Loading...
04/22/1986-CC-Minutes-RegularMINUTES: MEMBERS PRESENT: OTHERS PRESENT: City Council Meeting April 22, 1986 Mayor Nel Armstrong, Jerry Jenkins, Freddy Inman, Harvey W. Thomas, and Mayor Danny Spindle, Carolyn Adkins Stephen K. Shutt, Mary Jo Stover, Richard Brown, Benny Parrent, Bennie Bridges, Rev. Gerald Bridges, Herbert Arledge, Don Holson, Burl Bourland, Rick Jenkins, Mr. & Mrs. Bud Hauptman, B. McMurray and Karen Sebastian 1. Mayor Armstrong called the meeting to order. Reverend Gerald Bridges with Sanger Baptist Church gave the invocation. Mayor Armstrong led the pledge to the American Flag. 2. The city secretary administered the oath of office to the newly elected city officials, Mayor Nel Armstrong, Carolyn Adkins, and Harvey W. Thomas. 3. The minutes of the previous meeting were approved as printed. 4. Disbursements in the amount of $15,514.12 were approved on a motion by Freddy Inman. Carolyn Adkins gave the second. Voted unan. 5. Mayor Armstrong conducted the election of Mayor Pro tempore. The mayor called for nominations. Thomas nominated Freddy Inman. Danny Spindle made the motion that nominations cease and that Inman be elected by acclamation. Jerry Jenkins gave the second. Voted unan. 6. Mayor Armstrong called council's attention to the handout regarding councilmembers serving as commissioners. She stated that in her TML Mayor and Council Handbook that as department commissioners they were simply serving as a committee chairman 235. and a committee of one rather than serving as a department commissioner or administrator. She stated there was some questions to the legality of General Law Cities having department commissioners. Advised council that they would be serving only as a committee chairman to serve as a liaison person between a department and the staff or the mayor. Commented on team effort. Stated this year she would be titling the departments differently. There would be a Department of Public Safety Commissioner which will cover both fire and police, Public Works Commissioner which covers everything that Jerry Don Linn is over, an Electric Commissioner, a Code Enforcement Inspections Commissioner who will work very close with Rick Brown, and a Community Planning Commissioner who will be in charge of planning city streets, and working closely with the Planning and Zoning Board. The following appointments were made by Mayor Armstrong: Commissioner of Public Safety Freddy Inman Commissioner of Public Works Jerry Jenkins Electric Commissioner Harvey W. Thomas Code Enforcement & Inspection Commissioner Danny Spindle Community Planning Commissioner. Carolyn Adkins 7. Motion was made by Carolyn Adkins to table the resolution in support of the preliminary county wide transportation plan in order to give council time to look over the plans. Harvey Thomas gave the second. Voted unan. 8. Mayor Armstrong stated at the present time the Sanger Library -- was receiving funds from the county on a per capita basis. Mrs. Gray, Chairman of the Library Board, attended a meeting recently and it was brought up that the city library could receive a $10,000 lump sum payment. Can get more money by passing the resolution. Mayor Armstrong read aloud the resolution. Motion was made by Jerry Jenkins to adopt the Resolution acknowledging the city's intent to provide local support to the Sanger Public Library. Freddy Inman gave the second. Voted unan. 9. Mayor Armstrong called on Jerry Jenkins to speak to council regarding the resolution in support for funding the planning for future water needs of Denton County since he attended some of the meetings regarding the planning. Jenkins stated this was in reference to all the small cities in Denton County working with the cities of Denton and Dallas to provide future sources of water to these cities in North Texas that are presently being serviced by water wells. This is a way to get in on ground floor in setting up water distribution from Lake Roberts to Sanger, Argyle, Justin, Ponder, most all the towns in this area. If the -- cities do not get in on this at this point, the city may not have the option to receive water from another source such as the Lake. Stated he felt it was to the city's benefit and almost a necessity because the wells presently alternate plan. By getting in on the planning the city will have to pay its portion for the preliminary study. Payment of study was discussed. The city manager stated $2000 would probably be the maximum, that the fee is based on population and a per capita amount. Mayor Armstrong read aloud the resolution. Councilman Jenkins stated the fee of $2000 would probably more than cover the city's share of the cost and the remaining excess from the cities would be left in the fund to use for future studies. 236. Motion was made by Danny Spindle to adopt the resolution in Re -support for funding the Planning for Future Water needs of Denton County. Harvey Thomas gave the second. Voted unan. 10. Rick Jenkins requested that council wait until after the public hearing on the proposed 1986 Community Development Program before taking action on the contract agreement for professional service with GSA. It was agreed. 