, an aeration basin, turbo blowers, and an
ultraviolet disinfectant system at the Facility by January 24, 2019; and
City of Sanger
DOCKET NO. 2oi8-o273-MWD-E
Page 4
£ Submitted the E. coli lab result records for January 2017 through September
2017 by February 11, 2019.
II. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
As evidenced by Finding of Fact No. 1, the Respondent is subject to the jurisdiction of the
TCEQ pursuant to TEX. WATER CODE ch. 26 and the rules of the TCEQ.
2. As evidenced by Finding of Fact No. 2, the Respondent failed to comply with permitted
effluent limitations, in violation of 3o TEX. ADMIN. CODE § 305.125(i), TEX. WATER CODE
§ 26.121(a)(1), and Texas Pollutant Discharge Elimination System ("TPDES") Permit No.
WQo014372001, Interim Effluent Limitations and Monitoring Requirements Nos. 1, 2,
and 6.
3. As evidenced by Findings of Fact Nos. 3.a through 3.g, and 5.d, the Respondent failed to
ensure the Facility and all of its systems of collection, treatment, and disposal are
properly operated and maintained, in violation of 3o TEX. ADMIN. CODE § 305.125(1) and
(5), and TPDES Permit No. WQOo14372001, Operational Requirements No. 1.
4. As evidenced by Finding of Fact No. 4, the Respondent failed to timely submit
monitoring results at intervals specified in the permit, in violation of 3o TEX. ADMIN.
CODE §§ 305.125(1) and (17) and 319.7(d), and TPDES Permit No. WQo014372001,
Monitoring and Reporting Requirements No. 1.
5. As evidenced by Finding of Fact No. 5.a, the Respondent failed to report to the TCEQ in
writing, any effluent violation which deviates from the permitted effluent limitation by
more than 40% within five working days of becoming aware of noncompliance, in
violation of 3o TEX. ADMIN. CODE § 305.125(1) and TPDES Permit No. WQoo14372001,
Monitoring and Reporting Requirements No. 7.c.
6. As evidenced by Finding of Fact No. 5.b, the Respondent failed to maintain records of
monitoring activities at the Facility and make them readily available for review by a
TCEQ representative, in violation of 3o TEX. ADMIN. CODE §§ 305.125(1) and (ii)(B) and
319.7(c) and TPDES Permit No. WQOo14372001, Monitoring and Reporting
Requirements No. 3.b.
7. As evidenced by Finding of Fact No. 5.c, the Respondent failed to submit monitoring
results at intervals specified in the permit, in violation of 3o TEX. ADMIN. CODE
§§ 305.125(1) and (17) and 319.7(d), and TPDES Permit No. WQoo14372001, Monitoring
and Reporting Requirements No. 1.
8. Pursuant to TEX. WATER CODE § 7.051, the TCEQ has the authority to assess an
administrative penalty against the Respondent for violations of state statutes within the
TCEQ's jurisdiction, for violations of rules adopted under such statutes, or for violations
of orders or permits issued under such statutes.
9. An administrative penalty in the amount of $64,500 is justified by the facts recited in
this Order, and considered in light of the factors set forth in TEX. WATER CODE § 7.053•
Pursuant to TEX. WATER CODE § 7.067, $64,500 of the penalty shall be conditionally
offset by the Respondent's timely and satisfactory completion of a Supplemental
City of Sanger
DOCKET NO. 2o18-0273-MWD-E
Page 5
Environmental Project ("SEP") as defined in the attached SEP Agreement ("Attachment
A" - incorporated herein by reference). The Respondent's obligation to pay the
conditionally offset portion of the penalty shall be discharged upon full compliance with
all the terms and conditions of this Order, N-vhich includes the timely and satisfactory
completion of all provisions of the SEP Agreement, as determined by the Executive
Director.
III. ORDERING PROVISIONS
NOW, THEREFORE, THE TEXAS COMMISSION ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ORDERS
that:
1. The Respondent is assessed a penalty as set forth in Conclusion of Law No. 9 for
,violations of state statutes and rules of the TCEQ. The payment of this penalty and the
Respondent's compliance with all the requirements set forth in this Order resolve only
the matters set forth by this Order in this action. The Commission shall not be
constrained in any manner from requiring corrective actions or penalties for Violations
that are not raised here. Penalty payments shall be made payable to "TCEQ" and shall be
sent with the notation "Re: City of Sanger, Docket No. 2018-0273-MWD-E" to:
Financial Administration Division, Revenue Operations Section
Attention: Cashier's Office, MC 214
Texas Commission on Environmental Quality
P.O. Box 13o88
Austin, Texas 78711-3o88
2. The Respondent shall implement and complete an SEP as set forth in Section II.
Conclusions of Law, Paragraph No. 9. The amount of $64,500 of the assessed penalty is
conditionally offset based on the Respondent's implementation and completion of the
SEP pursuant to the terms of the SEP Agreement, as defined in Attachment A. Penalty
payments for any portion of the SEP deemed by the Executive Director as not complete
shall be paid within 3o days after the date the Executive Director demands payment.
3. The Respondent shall undertake the following technical requirements:
a. Within 3o days after the effective date of this Order:
i. Develop and implement procedures to submit DMRs by the loth day of
the following month;
ii. Prepare and submit the DMRs for April 2o18 through June 2018; and
iii. Cover the screenings container.
b. Within 45 days after the effective date of this Order, submit written certification
of compliance Adth Ordering Provision Nos. 3.a.i through 3.a.iii, in accordance
with Ordering Provision No. 3.e below. The written certification shall include
detailed supporting documentation including photographs, receipts, and/or other
records to demonstrate compliance.
City of Sanger
DOCKET NO. 2o18-0273-MWD-E
Page 6
C. Within Zoo days after the effective date of this Order, request and obtain
permission from private property owners and remediate the receiving stream as
far downstream as the spillway for Paddock Lake; to include the removal of all
sludge.
d. Within 215 days after the effective date of this Order, submit written certification
of compliance with Ordering Provision No. 3.c, in accordance with Ordering
Provision No. 3.e below. The written certification shall include detailed
supporting documentation including photographs, receipts, and/or other records
to demonstrate compliance.
e. Within 410 days after the effective date of this Order, submit written certification
of compliance with the permitted effluent limitations of TPDES Permit No.
WQ0014372001, including specific corrective actions that were implemented at
the Facility to achieve compliance and copies of the most current self -reported
DMRs, demonstrating at least three consecutive months of compliance with all
permitted effluent limitations, and include detailed supporting documentation
including photographs, receipts, and/or other records to demonstrate
compliance. The certification shall be signed by the Respondent and shall
include the following certification language:
"I certify under penalty of law that I have personally examined and
am familiar with the information submitted and all attached
documents, and that based on my inquiry of those individuals
immediately responsible for obtaining the information, I believe
that the submitted information is true, accurate and complete. I
am aware that there are significant penalties for submitting false
information, including the possibility of fines and imprisonment
for knowing violations."
The certification shall be submitted to:
Order Compliance Team
Enforcement Division, MC 149A
Texas Commission on Environmental Quality
P.O. Box 13o87
Austin, Texas 78711-3o87
with a copy to:
Water Section Manager
Dallas/Fort Worth Regional Office
Texas Commission on Environmental Quality
23o9 Gravel Drive
Fort Worth, Texas 76118-6951
4. All relief not expressly granted in this Order is denied.
City of Sanger
DOCKET NO. 2018-0273-MWD-E
Page 7
5. The duties and provisions imposed by this Order shall apply to and be binding upon the
Respondent. The.Respondent is ordered to give notice of this Order to personnel who
maintain day-to-day control over the Facility operations referenced in this Order.
6. If the Respondent fails to comply tidth any of the Ordering Provisions in this Order
within the prescribed schedules, and that failure is caused solely by an act of God, war,
strike, riot, or other catastrophe, the Respondent's failure to comply is not a violation of
this Order. The Respondent shall have the burden of establishing to the Executive
Director's satisfaction that such an event has occurred. The Respondent shall notif , the
Executive Director within seven days after the Respondent becomes aware of a delaying
event and shall take all reasonable measures to mitigate and minimize any delay.
7. The Executive Director may grant an extension of any deadline in this Order or in any
plan, report, or other document submitted pursuant to this Order, upon a written and
substantiated showing of good cause. All requests for extensions by the Respondent
shall be made in writing to the Executive Director. Extensions are not effective until the
Respondent receives written approval from the Executive Director. The determination
of what constitutes good cause rests solely with the Executive Director. Extension
requests shall be sent to the Order Compliance Team at the address listed above.
8. The Executive Director may, without further notice or hearing, refer this matter to the
Office of the Attorney General of the State of Texas ("OAG") for further enforcement
proceedings if the Executive Director determines that the Respondent has not complied
tidth one or more of the terms in this Order.
g. This Order shall terminate five years from its effective date or upon compliance with all
the terms and conditions set forth in this Order, whichever is later.
10. This Order, issued by the Commission, shall not be admissible against the Respondent in
a civil proceeding, unless the proceeding is brought by the OAG to: (1) enforce the terms
of this Order; or (2) pursue violations of a statute tidthin the Commission's jurisdiction,
or of a rule adopted or an order or permit issued by the Commission under such a
statute.
