04/01/1991-CC-Agenda Packet-RegularCITY COUNCIL AGENDA
MONDAY, APRIL 1, 1991
201 BOLIVAR STREET, CITY HALL
7:00 P. M.
1. Call to Order, Invocation acid Pledge to tYie Flag
2. Minutes
. T)ichy rc mpntc
4. Citizen's Input
5. Consider and Possible Action an Park Board Recommendation -
Downtown Park
6. Consider and Possible Actian Regarding Resolution #R4-91
Supporting TML's Telephone Franchise Fee Committee
7. Consider and Passible Action Regarding Resolution #R5-91
Supporting Fire Prevention and Fire Fighting Actions
8, Consider and Passible Actian Regarding Resolution #R6-91
Fireworks Control Legislation
9. Consider and Possible Actian Regarding Resolution #R7-91
Supporting Passage of Legislation Granting Counties Authority
to Adopt Fire Codes
11. Consider and Possible Actian Regarding Ordinance #06-91
Establishing Electric Rates Within Sanger For Denton County
Electric Cooperative, Inc.
12. City Adtnitiistration Report
13. Any Other Such Matters
14. Adjournment Rosalie Garcia
City Secretary
1�lINUTES: City Council Meeting
March 18, 1991
MEMBERS
PRESENT: Mayar Nel Armstrong, Cauncilman Jerry Jenkins,
Cauncilman Carroll McNeill, Cauncilman Danny
McDaniel, Cauncilman Wendell Thomas, and
Councilwoman Mamie Braxton
n�rHERc
PRESENT: City Manager Jahn Hat�niltan, Adtn. Asst, Etta Stagsdili,
Benny Jahnsan - Frontier Waste Management, �lickie
Perez -Sanger Courier, Elaine Schad -Denton Record
Chronicle, Elect. Supt. Larry Yaast, Public Works Supt.
Chuck Tucker, Garland Thornton, Ann &Ben
Weatherall, Bill McClellan, Curt. Fleisher &Pat Fleisher
1. Mayar Armstrong called the meeting to order, gave the invac�tian,
and led the pledge to the flag.
2. Minutes of March 4, 1991 were approved as printed.
:3, Disbursements: Motion was made lay Cauncilman .Jenkins and
seconded by Cauncilman Thomas to approve disbursements.
Motion carried.
4. Citizeri s Input -None
5. Praclarriatian and Presentation Honoring our Arrr�ed Forces in
Operation Desert Starrn - Charr�ber of Camrr�erce
l�iayor Arrristrorig mated tYiat the person tYie prociarnatiara was
to be presented to could not be present at the meeting.
Proclamation was read which proclaimed the rriantYi of March to
honor all service personnel and Hated presentation with the
Chamber of Commerce present to be made possibly at a later date.
�, Consider and Possible Action Action on Solid Waste Transfer
Station
;_
Councilman Jenkins made the motion to accept �'. W. M.'s Proposal
Plan B with the City picking up the $50.00 per month residential
with the balance billed to the customer. Seconded by Councilman
IF
McNeill. Motion carried.
7. Consider and Possible Action Regarding City Collection of Tree
7 :� VV
L11111Ja
Discussion. Consensus of City Council for staff to present a dt°aft.
ordinance regarding collection of tree limbs. Item tabled.
0. Consider and Possible Action on Solid Waste Rates
Discussion. Councilman McNeill made the motion to refund 37� a
month to the residential customer beginning with the next billing.
Seconded by Councilman Jenkins. Motion carried.
0. Consider and Possible Action Regarding Bids on Crack Seal System
Councilman Thomas made the motion to purchase the I�ERA 35 at.
$4,550. Seconded by Councilman McNeill. Motion carried.
Amount Budgeted $7,500; no bids were received. Discussion.
City Manager Hamilton noted to top it at $10,500.
Councilman Jenkins made the motion to allow staff to proceed
search for aBack-Hoe at a Public Auction. Seconded by
Councilman Thomas. Motion carried.
11. Consider and Possible Action for Appointment of Presiding Judge
and Alternate Judge for May 4, 1991 Election.
Councilman Thomas made the motion to appoint Billye
Hollingsworth as Presic_lir�g Election .Judge and VVynerr�� Sr_.hert� �s
Alternate Judge. Seconded by Councilwoman Braxton.
•"
f
Discussion. It was noted that if a family member of the Election
Judge runs for the City Council, the Alternate Judge assumes the
duties of the presiding Election Judge with one clerk - -Election
Judge, Alternate Judge and one clerk. Motion carried.
12. City Administration Report:
City Manager Hamilton reported on the following items:
a). The new Worker's Camp. law that became effective this year
requires employers with more than fifteen (15) employees to
establish a formal drug policy for employees. A
comprehensive ordinance and testing plan will be presented
for your consideration at the next Council meeting,
b). City Manager Hated that with weather permitting, Hunter
Associates, had advised that Calvert would begin the Freese
Drive Project at a certain date. Calvert has already began the
project.
r_), City Manager stated that the Contractor for the Water Tank
Project was to be on site the first part of next week.
d). City Manager rr�er�tioried that orze of our Electric Meter
Readers had been bitten by a dog and City is awaiting the
dogs test results.
1�. Ariy Qther SucYi Matters:
a). Councilrrian Jenkins stated the Fire Code Committee had a
meeting the following night after the City Council Meeting.
They had agreed to adopt tYie latest version of the Uniform
Fire Code. The Committee would like to have the adoption of
the latest uniform Fire Code for the lath of April.
b). Councilman Jenkins mentioned the committee had clarified
Jim Conley's title since he has been appointed the City of
hanger's Fire Inspector.
,, �� �a
. ��
With the present Fire Inspector, the Fire Code gives the Fire
Inspector authority regarding fire inspections. The City of
Sanger Fire Code Committee has made the decision to use a
farm which the City of Denton now uses that has various
types of inspections which will be inspected here in Sanger.
Then dicrimcM incnPrt{nnq anti when to be made; normally
r_______
two times a year is sufficient. C. O.'s were also discussed.
c.�. Councilman McNeill acknowledged the quality of patchings
on several streets that has done recently.
d). Councilman McNeill discussed water and sewer gallons
pumped and amount billed. Discussion.
14. Meeting adjour°ned,
SAVINGS & PAYMENTS
APRIL 1, !99!
CITY OF ee «rn nm ro lNDEBTE� ESS �«,o»«,,,
(GENERAL FUND)
LNERAL EO, EDUIP= REPL.. ACCT. (4176891�
(GENERAL FUND)
UTILITY INT. & SINKING (#lg2P45)
(ENTERPRISE FOND)
\ UT, F m E@UIP, REPL, (#iG0002) <ENTERPRISE FUND}
5. NOTE PAYMENT - lOTH TO GMB (ENTERPRISE)
FIRE TRw SAVINGS ACCT. (#i tt 3) (GENERAL FUND)
GENERi FUND - S,BK, 2GTH-PATCHMAN
9,275,00
42y00
20,47 ± 00
3Sd 00
y I4G,04
1,251.48
///
i 1'i'Y C)F S i-,(1\1GER
VENDOR VEND HR NA1'r1E
Cif F".4N ACCOUNTS PAYABLE
Ir`1VOICE AMOUNT DMCOUNT
�.—' __=;t) E)EIE1 r��Er;Iartzat� r:c11�1L�'r-tNYo Ir�D�:= _ _
G/L DI'3 T R1 nol, UTI0N /; 4, t,?5 0 74= .34
FOREURY HELMETS
VENDOR TOTAL. 74= Fs4 S,t,1 :/S n 84
G/L. DiSTf IGIJT ION 419=2000 `tag 13
G/I_. OI:�,TRiBUT ION 4Id tr�t;1t_1 r(a,,, 1.:3
C/L DIT RI BUT ION / 1.S.4r 15t_1t_1 _'Gn 1
G/'L. DIT'=;TRI1=,I I T 1:0N 4 19 z t:lt;(M c:G i
G/ I_ MoTR: BUOT•ION ,19n E1't1t)
G/L.. DIS;;T RINJT;:C.N 419a i�`it1t1 rE,, lc
G/L a?I STRIBUT ION 419s o:,0C6) '6 1*
G/{_ DIS' TRllEHUTION 41.9z 1100 ;e'O„ 1;3
Gf=i1_ tv1to'T oR G 1: L 1 {
ur 114D[lR (l.)yIf'Il.., ''''i- ' a t..1t} s::.� ,•c.ln 1C.
,�'- ,'. (`:�',? ��i_1i—({';1(-ti�!'x �,��{�a•`_,i � ? tin
•r, •/()E.'+=`i /,'7Lf (:?t:} a t`}('j d,.7�;, t-1i;1
G/•{_ DPI ITRIG UTIOh f{.: i'', t1`;ti4,1 -475A
COVER LrTN1"FILL. CR• .DIDG6 LARGER PIT
7 s 4734 00 + 1 C1 7° a f.)
G/L. iJI,`1l'R1B iT ION /J.47nt'100 ,r75aC�t}
[.0A 1ER COVER LANDFILL, MY. F"ERVi1.'T
to/I_ i1IE'TRh%IJ T Ti7N 47, 040x0 4•Kin 00
VENDOR 1 D AL. 10 ._18n 00 v F;7t_? t g ._,�, , 0t_D
�`:-• 10 C:E.N I Rial._ T4_.LL{-'I-I(JN_.
t /I_ L?i,JiRICtiJI IOl4,l ;,,,•.,A,?1i•_?t_J /+;_tt),!{.1
Go 17lGoTROrT:,(_,ITIGN 43 3n 1800 kite 1
G/L. i_) myBi_rrIOd 4: 4„t) `C)t1 247a 1v.A
1-4-11_NE SERV I C::E
)i 7Q5O i/)7aC9 at r�) 1's7e 9
to/`L iJI'w;TR1:fiIJT1:QlI ft?4„i}C, it:?
t;/L.IETR:iIIJTIOh`1 /}., t1t1i;
1='FliJNE SEPf.V ICE
VENDOR iC1I AL9t_? Ja 0, , `:'05, t:1E,
�i-- 8f,,t_?i_? Li1RT C'Ri7T)I,JI_:T'-1
1 �a r'•�
11 I Y OF S AN1�ER
VENDOR VENDOR Nr=tMr:
GfL. DISTRIBUTION
�l=BEN
nCU"l.Jl1`o
I-`HYhllji_I~
1_.1_�`DI
INN
14,
NDOR TCITRE
G/t_
DISTRIBUTION
a;,1'f„
040t=1
I RF15i-i
BAGB
;1 E,
lifE
DISTRIBUTION
45fj„
0r:00
c1 I,pnE je
1.1 t".•QL J.
cnraw
f G11 Y1'i
r•,r.lnl vr•
1—il aifT L. l UJ
r
l:.J
r_•
VENDOR
TOTAL
r- 1%'Fi�liaii i1Fh?Tt:1h,l CO. ELECT. (=O--'rlC't„ 5 INC.
POWER FOR DUCK GRI; R.I.) LIFT 'STA.
VENDOR TOTAL
aJtr.n 1.A"
)? I:CC1Lll�li'
„ tli:1
i:atl
,A
Gfl._ DI',TRIBI_ITICtp,1
f(AA31„
(a 500
1`..17„
50
y„ :5 �D5
CRK„
#
751��:
5t#r-:„
(.:,��
„ i,ai} �J��t'.::: r:"J `-!
CONCRE:'E-E
FOR'
DRAINAGE
VENDOR
TO T %lL..
7t1t:1„
1' {
is;) ; (:lt a„ 1'AAA
l.;,!3 5 W=tR'i. r nRtTi:•,A,
eaff_ DISIARIBUT160N 411„ 1.400 .39R, 14
PLASTjC BALLOT BOX
VL'NDUB{ Iu.i.m_ ,%go 14 „tliA 'vl„ 1 {
1(j'_ ?i_i;lt,lt:a i-fEUs�'�i�IER CCy lha?C„
1 i.itpafl. BEF
DISJARI>BUT1CIN f 15„ :4w*:t?(:a 75(,)„ 00
=_' y
74' j4 e7 i„ Cara 00 _ `,i„
l;f t_ DISTRIBUTION % 1.5- i=;_'iaCl '75„ (lil
BACTERIA FOR Wo Wit COLL.EC:TION
ljo
VENDOR L•1 I NDOR TAL 1 w i &.' „ ()(AA)i� 0 :� y 1 =' A t;i;or
444 1L'A, : is(; 1. .i r K LIGHTING &• ct_IP(-1t_Y
^:r (_;vi 7°•(:: (�a(_; tj() r�CAR rr, i,i+.�i
t.. DI TRIE(L1T 1:(`1tJ 472„ t:a:900 7;7„ Ca(A
1 C:-I FII-fnTO CE LLA, 1 C;'S, 150 W FIRE:S61.l(=?E '7;0DILItT1
CI I I Ul= ' HFIC)C:R
VENDOR VENDOR NAllelE
3�
Gl/L DI.?TRIBtUI ION
•t ,-.-r-,•rr � r,t t � ��r•tr.r
t}I !._ Jam' 1 •�} I !Z 1 r=1 �J 1 !. ill`-0
AIR PLJMP4 AIR LINE4 AIR BAR4
tif'I_ 7I'
' RII,[II Ti'l!'a
i '�-JC) WRIO10
'I,L.f"tt=`L'••BURN
CONNa
Gr'L_. i"!IS='TR11=tU
ION
1 f tl--O-1
I-C &F�RE
rHlv%E=R8prtjU
T L,E: T
B t EE't
B/L DISTRIBUTION
100 C;— i
LONG
TAP CC�Vl=
RO;
Ctl-'EN tt,,t_Ol. N I .w PPINC)BLEE L.I':1;'T I NG
IiVVUIi"�:AMOUNT DISCOUN'i
'�l["raIiC1F TI�'I t�L. 71:;'7a [i['i
i US i)l titl i 1,. zi ._'i�i
12'n 08(fl) 1513, ji
lil`L_
i ,fL_
G.ii._
r!L
G/L
I�ISIRttl!'IC�r`.i
t_?IC
DISTRIBUTION
DISTRIBUTIOk!
DI;'1`RIEsi_ITl.iii•1
I i'RIE;LITICII'1
j.�°a[%,,+;(wi()
41'!,
419a
41'ia
' i'n
11f)[i
Q,.ji [)
00,00
t:i!'tit:)
1atC
1nE,�`
In
14
1n�
C,;'
E2,'
c:
(' RE: I too II
T
G, L•
D 1.
Hai l R I �[I. I I I
ID � y
.7 .'
ia;a'�i�„;�r:?t„i
t„i
C_`i�:.,
C
i'0
S RFLIS
G L
L:i i L_
t- ,j l--
G L_
AIR !-DOSE::
DIC4j'Ct'fii_IT10N
DISTRIBUTION
Lr I
DIGTRIB,I
AIR
C T r-; I B, L4'r l Ctrl
f'14'0N
GAUGE HOSE
4119n 11
;• 1' a [; :;;i:?i?
� .l OG;C.,0
419..' X)
CLAIril G C�I;AUL"L;FC`L':
VENiD IR TOTAL.
Ira
L':3
0 1.lz
.:a 19
R!J} EER' I-(C�i_i� DOWN'
141a2 i
1. Ea— �=.r�,:�}i-)i�? !_��?l�.IE� STAR PRINTING
[�i�iCi f Ci 1 a st�;
{iil_ 1)Tr�`LRIC-tL_li`1:lJh••t
P11RC1IA,L C!F°'t_rERS
n[jr)
11.1 a n;E:t
UE�irc7i:E<:
VENDOR VENDOR NAME
h�1Cr=ita�-It'Ir�a t�tl(_ CCJh1i='F?N`,`
U/
L.-
L} I
lu:.,T
r I
PUT
I
Ur`!
G/L
D1S,TRIEtUTI:0N
E7/L.
L}Ic14R11,UI10N
G/!_
DIStTRIBU
F ItlN
G/L_
DI:
rl 1TRI
RUT
ION
!..l.!_lI
i\d
Lsl1
liJIN
fats �(JL_.I: r11L�:
PEN
AULUUNI
b PH, 4
`C?k:L.C:
I_. I
1%4
J I ..j
! I,",i_, / 9
1
'.S e •J l_. a IJ31
i NVOICE
AMOUNT
L} I iw3CUUNT
til_;�ll�,IlR TU'T' l_
(c
4
t:) Ziil C) :}
N
ij
1
+n
'i'
'�`1) I�t:- j
..
1
A
0500
n
14
i I(:}OCI
n
i.l�•-- ::,1i=:`.��(�} i�1I���'=tI`��Il=';-!I "1'Uf�EI_. �• ��._Iji�'l� '` ��t'7w
?c=2
to/ L DISTRIBUTION 4'18a (i;_y(-}(_}
GOATSKIN FIRUIECI(JRS
t1E.NirUR Tt_iTr;t_,
t? 1 w aiw}
I-�It i�i �, =i•
U�If..ra
.:
}} ,,!!
Is
G/L.
DISTRIBUTION
41�-,:a
{:}600
27 _?ut
L= I•T'i li G!' VALVE
B(Ti3
IIN'
H`E
VENDOR
Tt_lTHL
I:P t C'
C-C r��,
•, ,
, N
n _•_I,
C'� I'ER1� i E.��.i
L Rt-IILE'. �i t-'llll 11 tv!r+?n
c::`t!" ._•_�r
•�.
7 j j G.
j Lt.�in i_)t,} n (,}i? � =i•�sn C}Ci
G/L
UI"S! RwIBU l ,,UN
t 71"a 0550-0
45
SIDE BOARD FOR I
i001\1
VENDOR TOTAL TAL.
qq qq
1 Li'59 t:}t_} o (}j} y 45N !_i{,i Ilk
0
11
6/1_
D I
ST R, I
BUT I
ON
41i?m1t:}0t:
9n:34
G/'L
L):LSTRIwLIT1ON
=t 1n
090()
In
=.,..
G/l._
DI,TRIBUT
ION
L11),
0.iC}0
G/L
D I
E'.J R
BUT10N
4 I'm}n
r}600
aw
•, ,
Gtt_
DISTR1BUTI(IN
419a0800
Cla;'_Utl
-
f;r'l_.
L}ISTRI
BUT IOil
41
1 i00
r.
K3
Go L,
UI')TR1Bur
ION
4I.9n
i;,r0C)
`34
BR KE4 FLUID
VENDOR
TOTAL.
E''
00 t,;?0 Ft4 n 00
w
R I ti=;::=; FIRAT LINE Ets!l � is r.'ME:r.!'T'
CITY OF '�fF?Nt EIRz Cti=E.N ACCC"aUr TS, PAYA LE: L lEil'ING IIJAGL� 5
VENT)CJR VENDOR I� NAME I NVCJ I U17E AMOUNT
LaI �;C:i_iLll� �i C��'c iU
7047 10,3 1G d tit:;
_. AMBER Lr-_W,3
VENDOR TOTAL 1 r i I G tat=a 1 t It 1 is .�
,..•.
�'r`i L}�.} t.l rriEn i}i+_:i-il._
L,F�,�a i F;R
t _'�J .J i'tf�tryl::R
7t',2;9Fit
tt 00 �;t_a, t_}t_a
G/L.. DI'SI
RTBUTl:ON
447o t:a,ttat;
: t;� tat_a
CARL UARRE:7T4 c; DUU14
BITE.
VENDoAR TCl'I'HL.
c)0 to 0;-
130n „
�_'+-_
'_iF?I`�IL=,;�l='
RNLrI.i?IrJR
•�;���;��,
7C.
45z I i0 n 00 45n 00
._
I.li/
I)I'STRIBUI_i:ON
4J.,0_ (100
455, 00
_
CLEAN
& REPAIR
€ TOR
RADIATOR
I)CNi'aa=tR f 0TAL„
4 "03 Of Ac;� Co
it
=�-- =it� �i_1i_} �jlt�€�!—•t �-i{1a.��—t t.�rRl]1W,i'Fi`Y
747u; In 1 r;aia in 14
VENDOR i a_a i AL 1 n 1 Zl
:.
1 C,n t;o n t„;i_a
G/L DIt I HIBUT 1(_N ri !L°n 0N800 1R—_':'fan Q(a
VL��Ii;t_�aR f 0 i Al 1 ; C." C-1 [ii) n }i_r } a `c�C1a t,at_r
R€)I{%lRq Ire!}.aa
(3/L DISTR :BUT ION ilip3v 121 "ai::t
CF I L I CMG F Al`%lG
VENDOR TOTAL 'c:c'a ui'� t;t::a = Err t
•-��3_ J.(:ai;iCa V(.J!_Cs?N rtJR?TE:RIt?l_S
' c=1
G/L. F)I'_,TRIBUTION lj.2, J,nti`.;ij0 t=.'i;rIQFS8
Nf11 t MIX COLD L f'_*9Y ASF-'HAL'1
VENDOR TOTAL. GC)1nE, 8 ECj1 GR, :.
r._ �t,�,i�rt�ati
L��t?`i3t':ih,i EL_F�t1'1'i1Tt;
'.;U�'1='L_`r
6/1.:iaiS'€RIE,Uilt7hl
.7'rE'n tart:at:a
1; i.„mid
T€IPEI.
WIFZE iail—Jt-ital='-iJITF3
GROUND
tli/L_ ).}I'�=�TRIF91_FHOIN
07i_r(a
307n 1`38
=' LIGHT
F=Ik:'IURES
C i T Y OF nHP4GE: K'
VENDOR VENJDFIR NAME:
N AC:CUUN I D C'i= HrL.E L_.I Z:) l iNt
A;.3 CIF 5/213/9 1 ftol
I C`SVO.I CE t it41LiLIL('I I1I G C"0LlN T
,L —r r� ;;•-7
G/L_ DISI'RIDUTION 4'i'=.et:)tu`;0
VENDOR TOTAL
f tL..
G/L
DI'
T RIBU
T
?:i7N
419A4
(j :t:)t:)
C/L._
L)ISTRIBUT
ION
4P9a
0500
6 /' L
D
I -J I R I
t=ii_I I
I ON
'41'1
oho{")
a
C/ I
V%
7 [3'T' r
%rt P i
T r-'r h i
h
1 0
t 1L_
D
I S T R 1
B U T
I Cl N
%+I.'