11. Mayor Armstrong declared the public hearing open to discuss the proposed 1986 Community Development Program. Mayor Armstrong called on Rick Jenkins with Governmental Service Agency to explain the Community Development Program. Jenkins gave a run down on what the program does, what it can do, and what it can't do, and what the major problems are. Jenkins stated that TCDP called the Texas Community Development Program and generally the state has these programs every year and this is the 1986 program. The program is now administered by the State Texas Department of Community Affairs with its headquarters in Austin. Even though it is administered by the State, it is a federal program. Because it is a federal program the city has all the basic federal requirements. He stated off -hand there was nothing in the working area that he felt the city would have a problem with. He stated that most of all the federal requirements would be placed on all of the contractors. The engineer, the construction contractor, the national consultant, the subcontractor and associates. The city would have to insure that the contractor complies with all the regulations. The grant program is a 100% grant it kinda works with a situation where most people who are actually funded do kick in some money. He said the city might want to consider sometime before the application is finalized, that the city consider how much money they want to put in, if they want to put in any at all. He stated that generally the towns his agency has worked with will put in money anywhere from 0 up to well over a $100,000. Jenkins stated there are some advantages if the city would, it would generally increase the city's score and plus the committee that rates the application would tend to score those applications more favorable simply because it demonstrates the city is willing to put up its own money to help in funding the project. The grant application can be used to fund almost any kind of public works project. Installation of new water lines, replace- ment of old water lines, sewer lines, street work, drainage work, and housing rehabilitation. Jenkins stated about the only thing that you specifically couldn't do would be to give the money away or use it for just general purposes. The city could not construct some type of building used for government. He stated it would be possible to build a senior center, library or something of this nature. The minimum the city can apply for would be $6,000 and the maximum would be $500,000. However each region has the option of decreasing the maximum of $500,000 to $300,000. He stated the regional committee has not set the limit yet. He stated they would probably leave it at $500,000 but at this time they don't really know. He stated the reason the state has allowed the region to lower this is because of decreased funding. Last year this region, the North Texas COG area, had 3.4 million dollars for this project. This year it will be guaranteed at least 2.4 or 2.5 million losing possibly as much as one million dollars. If they get some additional funding it could be funded back at 3 million dollars, but we will still lose some. Last year there were 49 applications, of those 49 only 10 were funded, so competition is somewhat fierce and that is one reason the city should consider every option it can to maximize this application maximizing its chances to be funded. One way to do this is that the project must benefit low income families. There is a specific statistic that the project must benefit at least 51% low income families. Since 51% is considered the minimum anything below 51% is not even eligible. Jenkins stated since all applications were in competition that the city would want to increase the percentage and as many other factors as possible on the application. Overall between. the state and the region, there is a total 237. of about 1200 points (the low to moderate income family percentage). Out of the 1200 this makes up 350 points. Jenkins stated this was the single most important factor which the city could control its destiny as far as whether the application would be funded or not. Last year on the average the applications that were funded averages 75 to 800 Low income families. Gave examples of the income amounts. Discussion. Jenkins stated the grant program required two public hearings to consider the applications. Federal law requires that the citizens be given ample opportunity to participate in the discussion making process as to what the grant application will involve. Stated this was the first public hearing, that it has been advertised, plus it was required to get a listing of everyone that attended the public hearing. All that's required tonight is to discuss the program and if there are any questions, Jenkins stated he would be glad to try and answer them as to what the grant could or could not do. Discussion: The city manager requested to know what the Largest single project funded was. It was stated it was sewer. Shutt wanted to know if the city was successful with the application when funding would be received? Jenkins gave first the application schedule. The survey dead- line was extended this year to May 30th. The applications have been extended to June 30th. Discussion. Could receive money by Thanksgiving. You've got an approximate 12 month period to expend the funds. Councilman Jenkins wanted to know if you could participate the next year even though your existing funds have not been spent. Rick Jenkins stated if certain regulations were met. Explained. The survey and format of survey was discussed. Street projects