1982-10-19
CITY OF SOUTHLAKE
667 North Carroll Avenue
Southlake, Texas
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
October 19,1982
7:30 p.m.
AGENDA
1. Mayors Report
2. Consider: Ordinance No. 278. Commercial Structures
in Southlake.
3. Consider: Developers Agreement for Woodland Heights Addition.
Burger and Eakins Custom Builders.
4. ZA 82-36 Final plat of a replat of Lot 17 of the Cedar
Oaks Addition to the City of Southlake.
Zoning is A-3 Single Family District.
Owner: John Keller.
5. Consider: Welcome Committee Brochure.
6. Bills for Approval.
7. Department Reports
Police
Fire
Water
Building
Court
I hereby certify that the above agenda was posted on the bulletin
board and on the front door in City Hall, 667 North Carroll Avenue,
Southlake, Texas, on Friday, October 15,19 2 at 3 p.m.
City Secretary
cn y CITY OF SoU'1'I1;.AK1:, TEXAS
Y n1 to
O O I-q
t)rn o C) U) -A M M M 1 N[1'1'I S OF '1111: REGULAR CITY COUNCIL
~ei L_ d t7 M 1: l i `I' l N (i .
x rn 2 J- ITI 1)ATI October 19,1982
d y T[ML: 7:30 p.m.
0 0 PI.ACL,: CITY OF SO11''111.AKLi, ('01JNC11. CHAMBERS
667 NORTH CARROI.L AVI NIJI:, SOU`IHLAKE
NAME of o o TEXAS.
COUNC I I,f 1:IZSON
1)A(, 1:: 1 IN1)l:X
COUNCILPERSONS PRESENT: Mayor; Sam
Sparger, Mayor Pro Tem; Lloyd Latta,
Councilpersons: Johnny Westerholm,
Tom Loris.
COUNCILPERSONS ABSENT: Marion Bone,
Bruce McCombs.
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSIONERS
PRESENT: Larry Samartin.
CITY STAFF PRESENT: Fire Chief; R.P.
Steele, Police Chief; Randy Martin,
Water Superintendent; Wallace Cline,
City Attorney; Bill Smith.
INVOCATION: Lloyd 0. Latta
The Minutes of the October 4,1982, City
Council meeting were approved as
presented.
MAYORS REPORT: Mayor Sparger announc d
that the 1982 Ad Valorem tax statements
should be completed by October 25.
It was announced by Chief Steele
that the Annual Fire Department Fish
Fry was a.success with 600 persons
being served for a net profit of
$3,460.50.
Mayor Sparger referred to a letter
he sent to the Public Utility Commiss-
ion asking them to consider a request
made by General Telephone Company.
A copy of the letter is attached
to the minutes.
Latta gave a report of the Motorola
Communications purchase.
Latta x x
T--is x Motion was made and approved to adopt ORDINANC
,terholm x x Ordinance No. 278, establishing a NO. 278
policy for the construction of
Commercial Structures within the City
of Southlake.
v, y CITY 01 SOIJT]h.AKIi, TEXAS
1- rn bo O O
t:J C-) ran tin M I NI1TFS OF TTI1: REGULAR CITY COIINC I L
z M i y In UA'I'1: ; October 19,1982
ny d rn n O TIMF: 7:30 p.m.
d Y ;U
0 0 PLACE: CI'T'Y OF SOI)TIMAKF, COUNCII, CIIAM131?16
--j -A ~ 667 NORTII CARROI.1, AVFNUIi, SOIN11LAKE
NAMF 01; o o TGXAS.
COIINC 11,PI:IZSON
PAC 1i: 2 I NI)I?X
A Developers Agreement for the Burger
and Eakins Custom Builders project,
Woodland Heights was discussed by
Council. A letter from City Engineer,
Eddie Cheatham, dated 10-18-82 was
reviewed by Council. Robert Raley,
engineer for Burger and Eakins was
present and answered questions for
Council.
Latta x x After discussion, motion was made
Loris x x and approved to approve the Developer
Westerholm x Agreement for Woodland Heights subjec
to, inclusive of item #2 in the lette ,
and that items #3, and #4, are comple -
ed and items #1,#5, and #6 are delete l.