„
11,
[7 /L
L)
I iJ I R
BUT
1 ON
4
19„
t_}8 t x }
.L
TIRE CEMENT OII...
!'=IL'IERS
t.1ENI:)LiF: i'!'TAL_
•-, c e••
Yi � /}•..i aml
t31L L PE3TRIBUT ION 42'7a07t=0
SEWER ANALYSIS
VENDOR TOTAL..
Ci'IF' F'Ft.IC!'1"IrdC 70f2
G1L„ ,a1SIR?.PUT ION '}4;:2 t_)1tac;
I=L.:EERS FOR EAR} T c:R ECG HUNT
N T FOOD 71°65
G/L DISTRIBUTION /111:3a 1600
G/L DISTRI.BUTION 41v„ }300
rn_ DISTRIBUTION 413 08(o) 0
COFFEE, FILTERS, DECAFE COFFEE
GREG STRACENER 7456
G/I._ L}.IS T RIE,i i'i 10 N 44''a 0600
WAEFR }Y SIE.M IaDa
GENERAL. INDUSTRIAL TOOL.. !::A 484
G/L DI'.34RIDUTION 41�:=bFj(.)_j
G/L DISTRl'BUTION 4i2 V4 C)[,00
ildINOR II)OL.S
SORCCI FIRODUC I S r 4"D8
G/L_ DISTRIBUTION 4*I2z OfP50:0
F'C`IL_iR PCI f' � `,J_•SQL IEL GE-4aE:t-;a RUiDEDE R' REF I L_L..S
VENDOR l C1'I't=iL.
08
4
t)t), iiii
9 .t Eiv C.�Si
C
�;�a tlri
'yl t_li3
1=;riz57
_FI,i..Ft=Ti...?a T.`3
/{•7 R1=�LJ11R1:?°=i r='RfJi;F"�:.t�•i")
L�1L_ I)El='AFTC1iECta T c,
f-iTat1If�IT,�:'TRA1'ICitl1•--(:;F :L r.1�°C-..a 1c'
LI'DRARY -G F 364a K
POLICE— F: S, ,r+6a 40
':aANITAT'It: %1l OF /t f3121C.a 48
S"CF{E: T F t 'I a 4
WATE%R-EF 6 �0�'.a is
WASTEWAT ER—E::F 7 345a R
ELE'C:TRIC•--Ef: 13 4t, 289u 4t')
t;t-)
I_IAC�i : El
I\l-1 1 Cr �._E PIA I N � ..-.GF
lETO
t'14'IR CLDLIt,-GIL_-CAE'
11,E
i D MINI TRA ( ION..-hF
I
1.2n
F)G
VEHIir'LE MAINTi _F
f}
i.,visat_)i�Z
t�AB..LE'(FJ R C OLL-C:i='
_>>°
1 y 4.:'•: v
4 B
Ti.
•
o Ot BOX 578
ANGER, TEXAS i._ii
T4: Honorable Mayor 8� Members of the City Council
FROM: John Hamilton, City Manager
DATE: March 28, 1991
SUBJECT: Recommendation of Park Board - Downtown Park
The Pat°k Board has endorsed the conceit of constructing a 20 ft,
diameter Gazebo/Band Shell with a sound system on the site of the
existing small gazebo at the downtown park. Through the efforts of
members of the Park Board, a donor has been found who is willing to
totally underwrite the project as a gift to the people of Sanger.
Members of the Park Board will be present to discuss the project with
Council and seek your authorization to accept the gift. Our attorney and
engineers have been contacted for advice and recommendations as to any
specific requirements and obligations the City would have under these
circumstances.
When the Park Board originally identified this Gazebo project, they
estimated the cost at approximately $10,000.
JH:es
IT
r •* BOX 578
ANGER, TEXAS i _i
TO: Honorable Mayor &. Members of the City Council
FROM: John Hamilton, City Manager°
llA T E: March 28, 1991
SUBJECT: Resolution #R4-91 -Supporting T. M. L.'s Telephone Franchise
Fee Committee
The enclosed information from T.M.L. and the Resolution are presented
for your consideration! Franchise Fees are an important part of General
Fund revenues. an our 90-91 budget the estimated revenue from
franchise fees is $85,400 or 9.9% of the total projected revenues in the
General Fund ($861,860).
JH:es
Enclosure
City of Sanger, Texas
Resolution #114-91
A RESOLUTION BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF SANGER, TEKAS,
APPROVING PARTICIPATION IN TELEPHONE FRANCHISE
STEERING COMMITTEE,# AND DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE
DATE.
'vJHEREA, the City has a public respot�sibiiity to protect the public
rights -of -way and easements and to require the telephone company to
assume certain duties and responsibilities regarding such easements and
rights -of -way by means of reasonable terms and conditions in a
franchise ordinance; and
WHEREAS, a steering committee of cities could share information,
develop a model ordinance, obtain special legal and auditing counsel and
provide further assistance to the member cities in the adoption of
franchise ordinances with the telephone utility company;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the
City of Sanger, Texas:
Section 1. That the participation by the City in the telephone Franchise
Steering Committee is hereby approved and does not obligate the City to
any payment.
Section 2. It is anticipated that apro-rata fee shall be assessed by the
Telephone Franchise Steering Committee at a later date. Such financial
obligation shall require the approval of a separate resolution. Such fee
shall be based upon expected costs for the purposes stated above and be
determined by the population of the City.
Section 3. That this resolution shall be effective when adopted.
Resolution ItR4-91 Telephone
Franchise Steering Committee
Page 2
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this the day of
1991.
Nel Armstrong
Mayor
ATTEST:
Rosalie Garcia
City Secretary
March 18, 1991
MEMORANDUM
T E X A S�
MUNICIPAL -6A;G ���i
�:
;,� =��
;�
�� ���
��v-s;
� ��� �� �>
TO: TML Member Cities
�� �_
FROM: Frank Sturzl, Executive Director�'�( �,��
SUBJECT: Telephone Franchise Fees
As you may be aware, a Telephone Franchise Steering Committee was recently
formed because a number of cities were faced with expiring telephone franchises.
Although several cities had already started negotiations with Southwestern Bell or
other telephone companies, it was felt they were having very little success.
Specifically, the goals the Committee has set for itself are to:
• Act as a clearinghouse for information;
• Serve as a central point of negotiation for cities;
• Develop a base franchise model for possible use by individual cities;
• Provide further assistance to cities in the adoption of franchise
ordinances.
During the last several months, the Committee has evaluated the Southwestern Bell
proposal and concluded that it falls short of properly addressing concerns of the
various cities. The Committee determined that it is imperative to retain both legal
and auditing services to respond to the proposal by Southwestern Bell.
It was concluded that legal services are needed due to Southwestern Bell's
contention that a franchise is not legally required from cities. Several city officials
feel that the proposal may in fact be an attempt to eventually have franchise fees
invalidated by a court. If this were to occur, the Committee Is concerned it could
possibly have significant impact on other franchise fees received by cities.
It was also determined by the Committee that the services of a utility rate auditor
would also be needed.
You will find enclosed a sample resolution. The Committee asks that you consider
adoption of this resolution. If you adopt it, please return it to TML by April 30,
1991.
211 East Seventh, Suite 1020 • Austin, Texas 78701-3283 • (512) 478-6601
�-�
�_
,�
,�
This resolution is not financially binding on your city, but is merely intended to serve
as a guide in determining the interest in forming a statewide committee. The
Committee will provide you another resolution, at a later date, which will call for a
financial commitment if you select at that time to become a member.
Please give Councilman Bill Holmes, City of Belton (817) 939- 5851, a call if you
have any particular questions. Thank you for your attention to this matter.
TO:
FROM:
%llAIE:
SUBJECT:
III •
Po •BOX 578
ANGER, TEXAS 76266
Honorable Mayor &Members of the City Council
John Hamilton, City Manager
iviarch 28, 1991 - v
Resolution #R5-91, #R6-91, and #R7-91
Fire Chief Tucker has req�a.ested Council consider the enclosed Resolutions
as approved by the Denton County Fire Chief's Association.
JH:es
Enclosures
City of Sanger, Texas
Resolution #R5-91
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF BANGER, DENTON COUNTY,
TEXAS, SUPPORTING FIREWORKS CONTROL LEGISLATION.
WHEREAS, the continued presence of any class of fireworks
contributes to injuries and property damage every year when used by the
general public without the direction and control of a licensed
pyrotechnician; and
WHEREAS, over the past five years in the United States, an
average of 10,400 hospital -treated fireworks injuries have occurred each
year; and
WHEREAS, 34,700 fires were started in our nation by fireworks in
1986 alone; and
WHEREAS, twelve (12) states have already banned all Class C
fireworks, and
WHEREAS, seven (7) states allow only sparklers and/or snakes;
and,
WHEREAS, the Honorable Gene Green has filed S.B. 251 which
would grant Commissioners Courts authority to regulate fireworks in
unincorporated areas; now therefore:
Be it resolved by the City Council of the City of Sanger:
Section I, That the City Council of the City of Sanger go on record
in support of S.B. 251.
Section II. That significant, public safety concerns exist to declare
this to be an emergency and that this action receive priority attention in
the 72nd Legislature.
Resolution #R5-91
Page 2
PASSED AND APPROVED on this
in Sanger, Texas,
ATTEST:
Rosalie Garcia
City Secretary
day of , 1991,
Nel Armstrong_
Mayor
City of Sanger, Texas
Resolution #116-91
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SANGER, DENTON COUNTY,
TEXAS, SUPPORTING THE FIRE PREVENTION AND FIRE-
FIGHTING ACTIVITIES OF THE TEXAS FOREST SERVICE.
WHEREAS, approximately 30,000 wildland fires cause over $3.0
million in property loss each year in Texas; and
WHEREAS, more than 80 percent of the citizens of Texas occupy
only three percent of our land; and
WHEREAS, the majority of rural Texas is protected by volunteer
fire departments who lack proper funding, training, and equipment, and
WHEREAS, the Honorable Bill Simms, has filed S.B. 20, the Rural
Mobilization Act and the Honorable Robert Junnell has filed H. B. 1509;
now therefore.
Be it resolved by the City Council of the City of Sanger;
Section I. That the City Council of the City of Sanger go on record
in support of S. B. 20.
Section II. That significant public safety concerns exist to declare
this to be an emergency and that this action receive priority attention in
the 72nd Legislature.
PASSED AND APPROVED on this day of , 1991
in Sanger, Texas.
Nel Armstrong
Mayor
ATTEST:
Rosalie Garcia
City Secretary
City of Sanger, Texas
Resolution #R7-91
A RESOLUTIQN OF THE CITY OF SANGER, DENTON COUNTY,
TEXAS, SUPPORTING PASSAGE OF LEGISLATION GRANTING
COUNTIES AUTHORITY TO ADOPT CODES:
WHEREAS, over 101,609 fires destroyed over $1 billion in property
in Texas in 19899 and
WHEREAS, there were over 290 fire related deaths and 2,683 related injuries injuries in Texas in 1989; and
WHEREAS, County Governments in Texas do not have the authority
to adopt model fire and building codes for unincorporated areas, and
WHEREAS, the Honorable Ben Campbell proposes to introduce
legislation granting counties code making authority; now therefore;
Be it resolved by the City Council of the City of Sanger:
Section I, That the City Council of the City of Sanger go on record
in support of Representative Campbell's efforts to enact legislation
granting County Governments code making authority.
Section II. That significant public safety concerns exist to declare
this to be an emergency and that this action receive priority attention in
the 72nd Legislative.
PASSED AND APPROVED on this day of , 1991 in
Sanger, Texas.
Nel Armstrong
Mayor
ATTEST.
Rosalie Garcia
City Secretary 4
Argyle
Wbrey
uarroilton
Denton
Double Oak
Flower Mound
Frisco
Highland Village
Justin
Krum
Lake Cities
Lewisville
Little Elm
Mayhill-Cooper Creek
Pilot Point
Ponder
Roanoke
Sanger
The Colony
Trophy Club
March 6, 1991
Nel Armstrong, Mayor
P.O. Box 578
Sanger, Texas 76266
Dear Mayor Armstrong:
a
The combined fire service organizations of Texas recently formed
the Confederation of Fire Safety Organizations. The purpose of
COFSO is to promote fire safety in Texas and to influence the
Legislature to pass laws which enables the fire service to provide
better service to all the citizens of Texas.
Four key areas of concern have been identified by COFSO. First,
we would like to pass S.B. 251 by Gene Green. This bill, if
enacted, would grant counties the authority to regulate fireworks
in unincorporated areas of the county. Fireworks continue to be a
tremendous problem for us. S.B. 251 would not mandate regula-
tions, but would allow each county to make its own decision. Our
Resolution, 91-01 and a copy of S.B. 251 are attached.
Second, COFSO supports passage of S.B. 20/H.B. 1059 the Rural
Mobilization Act. This bill would grant the Texas Forest Service
more authority to coordinate wildland fires throughout the state.
A copy of S.B. 20 and our Resolution of support are attached.
Third, we also support COFSO's call for a bill to grant counties
authority to adopt fire and building codes. Denton County Repre-
sentative Campbell has agreed to introduce the bill in the House.
Like the fireworks bill, the bill is not mandatory, but permis-
sive. TML has agreed to support the bill. Our Resolution of
support is attached.
Finally, we support COFSO's efforts to require that the State of
Texas comply with local fire and building codes and that cities be
allowed to inspect buildings for code compliance.
We would ask that the elected officials of ,your jurisdiction
consider passing similar resolutions of support for our position.
Please contact me at (817) 566-8101 if you have any questions.
Thank you for your consideration in this matter.
Sincerely,
John Lee Cook, Jr.
President
rayle
4ubre\;
.arroliton
Denton
ouole
Oak
iawer
Mound
_ co
c,I fa
C! `,;
lau
_Jj e
C
RESOLUTION NO. 91-01
A Resolution of the Denton County Fire Chiefs Association
supporting Fireworks Control Legislation.
Whereas, the continued presence of any class of
fireworks contributes to injuries and property damage
every year when used by the general public without the
direction and control of a licensed pyrotechnician; and
Whereas, over the past five years in the United
States, an average of 10,400 hospital -treated fireworks
injuries have occurred each year, and
Whereas, 34,700 fires were started in our nation by
fireworks in 1986 alone; and
Whereas, twelve (12) states have already banned all
Class C fireworks; and
Whereas, seven (7) states allow only sparklers
and/or snakes; and,
Whereas , the Honorable Gene Green has filed S . B . 2 51
which would grant Commissioners Courts authority to
regulate fireworks in unincorporated areas; now
therefore:
Be it resolved
Association:
Section I.
Association go on
by the Denton
That the Denton
record in support
ire Chif
County Fes
County
Fire Chiefs
of
Section II. That significant public safety concerns
exist to declare this to be an emergency and that this
action receive priority attention in the 72nd
Legislature.
PASSED AND APPROVED on this 21st day of February, 1991 in
Denton, Texas.
John Lee Cook, Jr.
President, DCFCA
ATTEST:
Pat Dews
Secretary, DCFCA
Ai avle
aubrev
� arroiiton RESOLUTION NO. 91-03
Denton
Double Lai:
dower ill?ouncl
=riscc A Resolution of the Denton County Fire Chiefs Association
rlarc ,' ;ac:e supporting passage of Legislation granting counties
authority to adopt codes:
ke Whereas, over 101,609 fires destroyed over $1
billion in property in Texas in 1989, and
Whereas, there were over 290 fire related deaths and
2,683 fire -related injuries in Texas in 1989; and
Whereas, County Governments in Texas do not have the
authority to adopt model fire and building codes for
- unincorporated areas, and
Whereas, the Honorable Ben Campbell proposes to
introduce legislation granting counties code making
authority; now therefore;
Be it resolved by the Denton County Fire Chiefs
Association:
Section I. That the Denton County Fire Chiefs
Association go on record in support of Representative
Campbell's efforts to enact legislation granting County
Governments code making authority.
Section II. That significant public safety concerns
exist to declare this to be an emergency and that this
action receive priority attention in the 72nd
Legislative.
PASSED AND APPROVED on this 21st day of February, 1991 in
Denton, Texas.
J hn Lee Cook, Jr.
President
ATTEST:
Pat Dews
Secretary, DCFCA
T C��
FROM:
DATE.
SUBJECT:
•r &i5
Ps Oo BOX
AuNGER) TEXAS r_ •
Hnnc�v'x�hip Mavnr RMpmhr� cif t.hP City C c�unril
Jahn Hamilton, City Manager
March 28, 1991
Ordinance #05-91 - Drug Screening/Testing Program
The new Worker's Camp. law rer�uires all employees with rriore than
fifteen (15) employees to adopt a Drug Screening/Testing Program. The
ordinance and drug screening program are adapted from material
supplied by TML from Live Oak, Texas.
JH:es
CITY %J SANGER, TEXAS
ORDINANCE #05-91
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SANGER, DENTON COUNTY,
TEXAS, MAKING FINDINGS ON THE EFFECTS OF SUBSTANCE
ABUSE IN THE PUBLIC SECTOR, PROVIDING FOR DRUG
TESTING PROCEDURES AS A CONDITION PRECEDENT TO ALL
PROSPECTIVE EMPLOYEES OF THE CITY OF SANGER,
PR1r)N1TnTNTG_ FURTHER FOR SUTCH TESTING TO ALL PUBLIC
SAFETY PERSONNEL, THE CITY COUNCIL, ALL APPOINTED
MEMBERS OF CITY BOARDS, THE CITY MANAGER,
DEPARTMENT HEADS, OPERATORS OF CITY OWNED VEHICLES
AND TO PERSONNEL INVOLVED IN ON -DUTY ACCIDENTS
RESULTING IN INJURY OR DAMAGE TO EMPLOYEES OR CITY
PROPERTY, ESTABLISHING PROCEDURES TO ASSURE THE
INTEGRITY OF THE DRUG TESTING PROCESS, PROVIDING
FURTHER FOR DISCHARGE FROM PUBLIC SERVICE ANY
PERSONNEL TESTING POSITIVE FOR SUCH CONTRABAND
SUBSTANCES, REPEALING ALL ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT
HEREWITH AND PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY.
WHEREAS, public service is a trust which requires unconditional
adherence to principles of honesty and integrity, and a constant state of
readiness to serve the public in discharging one's duties, and,
WHEREAS, the prevalence of drugs in our society permeates into
the leadership and work farce of civil government and,
WHEREAS, medical research has empirically established that
substance abuse has a deleterious effect an an individual's performance of
his duties, and,
WHEREAS, the result of substance abuse is impaired judgment,
lessened work performance and increased exposure to accidents in the
work area, and,
WHEREAS, it is the duty of the Sanger City Council to promulgate
policies reasonably necessary to exclude and remove from public service
and/or employment persons wrongfully using controlled substances and
engaging in alcohol abuse, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANGER, TEXAS: `
Ord. #05-91 Drug Testing
Page 2
1. The Sanger City Council does hereby adopt comprehensive
substance abuse policies and testing procedures therefore to assure as
fully as possible to the citizens of Sanger public servants who shall be
free of such abusive practices. A copy of these policies are attached
hereto as Exhibit I.
2. Be it further ORDAINED that any public servant including,
but not limited to members of the Sanger City Council, appointed city
officers, members of boards and all employees testing positive for
unauthorized controlled substances and/or intoxicating beverages shall be
subject to removal from such public service. He it further ORDAINED
that all prospective employees and appointed members of city positions,
boards or commissions of the City of Sanger shall be refused
consideration for such employment or appointment if they also test
positive from such screening.
3. All ordinances in conflict herewith are hereby repealed.
4. In the event any section, subsection, sentence, clause, or
phrase of this Ordinance shall be declared or adjudged invalid or
unconstitutional, such adjudication shall in no means affect any other
section, subsection clause or phrase of this Ordinance, but all the rest
thereof shall be in full force and effect just as though the section,
subsection, sentence or clause so declared ar adjudged invalid or
unconstitutional was not originally a part thereof.
PASSED AND APPROVED this day of ,
1�#91.
. Mayor Nel Armstrong
ATTEST:
Rosalie Garcia, City Secretary ��� �� ���
:. � <�
BANGER SUBSTANCE ABUSE TESTING
FOLLOWING ACCIDENTS OR PREDICATED UPON
INDIVIDUALIZED SUSPICION OF INDIVIDUALS
Definitions:
1. "Alcohol" means ethyl alcohol (ethanol). References to use or
possession of alcohol include use of possession of any
beverage, mixture or preparation containing ethyl alcohol.
2. "Drug" means any substance other than alcohol that has
known mind or function - altering effects on a human
subject, namely, all controlled substances enumerated in
Article 4478-15 V. A. C. S., including, but not limited to
Marijuana (cannabinoids), Cocaine, Opiates, Amphetamines,
and Phencyclidine.
3. "Medical Facility" means a hospital, clinic, physician's office or
laboratory where toxicological samples can be collected
according to recognized professional standards.
4. "Possess" means to have on one's person or in one's personal
effects or under one's control. However, the concept of
possession as used in this part does not include control by
virtue of presence in the employee's personal residence or
other similar location off city property.
5. "Supervisory Employee" means a department head or his
immediate assistant who is not a co-worker and who is
responsible for supervising or monitoring the conduct or
performance of one or more employees.
PTTAWI
Nothing in this policy shall be construed to authorize the use of physi�l
coercion ar any other deprivation of liberty in order to compel breath or
body fluid testing.
Alcohol
A. In this part, Blood Alcohol Concentration (BAC) is expressed
as a "percentage" weight to volume. For example, a BAC of
11.04V means that there is .04 grams (4/100ths of one gram)
of alcohol in 100 milliliters of whole blood. This is the same
quantity as MO milligrams percent" (40 milligrams and 100
milliliters).
B. For the purpose of determining Blood Alcohol Concentration
through an analysis of the breath, the amount of alcohol and
one part of blood shall be presumed to equal the amount of
alcohol in 2100 parts of an expired breath sample (by
volume).
Prohibitions
Alcohol and drug use prohibited
A. Members of the City Council, appointed city officials, or
members of any city board or commission may not use or
possess alcohol or any controlled substance while performing
his or her duties.