were discussed Normal maintenance not covered. Jenkins advised council not to lean too heavily toward a street project because traditionally he stated they have been almost impossible to be funded. The largest number funded are water and sewer projects. Drainage projects discussed. Rick .Jenkins asked the audience if everyone had signed the signature sheet. Rev. Gerald Bridges stated he didn't know whether he wanted to sign the sheet or not. He wanted to know if Jenkins was talking about moeny that has come from the federal government and came back down to Texas. Jenkins answered yes, from the federal government. He stated the overall allotment to the State of Texas was somewhere around $40 million dollars. He stated this region has been allotted roughly $22 to 3 million dollars. Bridges stated the logic that eluded him with most governmental agencies was what Jenkins said in his explanation that cities could get 100o funding and most cities that give back or put more money in themselves and then it was noted the larger number of low income people would be funded. Bridges stated there was no logic to this. The most needy people would be unable to give. Mayor Armstrong informed Mr. Bridges it was not the people themselves that would be giving it is the city. Bridges stated but the city is made up of people. Mayor Armstrong stated in the criteria that the federal government feels unless the cities are willing to help themselves then they are not just going to hand it to them on a silver platter. Bridges stated he understood this. Rick Jenkins stated the general fault behind the program is to help those cities that can't help themselves. He stated what Rev. Bridges was saying was a bite of a dichotomy in which there is a definite contradiction where it is supposed to be a grant program to help those areas that can't afford to help themselves but it works out in reality that your chances for funding is greater. Discussion. Rev. Bridges commented that the more grants that are accepted in this country, all we're doing is our tax dollar floats up across the country and a few pennies of it dribbles down to us. 238. He stated to him it was a matter of liberty. He stated he supposed in running city government, some of this has to be considered, but he stated he didn't have a good feeling about it at all. He stated he was interested in seeing less govern- ment grants go out and people doing more for themselves and those of us who are their neighbors helping them. Discussion. Rick Jenkins requested the mayor take action regarding the contract with GSA during this hearing before she closed it to the public. Discussion. Carolyn Adkins made the motion to use the services of Governmental Service Agency in applying for this grant. Freddy Inman gave the second. Voted unan. Mayor Armstrong declared the public hearing closed. 12. The city secretary requested that the Food Service Ordinance be tabled, that the County Health Department had requested another section to be added before it was presented to council. Motion was made by Freddy Inman to table consideration of Ordinance No. 86-8, Food Service Ordinance. Jerry Jenkins gave the second. Voted unan. 13. Council considered Ordinance No. 86-9 amending Chapter 10, Section 2, Entitled Water Service Connections. The city manager stated that this ordinance had not been before the Utility Board. He stated this was partly his fault but felt there was an emergency for the ordinance. Shutt. stated the city had had a couple of problems. He stated he was proposing the amendment to the already existing ordinance. The city in the existing ordinance does not have the ability to stop or fine anybody who goes out an simply turns a valve on. People who are making a patch here and there are just helping themselves to the system and he stated he was trying to get a means of stopping this type thing. Gave examples of some of the problems, one problem which shut down half of the city. He stated council might want to refer this to Utility Board but that he personally did not think it was necessary given the definition of the primary cause. He stated it was important that council take action as quickly as possible. Rick Brown stated he had inserted a charge for the men having to go out on this, having to turn the water on and off for these people. Also updated the water tap fee. Discussion. Mayor Armstrong noted the change between the original ordinance and the new ordinance being Section 2A1 - beginning with second sentence.... All interruptions of water service to any and all customers shall be made under the direct supervision of the City Water Department before such interruption is made. Any person, firm, or corporation found interrupting water service without city supervision shall be in violation of this ordinance and shall be subject to fines and penalties as prescribed in Chapter 1, Section 5 of the Sanger City Code. Mayor Armstrong asked if the penalty had not been upgraded to $1,000? Jerry Jenkins verified that it had. Discussion. Rick Jenkins stated the penalty could be $1,000 if it was on things that had an impact on public health or health related violation. Discussion. Rick Brown stated he had talked with Lee Lawrence with GSA and Lawrence stated that the $200.00 penalty should be sufficient. Mayor Armstrong stated the other change in the ordinance dealt with the fees. The tap charge was