The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCC 1984-03-26 Agendas I · I. I I I I I I Ie I I I I I I il· 'I CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS PRE-COUNCIL AGENDA MARCH 26, 1984 - 7:00 P.M. For the Meeting conducted at the North Richland Hills City Hall Council Chambers, 7301 N.E. Loop 820. NUMBER ITEM Discussion of Closin Frankie Street (' ACTION TAKEN Qt:l~ 1. 2. Discussion of Schedule for Plannin and Zonin Commission Meetin s - Councilman Richard Davis (f~ 3. Discussion of Schedule for En~ineer's Comment Letters on Plats - Councilman Richard Davis 4. Executive Session to Discuss Land, Litigation and/or Personnel 5. Discussion of Other Items I · I I- I I I I I I I- I I I I I I I I- I CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS CITY COUNCIL AGENDA MARCH 26, 1984 For the Meeting conducted at the North Richland Hills City Hall Council Chambers, 7301 N.E. Loop 820, at 7:30 p.m. NUMBER ~. Call to Order ITEM ACTION TAKEN µ.".. Roll Call ~ Invocation .- V" Consideration of Minutes of the Regular .. Meeting March 12, 1984 PLANNING & ZONING L At).) I~ Ý PUBLIC HEARING PZ 84-11, Request of Southland Corporation to Rezone a Portion of Lot 1, Block 13, Snow Heights North Addition, From C-2 (Commercial) to C-2-Specific Use Sale of Beer for Off-Premise Consumption (Located at the south~l-corner of Rufe Snow Drive and Lewis Drive) // ~ Consideration of Ordinance for PZ 84-11 ,~ Consideration of Resolution on Texas Electric Service Company's Request for a Rate Increase 8. Consideration of Change Order - Northfield Park 9. Citizen Presentation 10. Adjournment I· DATE: 3-l4-84 I .UBJECT: I- , Closing of Frankie Street in the North Part of the City I DEP ARTMENT : Public Works BACKGROUND: The owners abutting the unimproved right of way of Frankie Street have 1 requested that the City vacate this right of way and giv~ it to the adjoining ~ propertý, owners. I have checked this location and I do not see any problem I with vacating this right of way as long as the adjoining property owners have fronts on other improved streets. ·However, I woulØ ~ecommend that· the 1 property owners have a surveyor survey this right of way and draw it up as I an easement for the city to use because there is a sewer line in the right of way. I would also recommend that a cuI ·de sac be built at the point 1 where the street dead ends at this time. The cost 'of building a cuI de sac is to be paid for by property owners. I have enclosed a map of the area Ie I showing where this location is. If you approve this request at your meeting then we will have to draw up a ordinance vacating this right of way. I I CITY COUNCIL AC!ION REQUIRED: To approve/disapprove the request to vacate the 1 unimproved portion of Frankie Street.. I BUDGETED ITE.~: YES N/A }\O 1 ACCOUNT NmmE~ ~~ ~/ ' // / ;" _..._--_...------~---_......--- --- -- -- ------------------------------------ -~~~~~-~~--~- -- I Ie I I· I Ie I I I I I I Ie I I I I I I I Ie I Office of the City Secretary City of North Richland Hills P. O. Box 18609 North Richland Hills, Tx. 76118 Gentlemen: March 9, 1984 Messrs. G. W. Welborn, Forrest Johnson and R. P. Vinall all own property that is adjacent to the proposed street Frankie B in Smithfield. We would request that since this is a proposed street and is not improved, that the City end Frankie B at the end of the present paved section and deed back to the property owners the land that extends west to Meadow Rd. We could then improve the area with our property to make a much more attractive area that it is at this time. If you would, please advise us of the necessary steps to be taken or any additional information you need. We would like this to be granted as soon as possible. Thank you for your cooperation. Ïler()'d~~4ì R. P. Vinal1 6816 Meadow Rd. Phone 281-3587 /l\ _ . ~~) ~~L-/ G. W. Welborn Phone 379-5774 ~c ~ Forrest Jo son Phone 498-4600 ,~' . ISo tþ I I I I At': I I Ie I I I I I I Ie I I I I I I I Ie I MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS, TEXAS, HELD IN THE CITY HALL - 7301 NORTHEAST LOOP 820 - MARCH 12, 1984 - 7:30 P.M. 1. Mayor Pro Tern Ramsey called the meeting to order March 12, 1984, at 7:30 p.m. Mayor Faram recognized Mrs. Carolyn Hilyard's 8th grade Lamp Lighter's Class, Watauga Junior High School. 2. Dick Faram Jim Ramsey Richard Davis Dick Fisher Marie Hinkle J.C. Hubbard Jim Kenna Harold Newman Present: Mayor Mayor Pro Tern Councilman Councilman Councilwoman Councilman Councilman Councilman Staff: Rodger N. Line Dennis Horvath Jeanette Moore Rex McEntire Richard Albin Gene Riddle City Manager Assistant City Manager City Secretary City Attorney City Engineer Director Public Works- Utility Finance Director Lou Spiegel Press: Mark England David Doremus Mid Cities Daily News Northeast Chronicle 3. The invocation was given by Councilman Hubbard. 4. Councilman Kenna moved, seconded by Mayor Pro Tern Ramsey, to to approve the minutes of the February 27, 1984 meeting. Councilman Davis stated that on item #17 the vote was recorded and it should have been recorded on item #18. Motion to approve as corrected carried 6-0; Councilman Newman abstaining due to absence from the meeting. 5. Mayor Pro Tern Ramsey removed item #9. Councilman Davis removed item #10. CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL INVOCATION CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES OF THE EMERGENCY MEETING FEBRUARY 27, 1984 APPROVED AS CORRECTED CONSIDERATION OF REMOVING ITEM(S) FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA I I Ie I I I I I I Ie I I I I I I I Ie I 6. Councilman Hubbard moved, seconded by Councilwoman Hinkle, to approve the Consent Agenda. Motion carried 7-0. Mayor Faram asked Mr. Line to explain the Consent Agenda to the students. Mr. Line explained that the agenda material was sent to the Council on Thursday prior to the meeting on Monday so they could look over the items and if they had any questions they had four days to get the answers they needed. Mr. Line stated that also prior to the meeting a Pre-Council was held, which was open to the public, to further ask any questions. Mr. Line stated that most of the questions were answered before the meeting. Mr. Line stated that when the Consent Agenda was approved a lot of items were approved and did not have to be voted on individually. *7. 8. Mayor Faram stated he had a request to speak and with the Council's permission he would depart from the rules and let them speak. Mr. Dick Perkins, Consulting Engineer with the firm of Teague, Null and Perkins, appeared before the Council. Mr. Perkins stated he was representing Mr. T. Johnson and would be happy to answer any questions the Council might have. Councilman Kenna asked Mr. Perkins if he had made contact with the agency that had to approve the flood plain on this property since the map showed it to be located in the flood plain. Mr. Kenna stated that one of the engineering comments was for Mr. Perkins' client to work with the agency to get it approved. Mr. Perkins stated the problem was that his client was faced with a situation with the lender on the property. Mr. Perkins stated his client must have a final plat in hand before the site plan could be done. Mr. Perkins stated they were requesting the Council approve the plat, realizing that they Page 2 March 12, 1984 CONSIDERATION OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEM(S) INDICATED BY ASTERISK (#7, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 & 17) APPROVED PLANNING & ZONING - PS 83-117 - REQUEST OF GENE HUGGINS FOR REPLAT OF BLOCK 42C-R, RICHLAND TERRACE ADDITION (LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF NORTHEAST LOOP 820 SERVICE ROAD AND CLOYCE DRIVE) APPROVED PLANNING & ZONING - PS 84-14 - REQUEST OF TLB-GSC ENTERPRISES, INC. FOR FINAL PLAT OF LOT 5, BLOCK C. COLLEGE HILL ADDITION (LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF HOLIDAY LANE AND BOGART STREET) APPROVED I I Ie I I I I I I Ie I I I I I I I Ie I did not have a development plan ready. The Development Plan would affect the location of drainage facilities or flood plain because of the work that would have to be done on the property. Mr. Perkins requested that once the information on the site plan was provided, the Council reconsider the plat as far as engineering was concerned to make sure the City Engineer's Comments were met. Councilman Kenna asked Mr. Perkins if the lender was requiring a physical description of the property. Mr. Perkins stated yes. Mayor Pro Tem Ramsey stated this was a departure from the rules and procedures on platting. Mr. Perkins stated he understood that. However, his client was willing to put some kind of condition on the plat that would prohibit the issuance of building permits until such time that the site work had been reviewed and approved by the