11. This Order may be executed in separate and multiple counterparts, which together shall
constitute a single instrument. Any page of this Order may be copied, scanned, digitized,
converted to electronic portable document format ("pdf'), or otherwise reproduced and
may be transmitted by digital or electronic transmission, including but not limited to
facsimile transmission and electronic mail. Any signature affixed to this Order shall
constitute an original signature for all purposes and may be used, filed, substituted, or
issued for any purpose for which an original signature could be used. The term
"signature" shall include manual signatures and true and accurate reproductions of
manual signatures created, executed, endorsed, adopted, or authorized by the person or
persons to whom the signatures are attributable. Signatures may be copied or
reproduced digitally, electronically, by photocopying, engraving, imprinting,
lithographing, electronic mail, facsimile transmission, stamping, or any other means or
process which the Executive Director deems acceptable. In this paragraph exclusively,
the terms: electronic transmission, owner, person, writing, and written, shall have the
meanings assigned to them under TEx. Bus. ORG. CODE § 1.002.
City of Sanger
DOCKET NO. 2o18-o273-MWD-E
Page 8
12. The effective date of this Order is the date it is signed by the Commission. A copy of this
fully executed Order shall be proNrided to each of the parties.
City of Sanger
DOCKET NO.2oi8-o273-MWD-E
Page 9
SIGNATURE PAGE
TEXAS COMMISSION ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
For the Commission
Date
For the Executive Director Date
I, the undersigned, have read and understand the attached Order. I am authorized to agree to
the attached Order, and I do agree to the terms and conditions specified therein. I further
acknowledge that the TCEQ, in accepting payment for the penalty amount, is materially relying
on such representation.
I also understand that failure to comply Arith the Ordering Provisions, if any, in this Order
and/or failure to timely pay the penalty amount, may result in:
• A negative impact on compliance history;
• Greater scrutiny of any permit applications submitted;
• Referral of this case to the Attorney General's Office for contempt, injunctive relief,
additional penalties, and/or attorney fees, or to a collection agency;
• Increased penalties in any future enforcement actions;
• Automatic referral to the Attorney General's Office of any future enforcement actions; and
• TCEQ seeking other relief as authorized by law.
In addition, any falsification of any compliance documents may result in criminal prosecution.
Signature
Date
Name (Printed or typed) Title
Authorized Representative of
City of Sanger
O If mailing address has changed, please check this box and provide the new address below:
Instructions: Send the original, signed Order with penalty payment to the Financial Administration Division,
Revenue Operations Section at the address in Ordering Provision 1 of this Order.
L;d Policy Revision 4
Penalty Calculation Worksheet (PCW)
PCW Revision March 26, 2014
D, ES Assigned 17-Jan-2018
PCW 24-Jun-2019 Screening 22-Jan-2018 EPA Due- —�._ _______„
RESPONDENT/FACILITY INFORMATION
Respondeni
Reg. Ent. Ref. No.
Facility/Site Regior
CASE INFORMATION
City of Sanger (PCW No 1)
RN103014155
4-Dallas/Fort Worth Major/Minor Source Minor
Enf./Case ID No. 55766 No. of Violations
Docket No. 2018-0273-MWD-E Order Type
Media Program(s) Water Quality Government/Non-Profit
Multi -Media Enf. Coordinator
EC's Team
Admin. Penalty $ Limit Minimum $0 Maximum $25,000
Penalty Calculation Section
TOTAL BASE PENALTY (Sum of violation base penalties)
ADJUSTMENTS (+/-) TO SUBTOTAL 1
Subtotals 2-7 are obtained by multiplying the Total Base Penalty (Subtotal 1) by the indicated percentage.
Compliance H
Notes
story 20.0% Adjustment Sub&
Enhancement for four months of self -reported effluent violations.
Culpability INO
00/o Enhancement
Notes) The Respondent does not meet the culpability criteria.
Good Faith Effort to Comply Total Adjustments
Economic Benefit
Total EB Amountsl $1 775 362
Estimated Cost of Compliance I t11,373,550
SUM OF SUBTOTALS 1-7
OTHER FACTORS AS JUSTICE MAY REQUIRE
Reduces or enhances the Final Subtotal by the indicated percentage.
Notes
STATUTORY LIMIT ADJUSTMENT
DEFERRAL
Reduces the Final Assessed
Notes
0.0% Enhancement*
*Capped at the Total EB $ Amount
0.0%
�nalty by the indicated percentage.
No deferral is recommended for Findings Orders.
2
Findings
Yes
Steven Van Landingham
Enforcement Team 3
Subtotal 1
ils 2, 3, & 71 $3,750
Subtotal 4 1 $01
Subtotal 5 $0
Subtotal 6 $0
Final Subtotal $22,500.
Adjustment
Final Penalty Amount $22,500
Final Assessed Penalty $22,500
Reduction Adjustment $0
PAYABLE PENALTY �— $22,500
Screening Date 22-Jan-2018 Docket No. 2018-0273 MWD-E
Respondent City of Sanger (PCW No. 1)
Case ID No. 55766
Reg. Ent. Reference No. RN103014155
Media [Statute] Water quality
Enf. Coordinator Steven Van Landingham
Compliance History Worksheet
>> Compliance History Site Enhancement (Subtotal 2)
Component Number of...
PCW
Policy Revision 4 (April 2014)
PCW Revision March 26, 2014
Written notices of violation ("NOVs") with same or similar violations as those in
NOVs
the current enforcement action (number of NOVs meeting criteria)
4
20%
Other written NOVs
0
0%
Any agreed final enforcement orders containing a denial of liability (number of
orders meeting criteria)
0
0%
Orders
Any adjudicated final enforcement orders, agreed final enforcement orders
without a denial of liability, or default orders of this state or the federal
0
0%
government, or any final prohibitory emergency orders issued by the commission
Any non -adjudicated final court judgments or consent decrees containing a denial
of liability of this state or the federal government (number of judgments or
0
0%
Judgments
consent decrees meeting criteria )
and Consent
Any adjudicated final court judgments and default judgments, or non -adjudicated
Decrees
final court judgments or consent decrees without a denial of liability, of this state
0
0%
or the federal government
Convictions
Any criminal convictions of this state or the federal government (number of
counts)
0
0%
Emissions
Chronic excessive emissions events (number of events)
0
0%
Letters notifying the executive director of an intended audit conducted under the
Texas Environmental, Health, and Safety Audit Privilege Act, 74th Legislature,
0
0%
1995 (number of audits for which notices were submitted)
Audits
Disclosures of violations under the Texas Environmental, Health, and Safety
Audit Privilege Act, 74th Legislature, 1995 (number of audits for which violations
0
0%
were disclosed)
Environmental management systems in place for one year or more
No
0%
Other
Voluntary on -site compliance assessments conducted by the executive director
under a special assistance program
No
0%
Participation in a voluntary pollution reduction program
No
0%
Early compliance with, or offer of a pr oduct that meets future
government environmental requirements
>> Repeat Violator (Subtotal 3)
No
>> Compliance History Person Classification (Subtotal 7)
Satisfactory Performer
» Compliance History Summary
Compliance
History
Notes
state or federal
No 0%
Adjustment Percentage (Subtotal 2) 20%
Adjustment Percentage (Subtotal 3) 0%
Adjustment Percentage (Subtotal 7) 0%
Total Compliance History Adjustment Percentage (Subtotals 2, 3, & 7) F 2o%
:» Final Compliance History Adjustment
_ Final Adjustment Percentage *capped at 100% 20%
Screening Date 22-Jan-2018 Docket No. 2018-0273-MWD-E
Respondent City of Sanger (PCW No. 1)
Case ID No. 55766
Reg. Ent. Reference No. RN103014155
Media [Statute] Water Quality
Enf. Coordinator Steven Van Landingham
Violation Number I 1 1
PCW
Policy Revision 4 (April 2014) s
PCW Revision March 26, 2014 it
Rule Cite(s) rpoo
Tex. Admin. Code § 305.125(1), Tex. Water Code § 26.121(a)(1), and Texas
llutant Discharge Elimination System ("TPDES") Permit No. WQ0014372001,
Interim Effluent Limitations and Monitoring Requirements No. 1
Violation Description ll Failed to comply with permitted effluent limitations, as shown in the attached
effluent violation table.
>> Environmental, Property and Human Health Matrix
Harm
Release Major Moderate Minor
OR Actual F— x
Potential E:
>>Programmatic Matrix
Falsification Major Moderate Minor
Matrix
Notes
Base Penalty $25,001
Percent F 5.0%
Percent 0.0%
A simplified model was used to evaluate carbonaceous biochemical oxygen demand (5-day).
Human health or the environment has been exposed to insignificant amounts of pollutants that
do not exceed levels that are protective of human health or environmental receptors as a result
of the violation.
Violation Events
Number of Violation Events
daily I
weekly I
monthly I
quarterly
semiannual
annual
single event
Adjustment—$23,750
FF-----1-2-3--Jl Number of violation days
Violation Base Penalty— $3,750
Three quarterly events are recommended for the months of October 2016 and June through
August2017.
