MIN CC 08/03/1982MINUTES OF THE HUNTSVILLE CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON THE 3RD DAY OF AUGUST, 1982 IN THE CITY HALL COUNCIL
CHAMBERS, LOCATED AT 1212 AVENUE M IN THE CITY OF HUNTSVILLE, COUNTY OF WALKER, TEXAS AT 7:00 P.M.
The meeting was called to order by the Honorable William V. Nash. The following members were present for
this formal meeting:
William V. Nash, Mayor
Larry Corley '
Stephen E. Davis
Bill Hodges
Delora King
Goree McGlothen
Jane Monday
Members absent: Murray A. Brown
Jerry . Dowling
The invocation was presented by the Reverend Joseph P. Sammon, Chaplain, Texas Department of Corrections.
CONSIDER THE MINUTES OF THE PREVIOUS MEETING
The minutes of the July 27, 1982 City Council fleeting were approved by a motion made by Councilmember Corley
and seconded by Councilmember Monday. All were in favor and the motion passed unanimously.
ATTENDING CITIZENS
Dick Wharton, Chairman of the Planning Commission, to report on their August 2, 1982 Meeting.
Mr. Wharton advised the Council the Commission approved the re-plat of the Forest Hills Commercial Subdivis-
ion which involved a set back line; approved final plat for Westridge, Section 11I; noted Commission's feeling
of lack of flexibility- -noted variances allowed in Design Criteria Manual; and other standards the Commission
feels may be too severe and may limit development. Mr. Wharton noted the Commission will bring suggestions to
the Council on his latter statement at a later date. He noted the Commission's concern that the Council changes
their mind on policies if a particular person "hollers loud enough." He noted the preliminary draft of the
Land Use Chapter of the Master Plan was discussed in the work shop.and is entitled "Development Trends." He
noted comments on this will be submitted to the Council within the next two weeks. He noted another meeting is
planned in late August to review this document again and to review a water and sewer budget prioritization. He
noted the Commission's wishes to assist the Council in determining what it considers to be critical areas and to
A prioritize the water and sewer problems.as outlined by Boyd Wilder, Director of Public Utilities. He noted this
should be ready by the September meeting. He noted preliminary or final parts of the Master Plan may be ready
for recommendation to the Council in October, including the Utilities Plan, the Land Use Plan, the Transportation
Housing and Downtown Plan (with specific recommendations).
Milton Godwin, Representative of Republic National Life Insurance Company ,(City's Health Insurance)
Mr. Godwin noted he was contacted to assist the City in seeking bids for the City's health insurance and
;did extensive background work to obtain the best bids. He noted one of the bids sought by him was Republic
(National Life Insurance Company. He noted he had planned to move to Huntsville to represent the City in this
program as he felt it was his account. He noted the City subsequently appointed a local person as "agent of
` record." He noted he was present this evening to ask the Council to reverse that action and to accept him as
their "agent of record" (local agent) in the Republic National Life Insurance Program. He said he feels that
t an unintentional mistake has been made in this case. He said he does want to be the City's agent.
Mayor flash asked the staff to check.into this and report back to the Council with a recommendation at the
next meeting (August 31, 1982).
Gary Edmondson to discuss the proposed land trade with Gibbs Brothers
Mr. Edmondson urged the Council's prudence as they move to acquire land for the new water tower site.
He questioned the method of valuation of the lands being suggested for purchase and trade, suggesting that the
land is much more valuable than the City's appraisals state. He presented a short report of his evaluation of
72 acres (of lignite) being proposed for purchase /trade with Gibbs Brothers. He suggested the value placed
on the water tower land site is exorbitant. He questioned how the City's valuation of some of the land being
proposed for purchase and trade is less than the assessed value. He said he wanted to see some tough dealing
on the City's part, some standing up for the citizens, and some fiscal prudence.
PURCHASE OF LAND FOR THE CITY'S ELEVATED WATER TOWER
Mayor Nash
The next three items on the agenda all pertain to the water tower land Mr. Edmondson just addressed. Since
these three items are all related, and since there has been discussion with various council members, discussion
with staff members, and various articles and letters in the paper, I would like to briefly review this situation
with you. I think it is reasonably well understood why the City needs an elevated water tower. That has been
established for several years. We have been delinquent with the State Health Department because of a lack of
complying with their requirements for elevated water storage. This situation was not nearly as bad in previous
years as it is now and it will continue to get worse because of the method by which they determine how much
elevated storage you need. I feel that is reasonably well established. We do need the additional elevated
storage.