B. No such person may report for duty or go or remain on duty
while
1. under the influence of or impaired by alcohol;
2. having .04T or more alcohol in the blood;
3, under the influence of or impaired by any controlled
substance.
Controlled substance is defined to mean the following drugs: All
controlled substances enumerated in Article 4476-15 V. A.C. S., including,
but not limited to:
Marijuana ((annabinoids), Cocaine, Opiates, Amphetamines, and
Phencyclidine �
City Personnel Rules
Nothing J. this section prohibits the city through its personnel rules
from imposing an absolute prohibition on the presence of alcohol or any
drug in the body fluids of persons in its employ whether in furtherance
of the purpose of this part or for other purposes. All municipal
employees of the City of Sanger shall notify their immediate supervisors
if they are taking prescribed medicines or over the counter drugs which
adversely affect or impair the performance of their duties.
This section does not prohibit the use of a controlled substance
prescribed or authorized by a medical practitioner, or possession incident
to such use, if -
A. .the treating medical practitioner or a physician designated by
the City of Sanger has made a good faith judgment, with
notice of the employees assigned duties and on the basis of the
available medical history, that use of the substance by the
employee at the prescribed or authorized dosage level is
consistent with the safe performance of the employee's duties;
and,
B. the substance is used at the dosage prescribed or authorized.
Post -Accident Toxically Testing
Events for which testing is required
From and after the passage of the City of Sanger's Drug Testing
Screening Program, and except as provided for herein, post -accident
toxicological test shall be conducted after any event that involves one or
more of the circumstances described below:
A. Any vehicular or occupational accident that involves one or
more of the fallowing:
1t a fatality
24 release of a hazardous material accompanied to buy an
evacuation or a reportable inj�iry resulting from the
hazardous material release (e.g. from fire, explosion,
inhalation or skin contact with the material) or
3. damage to city property of more than $500.00.
Good Fafth Determfnatfoans
A. The city representative responding to the scene of the
accident/incident shall determine whether the
accident/incident falls within the requirements of this section.
It is the duty of the city's representative to make reasonable
inquiry into the facts as necessary to make such
uiaterminntionc, Teti Making clirh in(miry the citv's
representative shall consider the need to obtain samples as
soon as practical in order to determine the presence or
absence of impairing substances reasonably contemporaneous
with the accident/incident. The city's representative satisfies
the requirement of this section if, after making reasonable
inquiry, the representative exercises good faith judgment in
making the required determinations.
B. The city is not in violation of this subpart if its representative
has made such reasonable inquiry and exercise such good
faith judgment but nevertheless errs in determining that post -
accident testing is not required.
r. The city does not act in excess of its authority under this
subpart if its representative has made such reasonable inquiry
and exercise such good faith judgment, but it is later
determined, after investigation, that one or more of the
conditions thought to have required testing were not, in fact,
present.
Responsibilities of the City and Employees
A. Employees tested
1. Following each accident and incident. described above the
city shall take a?1 practicable steps to assure that all city
employees involved in the accident or incident provide
blood and urine samples for toxicological testing.
2. Such employees shall specifically include each employee
who may have been assigned or a passenger to any
vehicle involved in such accident, r
3. An employee is excluded from testing in case of any
accident/incident if the city's representative can
immediately determine from the basis of specific
information that the employee had no role in the
cause(s) of the accident/incident.
Place of Sample Collectfon
Employees shall be transported to an independent medical facility
where tbP_. sample shall be obtained. In all eases blood shall be drawn
only by a qualified medical professional or by a qualified technician
subject to the supervision of a qualified medical professional.
A. (General). Samples shall be obtained, marked, preserved,
handled, and made available to authorized representatives of
the City of Sanger consistent with the requirements of this
section.
B. Information Requirements. In order to process samples,
analyze the significance of laboratory findings and notify the
city and employees of test results, it is necessary to obtain
basic information concerning the accident/incident and any
treatment administered after the accident/incident.
Accordingly, the city representative shall, wherever necessary,
complete the information required by such medical treatment
facility so far as may be practicable.
C. In the case of an employee fatality in an accident or incident
described above, the city's representative shall make every
effort to cooperate fully with the Denton County Medical
Examiner towards the end that appropriate body fluid and/or
tissue samples shall be obtained from the remains of the
employee for toxicological testing.
Report of Test and Refusals
If, as the result of the non -cooperation of an employee, the city is
unable t.o obtain an appropriate body fluid and/or tissue sample from an
employee for toxicological testing, such refusal shall be grounds for the
removal of such employee from the public service of the City of Sanger. ( z.
Follow—up
It is in the public interest to insure that any city disciplinary actions
that. may result from accidents and incidents for which testing is
required be disposed of on the basis of the most complete and reliable
information available so that responsive action will be appropriate.
This provision shall not be construed to excuse the city from any
obligation to timely charge an employee where the city obtains sufficient
ffTcrrr►ation relating to alcohol or dr»g use, impairment or possession or
other rule violations prior to receipt of toxicological analysis.
Each sample provided under this subpart shall be retained by the
appropriate medical facility for at least six (6) months following the date
of the accident or incident and may be made available to the city's
representative upon request or to a party in litigation upon service of
appropriate compulsory process.
iJnlawful Refusals; Consequences
A. An employee who refuses to cooperate in providing a blood or
urine sample following an accident or incident specified in
these regulations shall be subject to removal from public
employment.
A. Prior to or upon suspending an employee Pram public
employment, the city shall provide notice of the reason for
this action and an opportunity for hearing before a presiding
official other than the charging official. This hearing may be
consolidated with any other disciplinary hearing arising from
the same accident or incident (of conduct directly related
thereto), but the presiding officer shall make separate findings
as to the disqualification required by this section.
Subject of Hearing
The hearing required by this section shall determine whether the
employee refused to submit to testing, having been requested to submit
under the authority of this subpart, by a representative of the City of
Sanger. In determining whether an employee should be terminated or
suspended, the hearing official shall, as appropriate, also consider the
following.
A< Whether the city made a good faith determination, based on
reasonable inquiry, that the accident or incident was within
the mandatory testing requirements of this subpart; and,
B. In case where a blood test was refused on the ground it
would be inconsistent with the employee's health, whether
such refusal was made in good faith and based on medical
advice.
Authorization to Test Par Cause
Testing for reasonable cause
A. Authorization. The city may, under the conditions specified
in this subpart, require any employee, or public official
serving the City of Sanger in any capacity, to cooperate in
breath or urine testing, or both, under the following
circumstances.
1. Reasonable Suspicion. A supervisory employee of the city has
a reasonable suspicion that the employee or public official is
currently under the influence of or impaired by alcohol, or
alcohol in combination with a controlled substance, based upon
specific, personal observations that the supervisory employee
can articulate concerning the appearance, behavior, speech or
body odors of the employee.
a. Accident/Incident. The employee or public official has
been involved in an accident or incident reportable
under these regulations, and the city's supervisory
employee has reasonable suspicion that the employee or
officials, acts or omissions contributed to the occurrence
or severity of the accident or incident; or,
b. Rule Violation. The employee or public official has been
directly involved or charged with violating any city
policies, rules or regulations dealing with his duties of
office or city personnel policies and regulations.
The above circumstances shall also be justification and shall
constitute reasonable cause for breath testing.
Reasonable Suspicion
Reasonable cause also exists where a supervisor ;y employyee of the
city has a reasonable suspicion that the employee or public official is
currently under the influence of or impaired by alcohol or a controlled
substance, based upon specific, personal observations that the supervisory
employee can articulate concerning the appearance, behavior, speech, or
body odors of the employee or official, subject to the following
limitations.
A. An employee or official may be required to submit to urine
testing for reasonable suspicion only if the determination is
made by at least two (2) supervisory employees or a collateral
official of equal dignity and,
B. If the determination to require urine testing is based upon
suspicion that the employee or official is under the influence of
or impaired by a controlled substance, at least one (1)
supervisory employee responsible for the decision to require
urine testing must have received minimal training in the signs
of drug intoxication consistent with a law enforcement
program.
Preference far Breath Test where Alcohol is Suspected.
If an employee or official is specifically suspected only or being
under the influence of or impaired by alcohol, breath testing is a
preferred means of confirmation, The city shall conduct a breath test
before requiring a urine test unless to do so would not be feasible because
of unavailability of a testing device or other considerations of safety or
efficiency.
Time Limitation
Nothing in this section shall authorize testing of an employee with
the breath test after the expiration of an eight (8) hour period from the
time of the observations or other events described in this section.
Construction
Nothing in this subpart requires the city to undertake breath testing
as a requisite to any disciplinary action or restricts the discretion of the
city to proceed based solely on evidence of behavior, personal
observations, or other evidence customarily relied upon in such
investigations or disciplinary hearings.
A. Breath testing tests shall be administered by a competent
peace officer, schooled and authorized to administer the
breathalizer test to any arrested suspects believed to be
driving motor vehicles under the influence of intoxicating
beverages. If an initial test is positive, the employee or public
official shall be tested again after the expiration of a period of
not less than fifteen (15) minutes in order to confirm that the
test has properly measured the alcohol content of deep lung
air.
B. Because of the inherent limitations of the instrumentation, any
indicative breath test. result of less than . CI210 shall be deemed
a negative test.
DRUG SCREENING PROGRAM
1. Furpvse
The purpose of this directive is to establish City of Sanger policies
and procedures under which the drug screening program will be
implemented.
The reason fur initiating a drug screening program in the City of
Sanger is that public service is a trust which requires unconditional
adherence to principles of honesty and integrity, and a constant
state of readiness to serve the public in discharging one's duties.
Unfortunately illicit drug use has entered into every segment of our
society including civil government and medical research has
determined that substance abuse has a harmful effect on an
individual's performance of his duties. Substance abuse results in
impaired judgment, lessened work performance and increased
exposure to accidents to fellow workers and the individuals
concerned. For these reasons the City of Sanger has a special
responsibility to insure that members of its city council, appointed
public officials and members of the various city boards and
commissions, the city manager, department heads and their
supervisory employees, all operators of city owned vehicles, all
public safety employees and members of the police reserve force
and the fire department volunteers, and all others occupying
sensitive positions in the city's work force remain drug free. Drug
screening has proven to be an excellent deterrent to the use of
illegal drugs. Further, when sophisticated laboratory methods are
used, drug screening is technically valid and accurate.
3. Palicy
A
. Drug screening through urinalysis is a condition of
employment for placer,�ent into positions covered by the
program. Candidates with confirmed positive test results
from drug screening shall be subject to loss of consideration
for the position applied for.
B. Confirmed positive test results from drug screening
demonstrate use of illegal drugs. Consistent with the City 's
Personnel Policies public servants who improperly use illegal
drugs may be subject to removal from the public service.
4. Scope
The drug screening program outlined in this directive is limited to
drug testing through urinalysis for all prospective applicants for
city eIIiployft.
leIlt, Inen.IDers of file City Council, appointed city
official's and members of city boards or commissions, the city
manager, department heads and their supervisory assistants,
members of the fire and police departments, their reserve or
auxiliary components and all other employees holding sensitive
positions with the City of Sanger. Also included within this drug
screening program are the animal control officer, and all city
personnel who operate city owned or leased vehicles.
This drug screening prograrn shall also extend to city persor�r�el
involved in accidents resulting in injury to persons or damage to
property, to all other employees whose duties are such that lessened
work performance because of substance abuse would have a
substantial adverse impact on the community and shall be further
administered to all persons serving the City of Sanger whether in
an appointed, managerial or employee capacity whenever
circumstances indicate individualized suspicion which would
warrant a reasonably prudent person to believe that such person is
under the influence of controlled substances or alcoholic beverages.
5. Derinitfons
A. Immunizing; A technique commonly used in drug screening
to detect the presence of drugs in urine. This test uses drug -
specific antibodies to discriminate between positive and
negative samples.
B. Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry (GC/MS): An
analytical technique which may be used as a confirmation test
in urinalysis. GC/MS confirms the identity and concentration
level of a compound by comparing its unique fragmentation
spectrum and response to that of an analytical standard.
C. Ye Me: Vehicle means every device, in, upon, or by which
any person or property is or may be transported or drawn
upon a highway, excepting devices moved by human power or
used exclusively upon stationary rails or tracks.
D. Motor Vehicle: Motor vehicle means every vehicle is self-
propelled and every vehicle which is propelled by electric
power obtained from overhead trolley wires, but not operated
upon rails.
6. Responsibilities
A. The city manager with the assistance of department heads has
overall program responsibility for the drug screening
program, which includes:
(1) determining positions which are covered by the
program;
(2) authorizing the collection of urine specimens for ,.
individuals tentatively selected for screening,
(3) obtaining technical interpretations of positive test
results;
7. Procedures
A. Notification for prospective employees, newly appointed city
officials and members of boards of city commission.
At the time of notification of tentative selection for a position
covered by the program, tentative selectees will be advised
that their final Selection and placement into a position is
contingent upon successful completion of drug screening
through urinalysis (and nay other pre-employment/placement
conditions such as medical examination, background
investigation, etc,)
Ei. Notification for all other public officials and employees.
(1) The city manager or his nominee will generate a "blind"
scheduling list of four (4) persons quarterly for drug
screening program®examinations.
(2) The list of names will be certified to insure no
impropriety in selecting personnel.
(3) Departments heads will determine if the selected
employees are on duty.
(4) If employees are on vacation, off
-duty or scheduled to
appear in court, their names will be rescheduled for
f uture selection. Personnel relieved of duty with pay or
on light/limited duty will be required to take the drug
screening test. Personnel on disability will be
scheduled after consultation with their physicians.
(5) The city manager will provide the names of those
personnel selected to the appropriate department heads.
The city manager's office will notify department heads
and appointed city officials and boardmembers of their
scheduled times for the drug screening test.
(6) All personnel will report immediately to the
medical/testing facility after being notified by the
appropriate person. All testing must be completed
before the end of the examinee Is tour of duty, but not
later than the day of such notification.
C. Sample Collection
The guidelines described below will be used in the collection
process:
(1) The subject (tentative selectee) may be asked to
report to a collection location. However, if the
collector is not located within reasonable geographic
proximity to the subject, or for other reasons the
collector may come to the subject's location, or the
collector may arrange an alternate location for
sample collection.
0
(2) When met by the collector, the subject will be asked
to show a photo identification. If the applicant does
not have one of the types of identification listed
below, he/she will be asked to reschedule the
appointment. Drug screening will not take place
without proper identification.
Acceptable I.D. 's are:
i@ T1ri�TAr'c T.1C'P11CP With tl}lnt.ti
Employee I. D. with photo
Social Security Card with signature, if no photo
identification is available
Na other types of I.D. are acceptable.
(3) After identification is made, the subject will be
required to provide the following information
which will be recorded on a pre -test form:
Name
Address
Current Job Title/Employer of a
ppainted
The subject will then be asked to fill our a second
form which requests the following information:
Name
Social Security Number
Medications taken within the last thirty days (the
disclosure of this information is voluntary)
The subject will also be asked to explain any
circumstances in which he/she may have been in
legitimate contact with illegal substances over the
last thirty days.
The subject will be asked to sign a statement which
indicates that he/she understands the ramifications
of drug screening positive results.
(4) Once FA farm has been completed, the
subject will be asked to remove his/her outer
garments (coats, jackets, etc.). In addition, all
personal belongings must remain with the outer
garments. The subject may retain his/her wallet.
1Vo outer gar clients or per sorial belorigirigs (pur sea,
bags, etc.) can be taken into the restroom while the
subject voids.
(5) When the testing takes place, the following
procedures will be used. Observation will be "close"
but not "direct. " That is, the contractor shall not
directly observe the voiding "body to bottle. it Instead,
at the collector's location, precautions will be taken to
prevent sample adulteration.
(8) Upon receiving the specimen bottle back form the
subject, the collector will insure it contains sufficient
urine volume. If there is not enough urine volume in
the bottles, additional urine will need to be collected.
(7) If the subject is unable to void at the appointment
time, or if the amount of urine voided is not sufficient:
a. The subject. will be given coffee or water• to drink.
The subject should void within the hour.
b. If he/she is unable to void, the subject will be asked
to return within a reasonable period of time during
the same day.
c. If, after this period of time, the subject still cannot
void, the inability to produce a sample will result in
loss of consideration for the position applied for.
Public officials and employees will be scheduled for
a subsequent test.
c
D. Chain V1 Custody
(1) After the urine specimen is collected, the subject
must immediately hand the specimen to the
collector. If the specimen is unusually hot or cold,
another specimen will be collected.
(2) A tamper -proof custody seal will be affixed over
the top of the bottle cap and down the opposite
j...]�c 4.1... 1...4.4.1.. A A.. AA.. 4J J...�4J.,.. label
•.�J11
bltAtfb V1 UP:: UVLLIC. P% Ul 111C luCn61fiRmat1V11 label wilt
be completed and placed around the base of the
bottle, making certain it covers both ends of the
tamper -proof custody seal.
(3) The subject will be asked to read a certification
statement., certifying that the urine in the bottle
came from his/her body, and then sign his/her
signature on the chain of custody forth.
(4) The subject is asked again t.o show proof of
identification to insure that the signature matches.
(5) The collector witnesses the initial on the tamper-
proof seal, and the signature on the custody form,
by signing his/her name and professional
credentials.
(6) All urine specimens will be placed in plastic bags.
The bags will be sealed tightly and placed in
mailing envelopes. The completed chain of custody
form will be folded in quarters and wrapped
around the plastic bags. The form will be secured
to the bottle.
(7) The Drug Screening Pre -test Form will be placed
in a sealed envelope. The subject's social security
number will be written on the outside of the
envelope. The envelope will be sent to the
coordinator, This envelope will not be opened
unless there is a positive finding, in which case,
any information provided on the Pre -test Form
(such as prescription drugs taken, or legitimate m
contact with illegal substances), will be analyzed to
determine its impact on the test results.
The envelape containing the Pre -test Form will be
destroyed by the Drug Screening Coordinator if
the drug screening test is negative.
(8) The specimen will be delivered to the laboratory or
its authorized representative at the collection
location.
E. Laboratory Procedures/Laboratory Reporting
(1) .The contractor uses a combination forrrl which
includes both custody documentation and acts as a
laboratory requisition. This ensures that all of the
necessary information about a particular specimen
arrives at the laboratory at the same time as a
urine specimen.
(2) The laboratory will fallow appropriate chain of
custody procedures throughout the period the
sample is being tested.
(3) After testing, negative samples will be discarded
by the laboratory. Only samples testing positive
after both the screening and confirmation tests
will be considered positive. Positive samples will
be retained at the laboratory in a frozen state,
until the Drug Screening Coordinator directs there
to be destroyed.
(4) The laboratory shall report the results of the
testing to the Drug Screening Coordinator.
8. Technical Methodology
A. Range of Drugs
Drugs which will be tested for are as follows; Marijuana
(cannabinoids), Cocaine, Opiates, Amphetamines, and
Phencyclidine.
B. Technical Protocol
The technical Protocol for the drug screening program is a
screening test using immunoassay. Samples testing positive
will undergo a confirmation test using gas
chromatography/mass spectrometry.
C. Quality Assurance Program
Blind quality assurance samples will randomly be
ter mi11g1GetA vVith the �p cim ji samp11 s a.*id aliaiyr7gNA in the
same manner as actual specimens. Blind samples will be
provided by the laboratory to monitor the performance of the
contractor.
9. Personnel Policies
A. Advance Notification
Whenever possible, vacancy announcements and other
recruiting notices will state if a position requires the
successful completion of drug testing prior to final placement
in the position. An applicant who is tentatively selected for a
position will be notified in advance in writing of the drug
testing requirement.
B. Sample Adulteration
Any attempt to substitute another person's urine for one's
own, to adulterate a sample, or fraudulently affect reported
results will result in disciplinary/adverse action.
C. Negative Findings
Negative findings (na illegal drugs in the urine) will be
reported telephonically or by mail by the city manager or his
nominee to the tentative selectee.
D. Positive Findings
(1) Post -Test Fallow -up
a. The Drug Screening Pre -test Farm of any subject.
testing positive will be reviewed to determine if _
the use of prescription drugs was indicated.
If the information %J the Pre -test Form is
sufficient to determine that the test results are
consist with the ingestion of the prescription
drugs as described by the subject, rather than the
use of illegal drugs, the technical assessment will
be documented accordingly, and the tentative
selectee will be notified that the results were
negative for drug screening purposes.
If the information on the Pre -test Form is relevant
but insufficient to determine the impact of the
medications upon the test results, the subject will
be notified in writing by the city manager or his
nominee and asked to provide additional
information. In such instances, the subject will
have five work days to provide evidence of
prescriptions taken (i.e., prescription number,
prescription date, and/or a Doctor's certificate
stating that the subject was taking the
medication).
b. The Pre -test Form of any subject testing positive
will be reviewed for information concerning
legitimate contact with illegal drugs. If the
subject indicated on the Pre -test Form that he/she
was in legitimate contact with illegal drugs within
the last 30 days, the subject will be asked to
submit documentation from his/her supervisor
which verifies this contact. Once this
documentation is received the city manager or his
nominee may request the chief of police to verify
the information.
c. Are evaluation will be r�tiade, with appropriate
assistance from technical experts of all information
provided in connection with the ingestion of
prescription drugs and/or legitimate contact with
I
llegal substances in order to interpret the test
results. Candidates will be notified in writing of
all interpretations.
(2) Notification of Positive Findings
As indicated above, appointed officials grid employees
who test positive and whose Pre -Test Form contains
relevant information on the use of prescription drugs
and/or the legitimate contact with illegal substances,
will be notified in writing of the technical interpretation
of their test results. In addition, officials and employees
who test positive but whose Pre -Test Form does not
ne%ntain raiairnnt informaWw will receive written
.vAAU
notification of the positive finding.
(3) Independent Testing -Positive Findings
A public official or employee who tests positive through
drug screening may designate a laboratory for
independent testing of a portion of the sample collected
at the time of drug screening. In such instances, the
laboratory used by the City of Sanger will send a
portion of the original sample to a laboratory designated
by the employee. Such requests must be made in
writing and should be submitted to the city manager.
