1977-11-01 CC PacketRESOLUTION NO. 77-38
WHEREAS, the Office of Court Clerk hasbecomevacant, AND,
WHEREAS, it is in the best interest of theCityofSouthlake, Texas, that the officebefilled; AND,
WHEREAS, the Mayor of the City of Southlake,does hereby submit the name of Janet DanieltoperformthedutiesoftheOfficeofCOURTCLERK, NOW
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OFSOUTHLAKE, TEXAS, THAT:
THIS RESOLUTION SUPERCEDES AND REPLACES RESOLUTION 77-37, ANDJANETDANIELBEandisherebyappointedbytheCityCouncilasCOURTCLERK.
PASSED AND APPROVED THIS lst DAY OF NOVEMBER, 1977.
Mayor
P.TUTEE ST
City Secretary
c
OATH Op OFFICE
STATE OF TEXAS.
COUNTY OF TARRANT:
CITY OF SOUTHLAKE,
I' JANET DANIEL, do solemnlIfaithfullywillexecute
y sear thatOfficeofMunicithedutiesoftheofSouthlakeMunicipalCourtClerkoftheCitfendTarrantCounty,ytheTexasConstitutionandanddeLawsandofthisLaws
S of thetate; and I
UnitedsolemnlyswearthatIfurthermoreindirectlyPaid
have not directly nortributeoffered, or promisedany .money, or valuable
to con-Promised any public office or
thing, orasarewardtosecureemployment,my appointment.
So Help Me God.
Janet Daniel
i
r
Mayor
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to beforeofNovember, 1977.me this 1st day
Ct Secretary
BILLS TO BE APPROVED AND
PAID BY CITY COUNCIL OF
SOUTHLAKE,
NOVEMBER 1, 1977
UTILITIES
LONE STAR GAS ..................11/7/77,................$11.28
GENERAL TELEPHONE ..............10/19/77............. 615.61
TEXAS POWER & LIGHT 8/9/9/28/77.......... $1,029.49
Water We11,,Stor)
TEXAS PWER & LIGHT............ 8/29/9/28/77...........$410.25
Fire Dept,City,Tennis)
UTILITY TOTAL $2,066.63
CITY
CARTER & BURGESS ...............10/21/77.................$270.95
CARTER & BURGESS ...............10/19/77..............,$5,643.00
PITNEY BOWES ...................050610................... $60.00
THOMPSOM PRINTING SERVICE 10/27/10/31/77........... $35.00
A-OK LOCKSMITH .................607...................... $22.50
M.M. ADMINISTRATORS, INC....... 11/1/77 ..................$480.69
TML WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION 10/1/77.................. $690.64
CITY TOTAL 7,202.68
POLICE DEPT
CRABTREE & POWERS ..............4810.......................$57.17
TEXACO 10/28/10/17/77.............$13.00
GULF OIL PRODUCT A2091,A2012............... $911.55
LADD UNIFORM ...................12738..................... $62.85
INCOTERM .......................6683......................$259.00
POLICE TOTAL 1,303.57
FIRE DEPT
STUART HOSE CO .................28069......................$18.93
FIRE DEPT TOTAL 18.93
PARKS & REC
WICKES .........................4108689................... $18.01.
PARKS TOTAL 18.01
TEXAS MUNICIPAL CLERKS AND
SECRETARES CERTIFICATION PROGRAM 320.00
PLANNING & ZONING 30.00 per person $90.00
TOTAL 410.00
GRAND TOTAL 11,019.82
WILLIAM D. CAMPBELL
ATTORNEY AT LAW
C!~/~'C~'S l
RIVERSIDE STATE BANK BLDG.
P. O. BOX 7254
FORT WORTH, TEXAS 76111
834-7422
October 18, 1977
TO: City of Southlake
City Council
Points to consider on regulation
of septic tanks by County
I. Future Installations:
a. Lots shall be minimum of 201,000 square feet (conflicts with
City zoning ordinance in Districts AG, A-1, A-2, A-3 and
probably A-10).
b. Conflicts with our new subdivision ordinance in that it
requires one acre lots for septic tanks.
c. Conflicts with existing subdivision ordinance and zoning
ordinance in that the County's requirements are stated to
apply to undeveloped portions of existing subdivisions.
II. Existing Septic Tanks:
Section K. provides for licensing of all existing septic tanks.
III. Subdivision Platting Requirements:
A subdivision plat for a new subdivision involving private sewage
facilities must be filed with and approved by the Commissioner's
Court of Tarrant County as well as the undeveloped portions of
existing subdivisions.
IV. General Cents:
a. The County's definition of subdivision includes the normal subdivision
plus any 4 or more contiguous lots or tracts, each of which is less
than two acres in size.
b. Section L. puts completely new requirement on developers and builders
concerning informing each prospective buyer of the County's law and
status of a particular subdivision.
I make these comments purely to aid you in evaluating the matter and not as an
endorsement or lack of endorsement of the program which is a policy matter of
the Council. If the Council should desire to go into the program I feel it would
have to be done through public hearings through the zoning board and the Council
as it in effect really amounts to a zoning ordinance type amendment. We also
need to clarify which of the various laws (city ordinances and county rules)
would control.
William D.e
City Attorney