City Engineer. Mayor Pro Tem Ramsey stated that one of the things the Council had been trying to accomplish was to have the staff prepare a check list so that when a developer came in, and the plat did go to the Planning and Zoning Commission and Council, everything would be in order and there would be no problem with approval. This would avoid the person having to come back two or three times and he thought this was in the best interest of all parties. Mr. Perkins stated he did not disagree but this was a situation they had run into with the lender. Mr. Perkins stated the lender was requiring the platting be done and then they would deal with them, as far as the site plan and the development of the property. Mr. Perkins stated he would like to point out that his client had agreed in the preliminary stage of the plat to do some additional drainage work at the rear of the property which would alleviate a flooding problem in the Bogart area. Mayor Pro Tem Ramsey stated he felt that if this were approved the Council would be opening the gate for each and everyone's special situation and the staff would not -know exactly what the procedures were or the policy concerning items like this. Mr. Perkins stated that at the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting the part about the lender was brought up and his understanding was that the Commission was looking into the revision of some policies that would enable this type of situation to be more easily handled. Mayor Pro Tem Ramsey stated it was not in accordance with todays policy. Page 3 March 12, 1984 I I Ie I I I I I I I. I I I I I I I Ie I Councilman Davis asked if the question on the payment of taxes had been taken care of. Mr. Perkins stated yes. Mayor Faram asked what the problem was with the lender. Did the lender have his own special rules and did not think he had to comply with the City's rules and platting procedures? Mr. Perkins stated it was his understanding that it was a matter of having to deal with a piece of platted property before the lender would deal with the client on the basis of development of the property. Mayor Fararn stated that the City did have rules for the platting of the property in receiving the final plat. Mayor Faram asked if the rule on platting was be~ng changed just to get the lending going. Mr. Perkins stated he did not see a problem in this particular type of development of allowing this type of procedure. Mr. McEntire stated the lender was basically trying to identify the property the cheapest way he could. Mr. McEntire stated this was happening more and more with the lenders. Councilman Davis moved, seconded by Councilman Newman, to approve PS 84-14, with the stipulation that no building permits be issued until the interior water, sewer and drainage plans were approved and noted on the plat. Mayor Pro Tern Ramsey stated that based on what the City Attorney had said he hoped Councilman Davis would inform the Planning and Zoning Commission for something to be put in the rules and procedures that would accommodate this in the future. The Council has tried very hard to get the staff to make sure that everything had been taken care of before a request went to the Council. Councilman Davis stated he agreed with Mayor Pro Tern Ramsey, but felt in the last months the staff had done exactly what the Council had requested and did not feel it was the staff's fault. Mr. McEntire asked when the policy had been changed that all comments be met before coming to the Council. Mayor Faram stated it had always been a part of the platting process for the Engineer to give his comments on drainage and sewer and those comments met. Councilman Kenna stated he felt this platting case was different and the Council might want to see what could be done in the future in cases of this type. Page 4 March 12, 1984 I I Ie I 9. I I I I I Ie I I I I I I I Ie I Motion to approve carried 5-2; Councilmen Fisher, Davis, Kenna and Newman and Councilwoman Hinkle voting for; Mayor Pro Tern Ramsey and Councilman Hubbard voting against. Mayor Faram stated that Mr. Burk Collins wanted to speak on this item and with Council approval he would depart from the rules and let him speak. Mr. Burk Collins, Developer, 5328 Rufe Snow Drive, appeared before the Council. Mr. Collins stated he had met all the engineering requirements on the property. Mr. Collins stated that he felt that putting in the storm drain was solving a drainage problem that had existed in the area for a number of years. Mr. Collins stated the drainage would be put in Palomar Street and since the street was in bad shape, they would have to put a four foot wide strip down the middle. He would like to ask the City to bear the cost of replacing the street. Mayor Faram asked Mr. Collins if he was willing to go ahead with the drainage and patch the street, but was asking the City to join him in re-construction of the street which would be a total street instead of a patch. Mr. Collins stated that was correct. Mr. Collins stated he was being forced to spend $50,000 to solve a lot of peoples problems, which he had agreed to do and would do but felt it was fair in asking the City to replace the asphalt on the street rather than patch it. Mr. Collins stated if the street was patched it would be an eye-sore because the street was in terrible shape at the present time. Mayor Faram asked Mr. Collins if the $50,000 was just his Engineers' estimate. Mr. Collins stated yes. He did not know how much was tied to the storm drain or the street. Mayor Faram stated that as a possible solution, could this be bid as two separate projects and the City pick up the difference in the overall finishing of the street. Mr. Collins stated he was not sure he understood what Mayor Faram was saying. Mayor Faram stated the cost would be such a figure that would require the City to advertise for bids. Mr. Line stated that if the City got involved in the project to the extent of $5,000 or more it would be necessary for the City to advertise for bids. Mr. Line stated that what Mayor Faram was suggesting was that Mr. Collins had agreed to put in the storm drain and the requirement was the street be patched Page 5 March 12, 1984 PLANNING & ZONING - PS 84-17 - REQUEST OF BURK COLLINS INVESTMENTS FOR FINAL PLAT OF LOT 3, BLOCK 50, NOR'EAST ADDITION (LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF DAVIS BOULEVARD, BOUNDED ON THE WEST BY ROBERTA AND ON THE NORTH BY LOLA DRIVE) APPROVED I I Ie I I I I I I I. I I I I I I I Ie I over the drain and Mr. Collins suggested the City pick up the difference between the patching and resurfacing completely. Mr. Line stated State law required the City to take competi- tive bids on projects that cost $5,000 or more. Mr. Line asked for verification from the City Engineer if it was fact that the City did have a drainage problem in that area, regardless of Mr. Collins development, and the storm drain Mr. Collins plans to construct would help solve the problems. Mr. Albin stated there was definitely problems at the present time. Mr. Albin stated this storm drain was recommended by the City Engipeers. Initially the developer had planned to put the storm drain northward to Lola, which has current drainage problems. Mr. Albin stated the drain in Lola was already overloaded and not designed to carry run-off from the developers area, so he recommended the storm water be taken to an underground line in Palomar over to an existing line in Susan Lee. Mr. Albin stated there had been no mention of the City participating in the cost of repaving. Mr. Albin stated he had assumed the developer would patch the street and at some future time the City would include Palomar in the CIP and either overlay or reconstruct the street to City standards. Mayor Faram asked Mr. Collins if he was only interested in putting in the drainage and let the city reconstruct the street. Mr. Collins stated he would put in the drainage and prepare the base and the City do the overlay on the entire street. Mayor Faram asked Mr. Collins if it would be acceptable to him for the City to accept bids on the street to separate the two projects and Mr. Collins pay the City so the City could pay the contractor. Mr. Collins stated that would be acceptable. Mr. Collins stated it was his understanding the present base on the street could be used. Mr. Albin stated tests would have to be done on the base to verify if it could be used. Mr. Albin stated there was also a need for replacing the existing 2" water line in Palomar and this would be a good opportunity to do so. Councilman Davis stated that to make sure he understood, had Mr. Collins agreed to help the drainage problem in the area by putting in the storm drain and it would be the City's option to build the street and replace the water line. Councilman Davis stated this project could possibly be added to the CIP. Mayor Faram stated his next question would be - did the City have the funds to do the project? Page 6 March 12, 1984 I I Ie I I I I I I I. I I I I I I I Ie I Councilwoman Hinkle asked the approximate cost to do the project. Mr. Albin stated the approximate cost for reconstruction of the street would be $42,000 and approximately $20,000 for the water line. Councilman Fisher asked Mr.