(4) Actions Taken: Prospective Employees and Public
Officials
Tentative selectees who test positive through drug
screening will be referred to the city manager for a
suitability determination as appropriate. If found
unsuitable, they will lose consideration for the position
applied for.
(5) Actions Taken: Public Officials and Employees
Public officials and employees who test positive through
drug screening consistent with these policies, are subject
to removal from public employment and/or service.
A city employee or public official who does not wish to
challenge a positive finding may voluntarily resign. If
the employee or official submits a resignation before
receipt of an adverse action proposal, the standard form
documenting the employee's or official's resignation will
indicate the empldyee resigned for personal reasons and
no additional findings relating to the reason for
resignation will be included on the form.
E. Refusals
Any tentative selectee who refuses to undergo drug screening
in conjunction with an employment opportunity will be
consideration for that position. Subsequent applications will
not be affected by a refusal. Adverse actions will be taken
agaiilsL Uij employee wijv ref uses drug sc eeljillg LesLs UIBA ally
documentation adversely affecting subsequent applications
shall be maintained.
10. System of Records/Privacy Act
Records generated by the drug screening program will be
maintained in a system of records and no unauthorized disclosures
shall be made to third persons except in accordance with the Texas
Open Records Act. The results of drug screening tests shall riot be
submitted to authorities for use in criminal proceedings.
Appendix 1
lakwMA061 WO
Positions Covered
The fallowing positions will require drug screening as a condition of
appointment/employment and continued retention into the position except
as provided otherwise.
Specific Positions
All Prospective Employees and/or Appointed City Officials or
Members of Boards or Commissions
Members of the City Council
Appointed City Officials
Merribers of Boards or Commissions
City Manager
Department Heads
Supervisory Employees of each City Department
Members of the Sanger Police Reserve Force
Members of the Fire Department
Members of the Sanger Volunteer Fire Department
The Animal Control Officer
All City Employees who oparate City Owned or Leased Vehicles
or Motor Vehicles
A11 other Employees Holding Sensitive Positions
W Ct _
DRUG SCREENING PRE —TEST FORM —THE CITY OF BANGER
Name (Print)
Social Security Number
1, Have you taken any medications in the last thirty days`? (You do
rtint nc.c✓l to 110t a"Ut nr.rr�mnrWSIy »cc.rl nRWrnr•-tha_n^JInfnr mnrlinafIjP% cUnh ac
11V1. 111�\.ekA 4V i1JV 4N11 4V11 111V1L IAJ�\A V rlrl 4111� <.Vl AAl4 i AAAl . Ai IW1V11J J YAA { &wY
aspirin or cold preparations). List types of medications and dates taken.
2. Have you been in direct contact with controlled substances (illegal
drugs) in the performance of official duties during the past thirty days`?
Yes Please explain the circumstances under which direct
contact was made, and the dates) of such contact(s).
3. My signature below indicates that I understand the following: (1)
satisfactory completion of drug screening is a condition of
employment/placement in the position applied for; (2) if the results of
this test indicate use of illegal drugs, I am subject to loss of consideration
for the position applied for; (3) if I am currently a member of the Sanger
Council, a city employee, an appointed city official or member of any city
board or commission, and the results of this test indicate use of illegal
drugs, I am subject to removal from the public employment for service;
arid, (4) if I refuse to undergo drug screening I will lose consideration
for the position applied for, or will be subject to removal as a member of
the city council, from public employment, or from my position as a public
official or member of a board or commission.
signature of subject
date @ signature of witness date
SAMPLE COPY: WHEN TENTATIVELY SELECTED, CANDIDATES WILL
RECEIVE THIS FACT SHEET CONTAINING
PERTINENT INFORMATION ABOUT THE TESTING PROCESS
DRUG SCREENING FACT SHEET
PiTRPOSE: The purpose of the drug screening program is to help
..r�>>hl�n ^iflnlaio artira itC GIamrlr fnrne are llrllg-free.
1115ur a L11G11 JUllge.. pub i%.. V111%..1[41J u1aa a�J v•va .� ays
Since public service requires the highest integrity and readiness, the use
of illegal drugs by public officials and employees cannot be tolerated.
Drugs which are included under the Sanger drug screening
program: All controlled substances enumerated in Article 4476-15
V.A. C. S., including, but not limited to: marijuana, cocaine,
amphetamines, opiates (includes heroin and morphine) and PCP.
Arranging an appointffient: After receiving advice that you have
been tentatively selected by the City of Sanger, you will be contacted by a
local collection company representative who will set up an appointment
with you for your drug test. The time and place of the drug test will be
worked out between you and the company representative. Normally, you
will be asked to report to a. clinic located near your residence or place of
business. In some cases, especially if you live in a remote geographic
location and if a company representative is not located near you, the
representative will travel to your location for the purpose of ,your drug
test. In those cases, you and the representative will work out a meeting
place of mutual convenience, such as a local hospital, clinic, or a public
building such as a police station.
What to bring to your appointment:
1. He sure to bring one of the following types of identification:
• Driver's License with photo
• Employee I.D. with photo
• Social Security Card with signature, if no photo identification
is available
No other types of I.D. are acceptable.
4
2. You should also bring any information relating to any prescription
medications you are currently taking or have taken during the past thirty
Jays such as a note from a doctor indicating such medications, or other
prescription information including date of prescription, type of
medication prescribed, medication concentration, frequency of use, date
medication was last taken, prescription number, name of the physician
prescribing the medication, and date of prescription.
CITY OF SANGER
P. O. Box 578
Dear
We are pleased to advise you treat you have been tentatively selected
for employment or appointment to a city position, board or commission
as follows:
Position Title:
Salary:
At. this time, your selection is considered tentative since the position
offered or appointment is contingent upon your meeting the applicable
requirements designated below:
DRUG SCREENING TEST
Continued consideration for this position is contingent upon
satisfactory completion of a drug screening test. Drug screening will be
performed through laboratory analysis of a sample of your urine. Since
satisfactory completion of drug screening is a condition of
employment/appointment, candidates with positive findings indicating the
use of illegal drugs are subject to loss of consideration for this position.
E
i BOX 3
ANGER, TEXAS _ii
TO: Honorable Mayor & Members of the City Council
FROM: John Hamilton, City Manager
DA T E: March G$, 1991
SUBJECT: Ordinance #06-91 -Establishing Electric Rates Within
Sanger For Denton County Electric Cooperative, Inc.
The attorneys representing Denton County Electric Co-op. have requested
the City Council consider adopting an ordinance establishing the electric
rates charged by Denton Co-op. in Sanger. The proposed rates have
been approved by the Public Utility Commission; therefore, there is no
authority Council can exercise concerning the rates only whether or not
you desire to adopt Ordinance #06-91.
Consulting City Attorney Ran Neiman recommends adapting the
ordinance which he has reviewed and revised. Mr. Neiman considers the
ordinance a means of protecting consumers from a higher rate that could
be awarded to Denton Co-op. by the P. U. C. if the Co-op, returned to the
P. U. C. without an ordinance in place.
A copy of the ordinance as prepared by Mr. Neiman as well �s the
sample ordinance submitted by Denton Co. Co-op. are enclosed.
JH:es
Enclosures
City of Sanger, Texas
Ordinance #00-91
AN ORDINANCE APPROVING RATE SCHEDULES TO BE
CHARGED BY DENTON COUNTY ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE IN
THE CITY OF SANGER, TEXAS; PROVIDING FOR SCHEDULES
AND CONDITIONS; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING
A REPEALER, AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF
T'HE U T'Y Ur' SANGER, TEXAS:
SECTION I.
That the rates, tariffs, and charges of DCEC for electric power and
energy sold within the City be revised to increase annual revenues by
$2,892,180 on a total Texas system basis. Such schedules of Rates, as are
approved in accordance herewith, are those under which said
Cooperative shall be authorized to render electric service and to collect
charges from its customers for the sale of electric power and energy
within the corporate limits of the City for all such consumption from and
after April 1, 1991, until such time as said Rate Schedules may be
changed, modified, amended, or withdrawn, with the approval of the
City Council,
SECTION II.
The DCEC shall file with the City a revised Schedule of Rates and
Tariffs setting forth those rates, tariffs, and charges based upon such
increase in total operating revenues as prescribed herein. The rate
design implemented by such schedules and tariffs shall be in accord with
the stipulation of the parties in Docket 9892 before the Public Utility
Commission of Texas and shall reflect the percentage increases to each
customer class shown on Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated
herein. Such schedule of Rates and Tariffs may be modified or amended
by the City Council within ten (10) days from the date of filing with the
City, otherwise, the same shall be considered approved as filed.
Provided, however, notwithstanding any other provisions herein
contained, the rate increase provided for herein shall not be effective
prior to the effective date of the rate increase ordered by the Public
Utility Commission of Texas in Docket 9892 and no rate of DCEC within
the City of Sanger shall, in any case, exceed the corresponding rate of
customers of DCEC in unincorporated areas whether such rate for
Ord. #OF-91
Page 2
unincorporated areas is set prior to or after the adoption of this
Ordinance and it shall be unlawful for DCEC, its agents, servants, or
employees to collect or attempt to collect any higher rate within the City
of Sanger than is collected by DCEC within unincorporated areas.
SECTION III.
That the action of the City Council of the City of Sanger enacting
this Ordinance constitutes, on the date of its final passage, a final
determination of rates for DCEC within the City of Sanger in accordance
with Section 43(e) of the Public Utility Regulatory Act.
Nothing in this Ordinance contained shall be construed now or
hereafter as limiting or modifying, in any manner, the right and power
of the City under the law to regulate the rates and charges of DCEC.
If any section, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance is for
any reason held to be unconstitutional or otherwise invalid or
unenforceable by a Court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall
not affect the validity of the remaining section, sentences, clauses, or
phrases of this Ordinance or the Ordinance as an entirety, it being the
legislative intent that the provisions of this Ordinance are separable and
that the Ordinance shall continue in effect notwithstanding the invalidity
of such section, sentence, clause or phrase.
LH
a• •
That all ordinances, resolutions, or parts thereof, in conflict
herewith are repealed to the extent of such conflict.
0
Ord. #06-91
Page 3
SECTION VII.
It being for the public welfare that this Ordinance be passed, creates
an emergency and public necessity, and this Ordinance shall now be
placed on its final reading for passage, and shall be in full force and
effect from and after its passage and approval.
PASSED AND APPROVED this
Nel Armstrong
Mayor
ATTEST:
Rosalie Garcia
City Secretary
EXHIBIT An
DENTON COUNTY ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE
RATE INCREASE BY CLASS
DOCKET #9892
COOPERATIVE
PRESENT REVENUE
RATE CLASS REVENUE INCREASE
Residential 24,654,423 2,188,020
Public Buildings 930,491 1023896
Small Commercial 1,652,938 159,938
Industrial 2,845,804 301,584
Lighting 430j535 593512
Other 143,910 003230
TOTAL 30,65$,110 2,892,180
AGREED INCREASE
:o'
9, 43�
(i)
(Z)
City of Sanger
This charge is for the availability of electric service
May through
Uctober billing
periods, inclusive:
$.054Z54 per KWh for all
1 � '-
April billing
periods, inclusive:
Each billing period the Customer shall be obligated to pay
the following charges as a minimum, whether or not any
energy is actually used:
(i) The customer charge;
(Z) Any amount authorized under the Cooperative's line
extension policy for amortization of line extension
costs.
This rate is subject to all billing adjustments.
r
LAW OFFICES
MCGINNIS, LOCHRIDGE & KILGORE
1300 CAPITOL CENTER
91 D CONGRESS AVENUE
AUSTIN, TEXAS 78701
TELEPHONE (512) 476-6982
WRITER'S DIRECT DIAL NUMBER:
(512) 495-6046
March 15, 1991
ti� n K 9 R Z�ig9
� ItriK
t
Mayor and Governing Body
City of Sanger RANGER
201 Bolivar St.
P. 0. Box 578
Sanger, Texas 76266
Re: Request for Approval of Revised Rates
Dear Sirs:
This firm represents Denton County Electric Cooperative, Inc.
In early December, the Cooperative filed a major rate case
requesting that the Public Utility Commission of Texas and each of
the cities within which the Cooperative provides service approve
revised rates. Some cities in which the Cooperative provides
service suspended the effective date of the proposed rates.
Others took no action. Irregardless of the status of the
Cooperative rate application before your city, the Cooperative is
requesting that your city approve the enclosed tariffs effective
April 1, 1991.
These tariffs are the product of negotiation and compromise
among the parties to the Cooperatives rate case pending before the
Public Utility Commission, including the Commission's staff and
the cities of Lewisville, Carrollton, Plano, Double Oak, and
Flower Mound. All of the parties to the Commissions proceeding,
after a thorough investigation of the Cooperative, have requested
the Public Utility Commission to approve the enclosed tariffs. A
copy of the Settlement Agreement filed with the Public Utility
Commission accompanies this letter.
The Cooperative would like to implement uniform system rates
effective April 1, 1991 for all areas the Cooperative serves,
including rural areas and areas within incorporated
municipalities. To accomplish this the Cooperative asks that you
place this matter on the agenda for the next city council meeting
March 15, 1991
Page 2
and adopt the enclosed ordinance approving revised notes as
quickly as possible.
Your assistance in this matter is most deeply appreciated.
Yours very truly,
Campbell McGinnis
CM:bp
Enclosure
E
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE APPROVING RATE SCHEDULES TO BE CHARGED BY
DENTON COUNTY ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC. IN THE CITY OF
BANGER, TEXAS: PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY: PROVIDING A
REPEALER: AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY.
WHEREAS, on or about December 41 19909 Denton County Electric
Cooperative, Inc. (the "Cooperative") filed with the City of
Sanger (the "City"), pursuant to the requirements of the Public
Utility Regulatory Act, a statement of intent to change its rates
system wide and a petition for authority to chancre rates
requesting the City to improve implementation of the change in
rates within the corporate limits of the City; and
WHEREAS, the Cooperative filed with the Public Utility
Commission of Texas the same statement of intent and a petition
for authority to change rates requesting the Commission to approve
mplementation of the change in rates within areas in the ori iginal
jurisdiction of the Commission; and
WHEREAS, the Cooperatives request to the Public Utility
Commission has been thoroughly investigated by the Public Utility
Commissions staff and intervenors including the incorporated
municipalities of Lewisville, Carrollton, Plano, Double Oak, and
Flower Mound, and
WHEREAS, all parties to the Public Utility Commission
proceedings considering the Cooperatives rate request have settled
and compromised all issues and requested commission approval of
the tariff, including rate schedules, accompanying this Ordinance;
and
WHEREAS, the City finds the tariffs and schedules of rates
attached to this ordinance to be reasonable and lawful;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF SANDER, TEXAS:
SECTION I.
The tariff sheets attached hereto and made a part hereof are
approved for implementation within the City effective April 1,
1991. Such tariffs shall apply to all electric service rendered
on and after April 1, 1991. The tariffs, including rate
schedules, herein approved, shall continue in effect until
changed, modified, amended, or withdrawn in accordance with
applicable laws.
SECTION II.
The enactment of this Ordinance constitutes, on the date of
its final passage, a final determination of rates for the
Cooperative within the City in accordance with Section 43 of the
Public Utility Regulatory Act.
SECTION III.
Nothing in this Ordinance contained shall be construed now or
hereafter as limiting or modifying, in any manner, the authority
of the City to regulate rates and charges of electric utilities.
SECTION III.
If any section, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance
s for any reason held to be unconstitutional or otherwi ise invalid
or unenforceable by a Court of competent jurisdiction, such
decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining section,
sentences, clauses, or phrases of this Ordinance or the Ordinance
as an entirety, it being the legislative intent that the
provisions of this Ordinance are separable and that the Ordinance
shall continue in effect notwithstanding the invalidity of such
section, sentence, clause or phrase.
SECTION IV.
That all ordinances, resolutions, or parts thereof, in
conflict herewith are repealed to the extent of such conflict.
SECTION V.
It being for the public welfare that this Ordinance be
passed, creates an emergency and public necessity, and the rule
requiring this Ordinance be read on three (3) separate occasions
be, and the same is hereby waived, and this Ordinance shall now be
placed on its third and final reading for passage, and shall be in
full force and effect from and after its passage and approval.
SECTION VI.
The City clerk or other officer of the City is hereby
directed to certify a copy of this Ordinance and send it to the
Cooperative.
PASSED AND APPROVED
opposed on the
this
by a vote
day of_
-2-
in favor
to
ATTEST:
City of Sanger
By:
Title:
-3-
DOCKET N0. 9892
APPLICATION OF DENTON COUNTY
ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC.
FOR AUTHORITY TO CHANGE RATES
AGREEMENT
PUBLIC UTILITY COMMMSSION
OF TEXAS ci
TO THE HONORABLE PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION OF TEXAS:
WHEREAS, on November 30, 1990, Denton County Electric
Cooperative, Inc. ("the Cooperative") filed with the Public
Utility Commission of Texas ("the Commission") a Statement of
Intent to increase rates to be charged within those parts of the
Cooperative's service area which are subject to the Commission's
original rate jurisdiction alleging that the proposed changes are
expected to result in a system -wide annual increase of $3,297,215
or 10.84� over the Cooperative's actual operating revenues at
present rates for the test year ending June 30, 1550.
Additionally, the Cooperative proposed to surcharge municipal
franchise fees to customers within incorporated municipalities
imposing franchise fees; and
WHEREAS, the incorporated
Carrollton, Plano, Double Oak,
municipalities of Lewisville,
and Flower Mound (hereinafter
referred to as "Cities"), and Mr. Randy Stephens requested and
were granted intervention; and
WHEREAS, after due notice by the Commission, a prehearing
conference was held in this proceeding on January 8, 1991, and the
Commission (1) suspended the effective date of the Cooperative's
-1-
proposed rate change; and (2) established a schedule for discovery
and hearing on the merits; and
WHEREAS, the Cooperative filed a Motion to Supplement its
Pleadings, requesting an increase over actual test year revenues
of $3,843,228 or 12.64� if the Cooperative is required to collect
municipal franchise fees through base rates, which motion was not
opposed and was granted; and
WHEREAS, Mr. Randy Stephens withdrew his intervention and did
not participate in the proceedings; and
WHEREAS, prior to the hearing on the merits the Commission's
General Counsel, the Cities, and the Cooperative (collectively
the "Parties"), being all of the parties in the case, met and
agreed to stipulate to a revenue increase and specific rate and
tariff changes; and
WHEREAS, after notice was given in accordance with law,
hearing on the merits of this proceeding began on March 11, 1991;
and
WHEREAS, all of the Parties request the Commission to grant
the stipulated rate increase and approve the stipulated rates and
tariffs as interim rates effective April 1, 1991, and approve the
stipulated rates and tariffs as soon thereafter as practicable;
NOW THEREFORE, the Cooperative, the Cities,
Counsel
agree as follows:
and the General
-2-
I. Evidence
The Cooperative, Cities, and the General Counsel hereby
introduce into evidence in Docket No. 9892 without objection the
following:
1. The February 18, 1991, letter to the Director of
Hearings from McGinnis, Lochridge & Kilgore, together
with attached affidavits and other proof of public
notice and delivery of the rate filing package to each
of the 1A i nrrnrtnnrated mi1ni ri pal i ti t=c wi thi n which the
Cooperative provides service;
2. The March 5, 1991, letter to the Director of Hearings
from McGinnis, Lochridge & Kilgore, together with
affidavits showing publication of supplemental public
notice and delivery of notice to each of the 28
incorporated municipalities within which the Cooperative
provides service;
3. The Cooperative's Motion to Supplement Pleadings,
together with the accompanying schedules;
4. The letter dated January 30, 1991, to the Director of
Hearings from McGinnis, Lochridge & Kilgore, together
with attached schedules, which the Parties request be
substituted for the corresponding schedules in the rate
filing package;
5. The Cooperative's rate filing package including:
Petition for Authority
Statement of Intent
Proposed Rate Schedules
Direct Testimony - Bill McGinnis
Direct Testimony - Judy Lambert
Direct Testimony - Carl Stover, Jr.
Direct Testimony - David Hedrick
Direct Testimony - Bob Beam
All associated exhibits referenced in the
direct testimony
All exhibits required to be included in the
rate filing by Commission rule.
6. The Cooperative's Cost of Service Study;
7. Proposed tariff for Electric Service;
8. The Direct Testimony of the Commission's staff as
follows:
Direct Testimony - Gail Friedrich
Direct Testimony - Gilberto Cabre
Direct Testimony - Denise Stokes
Direct Testimony and errata - Kit Szeto
Direct Testimony - Mel Eckhoff
All associated exhibits referenced in the
staff's Direct Testimony; and
9. The Direct Testimony of the Cities' witness, Mr.
Jack E. Stowe, Jr., together with all associated
exhibits referenced therein; and
The
Rebut�rai
T�VJtimony
of
the
VVVpVrativV,
a.Ci
foiioni.Ci
iV
•
Rebuttal Testimony - Bill McGinnis
Rebuttal Testimony - Bob Beam
Rebuttal Testimony - Carl Stover, Jr.
Rebuttal Testimony - David Hedrick
11. The Cooperative's Direct Testimony concerning rate case
expense, including the direct testimony of Campbell
McGinnis, Bob Beam, and Carl Stover, Jr., together with
all associated exhibits referenced in such testimony;
the Rate Case Expense Testimony of the Cities'
witnesses, Jim Boyle.
12, The Rate Case Expense Testimony of the Commission Staff
witness, Gail Friedrich.
The Parties to this agreement introduce into the evidence
this agreement and the attached Findings of Fact, and Conclusions
of Law, all of which are incorporated into this agreement for all
purposes.
II. Stipulated Findings
For the purpose of settling this proceeding only, the
undersigned Parties stipulate to the Findings of Fact attached
hereto. There are no unresolved issues.
III. Revenue Increase
The Cooperative has proven that it is entitled to a revenue
4
increase of $2,892,180 as shown on Schedule 1 attached. This
amount represents a compromise among the Parties. The total
amount of the revenue increase is comprised of (1) an increase of
$2,500,000 over the Cooperative's adjusted test year revenues,
plus (2) revenues equal to 2� of test year gross receipts from
customers within municipalities which impose franchise fees on the
Cooperative.