Good Faith Efforts to Comply
0.0%
Before NOE/NOV NOE/NOV to EDPRP/Settlement Offer
Ordinar
N/
Notes ll The Respondent does not meet the good faith criteria
for this violation.
Reduction �— $0
Violation Subtotal— $3,7501
Economic Benefit (EB) for this violation Statutory Limit Test
Estimated EB Amount $1,775,362 Violation Final Penalty Total $4,500'
This violation Final Assessed Penalty (adjusted for limits) $4,500
Economic Benefit Worksheet
Respondent City of Sanger (PCW No. 1)
Case ID No. 55766
Reg. Ent. Reference No. RN103014155
Media Water Quality Percent Interest Years of
Violation No. 1 Depreciation ;
5.01 15
Item Cost Date Required Final Date Yrs Interest Saved Costs Saved EB Amount
Item Description
Delayed Costs
Equipment
Buildings
Other (as needed)
Engineering/Construction
Land
Record Keeping System
Training/Sampling
Remediation/Disposal
Permit Costs
Other (as needed)
Notes for DELAYED costs
Avoided Costs
Disposal
Personnel
Inspection/Reporting/Sampling
Supplies/Equipment
Financial Assurance
ONE-TIME avoided costs
Other (as needed)
Notes for AVOIDED costs
225 000
31-Octct-201
20-Au -2019E—:2i—.23
$2 102
$42 041
$44 143
��—Il—
0
0
0
1
$0
$0
$0
11 000 000
31-0 -201
24- an-201
81 872
1 637443
1 719 315
F
0
n a
0
0
n .a
0
n a
0
n a
��14
31-Oct-2016 1
8- un-2018
1l 904
n a
Estimated Equipment cost to purchase and install three displacement blowers at the Facility. T
Required is the initial date of noncompliance and the Final Date is the estimated date of compliance.
Estimated Engineer/Construction cost to install a new rotary sludge press, two new clarifiers, a new bar
screen, a new pump station, a raw water station, an aeration basin, turbo blowers, and an ultraviolet
disinfectant system at the Facility. The Date Required is the initial date of noncompliance and the Final
Date is the compliance date.
Actual other cost to drain and reseed Plant No. 3, build a laboratory room to begin in-house sample
testing, install new chlorine roto-meters, and mark manholes to identify tampering. The Date Required is
the initial date of noncompliance and the Final Date is the date actions were completed.
ANNUALIZE avoided costs btering item (except for one-time avoided costs
Approx. Cost of Compliance $11,373,550
TOTALI $1,775,362
_ .. _ ----------- ------ --- --- ------- --------
Screening Date 22-7an-2018
Respondent City of Sanger (PCW No. 1)
Case ID No. 55766
Reg. Ent. Reference No. RN103014155
Media [Statute] Water Quality
Enf. Coordinator Steven Van Landingham
Violation Number11_---
Docket No. 2018-0273-MWD-E
PCW
Policy Revision 4 (April 2014) i
PCW Revision Plarch 26, 2014
Rule Cite(s) 30 Tex. Admin. Code § 305.125(1), Tex. Water Code § 26.121(a)(1), and TPDES
Permit No. WQ0014372001, Interim Effluent Limitations and Monitoring
Violation Description
Requirements Nos. 1, 2, and 6.
Failed to comply with permitted effluent limitations, as shown in the attached
effluent violation table.
Base —Pen=alty11 $25,000
>> Environmental, Property and Human Health Matrix
Harm
Release Major Moderate Minor
OR Actualx ---I��--�
Potential l--�=:::=��
>>Programmatic Matrix
Falsification Major Moderate Minor
Matrix
Notes
Percent 30.0%
i
Percent 0.0%
A simplified model was used to evaluate carbonaceous biochemical oxygen demand (5-day) and
ammonia nitrogen. Total suspended solids, total residual chlorine, dissolved oxygen, and
Escherichia coli were also considered. Human health or the environment has been exposed to
pollutants which exceed levels that are protective of human health or environmental receptors as
a result of the violation.
Violation Events
Number of Violation Events
daily
weekly
monthly
quarterly
semiannual
annual ��
single event
Adjustment $17, 000
500
11 61 Number of violation days
Violation Base Penalty— $15,0001
Two monthly events are recommended for the months of September and October 2017.
Good Faith Efforts to Comply
Extraordinar
Ordinar
N/
Reduction $0
Before NOE/NOV NOE/NOV to EDPRP/Settlement Offer
Respondent does not meet the good faith criteria
this violation.
Violation Subtotal $15,000.
Economic Benefit (EB) for this violation Statutory Limit Test
Estimated EB Amount — $0 Violation Final Penalty Totall $18,0001.
This violation Final Assessed Penalty (adjusted for limits)(— $18,000�
Economic Benefit Worksheet
Respondent City of Sanger (PCW No. 1)
Case ID No. 55766
Reg. Ent. Reference No. RN103014155
Media Water Quality percent Interest Years of
Violation No. 2 Depreciation
5.01 15
Item Cost Date Required Final Date Yrs Interest Saved Costs Saved EB Amount
Item Description
Delayed Costs
Equipment
Buildings
Other (as needed)
Engineering/Construction
Land
Record Keeping System
Training/Sampling
Remediation/ Disposal
Permit Costs
Other (as needed)
Notes for DELAYED costs
Avoided Costs
Disposal
Personnel
Inspection/ Reporting /Sampling
Supplies/Equipment
Financial Assurance
ONE-TIME avoided costs
Other (as needed)
Notes for AVOIDED costs
IBM 1
�•���
�•�
Economic Benefit included in ViolationNo.
M11111UAL dVuiu Cu cuscs nF±rnrO Pnrorinn IrPm raYranr rnr nnarima --mGfY /'net&i
Approx. Cost of Complh5nce $0
TOTAL $0
City of Sanger
Docket No. 2018-0273-MWD-E
PCW No.1 Effluent Violation Table
Dischar e Monitoring Reports
CBOD (5-day)
Ammonia Nitrogen
TSS
Daily
Daily
Daily Avg.
Daily Avg.
Daily
Daily
Daily
Daily
Daily
Avg.
Max.
Loading
Cone.
Max.
Avg.
Avg.
Max.
Avg.
Cone.
Cone.
Cone.
Loading
Cone.
Cone.
Loading
Limit =
Limit =
Limit =
Limit =
Limit =
Month/
Limit =
Limit =
Limit =
Limit =
10
16
15
40
123
Year
10 mg/L
25 mg/L
82 lbs/day
2 mg/L
m L
ibs day
m L
m L
lbs da
10 2016
13.35
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
6 2017
12.2
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
7 2017
14.7
c
86.12
c
c
c
c
c
c
8 2017
10.7
27.3
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
9 2017
35.3
101
172.9
8.28
29.6
40.66
34.5
67
164.6
Grab Samples
CBOD
Total
Ammonia
coli
DO
(5-day)
Chlorine
Nitrogen
Single
Single
Single
Daily
Single
Grab
Grab
Grab
Max.
Grab
Min.
Limit =
Min.
Date
Limit =
Limit
Limit =
CFU
390o
Limit =
35 mg/L
=1.
15 mg/L
mL/
m .0L
mg/L
27 17
126
0.0
34
1 n a
c
10
n
na
na
>_4,,840
1.31
17
1E]n
na
na
a
292,00o
na7
10 117
124
ri a
8.2
2419607
2.7
Avg. = Average
c = compliant
CBOD (5-day) = Carbonaceous Biochemical Oxygen Demand (5-day)
CFU/1oo mL = colony forming units per too milliliters
Cone. = Concentration
DO = Dissolved Oxygen
E. coli = Escherichia coli
lbs/day = pounds per day
Max. = Maximum
mg/L = milligrams per liter
Min. = Minimum
n/a = not applicable
Penalty Calculation Worksheet (PCW)
'"
'O Policy Revision 4 (April 2014) PCW Revision March 26, 2014
C�
D. _ cS Assigned 17-Ma -2018
PCW 24-7un-2019 Screening 18-May-2018 EPA Due--1__________,..
RESPONDENT/FACILITY INFORMATION
Respondent Cit of San er PCW No. 2
Reg. Ent. Ref. No. RN103014155
Facility/Site Region 4-Dallas/Fort Worth Major/Minor Source Minor
CASE INFORMATION
Enf./Case ID No. 55766 No. of Violations
Docket No. 2018-0273-MWD-E Order Type
Media Programs) Water Quality Government/Non-Profit
Multi -Media Enf. Coordinator
EC's Team
2
Findings
Yes
Steven Van Landingham
Enforcement Team 3
Admin. Penalty $ Limit Minimum $0 Maximum $25,000_.__.__-------- __..__.__.____.___._..._.._.__._.___.___....._...______._._
Penalty Calculation Section
TOTAL BASE PENALTY (Sum of violation base penalties)
ADJUSTMENTS (+/-) TO SUBTOTAL 1
Subtotals 2-7 are obtained by multiplying the Total Base Penalty (Subtotal 1) by the indicated percentage.
Compliance Hi
Notes
Culpability
Notes
:tort' 20.0% Adjustment Supro
Enhancement for four months of self -reported effluent violations.
No o 1 0.00/0 Enhancement
The Respondent does not meet the culpability criteria.