· Collins if he had said he was willing to participate in the rebuilding of the street to the extent of what it would cost for resurfacing the one section over the ditch. Mr. Collins stated yes, if that was what the Council wanted. But that was not what he was asking. Mr. Line stated the only problem he had in regards to getting the storm drain, street and waterline all mixed together was timing because the legal requirements on the City were such that it would be three or four months before the project could get underway and he did not know if that would fit Mr. Collins time schedule. Mr. Collins stated he did not feel he could wait that long. One reason being the high interest rate he was having to pay. Mr. Line stated that if the Council wished, Mr. Collins could go ahead with the storm drain while the CIP Committee, Staff and Mr. Collins tried to work out something in regards to evaluating the street, determine what condition it was in now, and what condition it was likely to be in after the storm drain was put in. Mr. Line stated cost estimates needed to be obtained and the Council could decide at a subsequent Council meeting on what they wanted to do. Mayor Pro Tem Ramsey stated that the Council might need to go ahead and approve the plat, because all Engineering comments had been met and let the Staff and Mr. Collins see what could be worked out. Mayor Faram asked if the Staff would come back to the Council with a recommendation at a later date. Mayor Pro Tern Ramsey stated yes. Councilman Kenna moved, seconded by Councilwoman Hinkle, to approve PS 84-17, with the stipulation the City Staff work with Mr. Collins to determine the final method of whether Mr. Collins did the patching or whether or not the City found the resources to do something more on the street. Councilman Davis asked if this meant the development would proceed and the City would try to find the funds to do the project. Page 7 March 12, 1984 I I Ie I I I I I I I. I I I I I I I Ie I *11. *12. *13. Mayor Faram stated yes. Motion carried 7-0. 10. Mr. F. D. Muster, Real Estate Representative for Gulf Oil, appeared before the Council. Mr. Muster stated he was present to answer any questions the Council might have. Councilman Fisher asked if this was a standard Gulf car wash where you drove through. Mr. Muster replied yes. Councilman Davis asked if there was going to be an additional drive. Mr. Muster replied no because the State would not permit another drive. Councilman Kenna moved, seconded Councilman Fisher, to approve PS 84-18. Motion carried 7-0. Page 8 March 12, 1984 PLANNING & ZONING - PS 84-18, REQUEST OF GULF OIL CORPORATION AND CAMBRIDGE COMPANIES FOR REPLAT OF BLOCKS 2R & 4R, SNOW HEIGHTS NORTH ADDITION (LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF RUFE SNOW DRIVE AND NORTHEAST LOOP 820 SERVICE ROAD) APPROVED PLANNING & ZONING - PS 84-20, REQUEST OF SUEANN FLORY FOR FINAL PLAT OF LOT 8, BLOCK 1, MOLLIE B. COLLINS ADDITION (LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF ODELL STREET AND APPROXIMATELY 225 FEET WEST OF SMITHFIELD) APPROVED CONSIDERATION OF BIDS FOR AUTO LIABILITY INSURANCE APPROVED CONSIDERATION OF PARTIAL PAYMENT, ESTIMATE 113, TO STEELE-FREEMAN IN THE AMOUNT OF $145,370.16 - NORTHFIELD AND NORICH PARK IMPROVEMENTS APPROVED I I Ie I I I I I I Ie I I I I I I I Ie I *16. *17. *14. *15. 18. Mr. Jack Roseberry, 8912 Martin, appeared before the Council. Mr. Roseberry stated the proposal he would like to make to the Council was on behalf of ERA Real Estate Brokers of North Richland Hills. Mr. Roseberry stated that every year ERA was involved in several civic drives for the City. Mr. Roseberry stated that in April Private Property would be coming up to promote the upkeep of private property and this year something different had been proposed. Mr. Roseberry stated the proposal was for the City's cooperation with ERA to alleviate a very serious problem as people would be cleaning up this time of year. Mr. Roseberry stated that Mr. Line had suggested he meet with the Council and see if there was a possibility of conducting a clean-up drive in the City of North Richland Hills. Mayor Faram stated there had been a clean-up drive in North Richland Hills previously and was very successful. Mr. Roseberry stated that ERA would be willing to work with the City Staff to get the program underway. Page 9 March 12, 1984 CONSIDERATION OF PARTIAL PAYMENT, ESTIMATE 116, TO M.A. VINSON CONSTRUCTION COMPANY IN THE AMOUNT OF $31,333.35 - WALKER'S BRANCH DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS APPROVED CONSIDERATION OF ADOPTING THE 1984 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT WORK PLAN APPROVED CONSIDERATION OF AMENDING THE 1983-84 BUDGET TO ADD TWO BUILDING INSPECTOR POSITIONS AND A CLERK II POSITION APPROVED CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION CERTIFYING ABSENTEE BALLOTS FOR THE APRIL 7, 1984 MUNICIPAL ELECTION APPROVED CITIZEN PRESENTATION MR. JACK ROSEBERRY RE: PROPOSED CLEAN-UP CAMPAIGN SPONSORED BY ERA REALTORS I I Ie I I I I I I Ie I I I I I I I Ie I Mayor Faram stated he felt this was a worthy effort and would direct the City to work with ERA and see what could be done. Councilman Davis stated he thought the City Staff should contact the garbage company and see what could be worked out with them on dumpsters or picking up trash. Mayor Pro Tem Ramsey stated he felt the franchise company would be happy to participate in the clean-up drive. Mayor Pro Tem Ramsey asked that the Staff prepare a resolution for the next Council meeting supporting this effort. Councilman Fisher stated he supported Mr. Roseberry in this effort and would like to include that if the elderly had no way of getting the trash to a dumpster somehow it could be worked out to pick it up for them. Mr. Bill Calvert, 6721 Hewitt, appeared before the Council. Mr. Calvert stated that about two years ago Mr. Bob Brady, in preparing for the Bond Issue on the CIP Program, invited some of the citizens to his presentation on the program. Mr. Calvert stated the map that was presented at that time had allocated approximately $442,000 for the improvements of drainage on Hewitt. Mr. Calvert stated that he had since found out that the drainage on Hewitt had been deleted from the program and he was disturbed about it. Mr. Calvert stated that it seemed to him if the City wanted the citizens to support a program like this, then it should not be deleted. As for as he was concerned, when someone was asked to vote on the program then it should be binding on both parties. Mr. Calvert stated that then here tonight it was discussed that it would cost approximately $42,000 to fix a street that was not in the CIP. Mr. Calvert asked where the priorities were. Was the City getting away from the Bond package? Councilman Davis stated the Hewitt Street project was voted to be deleted because the Council felt it would not be cost effective at the time and another major reason was because of development along Chapman Road that would relieve most of the drainage problem in the area. Councilman Davis stated the CIP Committee felt the existing channel would take care of the drainage. Councilman Davis stated that if this did not correct the problem, the Committee could bring it back up to the Council. But this was the reason Hewitt was dropped at this time. Mayor Pro Tem Ramsey stated that in support of what Councilman Davis had said, everyone of the items on the Bond Program were contained in the Committee's proposal. Each and every one was being addressed and the situation changed from the time they were prepared based on the recommendation of the Staff and City Engineer. Mayor Pro Tern Ramsey stated that Hewitt Street was one that had changed. Mayor Pro Tern Ramsey Page 10 March 12, 1984 I I Ie I I I I I I Ie I I I I I I I Ie I stated that the Committee was looking at these things at least every two months and were not getting away from the program. Mayor Pro Tern Ramsey stated the Council could not deviate and go back and ask the people to support a bond issue in the future. Mayor Pro Tem Ramsey stated that was why close attention was being given to the program but at the same token the City could not, in good faith to the citizens, say spend X amount of money on something that would affect only two homes and that was one of the reasons Hewitt Street was recommended to be deleted