My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
03111982 Emergency Meeting
San-Marcos
>
City Clerk
>
01 City Council Minutes
>
1980 s
>
1982
>
03111982 Emergency Meeting
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/25/2006 10:01:26 AM
Creation date
12/10/2003 9:13:51 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Clerk
City Clerk - Document
Minutes
City Clerk - Type
Emergency Meeting
Date
3/11/1982
Volume Book
58
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
10
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />91 <br /> <br />Emergency Meeting <br /> <br />March 11, 1982 <br /> <br />Page 3 <br /> <br />size of the line, and City Manager Gonzalez added and where it would <br />be located as far as the lift station, if it is going to be coming <br />in through another force main and where that elevation is going to <br />be in relation to the 20-inch main, etc. Mr. Gary asked if it was <br />possible to say for any tap if a certain psi minimum was required, <br />that obviously there is a higher psi going in a 20-inch line, is <br />that correct? City Gonzalez said yes. Mr. Gary asked whatever you <br />tap into, the larger the line, the more sophisticated the equipment <br />would be as far as tapping into that 20-inch line, and City Manager <br />Gonzalez answered yes. Mr. Gary asked if there was a maximum of what <br />kind of line could be used, if a 20-inch line is the largest. City <br />Manager Gonzalez said he could not answer that question directly. <br />Mr. Gary asked the estimated expenditures of the City in the City's <br />plan for annexation for the following year. City Manager Gonzalez <br />replied that question involves a lot of unknowns which would be very <br />difficult to project on. It would depend on the anticipated growth, <br />if there are going to be more facilities that are to be developed <br />there which would include utility extensions, we, under are current <br />policies do provide for overage on those utilities, depending on the <br />development we might have expenditures that would be made there, and <br />if developed we would have additional requirements for police, fire <br />and other protection, but without knowing the growth factors antici- <br />pated in that area, it is very difficult to give a meaningful figure. <br />Mr. Gary asked if there was any projection of any property that remains <br />as agricultural use, and City Manager Gonzalez stated that half the <br />road in the area to be annexed does need to be repaired, and we would <br />hope we would have a similar arrangement which we had on the half from <br />the river bridge up towards 123 where in a joint effort with the County <br />we repaired and reconstructed that road, and we hope we could do some- <br />thing similar to that to the other section of it. That particular seg- <br />ment of the road cost the City around $6,000 to do that portion of it. <br />Mr. Gary asked if there was any projected expenditure in connection <br />with the bridge, and City Manager Gonzalez said it would depend on the <br />increased use of the bridge in the future. At this time it appears to <br />be functional and is handling the traffic going into that area. Mr. <br />Gary asked if we received any estimates on what it would cost to re- <br />pair that bridge. City Manager said we had generated some estimates <br />but again it varies greatly depending on the kind of bridge needed <br />there - up to three-quarters of a million dollars could be spent on <br />a bridge, or it could be put on a low water crossing type bridge which <br />generally is there, and it could be much less. Mr. Gary asked for a <br />range of minimum and/or maximum to the bridge. City Manager said to <br />replace the bridge it would be somewhere between $50,000 to three- <br />quarters of a million dollars. Mr. Gary pointed out with these fact- <br />arsthe City is looking at a potential tax income of approximately <br />$3,000, not deducted by agricultural use, against the liability for <br />a minimum of $6,000 on up to possibly $750,000. That doesn't include <br />what additional expense the City may have if in fact this law super- <br />sedes or conflicts with the present policy of extension for utilities. <br />The main thing Mr. Gary wants to point out is this is not a financial <br />liability to the Thornton family, but the City, and they strongly sug- <br />gest the plan as presented doesn't meet the statutory requirements. <br />Tess Norris stated one of Mr. Gary's relatives lives in an annexed <br />area that doesn't have sewers or water, and they were not asked if they <br />wanted to join the City, but just joined the City. Mrs. Norris stated <br />she had a feeling about pockets such as this, because for years she <br />and her husband lived in such a pocket on Bluebonnet Drive, and were <br />not going to be annexed because that area was not wanted. There were <br />rocks that made it difficult to put in sewers and water, and it wasn't <br />until someone became aware of the fact that the area was polluting the <br />aquifer that community development funds were used to put in sewers and <br />water on Bluebonnet Drive. Mrs. Norris feels strongly that there should <br />not be the pocket areas as this, and Mr. Stokes has stood up repeatedly <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.