The location for elevated water towers is paramount in their design. There are basically two prerequisites
with regard to our system. One is the elevation of the land, because the higher the elevation, the shorter,
in effect, the water tower needs to be. There gets to be a point in elevations that if you use land too low
it would not be feasible at all to raise a tower as high as it would be necessary to provide the water pressure.
Therefore, the elevation is extremely important. As most of you know, moving across Huntsville is the ridge
or divide of land that drains water either into the Trinity River or in the San Jacinto River. Along that
point of design are the higher points in our city. Perhaps the highest point is an area on Highway 75 South that
is basically in the South Plaza Shopping Center, approximately 500 feet. The existing water plant has an eleva-
tion of about 480 feet. It is very important that the selection of the site be in an area having an elevation
of approximately that much. We can go very little below 480 feet.or you would have difficulty in design.
•
PAGE 229, BOOK "N" City Council Minutes of August 3, 1982
It is also important that the location be near the existing Palm Street Water Plant. The need for that
is because the ground water system has always pumped to that Palm Street Plant. There are ground storage tanks
at that Palm Street Plant. Also, the surface water system is pumped to that same location into some five million
gallons of ground storage. It is from that ground storage that any elevated storage will be filled. Therefore,
it is most reasonable that the location of the elevated storage be as close to that ground storage as possible
in order to minimize the pumping distance and the friction loss and the cost of pumping as well as the cost of
any transmission line to the elevated storage. For these two reasons, it's very important that we should locate
in the site that has been selected because that site more than any other site has these two qualifications.
This was a determination made by the City - -the selection of that site - -made after appropriate engineering analy-
sis and after adequate consideration. At that time, the City approached the owner of that land, who was Gibbs
Bros. to determine if negotiation was possible. And it was found that it was.
i;
"The.alternative to negotiation to get that property is to go through the process of eminent domain. In such1:
a process, we are subject to the mercy of the three Commissioners appointed by the Court to agree or accept
their determination. The basis of any proceeding in eminent domain is to use appraisals that are prepared by ■
licensed appraisers and from that the Commissioners would make a decision. If negotiation is possible, you could;
go through the same process but you can come to a mutual agreement. Since negotiation was possible, we proceeded
with negotiation.
"Three appraisals were received from licensed appraisers. Their evaluation of that property was determined
in the normal way of all appraisals. By reviewing comparable land sales in that general area. Those three
appraisals were made based on comparable sales in the area and both parties agreed that the average of the three
appraisals was a reasonable value for the land. That average appraisal was $1.25 per square foot. It was anti-
cipated that the site included 5.1 acres. Those two figures would compile to $280,000. The high appraisal was
S1.50 per square foot. It was felt that we took the chance in any process through eminent domain of ending up
having to pay as much as $1.50 per square foot for that property. Therefore, the City did agree that $1.25 was
a reasonable price to pay for the property after having been appraised by three appraisers.
With the price negotiated, it was then necessary to arrive at a method of payment. In most of the land
sales that we might individually be involved in, we would normally pay cash for such a transaction. Making a
transaction with Gibbs Brothers is normally not done in that way. It is normally not done in that way whether
it is an individual, the City, or the school. The process that has been worked out with Gibbs Brothers and the
city is the same as that followed by the school, in which land was purchased and traded to Gibbs Brothers for
the property.
"I point this out because there seems to be considerable discussion about the way the deal is made. The
price is agreed at $280,000 or $1.25 a foot at whatever the land surveys out to be. And the method of payment
would be in a means of land swap. The land that is used to swap is of no significance to the City. It is not
germane to the issue at all. It's merely as if we were buying so many lemons and those lemons were being traded
to Gibbs Brothers for the land. The transactions would all occur simultaneously. The land that is being included:
in the swap is land designated by Gibbs Brothers. Should any of that land not be acquirable by the City, then
a substitute piece of land that is yet unknown would be determined and that would be included in the swap.
"I again would repeat that in this type transaction, the City actually never owns the property that it is
in effect buying because there is a simultaneous swapping of that land to Gibbs Brothers. I had made a note
that for all practical purposes the land could just as easily have been in Mexico or in Japan, it could have
been a shopping center or a house. I make that point to emphasize the insignificance of what that land is.