Good Faith Effort to Comply Total Adjustments
Economic Benefit
Total EB Amounts 55 995
Estimated Cost of Compliance 5100 500
SUM OF SUBTOTALS 1-7
OTHER FACTORS AS JUSTICE MAY REQUIRE
Reduces or enhances the Final Subtotal by the indicated percentage.
Notes
STATUTORY LIMIT ADJUSTMENT
DEFERRAL
Reduces the Final Assessed PE
Notes
0.0% Enhancement*
*Capped at the Total EB $ Amount
Subtotal 1 �— $24,750
als 2, 3, & 71 $4,950
Subtotal 4 $0i
Subtotal 51 $0
Subtotal 61 $0
Final Subtotal �— $29,700
0.00/0Adjustment
Final Penalty Amount �— $29,700
Final Assessed Penalty �— $29,700
0.03//.0Reduction Adjustment 1 $0
-ialty by the indicated percentage
No deferral is recommended for Findings Orders.
PAYABLE PENALTY _ _........_�— $29,7001
Screening Date 18-May-2018 Docket No. 2018-0273-MWD-E
Respondent City of Sanger (PCW No. 2)
Case ID No. 55766
Reg. Ent. Reference No. kN103014155
Media [Statute] Water quality
Enf. Coordinator Steven Van Landingham
Compliance History Worksheet
>> Compliance History Site Enhancement (Subtotal 2)
Component Number of...
PCW
Policy Revision 4 (April 2014)
PCW Revision March 26, 2014
NOVs
Written notices of violation ("NOVs") with same or similar violations as those in
the current enforcement action (number of NOVs meeting criteria )
4
20%
Other written NOVs
0
0%
Any agreed final enforcement orders containing a denial of liability (number of
orders meeting criteria )
0
0%
Orders
Any adjudicated final enforcement orders, agreed final enforcement orders
without a denial of liability, or default orders of this state or the federal
government, or any final prohibitory emergency orders issued by the commission
0
0%
Any non -adjudicated final court judgments or consent decrees containing a denial
Judgments
and Consent
Decrees
of liability of this state or the federal government (number of judgments or
consent decrees meeting criteria )
0
0%
Any adjudicated final court judgments and default judgments, or non -adjudicated
final court judgments or consent decrees without a denial of liability, of this state
0
0%
or the federal government
Convictions
Any criminal convictions of this state or the federal government (number of
counts)
0
0%
Emissions
Chronic excessive emissions events (number of events)
0
0%
Letters notifying the executive director of an intended audit conducted under the
Texas Environmental, Health, and Safety Audit Privilege Act, 74th Legislature,
0
0%
Audits
1995 (number of audits for which notices were submitted)
Disclosures of violations under the Texas Environmental, Health, and Safety
Audit Privilege Act, 74th Legislature, 1995 (number of audits for which violations
0
0%
were disclosed)
Environmental management systems in place for one year or more
No
0%
Voluntary on -site compliance assessments conducted by the executive director
Other
under a special assistance program
No
0%
Participation in a voluntary pollution reduction program
No
0%
Early compliance with, or offer of a product that meets future state or federal
government environmental requirements
No
0°/
o
Adjustment Percentage (Subtotal 2) 20%
>> Repeat Violator (Subtotal 3)
No
>> Compliance History Person Classification (Subtotal 7)
Satisfactory Performer
>> Compliance History Summary
Compliance
History Enhancement for four months of self -reported effluent violations.
Notes
Total Compliance History Adjustment Percentage (Subtotals 2, 3, & 7) 20%
» Final Compliance History Adjustment
_..._..... __.__..._.._.._........_._..._ ......... __...___ .._.__._._. __.�...._.__. _.. _._._ _Final Adjustment Percentage *capped at I00% 20%
Adjustment Percentage (Subtotal 3) 0%
Adjustment Percentage (Subtotal 7) 0%
- - - -----...--- ----- --- -- -_
Screening Date 18-May-2018 Docket No. 2018-0273-MWD-E PCW
Respondent City of Sanger (PCW No. 2) Policy Revision a (April 2014) `.
Case ID No. 55766 PCW Revision i4arch 26, 2014
Reg. Ent. Reference No. RN103014155
Media [Statute] Water Quality
Enf. Coordinator Steven Van Landingham
Violation Number
Rule Cite(s) 30 Tex. Admin. Code § 305.125(1) and (5), Tex. Water Code § 26.121(a)(1), and
Texas Pollutant Discharge Elimination System ("TPDES") Permit No.
WQ0014372001, Operational Requirements No. 1
Failed to ensure the Facility and all of its systems of collection, treatment, and
disposal are properly operated and maintained. Specifically, Plant No. 2 had
excessive foam in the aeration basin, the clarifier weirs had an accumulation of
sludge which was blocking even flow over the weir and sludge was present in the
Violation Description clarifier effluent trough; the mixed liquor in Plant No. Ts aeration basin was black
In color, and the clarifier did not appear to be settling out sludge as the clarifier
effluent was cloudy and grey; Plant No. 4 had floating solids in the aeration basin
and along the clarifier weirs which blocked flow, and the effluent weir box
appeared turbid and grey. Additionally, excess solids in other than trace amounts
discharged via Outfall No. 001 into the receiving stream to Paddock Lake.
Base Penalty[$25,000
>> Environmental, Property and Human Health Matrix
Harm
Release Major Moderate Minor
OR Actual
Potential ���Percent 15.0%
>>Programmatic Matrix
Falsification Major Moderate Minor
Percent 0.0%
Matrix
Notes
Human health or the environment has been exposed to significant amounts of pollutants which
do not exceed levels that are protective of human health or environmental receptors as a result
of the violation.
Violation Events
Number of Violation Events
daily I
weekly I
monthly
quarterly
semiannual
annual
single event
Adjustment[ $21,250
$3,750
11 57 Number of violation days
Violation Base Penalty $22,500
Six monthly events are recommended (two monthly events for each Plant) from the March 22,
2018 investigation to the May 18, 2018 screening date.
Good.Faith Efforts to Comply o.o% Reduction- $o
Before NOE/NOV NOE/NOV to EDPRP/Settlement Offer
(I The Respondent does not meet the good faith criteria II
for this violation.
Violation Subtotal($22,500
Economic Benefit (EB) for this violation Statutory Limit Test
Estimated EB Amount( $5,973 Violation Final Penalty Total $27,000
This violation Final Assessed Penalty (adjusted for limits) $27,000
-- - - -- - - -_ - _
Economic Benefit Worksheet
Respondent City of Sanger (PCW No. 2)
Case ID No. 55766
Reg. Ent. Reference No. RN103014155
Media Water Quality Years of
Violation No. 1 Percent Interest Depreciation
5.01 15
Item Cost Date Required Final Date Yrs Interest Saved Costs Saved EB Amount
Item Description
Delayed Costs
Equipment
Buildings
Other (as needed)
Engineering/Construction
Land
Record Keeping System
Training/Sampling
Remediation/ Disposal
Permit Costs
Other (as needed)
Notes for DELAYED costs
Avoided Costs
Disposal
Personnel
Inspection/ Reporting/Sampling
Supplies/Equipment
Financial Assurance
ONE-TIME avoided costs
Other (as needed)
Notes for AVOIDED costs
�I---
11
0.00
so
0
$0
C—
0.00
0
$0
$0
0.00
0
$0
$0
0.00
0
$0
$0
0
0.00
0
n a
0
--1
0.00
$0
n a
0
$100.000 —I1
$0
n a
0
22-Ma— r-2�
1- un-2 1
1.19
$5 973
n a
$5 973
0.00
0
n a
0
�(-10
0.00
tn
I n a
0
Economic Benefit included in PCW No. 1 Violation No. 1.
Estimated Remediation/Disposal cost to request and obtain permission from private property owners and
remediate the receiving stream as far downstream as the spillway for Paddock Lake, to include the
removal of all sludge. The Date Required is the second investigation date and the Final Date is the
estimated date of compliance.
ANNUALIZE avoided costs before entering item (except for one-time avoided costs
Approx. Cost of Compliance $100,000
TOTALI $5,973
Screening Date 18-May-2018
Respondent City of Sanger (PCW No. 2)
Case ID No. 55766
Reg. Ent. Reference No. RN103014155
Media [Statute] Water Quality
Enf. Coordinator Steven Van Landingham
Violation Number ll
Docket No. 2018-0273-MWD-E PCW
Policy Revision 4 (April 2014)
PCW Revision March 26, 2014
Rule Cite(s) I
30 Tex. Admin. Code § 305.125(1) and (5) and TPDES Permit No. WQ00143
Operational Requirements No. 1
1
Failed to ensure the Facility and all of its systems of collection, treatment, and
I
disposal are properly operated and maintained. Specifically, the bar screen area
Violation Description had an accumulation of screenings on the step screen, the manual bar screen, and
on the grates. Also the screenings container was uncovered and the staff gauge
was illegible.
>> Environmental, Property and Human Health Matrix
Harm
Release Major Moderate Minor
OR Actual
Potential iJEZ:�J0
>>Programmatic Matrix
Falsification Major Moderate Minor
Matrix
Notes
Base Penalty$25,000
Percent 3.0%
Percent
Human health or the environment will or could be exposed to insignificant amounts of pollutants
that would not exceed levels that are protective of human health or environmental receptors as a
result of the violation.