raised from $100.00 to $150.00, charge for service interruption for $25.00 which was added. Herbert Arledge wanted to know how difficult it would be to get this information to the Utility Board. Shutt stated it wasn't difficult in normal circumstances, but meeting once a month, this only occurred last week, and he stated he felt the city had a real serious problem. Stated he didn't send it to 239. the Board and that was his fault, but if council wishes to Motion was made by Jerry Jenkins to adopt Ordinance No. 86-9 as drawn. Carolyn Adkins gave the second. Voting for were: Jenkins, Adkins and Spindle. Voting against was: Thomas and Inman. Motion carried 3-2. ORDINANCE NO. 86-9 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 10, SECTION 2 OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF SANGER, TEXAS, ENTITLED DATER SERVICE CONNECTIONS TO PROVIDE FOR FEES; PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT; PROVIDING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE; AND PROVIDING FOR A PENALTY FOR VIOLATION. 14. Consideration of Ordinance 86-10 on the proposed annexation was deleted. It was contingent upon the approval of the Replat on Indian Springs Phase II which was not approved. 15. The City Council considered the preliminary subdivision replat of Indian Springs Phase II for Benny Parrent. A workshop was held on April 16th to try and work out problems with the replat. Mayor Armstrong stated that Mr. Parrent had brought a substitute (plat) that he would be willing to go with in place of the 73 Lot replat presented. Mayor Armstrong called for questions. Danny Spindle asked about street right-of-ways. Parrent stated this was discussed at the workshop and that he kept Ben Joy Drive a 60 foot right-of-way because it was the main thorough fare and the others he kept at 50 feet. Spindle stated it was discussed but not agreed upon. Parrent stated that all the lots on the new plat were 2 acre or more. Block C - 6/10 of an acre, Block B - 6/10 to 3/4 of acre, and some of the others are near 1-acre lots. Parrent stated council had told him in the workshop if he could keep his plat under 60 lots, if he could keep it over a half acre, and if he would put in 8" flex base (which he stated he had agreed to) and stated it was on the plans and if he would put concrete driveways in that council would consider without curbs and gutters and that he would go ahead and put in the water and sewer lines the way they show on theplat. He stated the city would get their lift station and the park location. Discussion. Parrent advised council that this plat would be under sole ownership. Mayor Armstrong called council's attention to the city manager's letter stating that he wanted them to look at some options before making a decision regarding the plat. They are as follows: Options I. NOT APPROVED: The E.T.J. at the edge day, if we grow to State law does not an area. In this city receives a subdivision in its of its city limits which will some - the west will have to be annexed. allow a city to bypass and isolate subdivision we will have the following. a. No curbs and gutters. b. 34 lots of 1 to 1.5 acres in size. c. A subdivision on 4" Bolivar water lines,. which the city will have to buy back from Bolivar. d. Septic tanks. e. County Spec. streets. f. No fire hydrants. II. APPROVED: a. No curbs and gutters. 240. b. Approximately 50-60 lots of at least 1/2 to 1 acre in size. c. A subdivision on 6" water lines owned by the city, with no buy back costs. d. All lots on sewer, not septic. e. Streets that are nearer to city specs. 8" crushed rock with 12" of asphalt concrete. (city specs. require 5 in. rock and lime stabilized streets). I feel that the above is equal to city specs. f. Control of Building Permits. g. Fire Hydrants. h. Control of the development of the streets and the drainage in the subdivision. i. A lift station site. j. A park site. k. Tax revenue. 1. Permit revenue. m. Water and sewer revenues. Cost Factors per Option NOT APPROVED Revenue (none) possible costs are whatever it takes to buy water system and upgrade from Bolivar and install sewer mains plus County spec. road improvements and lift station site. APPROVED Revenue: Water and sewer on 55 homes, $15,840.00 per year. Tax revenue (275.00 per home average) in 55 homes averaging 1500 sq. feet = $15,125.00 per year. Total Annual Revenue - Approximately $31,000.00 One time permit revenue ------ 30,000.00 Mayor Armstrong stated that the city manager had recommended approval stating that the $31,000 per year loss in revenue plus the future improvement costs, the park site and lift station site was not worth the question of curbs and gutters on lots 2 acre and more. DZayor Armstrong stated that the council would not have this problem, or the long meetings and discussions if council had been a jump ahead of time. She said whether the plat is approved or not she wants to go on record and say that she wants council to come to a decision at what point they will or will not draw the lines on curbs and gutters. If the city says that we are not going to allow any subdivision to come into the city without curb and gutters, that means if there is a sub- division that goes in and its 7 miles from our city limits and it's in our E.T.J. then we must require the curb and gutters. Thats what the law says unless we make some provision in our ordinance to that effect. She stated that council should make the decision about Parrent's subdivision with the understanding that this is a separate incident, caught in the change of the city trying to grown, to learn, and to make plans for the ufture and that we will discuss in the next meeting and come up with a decision so that council will not have to face this problem again and the developer will know up fron what they can and cannot do. The city's sub- division ordinance is 13 years old and it's time it is upgraded. It was written for a city that was not growing at the rate that we're growing today. 