It is merely a means of trade. Landis being used instead of dollars. By the same token, it makes no difference
whether the City is paying $1.00 a foot or $1.00 an acre for the land. The deal between or relative to the land
is made by Gibbs Brothers. It is not made by the City. We buy land that they would want. We don't try to give
them land or trade them land that they would not want. We merely buy the land and transfer it to them as a
process of paying them for the land.
"I perhaps should review briefly, since one parcel of this land includes the jail property that is owned by
the City, that was previously used by the County. This has been discussed in recent weeks by the County Com-
missioners. Several months ago, last year, the County and all other local public entities indicated that they
had no desire for the jail property. This was discussed with them on several occasions. The County had earlier
said that they did want it but then they later advised us that they did not want it. The City included in this
land trade the old County jail, which is on City property, because Gibbs Brothers did want the property and
it was paramount to making the deal. The City also needed to get rid of the County jail. And at the time there
were no indicated buyers for the jail. So the jail was included as a part of this overall program. The package
also indicates that the probation building would be a part of the deal. The County has indicated a desire to
dispose of that Probation office and this seemed to be an opportunity for them to do that. There is no require-
ment that the County dispose of the Probation office and that land, through this process, as I pointed out a
minute ago, if the owner of that parcel of land does not want to pursue it, then a substitute tract of land that
can be bought for the swapping price that's included for that particular property, will be substituted. In the
overall deal, it will not make any difference, it will just mean that a different piece of and is substituted.
"That should be a reasonable review of where we are at this time. The agenda includes three different
items. One is a contract agreement with Gibbs Brothers that outlines the agreement that would exist between the
j! City . Paragraph 10 needs to have one sentence added. That sentence adds [paragraph 10 is read] 'Provided
further that if the City cannot acquire Tracts 1B, 1C, and /or 10, Gibbs will agree to accept as exchange for the
remainder of Tract 2 other property to be acquired by the City.' The other two items are ordinances relating
to certificates of obligation . . .
Consider a Contract for Exchange of Property with Gibbs Bros & Co.
Mayor Nash asked the Council if they had any questions regarding the proposed contract for exchange of
.property with Gibbs Bros. & Co. to acquire a 5.485 acre site for the purpose of constructing a water tower and
appurtenances of the waterworks system. Councilmember Monday requested that either Mr. Pipes or Mr. Smith
speak to the value of the 5.485 acres as to the difference in the tax value and the trade value.
Bob Smith
The basic difference between $112,000 and the appraised value that we have is that the law
requires that it be appraised for tax purposes as a part of the large tract, the parent tract.
The parent tract that that's out of is probably 100 acres left in it. There is that tract
that is a, it goes as far north as the University Heights Shopping Center, the Willow Street
Apartments, around where the College bought, six and one -half acres around there. The split
out, as we see it or as we're calling the 5.14 acres was done at the request of the Tax
Office, but it can't be valued as a 5 acre tract. It has to be valued as if it were a 100
acre tract.
Councilmember Monday then asked Mr. Smith to speak to when this land is split out about it's relative value
of S1.25, and land surrounding it and other purchases that were considered of equal value in the appraisal proces
Bob Smith
"The appraisal process, as the Mayor explained, has to do with taking comparable sales within the
area that are comparable in both size and utility. And also relative to time, the most recent sale.
We found five or six - -some of them were higher and I think one was lower. But after everything was
adjusted out, that's what the indicated value was of the property was $1.25 a square foot. In the
appraisal process, some of the appraisers use both the buyer and the seller, some use just one. My
particular method is to use just one. Either the buyer or the seller to acknowledge the sale and
to tell me what the sales price was. There was a six point some odd acre tract out of the same
parent tract within the proverbial stone's throw from this tract of land that sold for $1.25 a square
foot less than a year ago."
Councilmember Monday then asked, referring to the contract and the added sentence to paragraph 10, where
is the safeguard to the City regarding the swapping price. She was concerned that it be stated in the contract
that what we do and sell will not exceed that amount. The City Attorney, Scott Bounds, offered another sentence s
to effect this assurrance: "The total of tracts 18, IC, and 10, and or any substitutes, will not exceed $147,600,'
He noted this sentence could be added to paragraph 10.
Councilmember Davis noted the 5 acre tract actually surveyed out to be more than 5.1 acres and is actually
5.485 so the total purchase price will be in excess of $280,000 and more like $300,000 (298,658.25). Mayor
Nash noted the combined total price would then be,for Tracts 1B, 1C and 10, $166,258.25.