Violation Events
Number of Violation Events 0
daily
weekly
monthly
quarterly 0
semiannual
annual
single event ��
Adjustment $24,250
57 Number of violation days
Three single events are recommended.
I
Violation Base Penalty$2,250
Good Faith Efforts to Comply o.o% Reduction $0.
Before NOE/NOV NOE/NOV to EDPRP/Settlement Offer
Extraordinary
Ordinary
N/A x
Notes The Respondent does not meet the good faith criteria for
this violation.
Violation Subtotal $2,250j
Economic Benefit (EB) for this violation Statutory Limit Test
Estimated EB Amount $22 Violation Final Penalty Total $2,700
This violation Final Assessed Penalty (adjusted for limits) (-- $2,700
Economic Benefit Worksheet
Respondent City of Sanger (PCW No. 2)
Case ID No. 55766
Reg. Ent. Reference No. RN103014155
Media Water Quality Years of
Violation No. 2 Percent Interest Depreciation
5.01 .. 15•.
Item Cost Date Required Final Date Yrs Interest Saved Costs Saved EB Amount
Item Description
Delayed Costs
Equipment
Buildings
Other (as needed)
Engineering/ Construction
Land
Record Keeping System
Training/Sampling
Remediation/ Disposal
Permit Costs
Other (as needed)
Notes for DELAYED costs
Avoided Costs
Disposal
Personnel
Inspection/Reporting/Sampling
Supplies/Equipment
Financial Assurance
ONE-TIME avoided costs
Other (as needed)
Notes for AVOIDED costs
22-M r-2018 1L24-_Jan-2_219J
0.84
0
4
$4
[�1
1
0.00
0
$0
$0
1
0.00
0
0
$0
—JF_
0.00
0
0
$0
0.00
0
n a
$0
0.00
0
n a
$0
0.00
0
n a
0
40
22-M r-2 1
24- an-2 1
17
n a
17
ff
$0
n a
0
25
22-Mar-201
15-Feb-2019
1
1 n a
ti
Estimated Equipment cost to replace the staff gauge. The Date Required is the second investigation date
and the Final Date is the compliance date.
Estimated Remediation/Disposal cost to remove screenings from the bar screen area, including the step
screen, the manual bar screen, and on the grates. The Date Required is the second investigation date and
the Final Date is the compliance date.
Estimated cost to cover the screenings container. The Date Required is the second investigation date and
the Final Date is the estimated date of compliance.
ANNUAL14t avoinea costs ne-tnrP. P.nrAr(nn item (aYrant tnr nna-time avniriari rnctc\
Approx. Cost of Compliance $5001 TOTAL $22
Penalty Calculation Worksheet (PCW)
cv Revision 4 (April 2014) PCW Revision March 26, 2014
DH1 ES Assigned 17-Ma -2018
PCW 24-3un-2019 Screening 18-MaY-2018� EPA Due_ _._..__ ... _..... _ ....... .
RESPONDENT/FACILITY INFORMATION
Respondent Cit of San er PCW No. 3
Reg. Ent. Ref. No. RN103014155
Facility/Site Region 4-Dallas/Fort Worth Major/Minor Source Minor
CASE INFORMATION
Enf./Case ID No. 55766 No. of Violations
Docket No. 2018-0273-MWD-E Order Type
Media Program(s) Water Quality Government/Non-Profit
Multi -Media Enf. Coordinator
EC's Team
Admin. Penalty $ Limit Minimum $0 Maximum _[ $25,000
Penalty Calculation Section
TOTAL BASE PENALTY (Sum of violation base penalties)
ADJUSTMENTS (+/-) TO SUBTOTAL 1
Subtotals 2-7 are obtained by multiplying the Total Base Penalty (Subtotal 1) by the indicated percentage.
Compliance
Nob
listory 20.0% Adjustment Subtc
s Enhancement for four months of self -reported effluent violations.
Culpability No 0.0% Enhancement
Not:i=_'s The Respondent does not meet the culpability criteria.
Good Faith Effort to Comply Total Adjustments
1 _
Findings _
Yes
Steven Van Landingham
Enforcement Team 3
Subtotal 1 $5,000
`als 2, 3, & 71 $1,000
Subtotal 41 $0
Subtotal 5 $0
Economic Benefit 0.0% Enhancement* Subtotal 61 $01
Total EB Amounts 521 *Capped at the Total EB $ Amount
Estimated Cost of Compliance 5275
SUM OF SUBTOTALS 1-7 Final Subtotal 1 $6,000
OTHER FACTORS AS JUSTICE MAY REQUIRE 0.00/1Adjustment s--�
Reduces or enhances the Final Subtotal by the indicated percentage.
Notes
STATUTORY LIMIT ADJUSTMENT
DEFERRAL
2educes the Final Assessed
Notes
Final Penalty Amount �6 000
�
Final Assessed Penalty $6,000
�0_0% Reduction Adjustment $0
°nalty by the indicated percentage.
No deferral is recommended for Findings Orders.
PAYABLE PENALTY $6,0001
Screening Date 18-May-2018 Docket No. 2018-0273-MWD-E
Respondent city of Sanger (PCW No. 3)
Case ID No. 55766
Reg. Ent. Reference No. RN103014155
Media [Statute] Water Quality
Enf. Coordinator Steven Van Landingham
Compliance History Worksheet
>> Compliance History Site Enhancement (Subtotal 2)
['mmnnnanf Nnmhar nf___
PCW
Policy Revision 4 (April 2014)
PCW Revision March 26, 2014
Numhor Adiuct
Written notices of violation ("NOVs") with same or similar violations as those in
NOVs
the current enforcement action (number of NOVs meeting criteria)
4
20%
Other written NOVs
0
0%
Any agreed final enforcement orders containing a denial of liability (number of
orders meeting criteria )
0
0%
Any adjudicated final enforcement orders, agreed final enforcement orders
Orders
without a denial of liability, or default orders of this state or the federal
0
0%
government, or any final prohibitory emergency orders issued by the commission
Any non -adjudicated final court judgments or consent decrees containing a denial
of liability of this state or the federal government (number of judgments or
0
0%
Judgments
consent decrees meeting criteria )
and Consent
Decrees
Any adjudicated final court judgments and default judgments, or non -adjudicated
final court judgments or consent decrees without a denial of liability, of this state
0
0%
or the federal government
Convictions
Any criminal convictions of this state or the federal government (number of
0
0%
counts)
Emissions
Chronic excessive emissions events (number of events)
0
0%
Letters notifying the executive director of an intended audit conducted under the
Texas Environmental, Health, and Safety Audit Privilege Act, 74th Legislature,
0
0%
Audits
1995 (number of audits for which notices were submitted)
Disclosures of violations under the Texas Environmental, Health, and Safety
Audit Privilege Act, 74th Legislature, 1995 (number of audits for which violations
0
0%
were disclosed)
Environmental management systems in place for one year or more
No
0%
Voluntary on -site compliance assessments conducted by the executive director
No
0%
Other
under a special assistance program
Participation in a voluntary pollution reduction program
No
0%
Early compliance with, or offer of a product that meets future state or federal
No
0%
government environmental requirements
>> Repeat Violator (Subtotal 3)
No�
» Compliance History Person Classification (Subtotal 7)
Satisfactory Performer
>> Compliance History Summary
Compliance
History
Notes
Adjustment Percentage (Subtotal 2) 20%
Adjustment Percentage (Subtotal 3) 0%
Adjustment Percentage (Subtotal 7) 0%
Enhancement for four months of self -reported effluent violations.
Total Compliance History Adjustment Percentage (Subtotals 2, 3, & 7) F 20%
» Final Compliance History Adjustment
._..Final Adjustment Percentage *capped at 100% 20%
Screening Date 18-May-2018 Docket No. 2018-0273-MWD-E PCW
Respondent City of Sanger (PCW No. 3) Policy Revision 4 (April 2014)�i
Case ID No. 55766 PCW Revision Plarch 26, 2014
Reg. Ent. Reference No. RN103014155
Media [Statute] water quality
Enf. Coordinator Steven Van Landingham
Violation Number0
Rule Cite(s) 30 Tex. Admin. Code §§ 305.125(1) and (17) and 319.7(d), and Texas Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System Permit No, WQ0014372001, Monitoring and
Reporting Requirements No. 1.
Failed to timely submit monitoring results at intervals specified in the permit.
Violation Description Specifically, the discharge monitoring reports ("DMRs") for October 2016 through
August 2017 were not submitted by the 20th day of the following month.
>> Environmental, Property and Human Health Matrix
Harm
Release Major Moderate Minor
OR Actual
Potential 0�0
>>Programmatic Matrix
Falsification Major Moderate Minor
Matrix
Notes
Violation Events
Base Penalty[-- $25,000
i
i
Percent 0.0%
Percent F 1.0%
Less than 30% of the rule requirements were not met.
Number of Violation Events ii
daily I
weekly
monthly
quarterly
semiannual
annual
single event
Adjustment $24,750
�— $250
304 Number of violation days
Violation Base Penalty
Eleven single events are recommended for the months of October 2016 through August 2017.