from the program. Mayor Pro Tem Ramsey stated that if the problem did not get corrected the Committee would go back and address it. Mr. Calvert asked what the reason was for putting Hewitt Street in the program if it only affected two homes. Mayor Pro Tern Ramsey stated that he assumed that the develop- ment that was going to capture the water was not proposed at the time the bond issue was held. Mayor Faram stated that the projects in the CIP were mentioned as possibilities in the bond issue and all would have to be evaluated by priorities. Mayor Faram stated that the first and foremost in the last bond election was that Rufe Snow Drive be built and then all others would have to be evaluated and a priority placed on them. Mayor Faram stated he could see the concern if indeed Palomar was not listed. Mayor Faram stated he felt the CIP Committee had done an excellent job in going over the program. Mr. Grady Buck, 7629 Hightower, appeared before the Council. Mr. Buck stated he would like to speak in support of Mr. Calvert. Mr. Buck stated that in about two weeks the Council was going to be considering some rezoning at the corner of Hightower and Meadow Road which had been turned down previously because of drainage and bad streets. Mr. Buck stated that at the time the zoning was denied, the Council said a study would be made and they would try to get easements to take care of the drainage. Mr. Buck stated that since that time nothing had been done in the area. Mr. Buck stated that in answer to the question of development going on that would correct the drainage problems, he felt the open bar ditch that had been dug west of Little Ranch Road was the problem; you could not get the water to it from Hewitt, Meadow Road and Hightower. Mr. Buck stated another problem was that another developer had come in to the north of Hewitt to develop 11 acres. Mr. Buck stated he could not see that this was an improvement. Mr. Buck stated the main thing he wanted to do was support Mr. Calvert in his request. . He said the City had made promises regarding the area and because they were not in North Richland Hills "proper", he felt they were being slighted. Page 11 March 12, 1984 I I Ie I I I I I I I. I I I I I I I Ie I Mayor Faram asked Mr. Buck what he meant by the statement he was not in North Richland Hills "proper". Mr. Buck stated they were in Smithfield. Mayor Faram asked Mr. Buck if he did not consider that a part of North Richland Hills. Mr. Buck stated no, not really. Mr. Buck stated he would like for the Council to keep in mind the zoning request coming up in this area. Councilman Kenna stated that the Morgan Drive drainage problem had been the subject with the Council for sometime and had been high on the list of priorities to fix. Councilman Kenna stated that the city had been only able to obtain two of the sixteen easements that was needed, even with the help of a citizens group. Councilman Kenna stated the City had not been able to do anything because the easements could not be obtained. Mr. Buck stated he did not realize the City was unable to obtain the easements. Mr. Buck stated that Mayor Pro Tern Ramsey said so much work had been done in the area to eliminate the drainage problem and actually approximately 100 acres had been rezoned in the area. Mayor Pro Tem Ramsey stated that was not what he had said, he said that there was a subdivision or development going in that the City Staff and City Engineer had advised the Council it would alleviate the problem. Mayor Pro Tern Ramsey stated that the Council had to rely on what the Staff and Engineer told them. Mr. Buck stated that regardless of what the Staff or Engineer told the Council this was not the case. Mayor Pro Tern Ramsey stated that only history would prove that, but at the present time the Engineer had hard factual data that said that it would. Mayor Pro Tern Ramsey stated that he would have to stand with what the CIP Committee had done. They had worked very hard in the best interest of all the citizens of the community, but priorities had to be established. Page 12 March 12, 1984 I t . I Ie I I I I 19. I Councilman Hubbard stated he would like to thank the students for coming to the meeting. Councilman Hubbard stated he would like to explain to the students that under Citizen Presentation any person in the audience had the right to address the Council and discuss any item. Councilman Hubbard stated the Council could not legally take action because the item was not on the agenda, but could listen to the complaints and problems. If the Council felt the problem needed to be addressed it could be put on the agenda at a later date and action could be taken. Mayor Faram thanked Mrs. Hilyard for bringing the students. Mayor Faram adjourned the March 12, 1984 meeting. I Ie Mayor ATTEST: I I City Secretary I I I I I Ie I Page 13 March 12, 1984 ADJOURNMENT I I Ie I I I I I I Ie I I I I I I I Ie I City of ~orth WcWand Hills ~I ,,' /:>1 -E~~==~~(.;.~"~ ~..-~c.~ ~tar of the ~etroplex ;:-?\r TO: Rodger Line City Manager DATE: March 22, 1984 FROM: Wanda Calvert Planning & Zoning Coordinator SUBJECT: Zoning case to be heard by City Council March 26, 1984 PZ 84-11 APPROVED BY P & Z Request of Southland Corporation to rezone a portion of Lot 1, Block 13, Snow Heights North Addition, from its present classification of C-2 (Commercial) to a proposed classification of C-2-Specific Use Sale of Beer for off-premise consumption. This property is located at the southeast corner of Rufe Snow Drive and Lewis Drive. (817) 281-0041/7301 N. E. lOOP 820 / P. O. BOX 18609/ NORTH RICHlAND HillS, TEXAS 76118 I' " ., I e I I I I I I I I_ I I I I I I I I_ I DATE: March 22... 1984 PZ 84-11 Zoning request from C-2 to C-2-Specific Use-Sale of Beer for off-premise consumption on a portion of Lot 1, Block 13, Snow Heights North Add DEPARTMENT: Planning & Zoning SUBJECT: BACKGROUND: This property is located at the southeast corner of Rufe Snow Drive and Lewis Dr ive. There were 3 propertv owners contacted and no one spoke in opposition to the request. Southland Corporation wishes to be allowed to sell been for off-premise consumption at their new 7-1l store. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval of this zoning request by a vote of 4-1 with Mr. Wood voting against. CITY COUNCIL ACTION REQUIRED: Approval or denial of zoning request. BUDGETED ITÐf: YES ACCOUNT NUMBER: N/ A NO x ~~ (2~ I I: I Ie I I I I I I ~ I I I I I I I Ie I ( ( Page 6 P & Z Minutes February 23, 1984 7. PS 84-20 Request of Sueann of Lot 8, Block Addition PS 84-20 APPROVED made the motion to approve subject to the Engineer's comments with the exception of items 1 and 3. This motion was seconded by Mr. Bowen and the motion carried 5-0. 8. PZ 84-11 Request of Southland Corporation to rezone a portion of Lot 1, Block 13, Snow Heights North Addition, from its present classification of C-2 (Commercial) to a proposed classification of C-2-Specific Use- Sale of Beer for off-premise consumption. This property is located at the southeast coarner of Rufe Snow Drive and Lewis Drive. Chairman Tucker opened the Public Hearing and called for those wishing to speak in favor of this request to please come forward. David Olschwanger with Southland Corporation came forward. He said they have four stores in North Richland Hills and plan to build this one at Rufe Snow and Lewis. He showed pictures of the proposed structure. Chairman Tucker said if this Specific Use permit is granted, they will need an individual's name from Southland Corporation to put the Specific Use in. Mr. Olschwanger said they had rather have it in the corporation's name. Chairman Tucker said it was the City Council policy to put it in an individual's name. Mr. Olschwanger said he would check and have a name prior to going to the City Council. I- , . I I_ I I I I I I I_ I I I I I I I I_ I Page 7 p & Z Minutes February 23. 