241. Mayor Armstrong went on to say if the council accepts this subdivision that the city would be criticized and they would say because there is a development right down the road that you made do curbs and gutters or there was another you made do curbs and gutters and part of that criticism might be valid but No. 1 if the people that make that criticism would get their facts straight (No. 1 the lots are larger, perhaps not as large as I would like to see them before we allow no curbs and gutters) but in this particular instance the mayor stated she felt like that it would be too big a loss to the city financially. Stated she would like to see the city get the park, the lift station site because moving it further west the city could serve a much larger area to the west. She stated these were her personal feels, that they may not be right but that's how she feels. Carolyn Adkins stated she had talked with the city manager earlier and that he had stated that the city could pass an ordinance that would require property owners to maintain the right-of-ways at their property site. She stated the city could not keep the ditches they already have, that they look like trash all the time. Discussion on areas not curbed or guttered and maintenance of ditches. Driveway approaches and enforce ment was discussed. Jerry Jenkins stated he had one comment he would make regard- ing this. He stated since the workshop and since the meeting two weeks ago, he had made the effort totalk with a number of people in the area (builders, developers, professional people) people who know a little bit about what is going on about subdivisions. Out of 10 only 2 were supportive in any- way to this action. He stated if no curb and gutters was allow- ed to happen that the city might as well open the door to all future developments and let them go at will at pretty much what they want to do. He felt the city would be setting a precedent. Mayor Armstrong stated it would not set a prece- dent if the city immediately passed an ordinance to say this is what we are going to live by. She went on to say if the plat was approved it would be made known to the world that this would be a one time instance because of the fact it was better for the city but that the city is going to immediately adopt an ordinance that we will live with. Jenkins stated we had an ordinance, the ordinance was done 13 years ago. Discussion. Jenkins stated he felt the city was negotiating two issues that are at the turning point of our city, a park is needed, would be a great benefit to our citizens, park would be a big benefit to those who would use it, the lift station is a very critical item. The city needs it. But stated the city was getting into a negotiating state, I don't agree with the way it's being done, I believe the procedures we're taking are backwards. Mayor Armstrong called for comments from the audience. Burl Bourland stated that he had complied with the city's existing ordinance (he read from the ordinance regarding streets, street construction, and curb and guttering). He stated that curb and guttering had cost him on his 55 lots $33,396. This runs $599.92 per lot for each lot. He stated if council let Parrent's subdivision go without curb and guttering it would set him at a disadvantage on the price of his lots since Parrent would have $600 less in his lots. He asked council to conform to the existing ordinance. Don Holson stated he had listened to the pros and cons comments on the curb and guttering and stated it was not always the advantage in every case to have curb and gutters --that drainage is a situation that is sometimes not enhanced by having curb and gutters. He stated he had lots with 300 feet in front of them and that's over $5,000 just for a curb and gutter. He stated it wouldn't enhance the property one damn bit on a 3 acre lot. Stated if council wanted to have curb and guttering that where the city has urban type development - yes, but an estate type development with larger units.he stated curb and gutters wouldn't help. Would like to see council put some reason either by using some variance as used in the past or some stipulation of size or whatever they decided to do would 242. be o.k. by him, but he would like a decision because he was spending money on his subdivision right now. Stated if he has to put in 6,000 foot of curb and guttering on two sides of his streets that he's going back to growing wheat. Stated there wasn't any money in either one. Discussion. Mayor Armstrong called for a motion. Danny Spindle made the motion to deny the Indian Springs Phase II preliminary replat of 72 lots. Jerry Jenkins gave the second. Voted unan. Motion was made by Wendall Thomas to send the preliminary replat back to planning and zoning with the changes that have been proposed for their preliminary approval. Danny Spindle gave the second. Voting for were: Thomas and Spindle. Voting against were Jenkins, Adkins, and Inman. Motion failed 3-2. 