Good Faith Efforts to Comply F o.o°i° Reduction �— $01
Before NOE/NOV NOE/NOV to EMP/Settlement Offer
Extraordinary ��—
Ordinary
N/A
Notes The Respondent does not meet the good faith criteria
for this violation.
i
Violation Subtotal $2,7501
Economic Benefit (EB) for this violation Statutory Limit Test
Estimated EB Amount $211 Violation Final Penalty Total $3,3001
This violation Final Assessed Penalty (adjusted for limits) $3,300]
Economic Benefit Worksheet
Respondent City of Sanger (PCW No. 3)
-' Case ID No. 55766
Reg. Ent. Reference No. RN103014155
Media Water Quality Years of
Violation No. 1 Percent Interest Depreciation
Item Description
Delayed Costs
Equipment
Buildings
Other (as needed)
Engineering/Construction
Land
Record Keeping System
Training
Re mediation/Disposal
Permit Costs
Other (as needed)
Notes for DELAYED costs
Avoided Costs
Disposal
Personnel
Inspection/ Reporting/Sampling
Supplies/Equipment
Financial Assurance
ONE-TIME avoided costs
Other (as needed)
Notes for AVOIDED costs
5.01 15:
Item Cost Date Required Final Date Yrs Interest Saved Costs Saved EB Amount
�1
10
0.00
0
0
$0
0.00
0
0
$0
0.00
0
$0
$0
0.00
0
0
$0
0.00
0
n a
0
--��-I
0.00
0
n a
0
0
n a
0
0
n a
0
n15
0
n a
$0
275
( 20-Nov-2016
7- un-2018
21
1 n a
21
Estimated cost to prepare and submit the DMRs for October 2016 through August 2017 ($25 per report x
11 months). The Date Required is the date the initial missing DMR was due and the Final Date is the date
the DMRs were submitted.
ANNUALIZE avoided costs before enterina item fexcent for nne-time avoided costs)
Approx. Cost of Compliance $275 TOTAL $21
Penalty Calculation Worksheet (PCW)
Revision 4 (April 2014
DH i"ES Assigned 1-Oct2018
PCW 8-Jul-2019 Screening 10-Oct-2018 EPA Duel
RESPONDENT/FACILITY INFORMATION
Respondent City of Sanger PCW No. 4
Reg. Ent. Ref. No. RN103014155
Facility/Site Region 4-Dallas/Fort Worth Major/Minor Source Minor
CASE INFORMATION
Enf./Case ID No. 55766 No. of Violations
Docket No. 2018-0273-MWD-E Order Type
Media Program(s) Water Quality Government/Non-Profit
Multi -Media Enf. Coordinator
EC's Team
PCW Revision March 26, 2014
3 _
Findings_ _
Yes
Steven Van Landingham
Enforcement Team 3
Admin. Penalty $ Limit Minimum $0 Maximum $25,000
Penalty Calculation Section
TOTAL BASE PENALTY (Sum of violation base penalties)
ADJUSTMENTS (+/-) TO SUBTOTAL 1
Subtotals 2-7 are obtained by multiplying the Total Base Penalty (Subtotal 1) by the indicated percentage.
Compliance H
Notes
>tory 20.0% Adjustment SubtC
Enhancement for four months of self -reported effluent violations.
Culpability No 0.0% Enhancement
Notes The Respondent does not meet the culpability criteria.
Good Faith Effort to Comply Total Adjustments
Subtotal11 $5,2501
als 2, 3, & 71 $1,050
Subtotal 4 �— $0
Subtotal 51 $0
Economic Benefit 0.0% Enhancement* Subtotal 6 1 $01
Total EB Amounts $74 *Capped at the Total EB $ Amount
Estimated Cost of Compliance 5955
SUM OF SUBTOTALS 1-7 Final Subtotal �— $6,300
OTHER FACTORS AS JUSTICE MAY REQUIRE o.0% Adjustments— $0
Reduces or enhances the Final Subtotal by the indicated percentage.
Notes
STATUTORY LIMIT ADJUSTMENT
DEFERRAL
Reduces the Final Assessed
Notes
Final Penalty Amount $6,300
Final Assessed Penalty—$6,300
�— 0.00%Reduction Adjustment $0
enalty by the indicated percentage.
No deferral is recommended for Findings Orders.
PAYABLE PENALTY —$6,3 00
-------- - ----------------
Screening Date 10-Oct-2018 Docket No. 2018-0273-MWD-E
Respondent City of Sanger (PCW No. 4)
Case ID No. 55766
Reg. Ent. Reference No. RN103014155
Media [Statute] Water Quality
Enf. Coordinator Steven Van Landingham
Compliance History Worksheet
>> Compliance History Site Enhancement (Subtotal 2)
CmmnnnPnt Niimhar of--_
PCW
Policy Revision 4 (April 2014) '.
PCW Revision March 26, 2014
KhimhPr adinat.
Written notices of violation ("NOVs") with same or similar violations as those in
NOVs
the current enforcement action (number of NOVs meeting criteria )
4
20%
Other written NOVs
0
0%
Any agreed final enforcement orders containing a denial of liability (number of
orders meeting criteria )
0
0%
Any adjudicated final enforcement orders, agreed final enforcement orders
Orders
without a denial of liability, or default orders of this state or the federal
0
0%
government, or any final prohibitory emergency orders issued by the commission
Any non -adjudicated final court judgments or consent decrees containing a denial
of liability of this state or the federal government (number of judgments or
0
0%
Judgments
consent decrees meeting criteria)
and Consent
Decrees
Any adjudicated final court judgments and default judgments, or non -adjudicated
final court judgments or consent decrees without a denial of liability, of this state
0
0%
or the federal government
Convictions
Any criminal convictions of this state or the federal government (number of
0
0%
counts)
Emissions
Chronic excessive emissions events (number of events)
0
0%
Letters notifying the executive director of an intended audit conducted under the
Texas Environmental, Health, and Safety Audit Privilege Act, 74th Legislature,
0
0%
Audits
1995 (number of audits for which notices were submitted)
Disclosures of violations under the Texas Environmental, Health, and Safety
Audit Privilege Act, 74th Legislature, 1995 (number of audits for which violations
0
0%
were disclosed)
Environmental management systems in place for one year or more
No
0%
Voluntary on -site compliance assessments conducted by the executive director
No
0%
Other
under a special assistance program
Participation in a voluntary pollution reduction program
No
0%
Early compliance with, or offer of a product that meets future state or federal
>> Repeat Violator (Subtotal 3)
No
'>> Compliance History Person Classification (Subtotal 7)
Satisfactory Performer
>> Compliance History Summary
Compliance
History
Notes
No 0%
Adjustment Percentage (Subtotal 7) 0%
Enhancement for four Months of self -reported effluent violations.
Total Compliance History Adjustment Percentage (Subtotals 2, 3, & 7) 20%
> Final Compliance History Adjustment
Final Adjustment Percentage *capped at 100% 20%
Screening Date 10-Oct-2018 Docket No. 2018-0273-MWD-E
Respondent City of Sanger (PCW No. 4)
Case ID No. 55766
Reg. Ent. Reference No. RN103014155
Media [Statute] Water Quality
Enf. Coordinator Steven Van Landingham
Violation Numbe
Rule Cite(s
Violation Descriptiof
PCW
Policy Revision 4 (April 2014)
PCW Revision Alarch 26, 2014
30 Tex. Admin. Code § 305.125(1) and Texas Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System ("TPDES") Permit No. WQ0014372001, Monitoring and Reporting
Requirements No. 7.c.
Failed to report to the TCEQ in writing, any effluent violation which deviates from
the permitted effluent limitation by more than 40% within five working days of
becoming aware of noncompliance. Specifically, the Respondent exceeded the
permit limitation for the daily average concentration of carbonaceous biochemical
)xygen demand (5-day) in July 2017 by greater than 40% and it was not reported
to the TCEQ.
>> Environmental, Property and Human Health Matrix
Harm
Release Major Moderate Minor
OR Actual �0
Potential
>>Programmatic Matrix
Falsification Major Moderate Minor
OOC===��
Matrix
Notes
Violation Events
Base Penalty[-- $25,000
Percent 0.0%
Percent 5.0%
100% of the rule requirements were not met.
Number of Violation Events ==
daily
weekly
monthly 0
quarterly
semiannual
annual
single event 0
Good Faith Efforts to Comply
Extraordinar
Ordinar
N/
Adjustment $23,750
$1,250
411 Number of violation days
One single event is recommended.
0.0%
Before NOE/NOV
Violation Base Penalty $1,250
to EDPRP/Settlement Offer
The Respondent does not meet the good faith criteria
for this violation.
Economic Benefit (EB) for this violation
Reduction $0
Violation Subtotal(-- $1,250
Statutory Limit•Test
Estimated EB Amount $ 3 1Violation Final Penalty Total $1,500
This violation Final Assessed Penalty (adjusted for limits) r— $1,500
Economic Benefit Worksheet
Respondent City of Sanger (PCW No. 4)
Case ID No. 55766
teg. Ent. Reference No. RN103014155
Media Water Quality Years of
Violation No. i Percent Interest Depreciation
5.01 15!