1984 PZ 84-11 APPROVED 9. PZ 84-12 ( Mr. Wood asked if all their stores in North Richland Hills sold beer. Mr. Olschwanger said he believed they did except for the one at Glenview and Rufe Snow. Chairman Tucker called for those wishing to speak in opposition to this request to please come forward. There being no one wishing to speak, the Chairman closed the Public Hearing. Mr. Bowen made the motion to approve PZ 84-11. This motion was seconded by Ms. Nash and the motion carried 4-1 with Mr. Wood voting against. Request of James Rust and A. T. Adcock to rezone Tract 7, William Cox Survey. Abstract 321, from its present classification of Agriculture to proposed classification of R-2 ingle Family). This property is 1 ated at the northeast corner of t intersection of Highto r Drive and Meadow Road and is unded on the east by Briarwood Est es, 2nd Filing. Chairman er opened the Public Hearing called for those wishing to s favor of this request to pI se come forward. Mr. Adcock came forward. He said 15 to 18 months ago, they requested 1F-9 zoning for this property which was approved by the Commission but denied by the City Council. Mr. Adcock said they request R-2. He said they have just completed the street today for 36 residential lots. Mr. Adcock said they had delayed any extensive work on this project until the zoning is approved, but he has a sketch of the proposed layout. He showed the layout to the Commission. I- .... I Ie I I I I I I Ie I I I I I I I Ie I r ( KNOWL TON-ENGLISH-FLOWERS, INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS / Fort Worth-Dallas February 15, 1984 Planning and Zoning Commission City of North Richland Hills 7301 N.E. Loop 820 North Richland Hills, Texas 76118 RE: 3-002, CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS ZONING CASE PZ 84-11 REVIEW LETTER, C-2 TO C-2-SPEC. USE-BEER REF. UTILITY SYSTEM GRID SHEET NO. 112 We have received the referenced zoning case for our review and find that we could adequately locate this property on the Zoning Map as required for updating should this case be passed by both the Planning & Zoning Commission and the City Council. RWA/ra Enclosures cc: Mr. Rodger N. Line, City Manager Mr. Gene Riddle, Director of Public Works Mr. Allen Bronstad, Assistant Director of Public Works Mr. Greg Wheeler, Engineering Technician February 15, 1984 PZ 84-11 PAGE 1 550 FIRST STATE BANK BLDG. · BEDFORD. TEXAS 76021. 817/283-6211. METRO/267-3367 I ':':\ ~¡ -'I I- 3 'J) -"I ~ r~1 ~ CJ) LLJ u.... '-=:. CO ~ ~ .,J ~, Z! ~. ..J LLJ ..J c ..... \1:) () ~ 0 .- .. ~ '1 ~~ I ro -0 M :r ,. ~ VI )... -..0 r-1 c: ~ ..J (/) if'¡ ).. r-1 ~ G c:: c:: r~ I ,... ...~ ~ C tn ~..) p. ~, ~. . ~ ''''Ì « b 4-< QJ (.L '- ~ J\ :I: ~ :1J > ~ (1) il/ c..:... (~ .c .r ~; W ~ ... . 'fJ ~ 'rl U -': ~ µ 0 .-.J UJ ..::L ,., , rJ) ("( :J ..o ~ "..J ~ n:: < U - z u (l) ....-1 ex: Q ~ -~ C ( ~ C Z G > r" "'0 0 C :; (P I- if' 1-4 .,.... 1) '- (/'I µ 0 Z In ~ ~ ~ :x: ..D (.; 'rl ':J ~ 'J ~ j ~ ;J) -,-1 ) aJ IlJ :E ...J < 0 "1J ~ W ~ J¡ 1- '1,) 'lJ .¡.. ílI rl ~ c: ç: ....J ~ Q,¡ <¡.. .1,¡ a; m ]: ..J OÖ 0 :J CO lI' 'rl ;:t '-~ (lJ Q .µ <1J ilì ~ ..c ,~ r', LLI t- ~ -') ~ .....:: "'0 0 ..c 0 '. :I: (.) I ~ .--1 U \.... r, û C¡ 0 (1) Q. <.D í'O -rl ;~ If¡ ~ 0 ,-. ("î r - ).~ ,... a: U ~ W t.D ~ ~ r -; t" c: /. .0, J ~ UJ (\j /. J ~ ~ d¡ .::J LU 0 - Z CT' .r:. 1J '-1) .-.. 4-< ,- CC 0 :.~ QJ ..c 'rl () -' :f. en I- Z en ~ z .::J ~ -- ..£: ..c "U t"", c.. J 3 0 "-.; +J "'0 (l; 1J ¡,. \.- ~. ::) 0 0- ct t- Z -rl :J b(;~ 11 t1J ,-- J: w d ÇL ~ w µ '- '.) ~ c: ~ .-: -I en Œ u Z LL.I h ...c ....... 10-4 0 Vi ...... ..c: CO c. c.; ,~ ... ~ ,¡ \ ..J ~ 0 en E ~ -., 'n CO µ 0 ~ (l +J .µ 'Û C'O ..... CXJ t- W ~LJ r~ c: (1 .D ~ ¡f) .µ J. J'J úì < I- a: c( 0 -' ..:... '+-4 ;> , 0 .....~ 0 'rl [J) r.J) :./) rl :I: 0 ! 5 rr r;; \lJ -rl 0 Z "TJ "rl 'T.J ~., (" ~ ~ ;::) 0 >< ú.. 'lJ... 0 ).-. µ r.J) ~ 'TJ V 0 C) ~ ,¿. µ U -:; u "Ö r-1 (J) ~ ("Ü <1J 0 C LU µ :J 8 ~ ~ CO ....J C\] ~ i LU - Z ~ ... U :.., IlJ rJ) CC ..c: )... ~I w z ... "' ...... tlíì ~ µ ö{¡ r,:. .... L' ~ Q. > 10-4 c: IlJ ç:: ',-1 ~) ::1 :J: LL < " : .- µ c:: 'rl µ (l) (/) « ü ro (J c: ~ c: 3 c :x: ¡.¡J ~ ;..¡.~ ~I 0 ..J (/) Q) 'r4 . r-i ..D ~ µ. :~ ;~ -I -..:. V ).-. µ C ) ;,¿'. ~ :I: < ~ '...i "..-1 "0 'D ~ --0 0 0 ,-~ C :) <l Cú rc '0 I1J c:: ..c ~ .,.... ¡:: 0 0 0 '- ~) 0 ,:::> ,,_J I W > I- ..J (.9 "0 µ <C en (f 0 0 0 0 ~ ~ U) 00 t- t- ::) ..J >- J' ::J +oJ G --.:t ~ .D ¿:' '"T.J Z 0 m û' ...-: CJ) <C 0 " . 0 (J ~ - ~ c: ,... - C 0 ~ 0". c 0 ...,., J' rc (/) CJ) () en c z tJj X ('t') 00 0 0 C( 0 ,.x.. ~ LLJ 0 0 <1J '-' 0 ~ ,..""'1 ~ ~ <t ~ :?; ~. z c.... ifJ Q) v, ~) rf, ? <lI Z V'-l 0:: <t ~ 'L r-1 r-1 --.) ~ ç Z C Z £:) 0 (f; 0 .. U -- ¡.... ~ H 4-.J ..¡:;. ~. Z ex: 0 W G U4 ;¿: wr µ.¡ c µJ I ~. WI~ 0 ..c r-i W ~ \......; U :...J Z U ~ U u o i.lJ ~ ~ 1"<; ""=T z (ÞÛ c: ~ ;:, ~ Z :¿ Z c:; Z Z c: 0:> =' ~ ''- L.1J ~ ~ <...:> ~ )..¡ µ..¡ ~ WI.... LIJ Lí ¡: g? ~ Q) (,J C 0 ~ ú ::x: 0 ;;x: J.¡.J :x: , 0 ::x: ''- ;J:- ;I::LLJ ~ ¡:Q ~ Z L.- V Q ~ E-~ E- ¡:Q ~¡ v ¡..... .... t-.! ~ ....... r:Q r-i úJ 0 ,9! 092 .c:= c::r -, 0 :I: 0 Ö to- &() a: =r= rt'" 0 Z ~ en c..> to- O ::: I ..J c!, I LD tu I -- L" ~ Z I to- 3C z I () ,.... z '" L,) ~--~_. _J Z w en iD lJ... I 0 l- I Z (J 0... -, ~ W .J w -g -0 -q-: ~ ~ v (J) ex) if) M'IOO'9.~OJOOS ,OOç; ç; =~ - 0 o - (). ~ ~. 0 v OJ co z LLJ w > - ~ c en ¡9Ç; "lÇ o o -0 -~: 0 rt) t.O o 00 (j) N co n ---- ",...- / \----~ CL~ ~o =>z Q..<t (f).....J <f.U) t?- \ I oo-~ Çì .. ~~_~,~~~înN I , ~,/ '" .J roe: ' \ \ \ \ 1/ ( -0 ~? &() ,...: ~ ~ w =0 °0 _Or----: ~ ~ o (j) co (f) r--' -0 N I l) C ¿ lJ <.9 Z <-) Z W ¿ ¿ '-.) l ' u... -~) \ ~ "---- 31100 I ~( o,~)ON / ___ _ L ~-- z o ,L - ----..- - _._~_._------ '--.,.-------- ---_..._----.-- - --- -----.---- ----.--". -.- -. .--..-. -- ..-.,-.- aVOH MONS 3:1nH ('~-- - ¡ ----..--.----.-- --------- --------..--... ~ ~'\.. \ I~ Ie I I I I I I I Ie II I I I I I Ie I I 1/00 ORDINANCE NO~ AN ORDINANCE REZONING PROPERTY IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION XXVIII, AMENDMENTS, OF ZONING ORDINANCE #1080 OF THE CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS, TEXAS, PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AND THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS, JANUARY 9, 1984 AFTER APPROPRIATE NOTICE AND PUBLIC HEARING THE FOLLOWING RECOMMENDATION IS SUBMITTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION: RESOLVED that on Case No. PZ-84-11 the following described property shall be rezoned from C-2 to C-2-Specific Use-Sale of Beer for off-premise consumption. . BEING a 0.0593 acre tract of land out of Lot 1, Block 13, Snow Heights North Addition, out of the W.W. Wallace Survey, Abstract 1606, situated in the City of North Richland Hills, Tarrant County, Texas and being more particularly described as follows: COMMENCING at the intersection of the East line of Rufe Snow Drive (120 foot R.O.W.); said point also being the Northwest corner of Lot 1, Block 13 of Snow Heights North Addition; THENCE South 89 degrees 48 minutes 00 seconds East for a distance of 137.00 feet to a point for- corner; THENCE South 0 degrees 26 minutes 00 seconds West for a distance of 52.56 feet to the point of beginning; THENCE South 0 degrees 26 minutes 00 seconds West for a distance of 55.00 feet to a point for corner; THENCE North 89 degrees 34 minutes 00 seconds West for a distance of 47.00 feet to a point for corner; THENCE North 0 degrees 26 minutes 00 seconds East for a distance of 55.00 feet to a point for corner; THENCE South 89 degrees 34 minutes 00 seconds East for a distance of 47.00 feet to the point of beginning and containing 2,585.00 square feet or 0.0593 acres of land. 1-' .. ..~ Ie I I I I I I I I_ I I I I I I Ie I I This property is located at the southeast corner of Rufe Snow Drive and Lewis Drive. APPROVED BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION THIS 23rd DAY OF FEBRUARY, 1984. ~~ 4~- l .,...., ,,:..., ," :-'" Jff.... .....~,. ..... -~ .'. ~.---...-~-"'" Ie-' ..' I' -... !".~ __ -I> ".,..,. :- . ~ . ..( /,.' ....- . '~":/~"'!c.. r CHAIRMAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION j,/. . / SECRETARY PL~ING AND ZONING COMMISSION -. ,'{:-:¿:,~...¿~ BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS ACTING IN REGULAR SESSION THAT THE ABOVE DESCRIBED PROPERTY IN CASE NO. PZ-84-11 IS HEREBY REZONED THIS DAY OF MAYOR CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS ATTEST: JEANETTE MOORE, CITY SECRETARY CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGALITY REX McENTIRE, CITY ATTORNEY CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS I I Ie I I I I I I Ie I I I I I I I Ie I '. -¡ DATE: March 26, 1984 SUBJECT: Resolution - TESCO Rate Request DEPARTMENT: Administrative BACKGROUND: This Resolution suspends the rate request for 120 days. Date will be filled in by City Attorney Monday night. CITY COUNCIL ACTION REQUIRED: Approve/Disapprove BUDGETED ITEM: ACCOUNT NUMBER: YES N/A NO x I I Ie I I I I I I Ie I I I I I I I Ie I \ RESOLUTION NO. <2 4 ' t6 BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of North Richland Hills, Texas, that: I. The schedule of rates filed by Texas Electric Service Company ~ (qÐ) on March 9, 1984, be and is hereby suspended for opø n ~~QRtÝ·~ days from the rate-effective date ( ~n,(~91\-). PASSED AND APPROVED this day of , 1984. APPROVED: Mayor ATTEST: City Secretary I I Ie I I I I I I I I· I I I I I I Ie I DATE: March 26, 1984 6' SUBJECT: Change Order #l, Northfield Park Contract DEPARTMENT: Parks BACKGROUND: The area now surrounding Northfield Park is partially developed. Security has been and will continue to be a problem until such time as the adjoining property is fully developed. A perimeter fence will not solve all security problems but will allow additional security in the park, allow us to lock the park at night and prevent dirt bikes and other unauthorized motorized vehicular traffic. (KEF letter will be available Monday night.) CITY COUNCIL ACTION REQUIRED: Request Council authorization to approve Change Order #1 in the amount of $3~~ for a 6 ft. chain link security fence. . .,. -..., ) :' ~¡ .