Latta x x ZA 82-36.' The replat of Lot 17 of ZA 82-36
Loris x Cedar Oaks Addition, making Lots 17A REPLAT
Nesterholm x x and 17B was approved by Council. CEDAR OAK,'
Owner, John Keller was not present
for the meeting.
The Welcome Committee Brochure was
presented to the City Council by
Councilperson Westerholm, who reviewed
the contents for Council.
Latta x x
Loris x Motion was made and approved to
Westerholm x x publish the material with minor
changes.
The Department reports were reviewed.
Latta x x The bills presented, were approved
Loris x for payment. (Attached hereto and
Westerholm x x made a part hereof).
The meeting was adjourned by Mayor
Sparger.
--?L J r:~&. z. J
Ma r
ATT T:
City Secretary
PHONE 481.6681
City of Southlake
'Where Country Living Is At Its Best"
667 North ConoN Ave
Southbko, Texas 76082
SAM SPAROER, Mayor
LLOYD O. LATTA JR., Mayor Pro Tem
JOHNNY WESTERHOLM, Councilperson SANDRA L. LeGRAND, City Secretary
BRUCE McCOMBS, Councilperson
TOM LORIS, Councilperson
MARION R. BONE, Councilperson
October 19,1982
Public Utility Commission of Texas
John E. Cunningham, Director of Public Utilities
7800 Shoal Creek Boulevard, Suite 450N
Austin, Texas 78757
Reference: Docket #3957
Dear Mr. Cunningham:
It has come to the attention of the City of Southlake, that General
Telephone Company has made a request to the Public Utility Commission
which has currently not been granted.
The City of Southlake is requesting that Docket #3957 be reviewed
and that the request f General Telephone Company be considered
in an effort to cor6nt the serious inequity which has existed
for so long and which has placed an unfair burden on the independent
telephone customers in the State of Texas, and in the City of Southlake.
Very truly yours,
Ci y of Southlake
Sam Sparg
Mayor j
SS/sl
C.C. Mr. James Spriggs
Mr. Moak Rollins, chairman
Mr. Tommy Smith
Mr. George Cowden
Oct. 11, 1982
For your information here is the scenario:
General Telephone Company of the Southwest for many years has been
very concerned with the inequity of the long-distance settlement process
and the resulting local service rate disparity between our company and
Southwestern Bell involving long-distance. The primary reason is simply
because our customers are being unduly penalized and do not receive the
same benefit as Bell customers.
We want to earn the same rate of return on our investment used in
providing long-distance service as Southwestern Bell since we participate
equally in the provision of long-distance service within the state. We
don't want our customers penalized, and we are trying very hard to change
this very inequitable situation.
In 1981, General Telephone Company of the Southwest intervened in the
Southwestern Bell rate application in an attempt to gain an equal return
with Southwestern Bell on long-distance investment required to provide
intrastate long-distance service.
General's intervention was denied; however, a separate docket (No. 3957)
was set to hear General Telephone Company of the Southwest's argument,to
change the intrastate long-distance settlement contract with Southwestern
Bell.
During the hearings on Docket 3957, the PUC staff, as well as the
witness from Touche Ross & Co. (accounting firm) representing San Marcos
Telephone Company, agreed with the concept of General Telephone Company of
the Southwest's arguments that all telephone companies should share equally
in the revenues derived from intrastate long-distance calls made by all
Texans and provided by all telephone companies operating in Texas.
-more-
For your information - Page 2
However, after the hearings, the hearings examiner issued a recommendation
to the three-member commission that no change be made in the long-distance
settlement contract.
In summary, General's customers pay the same intrastate toll prices as
Southwestern Bell's customers.
These toll prices allow a higher rate of return on toll investment. Since
Southwestern Bell divides toll revenue with General on a lower rate of return
than Southwestern Bell earns, General's local customers end up paying higher
local rates. Southwestern Bell keeps the higher toll rate of return dollars to
offset its local costs and therefore charge lower local rates.
All General wants is to earn the same rate of return on its toll business
as Southwestern Bell.