16. Motion was made by Freddy Inman to nominate Mayor Nel Armstrong by acclamation to serve as the city's designated voting representative for 1986-87 to the North Central Texas Council of Governments. Jerry Jenkins gave the second. Voted unan. 17. 18. 19. Herbert Arledge presented a recommendation for the Utility Board which is as follows: Recommendation: That the city manager write a letter to the State Highway Department requesting that Sodium Vapor Lighting be placed along Interstate 35 through the corporate limits of the city. Arledge stated the Board felt it would enhance the attractive- ness of the city as well as eliminate problems when the traffic Ls heavy. Arledge stated that C. G. McNeill had gone to District 18 and talked with District Engineer Robert Yielding. Yielding stated that he saw no problem at all, that the state would construct the lighting but it would be up to the city to furnish energy to the system. Yielding requested a formal Letter be sent to him from the city making this request. The address is 9700 E. R. L. Thornton, Box 307, Dallas, Texas. Motion was made by Jerry Jenkins and seconded by Freddy Inman that the recommendation of the Utility Board be accepted. Voted unan. Mayor Armstrong instructed City Manager Shutt to take care of drafting the letter to the State. Citizen Input - None City Manager's Report - None 20. Other Such Matters: (a) Wendall Thomas wanted to know when the city was going to put something in the .potholes on Bolivar Street. He wants city to hire person to fill chug holes until city is caught up. Discussion. (b) Mayor Armstrong advised the newly elected officials of the T.M.L. Workshop to be held April 25th and 26th. (c) Mayor Armstrong called council's attenton to the letter received from Terry Garland at the Sanger I.S.D. stating that the highway department had budgeted for the cross- walk over I-35 and perhaps it would be funded for 1987. (d) Jerry Jenkins requested to know the status on Cable T.V. Mayor Armstrong stated their last report states they have upgraded their services and if there are any additional complaints they would like to be informed, that they are trying hard to improve their services. City Secretary to check on the 90 day termination notice issued and see that it is put on the appropriate agenda for consideration. (e) Jerry Jenkins wanted to know what preparation had been done toward the budget. The City Manager advised Jenkins that preparation was in progress that information had been 243. requested from each department head. Jenkins wanted to know if the budget would be presented to the Utility Board, Discussion. Shutt stated he questioned the legality of the budget going to the Utility Board. He stated those portions in the budget applicable in the ordinance .they could make recommendations on. Stated he didn't see how anybody could review one segment of the budget and not consider all. Stated that was council's job and his job. Stated they could give their input but it would not be in such a manner to come around anybody who has to have a role in the overall budget process. Mayor Armstrong stated that she had a sample budget calendar and according to it the budget forms should have gone to the departments around the 15th of April and they had been sent. (f) Jenkins wanted to know if any action had been taken on the impact fee. The city manager stated that no action had been taken, but that he was working on it was well. Jenkins requested that the Impact Fee Ordinance be placed on the next council agenda for consideration. Mayor Armstrong stated she felt it should go back to the Utility Board. It was agreed to put it on council agenda within the next 30 days. With no other by Thomas to Voted unan. City Secretary MINUTES: MEMBERS PRESENT: OTHERS PRESENT: business to adjourn the ME City Council May 5, 1986 -come before council motion was made eting. Freddy Inman gave the second. Mayor Nel Armstrong, Jerry Jenkins, Danny Spindle, Freddy Inman, Harvey W. Thomas and Carolyn Adkins Stephen K. Shutt, Mary Jo Stover, Richard Brown, Benny C. Erwin, Karen Sebastian, Jim Doss, Nancy Hitt, Linda Wells, Mr. and Mrs. Bill Medlin, Charles and Charlene Williams, F. P. Moynaugh, J. W. Henry, Jack Burkholder, C. G. McNeill, Bennie Parrent, Bud Hauptman, and Danny McDaniel. 1. Mayor Armstrong called the meeting to order, gave the invocation, and led the pledge to the flag. 2. The minutes of the previous meeting were approved as printed. 3. Motion was made by Jerry Jenkins to approve disbursements with the exception of Item No. 4 in the amount of $2,183.21 to Centel. Spindle gave the second. Voted unan. 4. Citizen Input --None 5. Council considered the back billing from Centel Telephone. Company in the amount of $2,183.21 for Foreign Exchange Telephone service. Mayor Armstrong read aloud the letter Centel sent to the city explaining the reason for the billinq error. Discussion. Linda Wells with Centel informed council that the billing was over a 15 month period and on a monthly payout basis would run $145.55 per month. Motion was made by Carolyn Adkins to approve payment of the Centel bill of $2,183.21 to be paid. over a 15 month period at $145.55 per month. Jerry Jenkins gave the second. Voted unan.