~; -;' ! <. l: BUDGETED ITEM: ACCOUNT NUMBER: YES NO GO Bonds I I Ie I I I I I I Ie I I I II I I I Ie I ~ TEXAS. . ELECTRIC SERVICE COMPANY March 9, 1984 City of North Richland Hills Attached for filing please find a Petition and Statement of Intent for Texas Utilities Electric Company (TUEC). This rate request is identical to those also being filed today with other regulatory authorities and affects all customers served by the Dallas Power & Light Company, Texas Electric Service Company, and Texas Power & Light Company -divisions of TUEC. Also, transmitted with this letter as part of this filing is a rate filing package containing the testimony and data upon which the proposed rates are based. The entire rate filing package consists of eight (8) separately numbered volumes and contains a copy of the Company's Petition and Statement of Intent before the Public Utility Commission for your information. Should you have any questions concerning the rate filing, please give me a call. Very truly yours, ~ /~ -/ /('./ ;;0¿:~ R. L. Fain Reqe~pt Acknowledged By: (~";:~~ d4«~_/ III ta4~..~) ¿~ "J 'Î uritle: f!d¿/- d./~ÁÍ~£'f--- Date: d- 9- ?~ P. o. BOX 970 - FORT WORTH, TEXAS 76101 - TELEPHONE (817) 336 - 9411 I I Ie I I I I I I Ie I I I I I I I Ie I BEFORE THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS RE: APPLICATION OF TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC COMPANY FOR AUTHORITY TO CHANGE RATES DOCKET NO. PETITION AND STATEMENT OF INTENT TO THE HONORABLE SAID GOVERNING BODY: Comes Now Texas Utilities Electric Company, hereinafter referred to as Applicant, a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Texas and a public utility as that term is defined in the Public Utility Regulatory Act, Article 1446c, Vernon's Annotated Texas Civil Statutes, and files this its Petition and Statement of Intent, respectfully showing unto this Honorable Governing Body the following: I. Applicant is the surviving and successor corporation of the corporate consolidation and merger of three prior operating public utility companies, Texas Electric Service Company, Texas Power de Light Company and Dallas Power de Light Company, that occurred on January 1, 1984, pursuant to the approval of the Public Utility Commission of Texas in Docket No. 4713. The Final Order in said Docket No. 4713 requires that all applications for authority to change rates pertaining to said three prior operating public utility companies filed subsequently to January 1, 1984, be filed on a. consolidated basis by Applicant. This Petition and Statement of Intent is filed in full compliance with said Final Order and is based upon a consolidation of the test-year revenues, investment, capitalization, taxes, costs and expenses of said three prior operating public utility companies, as adjusted. The current test year upon which this Petition and Statement of Intent is I I Ie I I I I I I I- e I I I I I I I Ie I based is the twelve-month period beginning October 1, 1982, and ending September 30, 1983. II. During the test year, Applicant provided electric service to over 81,000 new customers and, at September 30, 1983, provided electric service at retail and wholesale to 1,761,411 customers, located in 91 Texas counties. The increasing number of customers and increasing demands for electric power and energy of existing customers require Applicant to construct additional facilities in order to fulfill its public service obligations, both now and in the future. Rising expense levels and increased costs of the funds necessary to finance this essential and salutary construction and meet other corporate obligations are causing Applicant's financial condition to deteriorate substantially. Applicant's existing rates are wholly inadequate to permit Applicant a reasonable opportunity to earn a reasonable return on its invested capital used and useful in rendering service to the public over and above its reasonable and necessary operating expenses. Rate relief, as proposed herein, is essential to Applicant's financial integrity and to assure Applicant's continued ability to fulfill its public service obligations to provide reliable and efficient electric service to its customers at a reasonable cost. m. This Honorable Governing Body has jurisdiction over the Applicant and subject matter of this Petition and Statement of Intent by virtue of Section 17(a) of said Public Utility Regulatory Act. IV. The proposed effective date of the proposed changes in Applicant's rates is April 13, 1984. Applicant reserves the right to place into effect said changes in full, or any portion or portions thereof, as Applicant may elect, at any time on or after said effective date and under such conditions as may be permitted by law. To -2- I I Ie I I I I I I I- e I I I I I I I Ie I the extent Applicant may later so elect to place into effect less than the full changes, this pleading should be deemed to constitute a petition and statement of intent for such lesser changes. Applicant also proposes to implement a change in the method of calculating the allowance for funds used during construction to the specific identification method and hereby requests approval for such change. v. The proposed revised tariffs and schedules are set forth in Volume III of this filing and a statement specifying in detail each proposed change is set forth in Volume VII of this filing. VI. The proposed changes are expected to increase the adjusted test-year operating revenues of Applicant 7.9896, or $304,196,722. VIT. All of Applicant's customers and classes of customers in areas over which this Honorable Governing Body exercises original jurisdiction will be affected by the proposed changes. VIII . Attached hereto and made a part hereof for all purposes, in eight (8) volumes, numbered I through VITI, is a complete rate-filing package setting forth such other information required by the Public Utility Commission of Texas, including testimony supporting the proposed changes in Applicant's rates. IX. Virtually identical Petitions and Statements of Intent (together with all pertinent information filed herewith) are being filed with the Public Utility Commission of Texas and with the appropriate officers of each municipality that exercises original jurisdiction over Applicant's rates, operations, and services. - 3 - I I Ie I I I I I I Ie I I I I I I I Ie I x. The business and mailing address of Applicant is: Texas Utilities Electric Company 2001 Bryan Tower Dallas, Dallas County, Texas 75201 Applicant's business telephone number, including area code, is: 214/653-4600 XI. Applicant's authorized representati~es are: T. L. Baker Vice President Texas Utilities Electric Company 2001 Bryan Tower Dallas, Dallas County, Texas 75201 Telephone: 214/969-0569 and Robert A. Wooldridge Worsham, Forsythe, Sampels &: Wooldridge 2001 Bryan Tower, Suite 2500 Dallas, Dallas County, Texas 75201 Telephone: 214/748-9365 Inquiries concerning this Petition and Statement of Intent should be directed to T. L. Baker at the above-stated address ànd telephone, or to the management of Applicant's local office servicing this municipality. WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Applicant respectfully prays this Honorable Governing Body to approve and authorize the changes in its rates proposed herein, and to grant and award such other and further relief to which Applicant may be justly entitled. Respectfully submitted, WORSHAM, FORSYTHE, SAMPELS &: WOOLDRIDGE Robert A. Wooldridge State Bar No. 21984000 J. Dan Bohannan State Bar No. 02563000 -4- I I' Ie I I I I I I Ie I I I I I I I Ie I -5- 2001 Bryan Tower, Suite 2500 Dallas, Texas 75201 Telephone: 214/748-9365 By: Robert A. Wooldridge ATTORNEYS FOR APPLICANT, TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC COMPANY March 1984 I ( . P I~ r I II CI I I I I' (~ I I I I I I I rr r RATE CASE TIMETABLES Important - THE STATUTORY TIMETABLES FQR PUC AND CITY ACTION WERE CHANGED IN THE LAST SESSION OF THE LEGISI,ATURE. CITIES Filing date Proposed effective date. City may suspend pO days Deadline for City Action .- 35 125 PUC o March 9 o Filing date April 13 June 18 101 35 Proposed effective date. PUC may suspend 150 days Eé\rliest date hearing may begin* July 12 Augu~t 29 173 . . Sept. 10 ,185 I , t' Estimated date for examiners report. Deadline for PUC action.