IV. Class Allocation
It is agreed that the stipulated base rate revenue require-
ment shall be allocated among the customer classes as shown on
Schedule 4 attached.
v. Rate Design
The Parties further stipulate and agree that those rates set
forth in Schedule 5 attached, are just and reasonable. There
shall be included in base rates 2% of gross receipts from
customers within municipalities which impose franchise fees on the
Cooperative.
If any city imposes a franchise fee greater than 2� of gross
receipts, then such excess shall be surcharged to customers within
such municipality.
vI. Tariff Provisions
The Parties hereby agree that the tariff accompanying this
Agreement and each of the rates therein are reasonable, fair, just
-5-
1 .�
and equitable and not unreasonably preferential, prejudicial, or
discriminatory. The Parties request that this tariff be
implemented as interim rates effective April 1, 1991, and finally
approved as permanent rates as soon thereafter as possible.
vII. Methodology
It is recognized and agreed that the Parties hereto, by
filing this Agreement, do not express agreement to or concurrence
with any specific methodology or principle expressed or implied
herein. This Agreement is made and filed solely in connection
with compromise settlement of this Docket and is subject to the
specific approval by the Commission. The findings of fact are
stipulated for the purpose of settlement only and are not binding
on any party in future proceedings. This document is submitted to
the Commission as an integrated settlement and shall cease to bind
the Parties or affect their right to a hearing in the event of any
material modification.
VIII. Interim Rates
The Parties agree that the tariffs and schedules of rates
accompanying this Agreement should be implemented as interim
rates, effective April 1, 1991. The Parties request that the
Commission enter an order approving the stipulated tariffs as
interim rates at the earliest possible date. If, upon final
order, the Commission established permanent rates for the
Cooperative which are different from the rates implemented on an
interim basis, any difference between the interim and final rates
would be subject to refund or surcharge if ordered by the
Commission.
The Parties agree that a material part of the consideration
for this Agreement is the implementation of the accompanying
tariffs on an interim basis, effective April 1, 1991. The
Cooperative would not otherwise enter into this Agreement. If,
for any reason, the Commission does not enter an order by
March 21, 1991, approving the implementation of the accompanying
tariffs on an interim basis, pending a final decision in this
proceeding, then the Parties request this case be set for full
evidentiary hearing on the merits as quickly as possible, and this
Agreement, together with the accompanying Findings of Fact and
Conclusions of Law, shall be of no effect.
Each of the Cities shall take such final action on or before
April 15, 1991, approving this settlement and adopting the
accompanying tariffs effective April 1, 1991. Additionally,
Cities agree to use their best efforts to cause other
municipalities within the Cooperative's service area to approve
the accompanying tariffs, effective April 1, 1991.
The Cities further agree that its rate case expenses shall
not exceed $25,000. The Cooperative agrees to pay actual rate
case expenses of the Cities not to exceed $25,000.
IX. Entire Agreement
This written Agreement constitutes the entire agreement of
the undersigned Parties. All prior or contemporaneous
representations or agreements are merged in this agreement and
superseded by this written agreement. This Agreement should be
construed with reference to first, the document and attachments
attached thereto, and second, the schedules, exhibits, and
documents specifically referred to in the Agreement itself and
third, other documents and evidence submitted into evidence in
this proceeding.
Executed as shown below:
Denton County Electric
Cooperative, Inc.
By:
General Counsel of the Public
Utility Commission of Texas
By:
Tit
The Cities
By:
Tit
tie
Q�
A
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Denton County Electric Cooperative, Inc. (the "Cooperative")
is a non-profit member owned corporation organized and
existing under the laws of the State of Texas and is a public
utility as that term is defined in the Public Utility
Regulatory ACt, '1'Ex. REv. %IV. STtiT". Aiviv, art. i�YvC (�upp.
1991), and provides electric service pursuant to a
Certificate of Convenience and Necessity issued by the Public
Utility Commission of Texas.
2. On November 30, 1990, the Cooperative filed a Statement of
Intent to Change its Rates on a system -wide basis with the
Public Utility Commission of Texas and shortly thereafter
with those municipalities exercising original jurisdiction
under the Public Utility Regulatory Act. The Statement of
Intent included proposed revisions of tariffs and schedules
and statements specifying in detail each proposed change, the
effect the proposed change was expected to have on the
revenues of the Company, the classes and numbers of utility
customers affected, and other information required by the
rules and regulations of the regulatory authorities exer-
cising original jurisdiction.
-1-
3. A copy of the Statement of Intent was mailed or delivered to
the appropriate officer of each municipality affected by the
proposed change.
4. Notice and Supplemental Notice of the Cooperative's proposed
change in rates was given to the public by publication of the
chango
in
a �nnapir_t�ous
form
and
place
once
each
proposed
week for four consecutive weeks prior to the effective date
of the proposed change in newspapers which have general
circulation in each county containing territory affected by
the proposed change.
5. By order dated December 12, 1990, the operation of the
Cooperative's proposed schedules was suspended for 150 days
beyond the Cooperative's effective date of January 4, 1991.
6. On January 8, 1991, a prehearing conference was conducted
regarding this proceeding. The Administrative Law Judge set
a schedule for discovery and hearing on the merits.
7. On March 11, 1991, the hearing on the merits was convened and
the parties announced the foregoing Agreement.
-2-
8. The Cooperative's total cost of service and total revenue
requirement is $33,550,290, as shown on Schedule 1 attached
hereto. Excluding miscellaneous revenues, and other electric
utilitI revenues of $224,140, the base rate revenue
requirement is $33,326,150.
�__-. ,._,,._, .-•-_-l._a ��.-i � rco �i� ocn and
. 9 . l.he c:ooperaLly� s LUt,Ql 111V C.1 VCtJ �.apll.al +."'1 y.r .r, .+�, ivv
includes the components shown on Schedule 1, attached hereto.
10. A return of $5,109,167 is reasonable. This corresponds to a
9.6% rate of return when divided by the value of invested
capital.
11. It is reasonable to allocate the base rate revenue
requirement to classes as shown on Schedule 3 attached
hereto; and rates designed in accordance with such allocation
are just and reasonable and not unreasonably preferential,
prejudicial, or discriminatory.
12. It is reasonable to use the test year billing determinants as
shown on the attached Schedule i to design rates. Further,
those rates set forth in Schedule 4- are just and reasonable.
-3-
13. The tariff attached hereto and the rates contained therein
are just and reasonable and not unreasonably preferential,
prejudicial, or discriminatory. The staff has reviewed the
attached tariff and no further review is necessary.
14. The depreciation rates proposed by the Cooperative are just
and reasonable.
15. It is reasonable to implement the attached tariff effective
April 1, 1991.
-4-
Conclusions of Law
1. The Commission has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to
TEX. REV. CIV. STAT. ANN. art. 1446c, §§16, 17, 18, and 37-48
(Supp. 1991).
2. Denton County Electric cooperative, inc. (DcE�j is a public
utility as defined in Section 3(c) of the Public Utility
3.
4.
5.
Regulatory Act (PURA). TEX. REV. CIV. STAT. ANN. art. 1446c
(Vernon Supp. 1989).
The proposed settlement herein will allow the Cooperative a
reasonable opportunity to recover its reasonable and proper
operating expenses together with a reasonable return pursuant
to the requirements of §§39 and 40 of the above -cited Act but
will not yield more than a fair return.
The rate and tariff provisions of the proposed settlement are
just, reasonable, and not
referential
or prejudicial.
discriminatory,
On November 30, 1990, DCEC, filed its statement of intent to
change rates in accordance with Section 43(a) of PURR.
6. DCEC has published and mailed notice of its application as
required by Section 43(a) of PURR and PUC Proc. R. 21.22(b).
7. DCEC has met its burden of establishing a revenue deficiency
as required by Section 40 of PURA.
8. Pursuant to Sections 37, 38, 39, and 43 of PURA, an order
should be entered authorizing DCEC to increase its rates
consistent with the terms of the Stipulation.
9. The Stipulation is not precluded by law and the Commission
may establish rates consistent with the terms of the
Stipulation.
Section 13(c).
TEX. REV. CIV. STAT. ANN. art. 6252-13a,
-6-
DESCRIPTION
PURCHASED POUER i
OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE
DEPRECIATION
OTHER DEDUCTIONS
INTEREST ON CUSTOMERS DEPOSITS
TAXES (OTHER 1H1►N INCOME TAXES)
RETURN
REVENUE REQUIREMENT
i�vvi.i^i vTT Li TY vvw�i vvivY �[ t�VA!
RR►A•RAARRIRRRRRAwRRRRRRRRRRRRRlA*
DENTON COUNTr ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, tNC,
DOCKET N0. 98bZ
REVENUE REQUIREMENT
RRRRR*RARARAR RRARRk
(COLUMN 1}
TEST TEAR
PER BOOKS
21, l4$, 749
4,03Y,L'UO
1,814,83I
li,2S4
55,362
867,522
2,4�3,100
30,408,012
■■■aaw■wwwwwwww
(COLUMN t)
coMPANr
ADJUSTMENTS
TO TEST rEAR
240,838 i
23V,8Vi
103,511
0
2, 428
(395,728)
3,115,SI0
s 3,287,218 1
w YrYwYww�Y,{twww
STAFFS ADJUSTMENT TO TEST YEAR PER 800K5 IS DERIVED by AODJNO
THE AMOUNT IN COLUMN 2 t0 THE AMOUNT IN COLUMN 4
(COLUMN 3}
coMPAMr
REQUESTED
TEST rEAR
21,347,585
w.
G,2oa',ova
1,918,348
11,234
37,788
481,791
5,588,670
33,705,228
...■.■■.....wow
(COWNN 4)
STAif
ADJUSTMENTS
TO REQUEST
= 0 i
(301,13$)
(110)
(1,954)
{3,132)
438,893
(478,503)
_ (154,938} i
cruEnii`e
SETTLEMENT
(COLUMN s)
S1Aff
RECOMMENDCD
TEST TEAR
21,387,585
� laa a»
1,918,238
3,280
34,656
928,687
5,109,161
33,550,290
...............
(
DESCRIPTION
O&M NOT ADJUSTED i
r°AYRDLL
WORKMEN'S COMP 6 GEN W A8 INSURANCE
MEDICAL INSURANCE
RATE CASE EXPENSES
RECLASSIFY PUC ASSESSMENT
LEGISLATIVE EXPENSE
EMPLOYEES PENSION PLAN
OUTSIDE SERVICES
MISC. 6 GENERAL EXPENSE - DONATIONS
MISC. ADJUSTMENT
UNCOLLECTISLE EXPENSE
TOTAL OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE i
n l,wl ,A AA,h,�4r�AV I fwV1A
rvoLl%o Wit.4I1 %#VfMNJJWR Vr ILA
AAAAJ�AA Al#AAA###AAA##AAAA#AAA###AA
DENTON COUNTY ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC.
DOCKET NO, 989E
OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE (EXCLUDING FUEL AND PURCHASED POWER)
*Af#AA**AAAA*AAAAAA AAAA*A***A******A***A# A* AA A*A*****AAA AAAAAAA
(COLUMN
tEST YEAR
PER BOOKS
14690,809 i
1 7011 vil
300941
90,111
0
46,281
1,754
45,503
47,863
1,033
0
120,000
4,039,206 i
r wwwwwwrr■rw u■
(COLUMN Yj
COMPANY
ADJUSTMENTS
TO TEST YEAR
of
R7 AOR
8,416
101,549
IY,S00
(46,Y81)
(1,IG4)
22,959
0
0
0
7S,827
230,601 i
ru•uru rrrrrr
STAFFS ADJUSTMENT TO TEST YEAR PER BOOKS IS OERIYEO SY ADDING
THE AMOUNT IN COLUMN 2 TO THE AMOUNT IN COLUMN 4
(COLUMN 3)
COMPANY
REQUESTED
TEST YEAR
1,690,809 i
1 11R3 AS_f.
198,3b3
1920020
110500
0
0
71,68E
47,60
7,033
0
19S,827
awammmowwww
4,269,809 i
rrrrrwrrrrrrrr
(COLUMN 4)
STAFF
ADJUSTMENTS
TO REQUEST
0s
113;51T1
0
(44,491)
(11,500)
0
0
(61104)
(15,824)
(7,033)
(933)
(900)
wwownwoomm
(191t132) S
rrrrYrrrrrr •fww
VLt
SETTLEMENT
(COLUMN S)
STAFF
kECOMMENDEO
TEST YEAR
1,690,809
1;R40;?R5
196,J53
1a7,5Z9
0
0
O
$5,458
32,Z39
0
(933)
194,927
4,166,577
•wwww wwsaam�&4&
DESCRIPTION
TEXAS AO VALOREM TAXES i
PAYROLL TAXES
NON REVENUE RELATED TAXES
TEXAS PUG ASSESSMENT
FRANCHISE TAXES
REVENUE RELATED TAXES OTHER
THAN INCOME TAXES
SUMMARY OF OTHER TAXES
OTHER THAN INCOME TAXES
•••.wr■taw wr\\a■aaa■■■\a
NON REVENUE RELATED TAXES
REVENUE RELATED TAXES
TOTAL tAXES DTMER
TITAN INCOME TAXES
E;
PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION Of TEXAS
AS$so N ttt•t••*.tt*ttLwlt Nt!••t:.
OENTOM COUNTY ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC,
DOCKET MO* 0802
SUMMARY OF TAXES OTHER THAN INCOME TAXES
a tt t*At See \*t**a•**tttt**t**tt•t t*t*****
(COLUMN i)
TEST YEAR
co vvvow
annvc
268,47$ i
187,9Sti
406,437 i
A■aa■aaaaaa\■a\
i 0 i
481,D85
i A$1,085 i
S 408,437 =
4a1,40s
(COLUMN Y)
COMPANY
e�.ulCTYCMTt
TO TEST YEAR
21,671
i
r, soy
29,I80
=
r wwwwwwrurura
56,17T S
(461,065)
me
(COLUMN f)
COMPANY
PFNiftTifl
TEST TEAR
ammeamommoo Mae
290,140 $
14S, 468
/55,61T i
asuuaauu\a■
56,1IT i
0
(COLUMN 4)
STAFF
�fL li$TMFNT!
TO REQUEST
44,868 i
(322)
44,548 i
wwww wwwww.aa.ar
or
(z5s) i
98Z,805
(424,808) = 58;1TT = 382,34T s
p rr w\arraa\\\a■ \\\uu■aaa\\\\ ww.w.ww.warrwrr
28,180 i
(<24,9481
435,81T =
58,1T)
i $8I,522 i (385,728) i 491,794 i
\a■aaaaaw•\rr1■ ■■araaaa\aaaaaa \■a\a■■aaa■■■■■
STAfF'S ADJUSTMENT TO TEST YCAR DER ROOKS 16 OERiVEO 8Y ADOINb
THE AMOUNT IN COLUMN 3 TD THE AMOUNT IN COLUMN 4
1
44,546 i
392,�4r
---------------
436,893 ;
r■•\wr\wwwrww•w
scneouLE
SETT<EMENT
(COLUMN 5}
STAFF
�.nMMranm
TEST YEAR
335,017
14s,1a6
---------------
a80,163
..ra.rraaaaaaaa
55,918
392,605
448,524
rrraa a.aw.aaaaw
----
480,183
aa8,52a
-----------
828,68r
I-8
X
OESCR1PTtON
PLANT IN SERVICE
CONSTRUCTION WORK IN PROGRESS
ACCUMULATED DEPRECIATION
NET PLANT IN SERVICE
CASH WORKING CAPITAL
MATERIALS AND SUPPLIES
PREPAYMENTS
CONSUMER DEPOSITS
UNCLAIMED CAPITAL CREDITS
TOTAL INVESTED CAPITAL
RATE OF RETURN
RETURN
s
s
PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION OF TEXAS
A AAARfRARftAf ttf RAAttAA AAAAA}AAAAA
pENTON COUNTY ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC.
DOCKET NO, 9892
INVESTED CAPITAL
ttRRttRtAtRRAAAR
(coLUMN 1)
TEST YEAR
PER BOOKS
59,821,Si9
020,334
(7,604,187)
531040,666
466,648
9214905
111,182
(513,429)
(12, o39)
54,018,833
r.rr..or.rrrr.
(COLUMk 2)
COMPANY
ADJUSTMENTS
f0 TEST YEAR
s 0
(820,334)
0
(820,331}
2a,at5
0
0
0
0
3
(791,509) _
rru rruruars■
STAFFS ADJUSTMENTS TO TEST YE/►R PER BOOKS IS DERIVED eY ADDING
THE AMOUNT IN COLUMN 2 TO THE AMOUNT IN COLUMN 4
E3
(COLUMN 3)
COMPANY
REQUESTED
TEST YEAR
59,821,539
0
(T,60/,18T)
52,220,332
4971473
911,006
111,182
(SIM29)
(1t,039)
53,225,421
rrwrrrrr.wrrrr
0,096014
u ■u arrf urrr
5,568,6T0
r r■srrrrrrrrra*
(cowMn 4)
STAFF
ADJUSTMENTS
i0 REQUEST
---------------
=
E3
(COLUMN 3)
COMPANY
REQUESTED
TEST YEAR
59,821,539
0
(T,60/,18T)
52,220,332
4971473
911,006
111,182
(SIM29)
(1t,039)
53,225,421
rrwrrrrr.wrrrr
0,096014
u ■u arrf urrr
5,568,6T0
r r■srrrrrrrrra*
(cowMn 4)
STAFF
ADJUSTMENTS
i0 REQUEST
---------------
=
0
i
0
110
IIO
(12,5T4)
0
0
0
0
_
(12,464)
r rrrrwr«rr.rrr•
-0,000000
rr rrrw.rrrrrrrr
_
(a7a,5o3)
i
SCHEDULE
SETTLEMENT
(COLUMN 5)
STAFF
RECOMMENDED
TE$T YEAR
59,824,519
0
(7t604,077)
52,220,442
484,699
921,905
111,182
(513,429)
(1T,039)
53,212,960
...a caeaeaaaaa
0.0960
. ►.rararaaaaaaa
5,109,161
«.w.r a.rraaaaaa
z
g$$�� $
:•: r r r O O
¢ �.,.
m $
�����
�����
m � � �.:
� ::
�����
.��.�::¢ ��pom���(�j
.I "} N r ~ � M
iiii. �� . � R � '� St $ �
i� O�_�..
..
,� .
�����
mow
��
of N A
',':a O, � � � ,:
��� �� � ��
Jii•� ��'J�s.. N ^ N
�+
��8�. � *�
w�a;o�
Y M
' � ((�� Yi
� �u
..:...:... � E �' �
����n �
� RS���
L� � N � N
�� �0���
a �; � .- � �
� �� �� �
� � ����
�� ~ N � N ^ N "' �
��^�
w » ���
��� �� ��
��t�C
'�.;
�
E
PIf'IT�Sit,IlJf'i"i :x,1 �0 end 5L �?_T L5'bL/�i�
O In •' h N K N r Gl C? 8i
h. st r 00 00 h f� t0 t0 �D �D GO Yi
r IM
W ' v
a'
WNW
iRi+! W HHH��„NN�NN�
Li
a
fA Q)owl
+J
c
I
r)
►� ftS tt rt N fry N N .- of ftS <
z.
oNiLF
vMi�`ofcv'$t�ciV
�i�1/DcfD00��tOt�i�c�v�N rcv.'<
cUd � of eti e;i a v td N � of fv vi r <
f"v�iN�N1�ii3 4449'
�r^�
0
N
s
r
n
�N►rN coico U)U*J
r r
o rNr�� c7 h.r}. DNA ,C�AAS tc7DD �i dNi ca � cD r0 N �V m
HN SA�V►�V1V) f�/I NHytN Kai
bi:..:. A V too
M ham. � ON1 SD C} V M Of g N N aD O <D
H
t.: cJ r c C1 ad 1� cd ui u'i ui u'i ui
I a iI
LU
r r c7 tti 0 0
w
r
N
44
w
(on
q
M
U, Q! try h tj1 lA f (7 n} r r w r r t j
4 G v NO Nq Ca�� Oi a0 ►�N.
Nt^A 19tRHN d~/�V/H�AK�� W ��
44
40
NO VOW (Nn
p� cp r r: r1i 11i v a rS + r + r C
r r r in r r r r
liial ':..
XNHHHN W Ni���HN�
41
P N b ti h M �B r io N R
rNd�iQf N
ww ww�
N
���°� it
8R8orob
JZ H
5�8 cc
ad
03/10/91 12015 PAGE 1
DENTON COUNTY ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC.
PRO FORMA REVENUE SETTLEMENT CASE
BILLING PROPOSED
UNITS RATE REVENUE
1. RESIDENTIAL
Total Consumers 272021 $02500000 2,244,998
kWh (May -October) 1910523*027 .0733940 14,0571008
First 700 kWh (NovApril) 76,222,117 .0733940 5,594,246
Over 700 kWh (Nov-Aprit) 780021,127 .0633940 40946,071
Subtotal 345,771,271 26.8420323
Other 207*367
Total 270049/690
2. PUBLIC BUILDINGS
NON•DEMANO METERED (UNDER 35 KW)
Total Consumers 1,217 15.0000000 18,255
kWh (May -October)- 9270591 .0733940 68,080
First 700 kWh (Nov -April) 338,438 .0733940 240839
Excess kWh (Nov•April) 680,683 .0633940 43,151
Subtotat 1,946,712 1540325
DEMAND METERED (35 KW OR GREATER)
Total Consumers 325 1500000.000 4,875
First 150 kWh par Silting kW 8*5146507 .0820950 698,998
Excess kWh 3,503,851 00500000 1750193
Subtotal 120018,358 879j066
Bass Revenue 130965,070 1*033,391
Other 10989
Totat 100350380
Bitting kW: 50% Ratchet based on MsyOctober peak.
Minimum Bitting kW: 35 kW
3. COMMERCIAL
Total Consumers
12,049
15.0000000
i80,T35
kWh <May Oetobar)
10,685,036
.0873070
932,878
kWh (NovApril)
8,495,128
.0823070
699*209
Subtotat
19018001"
1,812,822
Other
10,396
rout
118230218
4. INDUSTRIAL
Total Consumers 2,183 25.0000000 54,575
Billing kW (MayOetobtr) 85,763 9.3500000 801,884
Billing kW (Novembtr-April) 829429 8.2600000 680,864
kWh 47,743,103 o0337230 1,610,041
Subtotal 3,147,364
Other 4,293
total 3,151,657
Billing kW: 50% Ratchet based on MayOctober peak.