Councilmember Corley asked how much of the 5 acres are we actually going to need for this water tower
project. Mr. Pipes said about 2 1/3 acres just to place the water tower.
Motion on the Contract
Councilmember Hodges made the motion to adopt the-contract for the exchange of property with Gibbs Bros.
- & Co. with the presented amendment of Scott Bounds, plus the amendment of Jane Monday. Councilmember King
seconded the motion. All were in favor and the motion passed unanimously. (Councilmembers Dowling and Brown
absent)
•
CONSIDER ORDINANCE N0. 82 -14
Authorize the Issuance of Land Acquisition Certificates of Obligation in the amount of $100,000 to Gibbs Bros.
& Co. at 12% interest for a term of one year.
The caption of this ordinance is as follows:
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTSVILLE AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF HUNTSVILLE
LAND ACQUISITION CERTIFICATES OF OBLIGATION IN THE AMOUNT OF $100,000.00; AND CONTAINING OTHER
PROVISIONS RELATED THERETO.
This ordinance authorizes the purchase of land described as 5.485 acres of land out of the Malcolm Johnson
and Elihu Davids Survey of Walker County, Texas, for water works purposes for said City and that Certificates
of Obligation be issued by the City for all or any part of the cost of same at 12% per annum dated August 3,
1982 and maturing and payable in one year (subject to the City option of prior payment).
Mayor Nash noted this is necessary for the $100,000 that is the amount lacking in the value of the land
that we would be buying to swap. Councilmember Corley noted this is the down payment. Councilmember Corley
then made the motion to adopt Ordinance No. 82 -14 and Councilmember King seconded the motion. All were in favor
and the motion passed unanimously.
CONSIDER ORDINANCE N0. 82 -15
Authorize the Issuance of Land Acquisition Certificates of Obligation in the amount of $91,000 to J. Hilton
at 12% Interest for a term of Three Months.
The caption of this ordinance is as follows:
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTSVILLE AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF HUNTSVILLE
LAND ACQUISITION CERTIFICATES OF OBLIGATION IN THE AMOUNT OF $91,000.00; AND CONTAINING OTHER
PROVISIONS RELATED THERETO.
This ordinance authorizes the purchase of land described as 72 acres of land out of the William Tom Survey of
Walker County, Texas, for water works purposes for said City, and that certificates of obligation be issued by
the City for all or any part of the cost of same at 12% per annum dated August 3, 1982' and maturing and payable
in three months (subject to the City option of prior payment).
Mayor Nash noted this is Tract 1B. Councilmember McGlothen made the motion to adopt Ordinance No. 82 -15
and Councilmember Davis seconded the motion. All were in favor and the motion passed unanimously.
Councilmember Hodges asked the Mayor to explain to the people where the money is coming from for the
purchase of this land. Mayor Nash said the reason these certificates of obligation are for such a short period
of time is because they will eventually be funded by the revenue bonds, or whatever financing is determined
appropriate, for the construction of the water tower. He said the issuance of these certificates of obligation
and the other arrangements for the land permits the design of the water tower to proceed at this time. The
bonds,he said, will not be issued until after the bids are taken on the water tower and we know exactly what
the total costs are going to be. Then, these certificates of obligation would be paid off, he said, by that
money from the revenue bonds in the Hater Department that is eventually paid for by your water and sewer rates.
He said the water and sewer rates were ajusted last September to include payment of those bonds. Councilmember
Hodges felt it important to note that the rate of last September includes all of these dollars. Mayor Nash noted, k
a provision of the revenue bonds is that an entity such as the City, accumulate the amount of money necessary
to retire the debt and that is why the raise was put into effect last year. He noted we must do that a year
prior to issuing revenue bonds. He said all of this is in accordance to that plan made last year.
CONSIDER RESOLUTION N0. 82 -14
Mayor Nash then presented this Resolution, the caption of which is as follows
"Life tine" Rate 5
that are E der y or are on
States Utilities and the Public Utilit Commission for Citizens
s requeste. •y Counci member Monday or adoption
RESOLUTION NO. 82 -14
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTSVILLE, TEXAS, ENCOURAGING THE USE OF MORE
INNOVATIVE RATE STRUCTURES FOR ELECTRIC SERVICE USERS, AND MAKING OTHER FINDINGS RELATED THERETO.