--Automati- cally extended 2 days for each 1 day hearing exceeds 15 da}Ts. *These dates are not statutory, but are consistent with current PUC policy. I I [0 I I ~I Introduction I Texas Utilities Electric Company (TUEC) is requesting an increase in electric rates of $304.2 million, or an average in- crease of 8 percent. The request has been filed with the Public Utility Commis- sion of Texas (PUC) and the cities served by Dallas Power & Light Company (DP&L), Texas Electric Service Company (TESCO), and Texas Power & Light Company (TP&L), which became divisions of TUEC on January 1. We need this increase in order to continue our primary goal of providing customers with a reliable supply of electricity at a reasonable price. Neither relIable service nor reasonable prices can be main- tained by electric utilities unless they are allowed sufficient revenues to pay their day-to-day expenses, provide investors with a reasonable return and finance needed construction. DP&L, TESCO and TP&L have worked hard to keep costs down. We've watched our expenditures carefully, implemented innovative cost-cutting programs and used computers and other technology to do more work with fewer people. We've also merged our resources into one company-Texas Utilities Electric Company-to provide opportunities for more operating efficiency. These cost-control efforts have not been enough to prevent key financial indicators from dropping to unacceptably low levels, and a rate increase is needed. The following pages provide further explanation of why we need a rate increase and how this increase will benefit customers by maintaining quality service and helping to keep electric rates reasonable over the long term. ,I I I o I I I ,I r r r rr r 1 Why are we asking for a rate increase? There are two primary reasons for this rate increase request. The first is our deteriorating financial condition, and the sec- ond is the need to continue our construction program to support the economic growth of the ser- vice area, continue to maintain the quality of service we always have provided and continue to utilize less expensive fuels. How has our con- struction program helped customers? Our construction program has been good for our customers in several different ways. It has enabled us to meet the growing electric needs of our service area and reduce our dependence on in- creasingly expensive natural gas. By building plants that use low-cost lignite, we have saved our customers more than $2.8 billion since 1975 compared to Annual Savings to Customers of Texas Utilities Electric Company from Lignite Generation 1975-1983 Total Net Savings $2.8 Billion 1600 AI 1400 1200 ~ 1000 ~ Õ c Õ 800 rn c: ~ 600 ~ 400 200 0 75 OJ Replacement Cost of Gas/Oil Fuel Total Lignite Cost (including plant construction cost) 77 81 79 83 Year By building plants that use low-cost lignite, we have saved our customers more than $2.8 billion since 1975 compared to what the same electricity would have cost if generated from natural gas. t' Comanche Peak what the same electricity would have cost if generated from natural gas. Because we realized that lignite sources were limited, we also began construction of the Coman- che Peak nuclear plant to provide needed electricity with the least expensive fuel available- uranium. Comanche Peak was a good deal for customers when we decided to build it, and subse- quent delays and increased costs have not changed that fact. Even with the cost increases that have occurred during the plant's construction period, Com- anche Peak's cost compares very favorably with other nuclear plants that are being built in the same time period. ~ Cost of Comanche Peak Compared to National Average National Average* $2300 KW $1640 KW * 41 plants scheduled in same general time period as Comanche Peak 2 I I [() I I ·1 ·1 I I I C1 , -' I I :1 'I I I I [C r """"""""" """ """ """ """"""""" """"".,' ",,""""" "~,,'ll"~"~ """"""" , ",..... -- . -- . "~"~I"~ . - . - . -- . -- . "~I __ . - . -- "~"~I"~. - . - . - . - . - . - . - . - . - . - . . - · - · - · 11".1~ · - "~,I 12 10 :I: ~ ~ ... Q) &L en E Q) (.) 8 "~,I "~"~I"~ "~"~I' " 6 o 87 Cost of Electricity Comanche Peak - · - · - · Coal .............. Natural Gas 88 90 In addition, over the life of the plant, electricity generated with low-cost uranium at Comanche Peak will be less expensive than that produced by plants using high-priced natural gas or out-of- state coal. Lower electricity costs are not the only benefit our customers have received from our construc- tion program. By building plants that use diverse sources of fuel, we have reduced our vulnerabili- ty to service interruptions because of supply problems with anyone fuel. And our construction program will help us continue to provide for the electricity needs of a growing economy. Economic growth in the areas we serve has contributed to an increase in the peak demand for electricity at an average rate of 4.8 percent from 1975 through 1983. We currently estimate that annual growth in peak demand will increase at a rate of 4 percent for the next 89 91 Year 10 years. Our lignite plants, combined with Comanche Peak, will be able to meet the growing electricity needs of our area. Without Com- anche Peak, projections show our reserve margin dropping to unac- 92 94 95 93 ceptable levels in just two years. And we already are planning for future lignite and out-of-state coal plants so that we can con- tinue to meet our customers energy demands as cost- efficiently as possible. Reserve Margins With and Without Comanche Peak Generation 40 30 c .~ ~ G.» i 20 Œ: c::::::J With C.P. c::::::J Without C.P. --- -------- ------ - ---- --- ----------- ------ ---- - -- - --- - - -------------- - - ---- - ---- --- Minimum Desirable level c II) (.) II) Q. 10 · 1986 1987 1988 Year . First year both Comanche Peak units will be in operation 3 Unfortunately, building new power plants is very expensive, even with careful planning. We must have the financial strength to borrow money at reasonable rates and under adverse economic conditions so we can keep con- struction costs as low as possi- ble. The rate increase we are re- questing is the minimum amount necessary to give us that strength. What are we doing to keep costs down? DP&L, TESCO, and TP&L always have promoted efficient management and cost control. We have implemented an ag- gressive load management pro- gram to slow additional growth in summer peak demand and delay the construction of costly new generating capacity. Our E-OK program provides in- centive payments to customers who install or replace air condi- tioners with high-efficiency models. This program, combined with interruptible service con- tracts that allow us to disconnect some large industrial users in times of high demand, has resulted in the prevention of 325 MW of additional peak de- mand since 1981. This has allowed us to serve the equivalent of 57,000 new residen- tial customers without the need for new construction. We also provide our customers with free home energy audits and conservation information to pro- mote the wise use of all forms of energy . In addition to stressing conser- vation and load management, we always are looking for other ways to keep costs down. For example, improved analysis of distribution transformer utilization and loadings enabled us to better use existing transformers and save about $700,000 in planned transformer purchases. A program which encourages employees to suggest labor or material saving ideas resulted in a savings of more than $335,000 in 1983. An example of this kind of suggestion is one an employee made that reduced the material and labor required to install a capacitor bank by $50 per installation. Also, we took a meter reader's suggestion for changing the order in which routes were read to make it more efficient, resulting in an estimated $50,000/year savings. Other cost reductions have been a direct result of the reorganization of the Texas Utilities System. The new cor- porate structure allows us to f) f) Load Management Reduces the Need for Costly New Generating Capacity 4 TUEC LOAD MANAGEMENT ~ Serving Load management programs under way since 1981 at DP&L, TESCO and TP&L make it possible to serve that many new homes without additional power plant construction. t) I I 10 I I ,I 'I I I Ie I I I I I If reduce duplication of efforts and improve efficiency in many areas. For example, the company re- duced its workforce for a net decrease of 342 employees by the end of the test year, resulting in an annual savings in payroll and related expenses of $7.6 million. This reduction was made as the number of customers in the system grew by more than 80,000. Further savings are expected from efficiencies that will be realized through such tools as volume purchasing and system- wide materials management. Even though we are continuing to cut costs, we still are not earn- ing enough revenues to carryon our tradition of providing