So now, General Telephone Company of the Southwest is making selected key
people aware of the hearings examiner's recommendation to the full commission
and the associated discrepancies that are contained in the recommendation.
We also are suggesting that those who agree with General Telephone Company
of the Southwest's efforts to gain equal treatment on toll (long-distance)
settlements with Southwestern Bell immediately make the public utility commissioners
aware of the support. Our customers must not be forced to continue to subsidize
Southwestern Bell local rates because of an inequitable method of long-distance
revenue division.
The final order hearing before the three commisioners will be Friday,
Oct. 22, 1982.
Attached are some facts which may be helpful in better understanding
General Telephone Company of the Southwest's serious concerns over the existing
agreement and its effect on General Telephone Company of the Southwest customers
and why it should be changed immediately.
1. FACT: The proof that intrastate toll rates subsidize and help keep the
Bell customers' local rates low is shown in Bell's 1981 rate filing.
The commission granted Bell $254 million and ruled that some $79
million of that amount should be recovered through increased intrastate
long-distance rates - even though all telephone customers in the
state, including those of General Telephone, would pay the new
intrastate long-distance rates. This, in effect, means that General
Telephone customers are paying higher long-distance rates in order
to keep the local rates for Bell's customers lower than if the $79
million were obtained through local rates rather than increased
long-distance charges.
2. FACT: Equality of long-distance revenue would help remove one source
of disparity which presently exists between the local rates of
Southwestern Bell and General Telephone. The request by General is
not a selfish request. Our customers will be the ones who benefit
by a reduction in the now almost constant upward pressure on local
rates.
3. FACT: Failure to adopt our proposal will mean General Telephone residential
customers will pay in the future around $2.00 more a month for
local telephone service than they would pay if the proposal is
adopted.
4, FACT: Bell maintains adoption of the proposal would increase their
customers' rates by $1.80 a month. We don't agree. This can be
overcome by increased toll rates which everyone pays.
FACT - Page 2
5. FACT: All telephone companies are equal partners in the provision of
long-distance services. However, we don't share equally in the
return received on investment.
6. FACT: In 1981 intrastate toll earned 14.32 percent and Bell paid General
a return of only 10.19 percent. This resulted in a $31 million
deficiency requiring it to be offset with higher local rates,
increasing the rate disparity between General Telephone Company of the
Southwest and Southwestern Bell.
7. FACT: The change we are seeking is to achieve the same division of
revenue procedure that is used and recommended by AT&T on interstate
long-distance services. Bell is already using the method we
proposed in North and South Carolina, Georgia, New York and California
and supported the change in at least Nevada. Southwestern Bell has
consistently refused to follow the procedure.
8. FACT: General did not know the Bell intrastate toll rate of return until
1976, and then tried on numerous occasions to negotiate with Bell
for an equitable toll rate of return and Bell has refused.
-more-
FACT - Page 3
9. FACT: The hearings examiner's report on the issue shows the disparity
between the overall returns paid to General Telephone by Bell, and
Bell's earned intrastate toll rate of return for the past few years
as follows:
Additional revenue
GTSW would have
Bell actual overall Bell earned intrastate received on toll
Year settlement ratio toll rate of return settlement ratios
1977 8.25% 15.18% $25,740,927
1978 8.74% 15.23% $27,788,662
1979 9.20% 18.44% $47,557,605
1980 9.82% 15.45% $35,213,895
1981 10.19% 14.32% $31,226,089
TOTAL $167,527,178
10. FACT: If General Telephone could have had the benefit of utilizing Bell's
Texas intrastate toll rate of return as its settlement for its
intrastate toll business instead of the current method which utilizes
SWB's overall rate of return, the increase in revenues would have been
$167,527,178 for the years 1977 thru 1981. General has received
approximately $88 million in local rate increases during this period.
11. FACT: Prior to the formation of the PUC, under local exchange ratemaking,
no one regulated Bell's intrastate long-distance charges and increases.
Now the PUC has that power and the power to see that the long-distance
revenues are distributed equitably.