Councilmember Monday made the motion to adopt this Resolution and Councilmember Corley seconded the motio
All were in favor and the motion passed unanimously.
CONSIDER ORDINANCE NO. 82 -16
Mayor Nash then presented this ordinance, the caption of which is as follows:
Abatement and Removal of Junked Vehicles
ORDINANCE NO. 82 -16
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTSVILLE, TEXAS, AMENDING CHAPTER 12, MOTOR
VEHICLES AND TRAFFIC, BY THE ADOPTION OF A NEW ARTICLE X, ABATEMENT AND REMOVAL OF JUNKED
VEHICLES; DEFINING JUNKED VEHICLES; AUTHORIZING THE POLICE CHIEF TO REMOVE JUNKED VEHICLES;
PROVIDING FOR NOTICE AND APPEALS PROCEDURES; PROVIDING A PENALTY OF UP TO $200.00 A DAY FOR
CERTAIN VIOLATIONS; PROVIDING FOR THE REPEAL OF CERTAIN EXISTING ORDINANCES; PROVIDING A
SAVINGS CLAUSE AND PROVIDING FOR THE PUBLICATLON AND EFFECTIVE DATE HEREOF.
After a brief explanation by the City Attorney, Mayor Nash recommended an amendment to Section 12 -102,
paragraph (e) to change ". . . the removal may be accomplished by the Police Chief, any City employee, or
other fully authorized person " to . . the removal may be accomplished by the Police Chief, the Municipal
Judge or someone authorized by them."
Councilmember Monday made the motion to approve Ordinance No. 82 -16 as amended and Councilmember Corley
seconded the motion. Councilmember Monday then asked for an amendment to Article X, Section 12 -103, paragraph
(b) to add the word "state" before the words "licensed vehicle dealer or a junkyard." The City Attorney, Scott
Bounds, accepted this addition. Councilmember Corley accepted Councilmember Monday's amendment. Councilmember
Monday asked that the public be informed of this ordinance (radio and newspaper) and that the City intends to
enforce it. All were in favor of the motion and it passed unanimously.
UTILITY EXTENSION REQUEST
Consider a Utility Extension Request by Lisa Kuntz and Gerald Etheredge as recommended by Staff with the
City's Participative Share of the Costs totalling $3,135 to be funded from the Utility Extension Fund
Councilmember King made the motion to approve this utility extension request and to fund the City's
total of $3,135 from the Utility Extension Fund and Councilmember Monday seconded the motion. All were in
favor and the motion passed unanimously.
CONSIDER STREET CLOSING REQUEST
Consider a Request for the Closing of Avenue N from 11th Street south to 12th Street and 12th Street west
to the Property Line of the Walker County Hospital District as Proposed by the Chamber of Commerce to Provide
an Interior Greenway to be Developed as a Park.
Mayor Nash noted it appears on the agenda this evening so that the Council's opinions could be obtained.
He noted the Council will not act on this tonight. He noted the procedure would be to obtain written concurrence
frcnn the adjacent property owners, determination on disposition of right -of -way property, and conduct a public
hearing. He then asked for the Council's opinions. Councilmember King noted she is opposed to closing any of
the City's streets. Mayor Nash noted this is requested as part of the overall park development plan. Council -
member King suggested the Chamber discuss in a work session with the Council what they have in mind in closing
this street. Councilmember Monday agreed the Chamber should present the plan to the Council. She wholeheartedly;
endorsed the concept for the downtown park area. She noted also the intersection of llth and Avenue N is a
very difficult one to negotiate, noting it is not eligible for signalization because of the close proximity of
the east and west signals of .19th Street'at 0 and M. Councilmember King noted the City needs a report from the
Highway Department regarding the feasibility of signalization of Avenue N at 11th. Councilmember Hodges noted
one could still enter Avenue N off of 11th Street for Chamber and park parking purposes, but that one would not
be able to drive through to Avenue 0 and that persons could enter 12th St. from Avenue 0 for parking purposes,
but would not be able to drive through to llth Street. Mayor Nash noted the closing would involve only the
middle section. Councilmember Hodges indicated his support of the Chamber in this effort and encouraged their
presentation of the whole concept to the Council as soon as possible. He encouraged the staff to contact the
affected property owners and to pursue the question withthe State Department of Highways and Public Transportation
Mayor Nash asked that the staff follow through with this.