reliable service at the lowest possible cost over the long term. What is financial integrity and why is it so important? Simply put, financial integrity is a company's ability to pay its operating expenses, finance necessary construction and earn a reasonable cash return for its investors, enabling it to attract capital at the lowest possible cost. It is important because it determines whether people will invest in a company and what kind of return they will require on their investment. In the past, we have taken pride in our ability to obtain Public Utility Commission of Texas Most Recent Orders MOODY'S BOND RETURN ON RA TE OF COMPANY RATING EQUITY__ RETURN -~_._---- TESCO Aaa 15.56% 12.45% DP&L Aaa 15.60 12.07 TP&L Aaa 16.00 11.98 ------~- -- ---15.72------12:t7l AVG TUEC --- -. ------~-------~._-------------------------- SOUTHWESTERN P.S. Aa2 16.17 11.56 SOUTHWESTERN ELEC. PWR. Aa2 15.70 12.60 WEST TEXAS UTI L. Aa2 16.25 12.83 CENTRAL P&L Aa2 16.50 12.54 iAVG Aa 16.16 12.381 TEXAS-NEW MEXICO PWR. A2 15.90 12.18 EL PASO ELECTRIC A2 16.77 14.17 HOUSTON L&P A1 16.85 * 12.63 * !AVG A 16.51 12.99 l GULF STATES UTILITIES Baa2 17.15 13.40 IAVG Baa 17.15 13.40 l * Before 50 basis paint penalty financing at the lowest possible rates under any economic condition. This ability has benefitted customers by making our average cost of capital among the lowest of the electric utilities in Texas. We were able to obtain favorable financing because in- vestors saw us as financially strong companies whose regulators gave us a reasonable opportunity to earn a fair return on our investment. Maintaining investor con- fidence is of the upmost impor- tance because it helps keep the price of electricity lower. When investors lose confidence in a company, they require larger returns on their investment-if they are willing to invest at all. In recent months, investor con- fidence has eroded to the extent that our bond ratings have been downgraded from Aaa to Aa 2 by Moody's Investors Service and from AAA to AA + by Stan- dard & Poor's. The company reduced its workforce for a net decrease of 342 employees by the end of the test year, resulting in an annual savings in payroll and related expenses of $7.6 million. 5 :I: 3= :::.::: êÞ Q.. ~ 4.0 c Q) (J Average Residential Revenue Per KWH Electric Utilities in Texas By Rating Category I I I I I I I I I " I I ,,' I' , , , , I , ,,, ,," , ,," ,/ // /'~ /// ,/' ~/ 11"'/ "/::",,,,'11'" ~'- ",r ,"" ~ /'/ ~~ /' ~ 11'" -' ,,' ,," ~, " ,," " -,' 9.0 8.0 7.0 6.0 5.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 * * Baa-1983 only _______ A ,_,_,_,_ Aa Aaa 73 75 77 81 83 o This situation can only cause higher long term costs for our customers. The average residen- tial cost per kilowatt hour for customers of lower-rated com- panies has been higher than the cost for customers of Aaa com- panies for the last 10 years. The inadequacy of past in- creases has impaired our ability to pay our operating expenses and provide investors with a reasonable rate of return. For example, our stock con- sistently has sold below book value for the last five years. Investors also are concerned about the large amount of in- terest associated with our con- struction program that is not be- ing collected from customers. At the end of our test year, we had $2.97 billion invested in con- struction. This money is called 6 79 Year éñ Q) E E .2 ãi a: ?:' ":; 0' W "8 en g ! 1.0 ~ ::E Construction Work in Progress, or CWIP. We have been paying interest costs each year since this money was borrowed. But our regulators If{' only allow us to charge ~J customers for a portion of this interest. So, we have $148,483,552 in costs that we cannot recover cur- rently. Instead, these costs are treated like earnings even though we won't be able to even begin to recover them until the plants under construction go into service. The average residential cost per kilowatt hour for customers of lower rated companies has been higher than the cost for customers of Aaa com- panies for the- last 10 years. t) 2.0 Market to Book Equity Ratio o 73 75 Year () 77 79 81 83 These deferred earnings, called Allowance for Funds V sed Dur- ing Construction, distort Our financial picture by implying more earnings than are available in cash from current operations. In fact, Our actual cash return on common equity falls far below the amount needed because of large amounts of AFUDC. Meanwhile, we have to get the $148,483,552 to pay Our interest costs somewhere. This causes the potential problem of having to borrow money to pay these in- terest costs, and then having to pay interest on that money, too. This means that customers will pay much more over the life of the plant than they would if they paid the interest costs as they were incurred. For example, on a $1 billion plant with a 10 percent rate of return, customers would save about $800 million over the life of the plant if they were charged for interest costs while the plant was under construction. We don't want Our customers' costs to be any higher than they have to be. So, we are asking for an increase in revenues that would bring financial indicators back to the minimum levels re- quired to restore investor Con- fidence and help hold down finan- cing costs. On a $1 billion plant with a 10 percent rate of return, customers would save about $800 million over the life of the plant if they were charged for interest costs while the plant was under construction. Return On Common Equity Year End 15 ë CD U ¡¡ e:. ~ ":; 0" W c: o ê 10 o o c: o E ~ Q; a: " " ~~', ,~~ ", ' I, \, I, EXCluding AFUDC , . \ ", I ", I" " , , '.,' " " ',410.. __---' 'w-- 5 o 73 75 How did we deter- mine the amount of Our request? Costs for the test year ending September 30, 1983, were com- piled from the books of DP&L, TESCO and TP&L. These costs, along with all adjustments, are fully documented in the rate filing package. Operating expenses (including operations and maintenance, fuel, 77 79 81 83 Year taxes and depreciation) total $3,315,701,058 for the adjusted test year, and the cost of money (including a 16.75 percent return on common equity) totals $802,090,274. Thus, Our total cost of doing business is $4,117,791,332. However, adjusted revenues for the same time period equaled $3,813,594,610, leaving a deficit of $304,196,722. This request represents a 8 per- cent increase in revenues. The new rates will be uniform for all customers classes. 7 Average Fuel Costs Texas Utilities Electric Company vs. Electric Companies in Texas and Surrounding States 400 ~ 300 m z o ~ ~ 200 Ù) t- Z W o 100 171 WEST* SOUTH CENTRAL REGION o COAL/LIGNITE 211 GAS Ili!I!I!II!!111 COMPOSITE FUEL Weighted average fuel costs, 12 months ending June, 1983 *Texas, Louisiana, Arkansas, Oklahoma tElectric Reliability Council of Texas Summary Dallas Power & Light, Texas Electric and Texas Power & Light always have been forward- looking companies seeking the most cost-efficient way to serve our customers. Our willingness to join together to build lignite plants has helped keep our average fuel costs among the lowest in the state, and Comanche Peak will help keep fuel costs comparatively low in the future. While our lignite plants were under construction, customers paid somewhat higher rates than they would have if the lignite plants hadn't been built. But because they paid a little higher rates over the short term, bills are much lower now than they would have been otherwise. In the same way, we are asking our customers who are now benefitting from the lignite plants to pay rates sufficient to allow us to continue our con- struction program in the most economical fashion. 8 This will keep rates for all customers in the future lower than they will be if interest costs associated with our construction program are not paid currently. . This system of asking present . customers to bear some of the cost of serving future customers has worked well. A comparison of the cost of electricity for DP&L, TESCO and TP&L to the cost of electricity for the 25 largest cities in the United States shows that we are below the average. We want to keep rates in the same relative position in the future. But to do so, we must have an adequate rate increase at this time. Price of Residential Electricity For Monthly Use of 1 000 KWH 12 Month Average (January-December, 1983) New York San Diego Boston Chicago Cleveland Philadelphia Detroit Houston Phoenix San Jose San Francisco Columbus Milwaukee TUEC Average· Jacksonville Washington D.C. San Antonio Baltimore Los Angeles Denver New Orleans St. Louis Indianapolis Memphis Seattle 22.93 149.70 123.00 96.53 95.83 91.22 89.89 85.92 82.85 :74.86 71.81 71.81 70.78 69.53 68.97 68.90 67.73 67.52 65.65 62.63 60.72 59.37 57.76 50.36 46.10 Average ; $74.98 * Rates for the City of Dallas are included in the TUEC average.