-more-
FACT - Page 4
12. FACT: The PUC staff and a representative of Touche Ross & Co. (national
accounting firm) testified they concurred with General's proposal
to treat the equal partners equally in regard to the return on
long-distance services.
13. FACT: Modernization and GTSW's ambitious service improvement program
depends in part on our ability to earn an appropriate return on our
long-distance facilities. If long-distance revenues are deficient,
local rates must increase. In 1981, General was allowed an overall
rate of return of 11.75 percent but received only 10.19 percent for
long-distance from Bell. Actually, local service rates are subsidizing
long-distance. It is simply a matter of Bell taking money from
General and other independents' pockets and putting it in theirs.
14. FACT: Long-distance revenue is risk revenue. We never know just how much
usage can be expected since it fluctuates with the economy and the
amount of competition. Yet we must provide the long-distance
network and must have the revenue to support the plant required
again, the need for equality in the division of long-distance
revenues. Bell recognizes the risk by earning a higher return on
intrastate toll. The present settlement contract creates the
opposite result for non-Bell companies.
-more-
FACT - Page 5
15. FACT: Bell says the independents do not bring an equal contribution to
the revenue pool but it is Bell that designs toll rates which do
not cover all the costs at the shorter distances. The long-distance
costs should be investigated on an industry basis to restructure
long-distance rates.
16. FACT: Bell also says present events such as Computer Inquiry II, FCC
Docket No. 20828, the Access Charge Docket, FCC Docket No. 78-72,
and the divestiture of Bell from AT&T mandate changes which will
increase local rats and therefore the toll return should not be
granted. We think we should be equal as these mandated changes
occur.
17. FACT: Equity requires companies providing joint service under a common
tariff and rates, divide the revenues in an equal manner to assure
that the settlement does not contribute to local rate disparities.
18. FACT: General Telephone local rates are really subsidizing toll service.
This is because Bell settles with General on their combined earnings
both local and long-distance rather than on their intrastate
long-distance earnings which have traditionally been higher. The
Texas commission granted General Telephone a rate of return on
combined services local and long-distance of 11.75 percent in
1981. However, even though intrastate toll earned 14.32 percent
-more-
FACT - Page 6
Bell paid General only 10.19 percent return. Since the 10.19 percent
return is below the 11.75 percent authorized by the commission, it
has the effect of local rates being higher than they would be if we
received the 14.32 percent on intrastate toll from Bell $31,226,089.
19. FACT: Why are we asking your help? Simply the persuasion of public
opinion. The PUC likes to have public input. The issue here is of
grave importance to your constituents to you personally so
important that we refuse to give up the challenge.
20. FACT: Simply stated Just ask the commissioners to seriously evaluate
the division of intrastate long-distance revenue between SWB,
General and other independent companies in the state with the
objective of correcting the serious inequity which has existed for
so long and places an unfair burden on independent telephone
customers in the state. (Docket 3957)
Oct. 11, 1982
CITY OF SOUTHLAKE BILLS FOR APPROVAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
OCTOBER 19,1982
TO WHOM FOR AMOUNT PAID
Group LIfe and Health 55.10
Gulf Oil Corporation ( 3 months) 3,718.91
General Office Supply 22.08
General Telephone 691.55
NCTCOC (COG) dues 200.00
Eddie Cheatham and Assoc. 90.00
Rohne and Hoodenpyle fees 319.85
Texas Power and Light city facilities 819.50
Pitney Bowes copier 129.95
Smith, Smith and Rake 495.00
Tarrant County Firefighter
Association repair air bottles 197.64
Fort Worth Fire Extinguishr 70.00
Seahunt Bait and Tackle buck shot 12.75
Sentry Business Equip. 76.40
Sargent-Sowell,Inc. 39.20
Thomas Rubber Stamp 47.06
Industrial International I c. 1,160.97
Whites Auto 26.93
The Rohan Co. 352.46
Aqua Utility 585.57
Talem,Inc. 37.10
Texas Power and Light Co. 6,341.82
Darrow, McSpedden, Sellars 1,060.00
TOTAL AMOUNT $ 16,549.84
N
X.