Minimum Bitting kW: 35 kW
03/10/91
12:15 PAGE 2
DENTON COUNTY ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC.
PRO fORMA REVENUE - SETTLEMENT CASE
BILLING PROPOSED
UNITS RATE
5. INDUSTRIAL OVER 5000 KY
Total Consumers 25000000000
MCP Bitting kY 1.4400000
Brazos CP Bitting kw
On Peak 6.3900000
Off Peak 503700000
Off Peak kWh .0277000
On Peak kWh n03000OO
Subtotal
Facilities Charge: Amount in Service Agreement but not less than S250.
Brazos CP Billing kY: 50% ratchet on maximum demand in on peak period.
MCP Billing We 100% ratchet
On Peak Period: May through October
Off Peak Period: November through April
6. LIGHTING
REVENUE
175 Yatt Mercury Vapor
4T,876
8.1400000
389,711
400 Yatt Mercury Vapor
16
14.3000000
229
1000 Watt Mercury Vapor
3,64S
27.2500000
99,326
100 Watt Hi -Pressure Sodium
801500000
200 Watt Hi -Pressure Sodium
10.6S00000
1000 Watt Mi-Pressure Sodium
27.S000000
Customer Owned i Customer
Maintained Lights
Customer Chargt
105000000
Energy Charge
.OS35000
Additions) or Decorative Pole
Charges
Wood Pole
165000000
Fiberglas Pole
3.2S00000
Antique Pole
997500000
20ft Stott Pots, anchor
base decorative
7.7S00000
35ft Stott Pole, anchor
base decorative
12.0000000
Subtotal
51,537
489,266
Other
95
Total
489,361
Lighting kWh 4,812,205
175
watt
Ntreury vapor Monthly
kWA
70
400
Yait
Mercury Vapor Monthly
kYh
160
1000
Yatt
Nereury vapor Monthly
kWh
400
100
Watt
Hi -Pressure Sodium
Monthly kWh
40
200
Watt
Hi -Pressure Sodium
Monthly kWh
80
1000
Watt
Hi -Pressure Sodium
Monthly kWh
375
7. TOTAL SYSTEM
Bast Rtvtnue 431,471,813 33,325,166
Other Revenue 224,140
Total Rtvenut 33,549,306
03i14i91 16:23
OEMTOii COUNTY ELECTRIC COOPERATJVE, 1NC.
Docket No. Mt
. Qal� �u� EYeanua--Sunn,aw
Cooperative and Cities
Invoices through Merch 1, 1901
1 Professional Services
2 Secretarial Services
Other
4 Total /rofessional terrices
Travels
5 Airfars
6 Rental Car
7 Cab
8 Hotel
9 Mal
10 Hilsege
11 Parking
12 Other • unidentified Items
1J Total Travel
Miswllaneoue Expanses:
14 Telephoner Telscopy i Tettit
15 Data Processing*4 On•Line Services
Is Delivery Chsrgu
17 Copy Charge
10 Other -
is
Total Misetitaneous Expenses
t0 Total
COMMISSION
A!rount Staff Sttff
Requested Adlustmsnt Recomondad
$66,306 (s1.daii) $06,43e
1,179 (554) 6t5
0 0 0
=1.153 (tie) =1,131
114 0 114
46 (29) 17
136 0 135
330 (143) is?
44 (4) 40
49 (10) to
29 (29) 0
t1,s03 (t244) $1,559
t674 (24e1) t303
0 0 0
397 (150) 247
6,677 (S,706) 11159
4,091 (39914) I6
t1t,t40 (t10,345) $loses
wwwwooaft
$83,030 (t13410 $70,616
scnccuLE ,S
LAW OFFICES
MCGINNIs, LOCHRIDGE & KILGORE
1300 CAPITOL CENTER
919 CONGRESS AVENUE
AUSTIN, TEXAS 78701
TELEPHONE (5I2) 476-6982
WRITER'S DIRECT DIAL NUMBER:
March 21, 1991
m.,
I-Y,o
T�fa��nr
anr�
('('�VPYYI'i
n('f
Rnr�v
1 V
L•Llli
I'L IAY vY
•.aii �n
vv . �+��+-���
�
— — —1
City of Sanger
201 Bolivar Street
P.O. Box 578
Sanger, Texas 76226
�l G Z
RE: Application of Denton County Electric Cooperative, Inc.
for Authority to Change Rates
Dear Sir/Madam:
This firm represent
Earlier this week you
requesting approval of
effective April 1, 1991.
ordinance and revised
s Denton County Electric Cooperative, Inc.
should have received a letter from me
revised rates for the Cooperative,
This letter was accompanied by a form of
tariffs which the parties to the
Cooperative's rate case pending before the Public Utility
Commission have requested be approved.
I am pleased to report that the Public Utility Commission has
now approved the tariffs previously sent to you for application in
rural areas effective April 1, 1991. A copy of the Commission's
interim order is enclosed. Final approval is expected in 6 to 8
weeks. The Cooperative would like to implement system -wide rates
effective in both municipal and rural areas on that date. Thus,
it is most important that the Cooperative's rates be considered at
the next city council meeting.
Please place on the agenda of the next city council meeting
the Cooperative's request for approval of the ordinance previously
sent to your attention authorizing revising rates for Denton
County Electric Cooperative previously sent to your attention.
Your assistance in this regard is most deeply appreciated.
Yours very truly,
Campb� 1 McGinnis
ECM/lv
Enclosures
APPLICATION OF DENTON COUNTY
ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC.
FOR AUTHORITY TO CHANGE RATES
DOCKET NO. 9892
§ .,PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION
§ OF TEXAS
EXAMINER'S ORDER N00 6
APPROVING STIPULATION REGARDING INTERIM RATES
On November 30, 1990, Denton County Electric Cooperative, Inc. (DCEC)
filed a petition for authority to change rates, seeking approval to increase
ratoc by i3.997.919. nr In 84% nvpr acttsal tpst vpar rpvanttpr_ nr S3.n47.117.
or 9.94% over the test year adjusted for an increase in it purchase power
cost. The original petition and rate filing package assumed municipal
franchise fees would be recovered through a surcharge to customers within each
city which imposes a franchise fee. On January 18, 1991, DCEC filed a motion
to supplement pleadings, in which it sought approval of an increase assuming
that municipal franchise fees are recovered from all customers through rate
base, totalling $3,843,228, or 12.64% over actual test year revenues, or
$3,593,130, or 11,72%, over adjusted test year revenues.
On March 15, 1991, all parties submitted an agreement settling all
issues in this docket. An integral part of the agreement is the interim
approval of the agreed rates and revised tariff sheets effective April 1,
1991. The revenue increase agreed to by the parties is $2,892,180,
representing $2,500,000 over adjusted test year revenues, plus revenues equal
to 2% of test year gross receipts attributable to franchise fees paid within
certain municipalities.
The Commission's jurisdiction over DCEC's rates in this docket extends
only to the rates charged outside the municipalities that retain original
jurisdiction over DCEC's rates, also referred to as the environs. DCEC has
not filed an appeal from any municipality's action regarding its rate increase
request. As part of the parties' agreement, the Cities that are intervenors
in this proceeding agree to approve the settlement no later than April 15,
1991, and to adopt the rates and tariffs accompanying the agreement effective
April 1, 1991. Additionally, those Cities that are intervenors agree in the
DOCKET N0, 9892 EXAMINER'S ORDER N0, 6 PAGE 2
stipulation to use their best efforts to cause other municipalities within
DCEC's service area to approve the rates and tariffs effective April 1, 1991.
P.U.C. PROC. R. 21.84(c) provides for commission or examiner approval of
interim rates on the basis of agreement of all parties, including the general
counsel, in lieu of meeting the standards set forth in paragraph b of the
rule. The agreement of the parties filed on March 15, 19919 to the extent it
requests interim approval of the rates and accompanying tariff sheets in the
environs served by DCEC, are APPROVED effective April 1, 1991.
APP
c
DIRECTdtt OF HEARINGS
PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION OF TEXAS
J
M • IY1. I\VV 1 bi.r
ADMINI RATIYE LAN JUDGE
CITY OF SAIVGER
P. O. BOX 578
BANGER, TEXAS 76266
TQ; Honorable Mayor° &Members of the City Council
FROM: John Hamilton, City Manager
DATE: March 28, 1991
SUBJECT: City Administrator's Report
1). The Police Department has initiated a new effort to serve
outstanding City Court Warrants.
2). The Street Department has located and purchased a food, used one
ton truck to replace an existing vehicle. The vehicle is a 1982 Ford
purchased from Hilz-Snider for $3,800. The Budget allocation on
this item was $9,000.
3). Our water tank contractor rescheduled and should be on site the
week of April 1st - 5th.
JH:es
Public Utility Commission of Texas
7800 Shoal Creep Boulevard • Suite 40ON
Austin, Texas 78757 v 512/458-0100
March 19, 1991
Honorable Nel Armstrong
%.MLLOy vL oa114=,L
P. O. Box 578
Sanger, Texas 76266
Dear Honorable Nel Armstrong:
Jo Campbell
Commissioner
Marta Greytok
Commissioner
Paul D. Meek
Chairman
�MK 21 1991
CITY OF SANGER
I would like to advise you of the status of your request for
Extended Area Service (EAS) from the Sanger Exchange to the
Denton Exchange.
On May 9th 1990 you were sent a letter informing you that your
request for EAS meets the Community of Interest standards set out
in the Commission's Substantive Rule section 23.49. On January
31, 1991 your request for EAS was assigned a Project Number. Your
request was assigned Project Number 1002.4 and is styled:
Petition of Sanger Exchange for Extended Area Service
to the Denton Exchange
Pursuant to the EAS Rule, on March 18, 1991 the General Counsel
of the Public Utility Commission of Texas filed a motion to
docket your request for EAS. Pursuant to the EAS rule, once a
request for EAS is docketed the originating local exchange
company (LEC) is put on a fairly specific timeline in which to
develop the cost studies which would lead to proposed EAS rates.
Accordingly, if this motion is granted, I believe your
application will proceed more expeditiously. Furthermore, once
your request is docketed I expect a prehearing conference to be
scheduled.
You should be aware that docketing of your request starts a
process that still could take some time before a final order is
reached, depending on how, long it takes the originating LEC to
complete its demand, toll, and cost studies. Because of this, I
direct your attention to section 23.49(1) of our Substantive
Rules. See Attachment A. A joint filing of an EAS agreement can
significantly shorten the process to resolve your request. In
that regard I have included as Attachment B the Commission Staff
Memorandum of record in Docket No. 9495 and a similar memorandum
for Project No. 9928. These memoranda provide general information
regarding EAS rates across the state and is provided for your
reference.
If you have any questions or would like more information, please
contact me at (512) 458-0287.
Sincerely,
1 / '/ I / \ _ In wA. /_ �.._
i m rI? f
Rick Guzman
Assistant General Counsel
n:\rg-It\eas\eas_lt.doc
ATTACHMENT A
§23.49 Telephone Extended Area Service.
(a) Purpose,
The guidelines set forth in this section are intended to establish consistent procedures for the processing
of requests for extended area service (EAS) which are docketed on or after the effective date of this sec-
tion. The commission may authorize the establishment of new EAS service under these sections only through
examination of relevant issues and hearing as described in this section, except as otherwise provided in
subsection (i)(3)(1) of this section.
(b) Filing requlremcnts0
(1) In order to be considered by the commission, a request for extended area service shall be initiated
by at least one of the following actions:
(A) a petition signed by the greater of 5.0% or 100 of the subscribers in the exchange from which
the petition originates,
(B) a resolution adopted and filed with the commission by the governing body of a political sub-
division provided that said governing body properly represents the exchange requesting EAS.
rr^� .er.,6,.:..., .,.1.......d _., c,_.,
,,,ovkuuvu auvviw auu uiw wiu7 me commission by the board of directors or trustees of
a community association representing an unincorporated community, or
(D) an application filed by one or more of the affected utility(ies).
(2) A request for establishment of a particular extended area service arrangement pursuant to subsec-
tions (b)(1)(A), lb 1)(B), or (b)(1)(C) of this section shall not be considered sooner than three years
after either a determination of the failure of any such previous request to meet eligibility requirements,
or final commission action on any such previously docketed request. An exception to this require-
ment may be gram to any petitioning exchange which demonstrates that a change of circumstances
may have matera:y affected traffic levels between the petitioning exchange and the exchange to
which EAS is de;:red.
(3) All requests for EAS, regardless of how initiated, shall state the name of the exchange(s) to which
the extended area service is sought.
(4) The petition shal< s:t forth the name and telephone number of each signatory and the name of the
exchange from %rich the subscribers receive service.
(5) Each signature pa• t of a petition for EAS must contain information which clearly states that establish-
ment of the requeszotd EAS route may require that subscribers to the service change their telephone
numbers and pay t monthly EAS rate in addition to their local exchange service rates, as well as
applicable service connection charges. The requirements of this paragraph shall not apply to peti-
tions received besre the effective date of this section.
(6) Petitions for ext="3ed area service into metropolitan exchanges on file with the commission on or
before the effecwit date of this section will be grouped by relevant metropolitan exchange. For
each metropolitan =hange, General Counsel will file a motion to docket a proceeding for the deter-
mination of unifc= extended area service rate additives as directed by subsections (d), (e), and
(f) of this section iDr all pending EAS requests to that metropolitan exchange. Upon the docketing
of such a proceed e, two weeks notice in a newspaper of general circulation in the metropolitan
area shall be publis�d. The notice shall contain such information as deemed reasonable by the hearings
examiner in the pr—.,Zeeding. No fewer than 60 days from the final publication of notice shall pass
before the demand studies required by subsection (d) of this section are initiated. New petitioners
for extended area �&rvice into the metropolitan exchange may be accepted prior to the initiation
of the demand stilams.
(c) Community of interest
(I) Upon receipt of a �:-oper filing under the provisions set out in subsection (b) of this section, the
utility6es) involy= will be directed by the commission staff to initiate appropriate calling usage
studies and, therea.-=r. within 90 days of receipt of such notification, file with the commission staff
and a representatin;.= of the petitioning exchange the results of such studies. The message distribu-
tion and revenue c;ssmbution detail from the studies are to be considered proprietary unless the par-
ties agree otherwiEe and may not be released for use outside the context of the commission's
§23.49--1
effective date 5/15/89
proceedings. The data to be filed shall be based upon a minimum 60=1ay study of representative
calling patterns, shall be in such form, detail, and content as the commission staff may reasonably
require and shall include at a minimum, the following information:
(A) the number of messages and either minutes -of -use or billed toll revenues, expressed per customer
account per month, in each direction over the route being studied segregated between business
and residence users and combined for both;
(B) a detailed analysis of the distribution of calling usage among subscribers, in each direction
over the route being studied, showing the number of subscriber accounts placing zero calls,
one call, etc., through 10 calls, the number of subscriber accounts placing between 11 and
20 calls, the number placing between 21 and 50 calls, and the number of subscriber accounts
placing more than 50 calls, per month;
(C) data showing, by class of service, the number of subscriber accounts in service for each of
the exchanges being studied;
(D) the distance between rate centers, and the average revenue per message for the calls during
the study period;
(E) the number of foreign exchange (FX) lines in service over each route and the estimated average
calling volumes on these lines expressed as message ner month:
(F) a listing of known interexchange carriers providing service between the petitioning exchange
and the exchange to which EAS is desired.
(2) A showing that a reasonable degree of community of interest between exchanges will be considered
to exist from one exchange to the other when;
(A) there is an average (arithmetic mean) of no less than 10 calls per subscriber account per month
from one exchange to the other, and
(B) no less than two-thirds of the subscribers' accounts place at least five calls per month from
one exchange to the other.
(3) Requests for EAS not processed under subsection (b)(6) of this section shall be assigned a project
number to establish its place in a queue and notice shall be provided, pursuant to the provisions
set out in subsection (h) of this section, whenever a reasonable community of interest is found to
exist as described in paragraph (2) of this subsection.
(A) on a bilateral basis between exchanges, or
(B) on a unilateral basis from the petitioning exchange to the other exchange.
(4) The project shall be established as a formal docket upon the motion of General Counsel.
(5) Following the docketing of a request, a prehearing conference will be scheduled to establish the
exchange to which EAS is sought, and to report any agreements reached by the parties. The utili-
ty(ies) involved shall conduct appropriate demand and costing analyses according to subsections
(d) and (e) of this section.
(d) Demand analyses.
(1) The utility(ies) involved shall conduct analyses of anticipated demand for the requested extended
area service. The data to be filed shall be in such form, detail, and content as the commission staff
may reasonably require and shall include, at a minimum, the following information,
(A) the number of subscribers who are expected to take the requested service at the estimated rates
recommended pursuant to subsection (f) of this section and the associated probability of that
level of subscribership;
(B) the anticipated stimulation effects which would be applied to the present traffic volumes
generated by the subscribers anticipated by subparagraph (A) of this paragraph; and
(C) the total volume of traffic upon which to base the anticipated switching and trucking requirements
resulting from subparagraph (A) and subparagraph (B) of this paragraph.
(2) Unless the utility(ies) demonstrate good cause to expand the time schedule, no later than 120 days
after the prehearing conference, the utility(ies) shall file with the commission staff and other parties
to the proceeding the summary results of these analyses, together with supporting schedules and
detailed documentation as will permit the identification of study components and verification and
understanding of study results.
§23.49--2
(e) Determination of costs.
(1) The utility or utilities involved shall conduct studies necessary to determine the changes in costs
and revenues which may reasonably be expected to result from establishment of the requested ex-
tended area service. These studies will consider and develop the long rut incremental costs as follows:
(A) switching and trunking costs associated with existing toll traffic which converts to extended
area �servtce�'— TrIa tit c plus the costs of switching and trunking required to handle the additional
traffic as determined in subsection (d)(1)(B) of this section;
(B) the increases and decreases in a nses resulting from the new service and the net effect on
operating expenses; and
(C) direct costs incurred by the utility(ies) in conducting demand analyses in compliance with subsec-
tion (d) of this section.
(2) The utility(ies) may analyze the effect on toll revenues in order to present evidence on the overall
revenue effects of providing the requested EAS. Revenue effects supported by such evidence, if
presented, may be included in the EAS rate additives specified in subsection (f)(4) of this section.
(3) The ublity(ies) shall-' file with the commission staff and other parties to the proceeding the summary
results of these studies, together with such supporting schedules and detailed documentation as will
permit the identification of study components and verification and understanding of study results
according to the following schedule, unless the utility(ies) can demonstrate that good cause exists
to expand the time schedule for a particular study:
(A) Incremental costs identified in paragraph (1) of this subsection shall be filed no later than 90
days from the filing of the results of the demand analysis conducted pursuant to subsection
(d) of this section; and
(B) toll revenue effects, if analyzed pursuant to paragraph (2) of this subsection, shall be filed
no later than 90 days from the filing of the results of the incremental costs, pursuant to sub-
paragraph (A) of this paragraph.
(f) Extended area service rate additives.
(1) Coincident with the filing of cost study results, or coincident with t+he toll revenue effect results,
if filed, the utdity(ies) shall submit recommendations for proposed incremental rate additives, by
class of service, necessary to support the cost of the added service, as well as to support the toll
revenue effect, if such effect is filed.
(A) The extended area rate additives to be assessed on EAS subscribers in the petitioning exchanges)
are to recover the incremental cost of providing the service as identified according to subsec-
tion (e)(1) of this section RLULW of the incremental cost.
(B) The rate additives to be assessed on subscribers in the metropolitan exchange for which EAS
has been requested are to recover revenues determined by the following formula: net lost toll
multiplied by % outbound toll and multiplied by the estimated EAS take rate. The terms in
the formula are defined as follows:
(i) net lost toll — lost toll revenue as identified according to subsection (e)(2) of this sec-
tion less the revenue recovered through the EAS rate additive identified in subsection
(f)(1)(A) of this section;
(ii) % outbound toll — this factor is calculated by dividing toll minutes of use originating
in the metropolitan exchange and terminating in the petitioning exchanges by the total
number of toll minutes of use between the metropolitan exchange and the petitioning
exchange(s); and
(iii) estimated EAS take rate — the estimated number of EAS subscribers in the petition-
ing exchanges divided by the total number of subscribers in the petitioning exchange(s).
(C) Tel -Assistance subscribers in the metropolitan exchange will not be assessed this rate additive.
(2) Service connection charges will be applicable.
(3) A non -recurring charge to defray the direct incremental costs of the demand analyses identified in
subsection (e)(1)(C) of this section shall be charged to subscribers who order the service within
12 months from the time it is first offered. The non -recurring charge shall not exceed $5.00 per
access line.
(4) The EAS rate additive to be used in the affected exchange(s) must meet the following standards.
m
§23.49--3
(A) No increase in rates shall be incurred by the subscnbers of nonbenefitting exchanges, that
is, by subscribers whose calling scopes are not affected by the requested EAS service.
(B) If the petitioning exchange has demonstrated a unilateral but no a bilateral community of in-
terest through the requirements of subsection (c)(3)(A) of this section, the EAS arrangements
will be priced using those rate increments designed to recover the added costs for each route,
plus the roll revenue effect, if found reasonably sustantiated. The total increment chargeable
to subscribers within an exchange will be the sum of the increments of all new extended area
service routes established for that exchange after the effective date of this section.
(C) If the petitioning exchange demonstrated a bilateral community of interest through the re-
quirements of subsection (c)(3)(A) of this section and has requested that the costs be borne
on a bilateral basis, the additional cost for the new EAS route will be divided between the
two participating exchanges according to the ratio of calling volumes between the two exchanges.
(D) In establishing a flat rate EAS increment, all classes of customer access line rates within each
exchange shall be increased by equal percentages.
(g) Subscription threshold.