Item Cost Date Required Final Date Yrs Interest Saved Costs Saved EB Amount
Item Description
Delayed Costs
Equipment
Buildings
Other (as needed)
Engineering/Construction
Land
Record Keeping System
Training/Sampling
Remediation/ Disposal
Permit Costs
Other (as needed)
Notes for DELAYED costs
Avoided Costs
Disposal
Personnel
Inspection/ Reporting/Sampling
Supplies/Equipment
Financial Assurance
ONE-TIME avoided costs
Other (as needed)
Notes for AVOIDED costs
ANNUALIZE avoided costs betore enterma item (excent for one-time avoided costs)
0.00
0
$0
$0
0 0
0.00
$0
$0
$0
0
0.00
$0
$0
$0
0.00
0
$0
$0
0 0
0.00
$0
0
$0
25-Auo-2017-1 10-Oc-2018
1.13
$0
$5
$5
251 25-Au -2017 10- ct-2018
1.13
1
25
26
Estimated avoided cost to notify the TCEQ orally of an unauthorized discharge ($5). The Date Required is
the date the noncompliance notification was due, and the Final Date is the screening date.
Estimated avoided cost to notify the TCEQ in writing of an unauthorized discharge ($25). The Date
Required is the date the noncompliance notification was due, and the Final Date is the screening date.
Approx. Cost of Compliance $30 TOTAL $31
Screening Date 10-Oct-2018
Respondent City of Sanger (PCW No. 4)
Case ID No. 55766
Reg. Ent. Reference No. RN103014155
Media [Statute] Water Quality
Enf. Coordinator Steven Van Landingham
Violation Numb
Rule Cite(
Violation Descripti<
Docket No. 2018-0273-MWD-E
PCW
Policy Revision 4 (April 2014)
PCW Revision March 26, 2014
(I 30 Tex. Admin. Code §§ 305.125(1) and (11)(B) and 319.7(c) and TPDES Permit
No. WQ0014372001, Monitoring and Reporting Requirements No. 3.b.
Failed to maintain records of monitoring activities at the Facility and make them
n readily available for review by a TCEQ representative. Specifically, Escherichia Coll
("E. coli") lab result records for January 2017 through September 2017 were not
maintained at the Facility and not available for review.
>> Environmental, Property and Human Health Matrix
Harm
Release Major Moderate Minor
OR Actual
Potential 1����
>>Programmatic Matrix
Falsification Major Moderate Minor
Matrix
Notes
Violation Events
Base Penaltyl $25,000
Percent I 1 0.0%
Percent 1.0%
Less than 30% of the rule requirements were not met.
Number of Violation Events E 1
daily 0
weekly
monthly
quarterly
semiannual
annual
single event
Adjustment— $24,750
1 $2501
85 Number of violation days
One single event is recommended.
Violation Base Penaltyr— $250
Good Faith Efforts to Comply o.0% Reduction �— $Ol
Before NOE/NOV NOE/NOV to EDPRP/Settlement Offer
Ordinary C�
N/A
Notes) The Respondent does not meet the good faith criteria for
this violation.
Violation Subtotal $2501
Economic Benefit (EB) for this violation Statutory Limit Test
Estimated EB Amount $7 Violation Final Penalty Total(-- $3001
This violation Final Assessed Penalty (adjusted for limits) (— $3001
Economic Benefit Worksheet
Respondent City of Sanger (PCW No. 4)
Case ID No. 55766
leg. Ent. Reference No. RN103014155
Media Water Quality Years of
Violation NO. 2 Percent Interest Depreciation
_ 5.0' 1S.
Item Cost Date Required Final Date Yrs Interest Saved Costs Saved EB Amount
Item Description
Delayed Costs
Equipment
Buildings
Other (as needed)
Engineering/Construction
Land
Record Keeping System
Training/Sampling
Remediation/ Disposal
Permit Costs
Other (as needed)
Notes for DELAYED costs
Avoided Costs
Disposal
Personnel
Inspection/ Reporting/Sampling
Supplies/Equipment
Financial Assurance
ONE-TIME avoided costs
Other (as needed)
Notes for AVOIDED costs
0.00
0
0
$0
0.00
$0
0
$0
0.00
0
$0
0
0.00
0
n a
$0
250
17-JuF2018-1
11-Feb-201
0.57
$7
n a
$7
Uu
0.00
0
n a
$0
0.00
$0
n a
$0
_-1��
�— -l��
0.00
0
1 n a
0
Estimated Record Keeping System cost to submit the E. coli lab result records for January 2017 through
September 2017. The Date Required is the fourth investigation date and the Final Date is the compliance
date.
/ ami iai i z F nvntn Pn rncrc nt�rr r. —rGrlrltY Ir.— / nvrnnr tnr n o_rime n.nen a nctc I
- - -
1 1 1
��
•. 1
•®1
Approx. Cost of Compliance $250
TOTAL $7
Screening Date 10-Oct-2018 Docket No. 2018-0273-MWD-E PCW
Respondent City of Sanger (PCW No. 4) Policy Revision 4 (April 2014)
Case ID No 55766 PCW Revision March 26, 2014
Reg. Ent. Reference No. RN103014155
Media [Statute] Water Quality
Enf. Coordinator Steven Van Landingham
Violation Number
Rule Cites) 30 Tex. Admin. Code §§ 305.125(1) and (17) and 319.7(d), and TPDES Permit No.
WQ0014372001, Monitoring and Reporting Requirements No. 1
11 Failed to submit monitoring results at intervals specified in the permit. Specifically,
Violation Description the discharge monitoring reports ("DMRs") for April through June 2018 were not
11 submitted by the 20th day of the following month.
>> Environmental, Property and Human Health Matrix
Harm
Release Major Moderate Minor
OR Actual
Potential � I E::_
>>Programmatic Matrix
Falsification Major Moderate Minor
Matrix
Notes
Base Penalty $25,0001
Percent 0.0%
Percent F 5.0%
100% of the rule requirements were not met.
Violation Events
Number of Violation EventsF��
daily I
weekly
monthly
quarterly I�
semiannual
annual
single event
Adjustment— $23,7501
1 $1,250
143 Number of violation days
Three single events are recommended.
Violation Base Penalty(— $3,7501
Good Faith Efforts to Comply F 0.0% Reduction ( — 10
Before NOE/NOV NOE/NOV to EDPRP/Settlement Offer
Extraordinary
Ordinary
N/A
Noted The Respondent does not meet the good faith criteria for
this violation.
Violation Subtotal $3,750�
Economic Benefit (EB) for this violation Statutory Limit Test
Estimated EB Amount $33 Violation Final Penalty Totals $4,5001
This violation Final Assessed Penalty (adjusted for limits)] $4,5001
Economic Benefit Worksheet
Respondent City of Sanger (PCW No. 4)
Case ID No. 55766
Reg. Ent. Reference No. RN103014155
Media Water Quality Years of
Violation No. 3 Percent Interest Depreciation
5.0I 15
Item Cost Date Required Final Date Yrs Interest Saved Costs Saved EB Amount
Item Description
Delayed Costs
Equipment
Buildings
Other (as needed)
Engineering/ Construction
Land
Record Keeping System
Training/Sampling
Remediation/Disposal
Permit Costs
Other (as needed)
Notes for DELAYED costs
Avoided Costs
Disposal
Personnel
Inspection/ Reporting/Sa mpling
Supplies/Equipment
Financial Assurance
ONE-TIME avoided costs
Other (as needed)
Notes for AVOIDED costs
0.00
$0
$0
$0
0.00
$0
$0
$0
0.00
$0
$0
$0
0.00
$0
$0
$0
0.00
$0
n a
$0
0.00
0
n a
$0
I 17-Jul-201_8_1
27-Au -201
1.11
28
n a 1
$28
�1
1
0.00
$0
n a
$0
�I
I
-.
0.00
$0
n a
$0
20-Mav-2018]
27-A -201
1.27
5
I n a
5
Estimated Training cost to develop and implement procedures to submit DMRs by the 20th day of the
following month. The Date Required is the fourth investigation date and the Final Date is the estimated
date of compliance.
Estimated cost to prepare and submit the DMRS for April through June 2018 ($25 per report x three
months). The Date Required is the date the initial missing DMR was due and the Final Date is the
estimated date of compliance.
�rvrvuiai iir avninan rncrc nornra anr—nn prom tovranr rnr —r i
Ism
Approx. Cost of Compliance $5751 TOTAL $33
Attachment A
Docket Number: 2ox8-o273-MWD-E
SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECT
Respondent:
City of Sanger
Penalty Amount:
Sixty -Four Thousand Five Hundred Dollars ($64,500)
SEP Offset Amount:
Sixty -Four Thousand Five Hundred Dollars ($64,500)
Type of SEP:
Compliance
Project Name:
Blower' Purchase and Installatio71
Location of SEP:
Denton County
The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality ("TCEQ") agrees to offset the administrative
Penalty Amount assessed in this Agreed Order for Respondent to perform a Supplemental
Environmental Project ("SEP"). The SEP Offset Amount is set forth above and such offset is
conditioned upon completion of the project in accordance with the terms of this Attachment A.