L.1J
F-
N
L L.j 00
G)
Q r
J
S
F- ~
O
C
V
LL. M-
CD (1)
N v',
r
F- Q 01
f-+ O
V J l>-.
J
F-
F-+ C
U w Q
Z W
O Z._ Of
G Q
U r7
F-
v U2
J U
ds v
O o^_ a.
> ~
C:C O G' co
~ U U r
W _J J U')
J Q Q
m tZ d ~
4 41
Z z
0 ,
o + C v
_ o
F-
U
w
~ w
C) co F-
o Q
F- LL.
N Cl
s
1
I
i i
1
N
CC)
(T ~ I i
cr.
i
L.
E i
J I
z V)
i M
C"i r-, c) CD C"i CD "D Lin
a j N O N; N C:) O Cl) O N r- i O
LA.' l 1 I
m iE i I
i i
i
i
rl
L LJ
~ I f V7 cr . I N
I I Z c j i-)
W V)
t II
V) I Q 3
YI. j ti.J
Cie
f Q d C3 i N .
0) (X -j O C3 w ~ w -t; K + to ---z
j in ui w w to Z Jv
iz 0 to t1 w UA W ~ °
Vwi S a M N tY O M- P-
c3a V) V) V) m
*T. 5
7T n-
t ~
1
CITY OF SOUS
POLICE pEPAIUK7T REPORT
September 1982
HCNORABLE MAYOR and CITY COUNCIL
Police Department Report for the month of September
Tickets issued in August 242
Tickets issued in September 198
Persons in jail in August 28
Persons in jail in September 33
Traffic accidents in August 17
Traffic accidents in September 11
Burglaries reported in August 3
Burglaries reported in September 5
Approximated value taken in burglaries in August $9,827.00
Approximated value taken in burglaries in September $4,922.00
Approximated value recovered in burglaries in August 00
Approximated value recovered in burglaries in September 00
Thefts reported in August 5
Thefts reported in September 5
Approximate value taken in thefts in August $ 531.75
Approximate value taken in thefts in September $26,866.00
Approximate value recovered in thefts in August 00
Approximate value recovered in thefts in September 00
Total offenses to date for 1982 77
Total case load from Jan - Sept. 550
Number of calls in August 1,098
Number of calls in September 1,1.50
Speedometer reading on Unit 09 159,505
Speedometer reading on Unit 12 119,319
Speedometer reading on Unit 16 89,952
Speedometer reading on Unit 17 32,070
Respectfully subni ted
Chief' dL y Martin
Chief of Police
Southlake Police Department
T0: IMPI(WARI F MAYI)M AND CITY COUNCIL PFRSONS
SUBJECT: Southlike Fire Department Monthly Report for the Month of _l September T
A. Ru,_,Im cses : flumher of calls
1 Mrueture Fires 1
2. d5 I ir•c's 7
3. Auto & 1r•uck Fir•es---------------------------------------------------- 2
4. Auto or Truck Accident - Stand-by (Fire & Rescue Unit) 7
5. Mutu,il-Aici for, City of Crapevine-------------------------------------
6. Mutual Aid for- City of Colleyville 1, 7. Mutu,il-Aid for City of Keller----------------------------------------
8. Mutt►al-Aid to other Cities EMaQke 1
9. (:,ills in ldr•rant County (outside city limits) J1
10. galls in Denton County (outside city limits) 1
11. Fdlbe Alarms in City
12. uesciie IJnit falls----------------------------------------------------- 3
A. Accidental Shootinq Brady Strand, 1500 Peytonville Pd
B. Labor Pains - Rene Goode, 190 S Peytonville
C. Picked up subject, transported to (7140 - Pichard Rogellio, 1300 N. ximball
1 3. Mi l laneou!