(1) A threshold demand level shall be established by the commission's order in the docketed oroceedine
prior to the design or construction of facilities for the service. A reasonable pre -subscription pro-
cess will then be undertaken to determine the likely demand level. If the likely demand level equals
or exceeds the threshold demand level, then EAS shall be provided in accordance with the commis-
sion's order. If the threshold demand level is not met, the affected utility(ies) shall be relieved of
any duty or obligation to provide the EAS approved by the commission.
(2) The cost of pre -subscription shall be divided between the utility and the petitioners. The petitioners
shall pay for the printing of bill inserts and ballots and the utility shall insert them in bills free of
charge. In the alternative, upon the agreement of the parties, the utility shall provide, free of charge,
and under protective order, the mailing labels of the subscribers in the petitioning exchange, and
the petitioners shall pay the cost of printing and mailing the bill inserts and ballots.
(h) Notice.
(1) Notice of the assignment of a project number, pursuant to subsection (c)(3) of this section, must
be provided to all subscribers within the petitioning exchange(s), by publication for two consecutive
weeks in a newspaper of general circulation in the area. Notice must also be given to individual
subscribers either through inserts in customer bills, or through a separate mailing to each subscriber.
The notice must state: the project number, the nature of the request, and the commission's mailing
address and telephone number to contact in the event an individual wishes to protest or intervene.
The commission shall also publish notice in the Texas Register.
(2) Written notice containing the information described above shall be provided to the governing of-
ficials) of all incorporated areas within the affected exchanges and the county commission(s) or
the board of directors or trustees of a community association representing any unincorporated areas
within the affected exchanges.
(3) The cost of notice shall be borne by the petitioners.
(i) Joint filings.
(1) EAS agreements. The comrission may approve agreements for EAS or EAS substitute services
filed jointly by the representatives of petitioning exchanges and the affected utility(ies) (joint filings)
so long as the agreements are in accordance with paragraphs (3)(A)-(3)(I) of this subsection.
(2) Multiple exchange common calling plans. Joint filing agreements for EAS or EAS substitute ser-
vices among three or more exchanges shall be permitted pursuant to paragraphs (3)(A)-(3)(J)
following.
(3) Joint filings shall be permitted subject to the following:
(A) The parties to such joint filings shall include the name of each local exchange company (LEC)
which provides service in the affected exchanges and one duly appointed representative for
each of the affected exchanges. Each exchange representative shall be designated jointly by
the governing officials of all incorporated areas within the affected exchange and the county
commissions) representing any unincorporated areas within the affected exchange.
(B) These joint filings are exempt from the traffic requirements contained in subsection (c) of this
section.
(C) These joint filings may include rate proposals which are flat rate, usage sensitive, block rates,
or other pricing mechanisms. In the circumstance where usage sensitive rates are proposed,
the joint applicants shall include the commission staff in its negotiations.
(D) These joint filings may propose either one-way or two-way calling arrangements.
(E) These joint filings may propose either optional or non -optional calling arrangements.
(F) These joint filings shall specify all non -recurring and recurring rate additives to be paid by
the various classes and grades of service in the affected exchanges.
(G) These joint filings shall demonstrate that the proposed rate additives:
(1) are in the public interest, and in the case of non -optional joint filings which include
flat rate additives, the petition shall demonstrate that more than 50% of the total
subscribers who will experience a rate change are in favor of this joint filing at the
proposed rates; and
(ii) shall recover, for the local exchange company providing the service, the appropriate
cost of providing EAS including a contribution to joint costs.
(H) The notice requirements of subsection (h) of this section are applicable to joint filings. In ad-
dition, the commission shall publish notice of the proposed joint filing in the Texas Register
and shall provide notice to the Office of Public Utility Counsel upon receipi of the joint filing.
(I) If intervenor status is not requested within 60 days of notice, the joint filing shall be handled
administratively, with the commission determining whether the service meets the criteria listed
in subparagraph (G) of this paragraph. If there is an intervenor, or if requested by the com-
mission staff, the joint filing shall be docketed for hearing and final order. In any event, any
of the parties to the joint filing may withdraw the joint filing without prejudice at any time
prior to the rendition of the final order. Any alteration or modification of the joint filing by
the commission may only be made upon the agreement of all parties to the proceeding.
(J) The exchanges to be included within the proposed common calling plan area shall be contain-
ed within a continuous boundary and all exchanges within that boundary shall be included
in the common calling plan.
`� z
§23.49--5
ATTACHMENT B
Memorandum
TO: Rick Guzman, Assistant General Counsel
PROM: Mike Rinehar��ephone Utility Analyst
DATE: November 150 1990
SIIBJECT: Docket No. 9495
On April 12, 1990, the General Counsel filed its motion to
consolidate and docket two pending Extended Area Service (EAS)
requests for the Buda and Dripping Springs (petitioning)
Exchanges to the Austin Metropolitan (host) Exchange. The iocai
exchange carrier (LEC) for the petitioning exchanges is GTE
Southwest, Inc. (GTE) and Southwestern Bell Telephone Company
(SWBT) is the LEC for the host exchange. On August 7, 1990, GTE,
SWBT, City of Buda, City of Dripping Springs, City of Hays, and
Hays County Commissioner's Court filed a Joint Agreement Of The
Parties, pursuant to Substantive Rule 23.49 (1), Joint Filing.
According to the application this Joint Filing is for an
optional service called the "Texas Local Calling Plan" (emphasis
added). The "optional service" aspect of this application will
be discussed in the Recommendation section of this report. A
brief description of the Texas Local Calling Plan follows:
Option 1. Community Calling Plan (CCP) provides seven
digit one-way calling into the Austin Metro area based
on a usage sensitive pricing arrangement. The proposed
usage cost for calls to Austin are in addition to the
current local flat -rate access charge, and in lieu of
toll charges.
Option 2. Premium
unlimited seven digit
Metro area for a flat
way EAS rate additive
local flat -rate access
Calling Plan (PCP) provides
one-way calling into the Austin
monthly rate. The proposed one -
is in addition to the current
charge.
Option 3. Premium Plus Calling Plan (PPCP) provides
unlimited seven digit, two-way calling into the Austin
Metro area for a flat monthly rate. The proposed two-
way EAS rate additive is in addition to the current
Local flat -rate access charge.
The staffs recommendation in this proceeding is apportioned to
Mr. John Costello and me. Mr. Costello's recommendation involves
Option 1 (CCP) and my recommendation includes Options 2 & 3 (PCP
& PPCP) .
. A
Paragraph 9, of the Joint Agreement of The Parties states
that notice will be provided in accordance with Substantive Rule
23.49 (i) (H). "The cost of notice shall be borne by the
petitioners" (Substantive Rule 23.49 (h)(3)1.
The proposed monthly rates for Options 2 3 are as follows:
Class
of Service
One Party Res.
One Party Bus.
option 2. Pramium Calling Elan
Current GTE Proposed
Access Rate Rate Additive
Manual Trunk -Bus.
$7.10
$22.00
$40.00
$55.00
Auto. Trunk -Bus.. $29.40 $75.00
Option 3. Premium Plus calling Plan
Class
of
Service
One Party Res.
one Party Bus.
Manual Trunk -Bus.
Auto. Trunk -Bus.
Current
Access Rate
$7.10
GTE Proposed
Rate Additive
$34.25
E
$154.75
Total
$22.10
$77.00
$104.40
Total
$108.15
5 $184.1
In addition to the rates described in the preceding
paragraph, the standard non -recurring Section 13, Service Charges
will apply to all current local exchange access customers placing
orders for Options 2 & 3. A new customer that places an order
for EAS at the same time that they order local exchange access
will be billed the standard Service Charges only. GTE proposes
to waive the Service Charges for all customers subscribing to the
Texas Local Calling Plan for a 90-day introductory period after
the service is available.
Customers that subscribe to Option 3 (PPCP), two-way
service, will be required to change numbers. According to GTE's
response to General Counsel's First Request For Information
(RFI), MFR-1, there are 80 multi -party customers in the Buda
Exchange and 233 multi -party customers in the Dripping Springs
Exchange. Because multi -party lines are not automatically
identified in the central office switching equipment, the Texas
Local Calling Plan is not available to this class of service. It
states that "Single party service for both Buda and Dripping
Springs will be available in 1991."
Substantive Rule 23.3, Definitions, Extended Area Service,
includes, for the purpose of definition, a listing of
metropolitan exchanges that includes Austin. Following is a
comparison of GTE's proposed rates to established two-way
(optional) rates for exchanges that are contiguous with
metropolitan exchanges:
Bus.
LEC Euchange Res. Bus. Trunk PBX
SWBT Pinehurst $36.80 $81.10 $93.25 $125.95
GTE Irving $29.00 $79.10 $95.70 $138.35
GTE Grapevine $29.00 $79.10 $95.70 $138.35
GTE Buda/D.B.
PCP 1-Way $22.10 $58.35 $77.00 $104.40
PPCP 2-Way $41.35 $108.15 $136.70 $184,15
SWBT Red Oak $30.10 $72.35 $83.20 $113.50
EMS
scoRe
(vvv)
1,500+
1,000/1,500
220/450
200/400
200/400
800/1,500
Fort
Bend Brookshire $37.50 $79.50 ------ $130.00 1,500+
Note: All rates are for 2-way service except GTE's PCP.
When the rates are compared (listed in the preceding
paragraph) it is conspicuous that the proposed 2-way rates for
Buda and Dripping Springs are higher than other metropolitan EMS
rates and that the EMS dialing scope is diminished. After
reviewing GTE's cost analysis, which was furnished in response to
RFI MFR-3 and stamped "Proprietary Material", it is not clear how
the rate additives for PCP and PPCP were developed. From SWBT's
response to RFI MFR-12 (stamped "Proprietary") it appears that
the estimated monthly 1FR (1-Party Flat Rate) equivalent
settlement rate (including contribution) for its portion of the
service is approximately'$4:77. GTE did furnish a schedule, that
includes SWBT diverted revenue/minutes of use (MOU), to develop
its transport cost per MOU. According to a reference on this
schedule, GTE used terminating costs per MOU that were based on a
1989 embedded cost study. The transport MOU costs were derived
from toll traffic data of ten (10) exchanges that GTE selected as
prospects for the Texas Local Calling Plane one of the selected
exchanges (Buda and Dripping Springs excepted) accounted for
OG
approximately 594 of "SWB Diverted Revenue" and approximately 49%
of "SWB Diverted MOU". In this section of the cost analysis, the
combined exchanges of Buda and Dripping Springs accounted for
approximately 12.5% of "SWB Diverted Revenue" and approximately
18.8% of "SWB Diverted MOU". This comparison of ratios
demonstrates how the transport costs of a high volume toll
exchange can be shifted to a low volume toll exchange in this
type of cost study. However, beyond this segment of the cost
analysis, GTE did not furnish information to support its
development of the proposed rate additive, i.e. forecast take
rate by class of service, amount of lost toll/FX revenue,
calculation of the 1FR equivalent rate additive, contribution;
rate additive differential between 1-way and 2-way service.
Based on an analysis of the costs for the service, I do not
believe that GTE has sufficiently justified its proposed PCP or
PPCP rates for Buda & Dripping Springs. The proposed optional
two-way rates (1) transcend all established EMS rates for similar
services and (2) are deficient in cost/contribution support. It
is my recommendation that the rates applicable to Option 3, PPCP,
not exceed established optional EMS rates at this time. The
following table is a calculation of the PPCP rate additive when
GTE's existing (Section 6, Sheet No.'s 5 & 5A) EMS rate(s) is the
basis of the number.
(Example) Current Access Rate (-) EMS Rate = Rate Additive
$7.10 (-) $29.00 = $21.90
Option 3. Premium Plus Calling Plan
Class Current
of Service Access Rate Rate Additive Total
One Party Res. $7.10 $21.90 $29.00
One Party Bus. $18.35 $60.75 $79.10
Manual Trunk -Bus.. $22.00 $73.70 $95.70
Auto. Trunk -Bus. $29.40 $108.95 $138.35
There are no established one-way, flat rate, EAS/EMS rates
that can be used as a benchmark for the rate differential between
one-way and two-way service. The relationship of the rate
additive in GTE's proposed PPCP to PCP rate additive ranges from
approximately 2 : 1, to 2.28 1. This rate differential between
one-way and two-way service in this case appears to be
reasonable. The following table is a proportion recalculation of
the rate additive using GTE's relationship between PPCP to PCP
and the Option 3., EAS Rate Additive, in the preceding paragraph:
0
(Example) $34.25 : $21.90 :: $15.00
$21.90 * $15.00
X=-----------------
$34.25
Class
of Service
One Party Res.
One Party Bus.
option 2. q Plan
Current
Access Rate Rate Additive
Manual Trunk -Bus.
Auto. Trunk -Bus.
$7.10
$22.00
$29.40
$27.05
$35.35
$52.80
X
ota
$45.40
$57.35
$82.20
Based on a review of the data furnished in this proceeding,
I recommend that the rate additive for PCP and PPCP (each class
of service) not exceed the rate additives developed in the
preceding two paragraphs. If the signatories to the Joint
Agreement Of The Parties are in agreement with this
recommendation, the parties should file an amended agreement and
GTE should furnish revised cost/contribution estimates that
support a rate additive. I recommend that the proposed 90-day
waiver of Service Charges for Options 2 & 3 be approved. If the
Commission approves the application as filed, Service Charges
should not be applicable to customers of Option 1 CCP, due to
the non -optional characteristic (Reference, Mr. Costello's
Report, Mandatory Requirements Of The Community Calling Plan) of
this plan.
If the parties and the staff cannot reach an accord
concerning the rate additives) in Options 2 & 3 and the
principles discussed in Mr. Costello's report concerning Option
1, I recommend that the issues be resolved according to the Rules
of practice and Procedure of a docket proceeding.
Public Utility Commission of Texas
Memorandum
To: Patrick Sullivan
FROM: Mike Rinehart
DATE: February 14, 1991
SU&TECT: Project No. 9928
.____ ,. ,nnn C..aA�lnnn Va11PV Telephone Cooperative,
On December tv,».,, .�.......�..t . ----. -
Inc. (GVTC) filed a joint petition for optional, two-way, flat -
rate, Extended Metropolitan Service (EMS) between its Bulverde
and Balcones exchanges, and Southwestern Bell Telephone Company's
(SWBT) San Antonio exchange. The general counsel and staff
recommended that the joint petition be processed administratively
pursuant to P.U.C. SUBST. R. 23.49 (1), Joint Filing, on December
the filing was assigned Project
20, 1991. On January 17, 19911
No. 9928.
Purpose
The purpose of this report is to respond to Examiner's Order No.
1, concerning GVTC's request for approval of interim rates.
Proposed Monthly Recurring EMS Rates
In Docket No. 8585, InctuirY Of The General Counsel Into The
Telephone Company, Finding of Facts, Part II, XIII EMS ssues,
Paragraphs 426 & 436, the Commission found that EMS between
GVTC's Bulverde and Balcones exchanges and SWBT's San Antonio
exchange, is in the public interest. The purpose of this project
is to establish the appropriate EMS rates and to review the cost
support for those rates. According to GVTC, the telephone
facilities that are necessary for switching optional, two-way,
EMS will be completed by March 1, 1991. GVTC is requesting that
the Commission approve interim rates for optional EMS.
On February 14, 1991, GVTC filed Amendment No. 1, Reduced Rates
(Attached), to its joint petition. The amendment was joined in
by each of the parties included in the original joint petition.
The rates proposed in the amendment represent reductions for all
classes of service in the Balcones and Bulverde exchanges, with
one exception, the exception is the rate for a Business PBX Trunk
h is consistent with the original
in the Bulverde exchange, whic
petition ($128.25). The rates proposed in the amendment are
comparable to various EMS rates that have been approved by the
Commission for other local exchange carriers within the state.
Waiver Of Installation charges
GVTC is requesting that the Commission approve a 90-day waiver of
installation charges for those existing customers wishing to
subscribe to EMS; the requested effective date is March 1, 1991s
A telephone number change is necessary for each existing Balcones
and Bulverde exchange customer that subscribes to optional EMS.
The applicable nonrecurring Service Charges (Section 2, Original
Page 12) for an existing customer to subscribe to EMS, including
the number change, is $13.00. The cost support information filed
on February 81 1991, indicates that 1,619 existing customers are
prospects for EMS. If all prospective customers (1,619)
subscribe to EMS during the proposed 90-day waiver period, the
l _ A ^ " ^AO1
forfeited nonrecurring revenue is %?4.L,v%1.
The staff has frequently supported the waiver of nonrecurring
service charges for optional services during a limited marketing
period. The objective of a "free installation" incentive is to
introduce the service, stimulate interest, and establish an
extensive user base. The forfeited nonrecurring service charges
revenue in this case is not significant (.2% of Intrastate
Revenue, 1989 Earning Monitoring Report).
I recommend that the rates filed on February 14, 1991, Amendment
No. 11 be used as interim rates (effective March 1, 1991),
pending a Commission order that establishes the EMS rates.
I recommend that GVTC's proposed 90-day waiver of nonrecurring
installation service charges and effective date be approved.
Attachment
David Btarmann
Senior Vice President a1
Chief Operating Officer
February 13, 1991
Mary McDonald, Hearings Director
Public Utility Commission of Texas
7800 Shoal Creek Blvd,, Suite 40ON
Austin, Texas 78757
Dear Ms. McDonald:
Guadalupe Valley
Telephone Cooperative, Inc.
1f>D FM 3159
New Braunfels, Texas 78132.1604
Phone (512) 88548111
Attached is our Amendment #1 to Project #9928 which proposes slightly lower rates for our
Optional Extended Area Service (EAS) from our Bulverde and Balcones exchanges to the San
Antonio Metropolitan exchange. This amendment proposal has the concurrence of the office holders
or companies who signed the Original Joint Agreement for EAS.
Attached, you will also find proof of mailing statements, along with copies of the information
that was sent to each of the affected customers.
Should you need any additional information concerning these two items, please contact me.
Yours truly,
DAVID BIERMANN
Senior Vice -President &
Chief Operating Officer
x
PAGE 1 OF 2
PROJECT NO. 9928
JOINT AGREEMENT FOR
OPTIONAL EXTENDED
AREA SERVICE (EAS)
BETWEEN GUADALUPE VALLEY
TELEPHONE COOPERATIVE'S (GVTC)
BULVERDE AND BALCONES TO
SOUTHWESTERN BELL'S (SWB)
SAN ANTONIO METROPOLITAN EXCHANGE.
AMENDMENT N0. 1 REDUCED RATES
11 FEBRUARY 1991
The undersigned are the official participants or company
representatives in GVTC's application to the Public Utility
Commission of Texas (PUC) for the establishment of Optional
Extended Area Service between GVTC's Bulverde (512-438) and
Balcones (512-755) exchanges into SWB's San Antonio metropolitan
exchange.
The original Joint Agreement for Optional EAS was filed with
the PUC on December 14th, 1990.
After discussion and consultations between GVTC and members
of the PUC staff,. GVTC is submitting tariff revisions to reflect
slightly reduced rates to be used as interim rates until the PUC
approves the same as ordered final rates.
The new proposed rates are:
2LASS OF SERVICE BULVERDE EXCHANGE BALCONES EXCHANGE
Residence, 1-party 37.50 37.50
Business, 1-party 84.75 84.75
Business, Key
System Trunk 99.00 99.00
Business PBX Trunk 128.25 128.25
e
PROJECT NO. 9928
PAGE 2 OF 2
We the undersigned concur with these proposed rates.
SOUTHWESTERN BELL
TELEPHONE COMPANY
By
Ji owan
Division Manager
Regulatory Relations
CITY OF FAIR OAKS RANCH
�: �/.1//L...�..
..
COMAL COUNTY
L. Evans
missioner,
KENDALL COUNTY
Precinct #1
Charles R. Goodman
Commissioneer, Precinct #1
By
Subscriber Representative
Bexar County 512-438 Exchange
GUADALUPE VALLEY TELEPHONE
COOPERATIVE, INC.
�_
By
fir` Ken D. Brannies
President and CEO
BEXAR COUNTY
By.,�/uacw � v � �.—�.
Walter Bielstein
Commissioner, Precinct #3
KENDALL COUNTY
James W. Gooden
Commissioner, Precinct #2
�'I" �. P psun
scri r Representative
al County 512-438 Exchange
{
PROJECT NO. 10024
it hlr�ic i3 Ci+ 3 2Cl'
PETITION OF THE § PUBLIC 1UTI1L-ITY( COMMA.1SION
SANGER EXCHANGE FOR
EXTENDED AREA SERVICE § OF TEXAS
TO THE DENTON EXCHANGE §
MOTION TO DOCKET AND TO ESTABLISH PROCEDURAL SCHEDULE
NOW COMES the General Counsel of the Public Utility
Commission of Texas ("Commission"), representing the public
interest, and files this its Motion to Docket and to Establish
Procedural Schedule in the above styled Project for determination
of Extended Area Service (EAS) rate additives for the pending
request of the Sanger Exchange for EAS to the Denton Exchange,
and would respectfully show the following:
I.
Pursuant to 16 T.A.C. §23.49 (c) (3) , a request for EAS that
is not processed under subsection (b)(6) shall be assigned a
project number to establish its place in a queue and notice shall
be provided once the community -of -interest standards of the rule
have been met. On January 31, 1991 pending active requests for
EAS from various exchanges were assigned project numbers (10014-
10031). This involved eighteen requests for EAS. The above
referenced request is found at Attachment A.
These eighteen projects represent the current queue of
active EAS requests. The Commission has received many more
petitions than these eighteen, but after the requests resolved in
Docket No. 8585 or in other pending docketed proceedings are
removed and after requests that do not meet the rules criteria
(e.g. community -of -interest standards) are removed, the list is
shortened to only eighteen active requests. Additionally, this
number does not reflect additions to the queue after January 31,
1991 as a result of new requests filed with the Commission.
Of these eighteen requests, the first twelve have, as of
this date, satisfied the community -of -interest standards. The
petition assigned Project No. 10024 has satisfied the community -
of -interest standard, as evidenced by the letter dated May 9,
1990, which is found at Attachment B.
Under 16 T.A.C. §23.49(c)(4), the next step is formal
docketing upon General Counsel's motion. Following the docketing
of a request for EAS, a prehearing conference should be scheduled
to determine, among other things, appropriate dates for the
various cost and demand analyses to be conducted by the local
exchange company (LEC) pursuant to the timetable set out in the
AS
rule. 16 T.A.C. 623.49(c)(5).