Respondent is a Local Government that qualifies under Texas Water Code § 7.067 to apply the
SEP Offset Amount set forth above to correct violations at its wastewater treatment facility
which are described in this Agreed Order. This Agreed Order cites violations at Respondent's
wastewater treatment facility.
1. Project Description
A. Project
Respondent shall hire a contractor to purchase and install three positive displacement blowers
at the City's wastewater treatment facility. The installation of the positive displacement blowers
,will increase the efficiency of the removal of ammonia and nitrogen. Specifically, the SEP Offset
Amount shall be used for materials, supplies, and equipment for the purchase and installation of
three positive displacement blowers (the "Project"). Respondent shall solicit bids from qualified
contractors to perform the Project. Any advertisement, including publication, related to the SEP
must include the enforcement statement as stated in Section 6, Publicity. The SEP will be
performed in accordance with all federal, state, and local environmental laws and regulations,
including permits that may be required prior to commencement of the SEP.
Respondent shall use the SEP Offset Amount only for the direct cost of implementing the
Project, including supplies, materials, and equipment rentals, as listed in Subsection C.
Minimum Expenditure, Estimated Cost Schedule, below. No portion of the SEP Offset Amount
shall be spent on administrative costs, including but not limited to operating costs, reporting
expenses, handling of expenses, project coordination, liability, or equipment breakdowns.
Respondent's signature affixed to the attached Agreed Order certifies that Respondent has no
prior commitment to perform this Project and that the SEP is being performed solely as part of
the terms of settlement in this enforcement action.
B. Environmental Benefit
2-27-19
Page 1 of 4
City of Sanger
Docket No. 2018-0273-MWD-E
Attachment A
This SEP will provide a discernible environmental benefit by improving the quality of
wastewater effluent being released into the environment. Inadequately treated effluent can carry
bacteria, viruses, protozoa (parasitic organisms), helminths (intestinal worms), and bioaerosols
(inhalable molds and fungi). The diseases they may cause range in severity from mild
gastroenteritis to life -threatening ailments such as cholera, dysentery, infectious hepatitis, and
severe gastroenteritis. Additional risks include occurrences of low dissolved oxygen, fish lulls,
algal bloom, and bacterial contamination in waterways.
C. Minimum Expenditure
Respondent shall spend at least the SEP Offset Amount to complete the project described in
Section i, above, and comply with all other provisions of this SEP. Respondent understands that
it may cost more than the SEP Offset Amount to complete the Project.
Estimated Cost Schedule
Item
Quantity
Cost
Units
Total
Positive Displacement Blower
Purchase and Installation
375�00o
Each225,000
2. Performance Schedule
Within 30 days after the effective date of this Agreed Order, Respondent shall begin
implementation of the SEP. Respondent shall have completed the SEP in its entirety within 28o
days after the effective date of this Agreed Order.
3. Records and Reporting
A. Progress Report
Within 3o days after the effective date of this Agreed Order, Respondent shall submit a Notice of
Commencement to the TCEQ describing actions performed to date to implement the Project.
Within 90 days after the effective date of this Agreed Order, Respondent shall submit a report
detailing the progress made and all actions completed on the Project during the previous 6o-day
period and setting forth a schedule for achieving completion of the Project within the 28o-day
timeframe set forth in Section 2, Performance Schedule, above. Thereafter, Respondent shall
submit progress reports to the TCEQ containing detailed information on all actions completed
on the Project to date as set forth in the Reporting Schedule table below:
Reporting Schedule
Days from
Effective Order
Date
Information Required
30
Notice of Commencement describing actions taken to begin project
90
Actions completed during previous 6o-day period
18o
Actions completed during previous go -day period
Page 2 of 4
2-27-19
City of Sanger
Docket No. 2o18-0273-MWD-E
Attachment A
This SEP will provide a discernible environmental benefit by improving the quality of
wastewater effluent being released into the environment. Inadequately treated effluent can carry
bacteria, viruses, protozoa (parasitic organisms), helminths (intestinal worms), and bioaerosols
(inhalable molds and fungi). The diseases they may cause range in severity from mild
gastroenteritis to life -threatening ailments such as cholera, dysentery, infectious hepatitis, and
severe gastroenteritis. Additional risks include occurrences of low dissolved oxygen, fish kills,
algal bloom, and bacterial contamination in waterways.
C. Minimum Expenditure
Respondent shall spend at least the SEP Offset Amount to complete the project described in
Section 1, above, and comply ti\rith all other provisions of this SEP. Respondent understands that
it may cost more than the SEP Offset Amount to complete the Project.
Estimated Cost Schedule
Item
Quantity
Cost
Units
Total
Positive Displacement Blower
Purchase and Installation
3
$75,00o
Each
$225,000
2. Performance Schedule
Within 3o days after the effective date of this Agreed Order, Respondent shall begin
implementation of the SEP. Respondent shall have completed the SEP in its entirety within 280
days after the effective date of this Agreed Order.
3. Records and Reporting
A. Progress Report
Within 3o days after the effective date of this Agreed Order, Respondent shall submit a Notice of
Commencement to the TCEQ describing actions performed to date to implement the Project.
Within go days after the effective date of this Agreed Order, Respondent shall submit a report
detailing the progress made and all actions completed on the Project during the previous 6o-day
period and setting forth a schedule for achieving completion of the Project within the 28o-day
timeframe set forth in Section 2, Performance Schedule, above. Thereafter, Respondent shall
submit progress reports to the TCEQ containing detailed information on all actions completed
on the Project to date as set forth in the Reporting Schedule table below:
Reporting Schedule
Days from
Effective Order
Date
Information Required
30
Notice of Commencement describing actions taken to begin project
go
Actions completed during previous 6o-day period
18o
Actions completed during previous go -day period
Page 2 of 4
2-27-1g
City of Sanger
Docket No. 2018-0273-MWD-B
Attachment A
Days from
Effective Order Information Required
Date
28o Notice of SEP completion
B. Final Report
Within 28o days after the effective date of the Agreed Order, or within 3o days after completion
of the SEP, whichever is earlier, Respondent shall submit a Final Report to the TCEQ, which
shall include the following:
i. Itemized list of expenditures and total cost of the Project;
2. Copies of invoices or receipts corresponding to the itemized list in paragraph
3.B.1., above;
3. Copies of cleared checks or payment records corresponding to the itemized list in
paragraph 3.B.1., above;
4. Copies of proof of advertisement of invitation for bids, if applicable, (the
publication must include the statement that the SEP was performed as a result of
a TCEQ enforcement action);
5. A certified/notarized statement of quantifiable environmental benefit;
6. Detailed map showing specific location of the project site(s);
7. Copies of all engineering plans related to work performed pursuant to the Project,
if applicable;
8. Dated photographs of the purchased materials and supplies; before and after
work being performed during the Project; and of the completed Project; and
9. Any additional information Respondent believes will, or that is requested by
TCEQ to demonstrate compliance with this Attachment A.
C. Address
Respondent shall submit all SEP reports and any additional information as requested to the
following address:
Texas Commission on Environmental Quality
Litigation Division
Attention: SEP Coordinator, MC 175
P.O. Box 13087
Austin, Texas 78711-3087
4. Additional Information and Access
Respondent shall provide additional information as requested by TCEQ staff and shall allow
access to all records related to the SEP Offset Amount. Respondent shall also allow
representatives of the TCEQ access to the site of any work being financed in whole or in part by
the SEP Offset Amount. This provision shall survive the termination of this Agreed Order.
Page 3 of 4
2-27-19
City of Sanger
Docket No. 2018-0278-MWD-E
Attachment A
5. Failure to Fully Perform
If Respondent does not perform its obligations under this Attachment A, including full
expenditure of the SEP Offset Amount and submittal of the required reporting described in
Sections 2 through 4 above, the Executive Director ("ED") may require immediate payment of
all or part of the SEP Offset Amount as set forth in the attached Agreed Order.
In the event the ED determines that Respondent failed to fully implement and complete the
Project, Respondent shall remit payment for all or a portion of the SEP Offset Amount, as
determined by the ED, and as set forth in the attached Agreed Order. After receiving notice of
failure to complete the SEP, Respondent shall include the docket number of the attached Agreed
Order and a note that the enclosed payment is for reimbursement of a SEP, shall make the check
payable to "Texas Commission on Environmental Quality," and shall mail it to:
Texas Commission on Environmental Quality
Litigation Division
Attention: SEP Coordinator, MC 175
P.O. Box 13o87
Austin, Texas 78711-3o87
G. Publicity
Any public statements concerning this Project made by or on behalf of Respondent must include
a clear statement that the Project was performed as part of the settlement of an
enforcement action brought by the TCEQ. Such statements include advertising, public
relations, and press releases.
7. Recognition
Respondent may not seek recognition for this project in any other state or federal regulatory
program.
8. Other SEPs by TCEQ or Other Agencies
The SEP Offset Amount identified in this Attachment A and in the attached Agreed Order has
not been, and shall not be, included as a SEP for Respondent under any other Agreed Order
negotiated with the TCEQ or any other agency of the state or federal government.
Page 4 of 4
2-27-19