CITY MANAGER'S REPORT
; Budget Consideration Schedule
Mr. Pipes then passed out the schedule for the consideration and final approval of the budget.
Councilmember Monday requested a work session before final approval. Mr. Pipes noted the final.approval will be
on September 21 so there will be time for budget overviews and discussions prior to then.
I Region 14 TML Meeting -- August 19
Mr. Pipes advised the Council of the Region 14 Meeting at the Summit Club in Houston on August 19 at 7 :00
P.M. He encouraged as many of the Councilmembers to attend as possible.
R Annual TML Meeting This Fall
Noted Boyd Wilder, Director of Public Utilities, is serving on a committee as Regional Executive Director
n the Hater Utilities Association he is in, to design the topics for the fall meeting. He noted some of the
opics are PUC-- advantages and disadvantages on municipalities; the Texas Water Plan; Rate Making - -newer methods;
creative financing (i.e., for water tower- -bonds are perhaps not the way to go at the present time); and public
`Y 7
�� • PAGE 232, BOOK "N"
CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 3, 1982
and customer service relations.
MAYOR'S REPORT -- WILLIAM Y. NASH
Interview by Police Officer
Mayor Nash noted he was impressed with an interview of a police officer regarding the local crime situation
which related to an endorsement of the crime stoppers program. He said the City is working with the Chamber of
Commerce in the Crime Stoppers Program. He said this is an individual or community program which raises funds
to pay rewards, etc. or for data that would convict a criminal. He noted it has been an effective program
in other cities. He hoped the media would continue to work with the Police to get this message to the people.
Welcome of Associate Minister of First Christian Church
Mayor Nash noted he welcomed Mr. Gary McCormick last Sunday as Associate Minister of First Christian
Church.
Mayor Nash then reviewed taxes as he felt it is important that everyone understand what tax we are talk(ng
about from the taxpayer's standpoint. He noted this year with the reappraisal and the new tax rate, the majdr
thing this has done Is to confuse everybody. He worked up a chart that relates last year's tax and this year's
tax which looks at total tax dollars rather than at rates or evaluations.
CITY OF HUNTSYILLE - -TA% INFORMATION
FY 1981 -1982
@ 0.72/100
PROPOSED FY 1982-
1983 @ 0.51/100
1. Evaluation less exemptions $169,817,639 $285,644,750*
2. Evaluation of Annexed Areas (included above) - -- $ 28,927,849*
3. Evaluation of improvements since last year (included above) - -- $ 15,312,720*
j4. 1982 evaluation of 1981 property (01 less 12 & 03) - -- $241,404,181
i 5. 1981 tax levy (0.72/100 evaluation) $ 1,222,687
) 6. 1982 tax levy on 1981 property @ 0.51/$1.00 - -- $ 1,231,161
7. Change In total tax on 1981 property FY 82 to FY 83 - -- + $ 8,474
8. 1982 tax on annexed property @ 0.51/$100 - -- $ 147,532
g 9. 1982 tax on new improvements @ 0.51/$100 - -- $ 78,095
1 10. Total taxes $ 1,222,687 $ 1,456,788
11. Tax rate on 1981 property to produce 1981 taxes 0.72 0.5065
112. Percent tax change 1981 to 1982 0.69%
l *Figures from Mr. Buddy Dodd, Central Appraisal District.
a
Mayor Nash noted after explaining the chart above, that 0.69% is about as close as we can get to holding
the line on taxes. He noted the tax rate is extremely confusing and the only reasonable way to consider taxes
is the total taxes that everybody pays.
COUNCIL ACTION
Councilmember Davis Asked that the City, through City Hall News, etc., make it clear that this is not
an across the board 2% or 4% raise, that it is not an even thing, and that some
people's taxes will go up and some will go down. Mayor Nash said we can all tell
them that the City did not raise their taxes a dime and if their taxes went up it
is because of an adjustment in th1 appraisal. He noted we have raised them 0.69%
or less than 1 %. Mayor Nash asked the Item reporter to cover that fact.
Councilmember Davis noted his surprise T at the amount of tax exempt land in th
City.
Counciimember Monday Noted another report was made on the Mainstreet Program last evening. She noted
citizen feedback has been very good. She invited interested citizens to review
the report in Bob Smith's Office prior to Friday.
ADJOURNMENT
tfuliy $.mitt ;d,
ut + Shaw, City Secretary
August 3, 1982