14. ivohhy Club Calls---------------------------------------------------
B. Total Fmerrienc=y Cdl1s for the Month of September 34
c N
N ri r-4 Totals
~ a o x° z
# Tickets 8 0 21 36 38 46 42 198
i
# Calls 56 71 11.8 212 247 3.96 212 1150
# Arrests 0 2 7 4 4 7 5 3 R~S
Accidents 1 0 1 1 2 4 2 11
Burgla.ry 1 2 2 5
Theft 1 3 1. 5
Miles
Driven 1.02 117 1,315 Q11 1,91.7 1,43.9 1,833 8,501_
Reserves r30 U
a cn
# Tickets 1
# Calls 5 11 12 10
# Arrests 1
# Accidents
# Assists
s
Worked 17:44 28:37 70:25 46:44
M1 es
Driven 111 225 203 348
C. Mari Hours Expended: Number of tiours
1. On Emergency Calls 323
2. Meetings (4 for month) Average Men Per Meeting 14 Tre?? PVX t jDSr 1,12
3. Special Training Sessions or Drills------ on-------------------- e
4. Any Extra Man Hrs. on Maintenance (other than normal Maint. time)
Fire Hydrant Maintenance 96
D. Total Man Hours Expended for Month----------------------------------
E. Firefighters Responding and Number of Times Responding for Month---- 571
Chief Steele 25
Assist. Chief H. Bradley 7
Capt. J. Brown 23
Capt. G. Fuller 20
Capt. D. Barnes 17
Lt. B. Tanner 24
Lt. R. Stacy 20
Lt. Jr. D. Brown 17
Vann, J. 15
Sullivan,J. 9
Bell, C
Roper, R.
Hunter, T. 9
Pinson, B. 10
Jones, B. 16
Jones, C.
Miller, P1. 8
Walsh, J. 1.4
Dinsmore, B. 8
Martin, R. 5
Dodson, C. 2
McCoy, R. 1
Reed, F. 2
Austin, B. 1
Stapleton, J. 1
Steele, R. 1
Respectfull submitted,
R. P. Stee e,
Fire Chief
SOUTHLAKE FIRE DEPARTMENT
r
WA f E R 01 PARIMI t0T PEWRT
MoNIIi of September 1982
liJ111,111.. I'uu11,.;.1 I'IUVhav, M, 111h _ --~~-20,825,000
20,626,000
(~JI I„11 , _,~,I,I I 1 uV Ivu" M')11111 _
16- 3/4" taps 3- 1" taps
N%-!w ~~.1 I i,l f JI1l, I n~, i u l l u, l
2
8- 3/4" meters changed out 1- 1" meter
M u 1u1 1 1 1.111 ( Jt; u l
$ 1,783.00
111c;1 I:, 1 1 12 leaks-----__ ~ _ -
Water Bacteriology -----'"--i_-"~"_~_-
Taken 9-20-82 - - -
Received 9-27-82
Wastewater Analysis -
Taken 9-28-82
Received 10-6-82
n
~'ul,ur intendant
Wallace Cline
CITY OF SOUTHLAKE
MONTHLY REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL
BUILDING DEPARTMENT
1. NUMBER OF INSPECTIONS MONTH OF SEPTEMBER l9
CURRENT LAST MONTH
ELECTRIC 33 35
11 LUM61N6 26 56
FRAMING 10 10
IIEATING & AIR 20 25
FOUNDATIUN 19 15
SEPTIC SYSILM 14 10
OTIIL R 25 24
TOTAL INSPECTIONS: 147 175
2. P-EkMI- TS
- -
IHIS MUNIII FEE LAST MONTI FE
BUILDING 11 $2,460.00 13 $2,372.00
ELLCIHICAI, 15 42540 15 306.10
PI_ UMB I NG 13 365.00 12 344.00
HEATING & AIR 7 211.00 5 150.00
CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY 5 125.00 11 275.00
OTIIER 9 90.00 3 30.00
101AI PERMITS 60 $3,676.40 59 $3,477.10
3. 8011 DING VALUATION
THIS MUNTf( I AST MONTH YEAR TO DATE
$891,720.00 $1,023.728.00 $7,345.218.35
4. PLANNING & ZONING IELS
TIIIS MONT11 LAS T MONTH YEAR TO DATE
.$637.00 $386.00 $ 613,904.00
5. TOTAL. DEPOSITS IN BUILDING FUND
TIIIS MONTH LAST MONTH YEAR TO DATE
$3,676.40
$24,753.82