II.
General Counsel respectfully requests that this project be
docketed at this time. As of this date, cities and individuals
located in the Sanger Exchange have expressed a desire for EAS to
be established into the Denton Exchange. The petitioning
exchange's local exchange carrier (LEC) is Central Telephone
Company. The host LEC is GTE Southwest, Inc. The original date
of the request is May 15, 1989.
Docketing this request at this time is appropriate and will
provide several benefits to the ratepayers in the petitioning
exchange that may not otherwise occur as expeditiously without
docketing. Docketing of this petition will also provide a
structured framework in which to proceed with the request. The
cost and demand analyses are triggered by the prehearing
conference that follows the docketing of a request. Both of these
analyses, among others, are required for the originating LEC to
develop appropriate EAS rate additives for the requesting
exchange.
General Counsel also requests that, upon docketing, a
prehearing conference be scheduled as indicated by 16 T.A.C.
§23.49(c)(5). At such conference it is appropriate to establish
the timetable for the various analyses required of the
originating LEC. 16 T.A.C. §23.49(d)-(f). In addition, the
prehearing conference should address notice requirements. 16
T.A.C. §23.49(h).
Attached is the petition filed pursuant to 16 T.A.C.
§23.49(b) (Attachment A) and the letter indicating that the
request meets the community -of -interest standards set out at 16
T.A.C. §23.49(c) (Attachment B).
General Counsel is this day filing motions to docket the
first twelve requests for EAS in the queue that have met their
community -of -interest standards. These twelve requests were
assigned the following project numbers (inclusive): 10014-10025.
Docketing these requests could result in several LECs having more
than one request for EAS proceed at the same time. In addition,
having twelve dockets proceed concurrently may present a
scheduling problem for both the LECs and the Staff. General
Counsel suggests that a joint prehearing conference be scheduled
to address the possibility of staggering the schedules and to
consider the possibility of consolidating of the various requests
into groups.
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, General Counsel respectfully
requests that its motion be granted.
Respectfully Submitted,
ROBERT A. RIMA
GENERAL COUNSEL
MARTIN WILSON
DEPUTY GENERAL COUNSEL
CA `.O
Rick Guzman
Assistant General
Public Utility Commission of Texas
7800 Shoal Creek Blvd.
Austin, Texas 78757
(512) 458-0287
o
PROJECT NO. 100Z4
I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the above
and foregoing General Counsel's Motion to Docket and Establish
Procedural Schedule was mailed this 18th day of March, 1991 by
First Class, U.S. Mail, Postage Pre -paid toa
Honorable Nel Armstrong
City of Sanger
P. O. Box 578
Sanger, Texas 76266
Dianne Ureich
General Regulatory Manager
Central Telephone Company
330 S. Valley View
Las Vegas, Nevada 89152
GTE Southwest, Inc.
First City Centre
816 Congress Avenue, Suite 1500
Austin, Texas 78701
a
Rick Guzman LI
Assistant General Counsel
Public Utility Commission of Texas
7800 Shoal Creek Boulevard
Austin, Texas 78757
(512) 4580-0287
e
r�
OF .ANGEF?. T L.Xra
TELEF'HOf�iE t:iTEFiDED AREA '_ERVIC<
FESOLUTaON
iJ{,trE►-1'�. the City c+f cancer . L'�er!tar! i;c,tolr!t'.. i As Ser^vea
ov the Ce'-ttel Teleohorte Comcarri LI'rlder tr,e eKchar,oe c+t y tl; 1r,a,
W{-1G Cri'�. Ghe Cltlr'e e.KLer+Or:04
r� cire�y `.ce7 /1C�
t.Ct the C.1T'/ CtT Der,tar,. ieva=_ arid.
WFt�t�N: ct rE�011eSt TCr^=aErD1"!C+rtf; Ey'Kti_Yt(j�j rr`�ci �E'r^'V10E' lnci/ Cam+
Ore=.ErtteCl to the Te:Kti-'+_tC1= tl1ittoe Lctrnrnisslct'r, tne.
CtY''�:t'V1S2L+Y!_. of their bee RUles as adooteptl JeC+terndtr 1.
1'1r�av , SLec A T l Cal l v Sec t. i orr, N'_f arid.
•ril--ttiZEr,'.,
l�r:ritel
Cur^r^B'nt
_er^Ve5
�:4i�.
•
1
c
, c.
.t _
t
a rn e *� s�
i r,
try
e
4
_� �
e.K C'na-t'r,oe
:
1Y,U.
i.•+i•-,t-'��ra'.:, the i�iCt7^tr! Le'ftt.` _.. i E✓as. l.C+I.IrICl l ctT L;t:tvE-�t^YtrneY,T
E�Y lAlctt=ar,UE'r! _ UC+C+lot t 4)00&_
Wr-f�r.i:►•��. the Tut lyre r•e=_-lcer!tlal anU c•c+rnrnercial or•ctwtt', •_•r
hCyY+U�'t'' 1 U1'r'eC't 1.J 1 Ar,i-;ec tC tr!e tyCUlll't''1r:U 1_4T e:Kiefool dt'd aar,e:a
telEUf'rC+rie �.eY^'V1C'e tct Ler,ic+rt. Texas:
vli�l=�Eboo . Clue 3, SACr;ehe e0%( eroot ded areot to eE:tRCtr!p
eor* Nos 1 C'e _ et i t l ctr, earr,est l'! is = 1 re t r; 1 s Sery 1 c'e
THEREFORE.
SE I ; Kt7 that tt�e i=•,.Ibi i c i.1t i ! i t'•�
C.cunrni =.= i c+ri cif Texas i s (�Iroec ct crarrt ? e i eohct'rr•:e Ex to e4nued A'ea
�er`�11Ce Trcvn `�a'r,Ue'r^ tCt 1?eritCrob . Texas ac-co-raing lCo the de_ s1'r`B_ L.
the rnai::+rity of our re=.icier,�s.
i=•i=,E�cL+. :=,.=•i=t�;C1VEit. chit? rID�IGTE= c•v ti-,e i= i t�•/ t:c+�lr,cl i •:tr - -
ar,oe'r. Texa=•. thi ._� oa • ctT _.-,May__---• 1•�+r�.
,L-
All
�Ct5.a1 l e Ccii^Cl a
C. i t.'v Secretary
C
__� L 1.,.,•�l-gin. : .
�iei H ^tn=.tr r;0
�����/ �
Pubic Utility Commission of 7exaa
7800 S�wal Craelc i�ukva,ti! • SuiEe 40oN
Austin, Texan 78757 • Sl?J�58.0100
May 9, 1990
The Honorable Nel Armstrong
The City of Sanger
P.O. Box 578
Sanger, TX 76266
Paul D. Mak
cea�,,.
Subject: Resolution No. R4-89, for Extended Area Service (EAS) from Sanger to
Denton
Oear Mayor Armstrong:
The Public Utility Commission of Texas recently receives the long distance
traffic ct��rlle� .-et�tea •.. �___,...
����� �.. you► Reso�utiton no. R4-89, for EAS between Sanger
and Denton. Those studies indicate that the telephone traffic from Sanger to
Denton does meet the community of interest standards established in the
Commission's Substantive Rules. Substantive Rule 23.49 states that a
community of interest exists when:
(1) there is an average of no less than ten calls per subscriber
account per month from one exchange and the other, and
(2) no less than two-thirds of the subscriber accounts place at
least five calls per month from one exchange to the other.
Specifically, the results of your traffic studies are as follows:
Recruirement Actual
(1) the average number of
calls per subscriber account � 10 20.5
(2) the percent of subscriber
accounts placing five or 66.66% 70.34%
more calls per month
Currently, the City of Sanger is in a queue of exchanges awaiting a Commission
hearing on EAS. As your position in the queue improves, we will kee
informed. Should you require additional information or need assistance,
please contact Mike Rinehart at (512) 458-0161.
Sincerely,
Rowland L. Curry, P. ,
Director
Telephone Utility Analysis
RC/mr
Attachment
e
T04 JOHN HAMILTON CITYY �GER
FROM: BENNY ERWIN CHIEF
DATE: 3-22-91
SUBJECT: CARL GARRETT, DOG BITE AT 905 N. 8TH
At 4:44PM on 3-21-91 I received information on Carl
Garrett's dog bite for Dr. Stuckey. He advised that the dog did
not have rabies, Carl Garrett was advised to the facts by me on
3-22-91 at 8:00am.
Autopsy revealed that the dog had internal problems, maybe
from having puppies not for sure. Dr. Stuckey advised me of this
on 3-20-91 but wanted to wait on the report from Austin before
any other remarks.
0
;��,�.�(e`� yll
Wednesday, March 20, 1991/Denton Record-Chronicle/5A
sparl�s ��r��t pi�ku}� �lehate
�- .:.
.. .
Sanger —How much trash can a pickup
hold?
Sanger City Council members are grappling
with .the great pickup debate as one of several
thorny problems facing the city once the city's
landfill ceases operation on March 31.
The council this week authorized the city to
enter into a contract with Frontier Waste
Management Inc. of Sanger to provide eight
containers that will hold four cubic yards of
solid waste each. The containers will be placed
at a concrete transfer station site to be located
within a fenced area at the present landfill,
officials said.
The cost of operating the transfer station
could mean higher prices for customers who use
the service. "I'm concerned that they're going to
go back to the ditch in the country," said
Councilman Carroll McNeil. He estimated it
could cost as much as $6.25 per cubic yard on
average to dump garbage. With the city now
charging just $8 per pickup load at the landfill,
it's important for the city to recover its
operating costs once the transfer station opens,
said Mr. McNeill.
"Our problem is how to calculate what's in a
pickup," said Mayor Nel Armstrong. "You've got
your Toyota, and then you've got those big
three -quarter -ton dudes."
With estimates that pickup loads could range
from one to four cubic yards, the council
authorized staff to come up with cost recom-
mendations and prepare an ordinance of price
schedules to consider at its April meeting.
`I'rri concerned that they're go-
vtg "to go back to the ditch in the
COLUttrL, f . '
Carroll McNeil
The city will pay $50 per month rental for
the containers and $200 each time all eight
dumpsters are emptied by Frontier. Curbside
service will be available for large appliances
acid larger items if pre -arranged. No hazardous
waste will be accepted into the dumpsters,
including tires, batteries and used motor oil,
according to the agreement.
The site does not have to be permitted, but
must undergo regular health department in-
spections, said City Administrator John
Hamilton. The city could opt to change from the
eight containers to a 30-cubic-yard skid or
compaction operation at any time, he said. The
transfer station will only be available to city
residents, officials said. "It's going to be a shake
up process for all of us for a while," said Mr.
Hamilton. "This is just a begiruiing."
The city has filed a landfill closure plan that
calls for all operations to cease at the landfill by
March 31. Final closure is set for July 1. The
city is closing its landfill in anticipation of new,
more stringent environmental regulations that
aze set to take e$'ect over the next two years
that will make landfill operations in small
communities cost prohibitive, officials said.
h Ifoh� CoL RECEIVED
Ty 6 S G r AR 21 1991
r clTff F NA
�a y
�--►I�03
a� t st.S I ig n �.,G 0 n ire
A �Ei�! III bz
o vi P har Th
e S6- yco
Ito% Try
- f � �
foul(& y. ex ry
to
�',�, ri c%v
betnl ,���nG� by 7
y, �e. et` ewe
y
The City of Fermers Branch
Texes
IL
2 h 0, 1991
1
Honorable Mayor
the Sanger City
City of Sanger
P. O. Box 578
Nel Armstrong and Members of
Council
Sanger, Texas 76266
RE: HOUSE BILL 1650 BY REPRESENTATIVE MARCHANT
AMENDMENT TO 109.57 OF THE TEXAS ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE
CODE
Dear Mayor Armstrong and Members of the Sanger City Council:
This letter is an urgent plea for your support of H. B.
1650 introduced by Representative Ken Marchant in the Texas
House of Representatives.
The bill amends Section 109.57 of the Alcoholic Beverage
Code which section was approved by the Legislature in 1987
as part of a bill to amend the Dram Shop Act. There was
little review or discussion of the new Section 109.57 when
it was added relatively late in the 1987 regular session.
A copy of H. B. 1650 (the Act) is attached for your review.
Our deep concern is that when you read Section 109.57 with
the recent Dallas Court of Appeals decision in the case
styled Ralph Courtney vs. City of Sherman there could be
a conclusion that the cities of this state have been
eliminated entirely from their traditional, long standing
and historic role of utilizing their zoning power to
determine the location of business establishments that sell
alcoholic beverages. Our City Attorney has advised the
City Council and City Administration that this conclusion
could clearly be reached. Such a conclusion, I believe all
would agree, has potentially disastrous consequences.
The Act introduced by Representative Marchant corrects the
Section 109.57 problems and the preemption issue (Section
1.06) raised in the Courtney vs. City of Sherman case.
The City of Farmers Branch respectfully requests and urges
your C0ty to support th8s Act (H. B. 1650) and to exhibit
such support by direct contact with your State Senator and
State Representative. In addition we would suggest that you
pass on your support of the Act to local members of the
Texas Restaurant Association, Texas Hotel and Motel
Association and other interested and affected members of
your community such as your Chamber of Commerce.
We appreciate your support. If you have any questions,
please feel free to contact me or City Manager Richard
Escalante or City Attorney John Boyle at (214) 919-2515.
Sincerely,
Dave Blair
Mayor
ba
Attachment
blarehant
A BILL TO BE ENTITLED
1 AN ACT
H ,B, 1650
2 relating to the authority of governmental entities to adopt
3 zoning or other regulations applicable to certain business
4 establishments.
5 BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS:
6 SECTION 1, Section 109,57, Alcoholic Beverage Code,
7 Subsection (d) is amended to read as follows:
8 (d) This Section and this Code does not pre-empt or
9 effect the power and authority of a city, town or village
10 (including home rule cities) in exercising its zoning power,
11 prospectively, to enact new or amend existing ordinances
12 applicable to premises and businesses required to have a
13 license or permit under this Code for the on -premises
14 consumption of alcoholic beverages only. This subsection
15 applies only to a licensee or permittee for on -premises
16 consumption only This section expressly does not apply to any
17 other licensee or permittee relative to the sale of alcoholic
18 beverages for off premises consumptiont and provided any such
19 zoning ordinance or amendment thereto shall comply with the
20 following requirements:
21 No ordinance or amendment passed after January 1,
22 1991 shall adversely effect in any manner any
23 existing and legal business operating with a
24 license or permit to sell alcoholic beverages for
25 on -premises consumption.
26 ,2� All ordinances and amendments thereto shall
27 operate and be effective prospectively only.
(OVER)
A No ordinance or regulation passed pursuant to this
2 amendment shall be applicable to private clubs
3 that possess a private club license or permit.
q 91 No ordinance or amendment shall regu re a
5 restaurant or other establishment to meet a
6 specific ratio between the sale of food and the
7 sale of alcoholic beverages that requires greater
8 than a fifty („50) percent ratio from the gross
9 receipts of the sale of food to fifty r50j percent
10 from the gross receipts of the sale of alcoholic
11 beverage.
12 51 The clause --or-clauses of all zoning ordinances in
13 effect on the effective date of this ordinance
e
19 that require greater than a fifty (50) percent
15 ratio from the gross receipts from the sale of
16 food to the ciross receipts from the sale of
17 alcoholic beverages shall be deemed in conflict
18 with this amendment and void.
19 This section does not affect the authority of a
20 governmental entity to regulate, in a manner as otherwise
21 permitted by law, the location of:
22 a massage parlor, nude modeling studio, or other sexually
23 oriented business.
29 2) an establishment that derives 75 percent or more
25 of the establishment's gross revenue from the
26 on -premise sale of alcoholic beverage.
27 SECTION 2. This Act takes effect immediately.
Is
2SECTION 3. The importance of th
8 legislation and the
29 crowded condition of the calendars in both houses create an
30 emergency and an imperative public necessity that the
31 constitutional nalrule requiring bills to be read on three
32 separate days in each house be suspended, and this rule is
33 hereby suspended.
-2-
0830X
ruyle
`�.uhre;
�arrc!!�on
Demon
'�ouoie OaK
-=�o�wer �,/lounr�
_. isco
i�rr,!ana `�il!an::
rta;,,
RESOLUTYON NO. 91-01
A Resolution of the Denton County Fire Chiefs Association
supporting Fireworks Control Legislation.
Whereas, the continued presence of any class of
fireworks contributes to injuries and property damage
every year when used by the general public without the
direction and control of a licensed pyrotechnician; and
Whereas, over the past five years in the United
States, an average of 10,400 hospital -treated fireworks
--° injuries have occurred each year; and
Whereas, 34,700 fires were started in our nation by
fireworks in 1986 alone; and
Whereas, twelve (12) states have already banned all
Class C fireworks; and
Whereas, seven (7) states allow only sparklers
and/or snakes; and,
Whereas, the Honorable Gene Green has filed S.B. 251
which would grant Commissioners Courts authority to
regulate fireworks in unincorporated areas; now
therefore
Be it resolved
Association:
Section I.
Association go on
Section II.
exist to declare
action receive
Legislature.
by the Denton County Fire Chiefs
That the Denton County Fire Chiefs
record in support of S.B. 251.
That significant public safety concerns
this to be an emergency and that this
priority attention in the 72nd
PASSED AND APPROVED on this 21st day of February, 1991 in
Denton, Texas.
ohn Lee Cook, Jr.
President, DCFCA
ATTEST:
'�
t
Pat Dews
Secretary, DCFCA
f � ? ;:�
,Argyle
Aubrey
Carroiito;; RESOLUTION NO. 91-03
Dencon
Double Oak
Hower ivlouno
�riscc A Resolution of the Denton County Fire Chiefs Association
Njahiarc: i :iaae supporting passage of Legislation granting counties
as r authority to adopt codes:
Whereas, over 101,609 fires destroyed over $1
billion in property in Texas in 1989; and
_iLCI� ��fl
Whereas, there were over 290 fire related deaths and
2,683 fire -related injuries in Texas in 1989; and
Whereas, County Governments in Texas do not have the
authority to adopt model fire and building codes for
unincorporated areas; and
Whereas, the Honorable Ben Campbell proposes to
introduce legislation granting counties code making
authority; now therefore;
Be it resolved by the Denton County Fire Chiefs
Association:
Section I. That the Denton County Fire Chiefs
Association go on record in support of Representative
Campbell's efforts to enact legislation granting County
Governments code making authority.
Section II. That significant public safety concerns
exist to declare this to be an emergency and that this
action receive priority attention in the 72nd
Legislative.
PASSED AND APPROVED on this 21st day of February, 1991 in
Denton, Texas.
J hn Lee Cook, Jr.
President
ATTEST:
Pat Dews
Secretary, DCFCA
FIRST OaaMMVE4t COMPANY
LEGISLATIVE ALERT - NUMBER 4-A
March 21, 1991
FIRST SOUTHWEST COMPANY, 500 1st City Center, 1700 Pacific Avenue, Dallas, Tx.
(214) 953-4000
HOUSE BILL 1916 (Hilderbran)
This bill proposes to:
Limit the times that elections may be held.
Force joint elections with other political entities that hold elections
on the same date.
The impact for Texas Political Subdivisions is:
Forces bond elections onto dates that are not favorable for passage of
the issue. The dates are as follows:
The first Saturday in May
The first Tuesday after the first Monday in November (even years
only)
The third Saturday in January
The second Saturday in August
Diverts the attention of the voters from the need for facilities by
putting several issues into a common election.
Will delay the construction of facilities while waiting for a "uniform"
date. In the event of an unsuccessful election held in August of an odd
numbered year, the Political Subdivision would be unable to bring a
program back to the voters for five months.
Elections on the same date will lead to sales that are clustered together
(everyone needs the funds as soon as possible). This could impact the
interest rates on the bonds.
Regular COUNTY voting places will be used (not the Political
Subdivision's voting places) in joint elections.
The election will be run by committee. The following is from Section
271.002(e) of the Bill. "The governing body of each political
subdivision participating in the joint election shall appoint one
representative to an election committee, which shall implement the joint
election agreement."
Ancient Free & Accepted Masons
BANGER, TEXAS 76266
,Cii,y Fzall
Ii
L'- a °Onlc At,./ar ne sS 0') n Hrota:7@
_,�onoa�able '�oun.cil !'r'icr�1'r�ers e
On. ,O1�var ar�on� G O _,O l_� .� o Oen�n 1 s doom to ,,,bl is
CC1_'1 10,1()M lroril 2 to a r iaSon.1G A�wq..0 E',rlesis 0-� I ' Ouse .
; e woLalci 1 il':�e to invite a11 0l' the council ��o.t=;:nbers and their
of the 1odr;`'p at this nVPnt.
'ac]mn .c cC,"nd laiso c- ai'f i_1 l_atocl o1 PaY1i 4a tl_ole) . Lodges all over the
Ir 8.1, state o i'C _=tee t,^d11 be O'�EYIl_11' V�.f;l..,� doors To the -i)ublic.
I L, =!_ our ho )c' and, (Ies _;_ c L'_rlc.V bi21S }ro ';Y a.'� 5;'3.l_�_1 increase a.30 the
GOTITIMild-c;r a,vareness o_ our local 'ta o})a_C 7_od-c and to deaonst:s^a c
Go the.oY'1_c7. that v,!C' `�.-ce a �ub1l C OY1P�'1`t ci. and O"?)E--:i1 O:!_' c�'l.1 Tc i 10n.
�Ic have d.s?S_EC' the I�a.vOZ %O 1t1G.�.0 a ')Y'E'S8Y?Zr`�.G_1071 tothe 1Ocp;C
31OU urlE "c
the'!a�r01 a well asI �;.E� '0livai 10d:8 Vs'OU1G b2 i"10sZ
i i10 �2 JiOU t,; l_1? make c I)o.JJrrc t o '2�a , th l On your calendar aCldl.
Ian to rJ I1 your' fa--nal_] 1_E S ,o "t;his It10.; Z E ; t ^'1.0"L'dinar>y event.
311 i ; 3, CL