1993 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

A motion was made by Councilman Burnett, seconded by Councilman Bell to bring Item No. 9, consideration of and action on directing the staff and authorizing preparation of a resolution regarding the trading and property and establishment of fences along common boundary lines in reference to the request of Dr. Richard Swint, from the table. The motion carried 6 ayes, 0 nays. Earl Smith, City Engineer presented to two alternatives, attached hereto as exhibit A and B, to the Council for consideration of settling the trade of property and establishing fences along common boundary lines with Dr. Richard Swint. After discussion of the two alternatives, a motion was made by Councilman Shelton to accept alternate B, which called for Dr. Swint to pay $1,960,84, and authorizing preparation of a resolution to this effect. The motion was seconded by Councilman Burnett and carried 6 ayes 0 nays. City Manager Malone called for consideration of and action on authorizing the preparation of an ordinance agreeing to be bound by the Texas Public Utility Commission's decision regarding the T U Electric rate request, or other action permitted by the Public Utilities Regulatory Act, Article 1446c of Vernon's Civil Statutes. City Manager Malone advised the Council that a series of sample ordinance furnished by T U Electric should they wish to consider any action other than those previously recommended. _ City Manager Malone said the packet contains sample ordinances that adopt whatever rates PUC adopts with no suspension, ordinances adopts whatever rates PUC adopts after a prior suspension, ordinances that deny rate increase to save expense with no suspension, ordinances that deny rate increase to save expense after prior suspension, ordinance that deny rate increase with no suspension, ordinances that deny rate increase after prior suspension, resolution that suspends, and ordinances that surrender original jurisdiction to PUC. City Manager Malone advised the Company prefers ordinances as follows: Ordinance that adopts whatever the PUC adopts Form Al, or Form B1 if there has been a prior suspension of our proposed effective date; second choice is to deny the rate request to save expense Form C1 if the municipality will pass the ordinance within 35 days of our filing date so there is no need to suspend the proposed effective date, or Form D1 which is an ordinance to deny the rate request to save expense if there has been a prior suspension of the proposed effective date, which there has not; third is to deny the rate increase, Form E -1, if the municipality will pass the ordinance within 35 days of our filling date so there is no need to suspend our proposed effective date, and Form F -1 if there has been a prior suspension of our proposed effective date, which there has not been. A motion was made by Councilman Bell authorizing preparation of an ordinance in the form of C -1, to deny the rate request to save expense, to be presented at the next City Council meeting. The motion was seconded by Councilman Brown and carried 4 ayes, 2 nays, Councilman Burnett and Councilman Williams voting nay.