Loading...
1971-02-15 CC MinutesL CITY OF FARMERS BRANCH CITY COUNCIL MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING February 15, 1971 Those present of the City Council were: Mayor George G. Grimmer Mayor Pro Te m W. R. Linn Councilmen: Ray Flaherty Al Korioth Bill Binford Bill McClung (Arrived at 9:10 P.M.) City Manager Paul M. West City Secretary Ruth Ann Parish City Attorney George M. McDonald 4 L Mayor Grimmer called the City Council meeting of February 15, 1971 to order at 7:30 P.M.. J. W. Wade gave the invocation. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Upon a motion by Councilman Linn, a second by Councilman Flaherty, all voting "aye", approved the minutes of the City Council meeting of February 1, 1971,after the following corrections were made: 1. On Page 211 under heading, "NO OBJECTION OF ZONE CHANGE ON PROPERTY EAST OF DALLAS PARKWAY", let the record show that Council- man Flaherty seconded the motion and all voted "aye"; 2. On Page 211 under heading, "BID TABULATION - FIRE HOSE", let the record show the motion to read: }awarded the contract to the low bidder, W. H. Lumpkin and Associates, on a per foot basis, as listed below=, as recommend by the Fire Chief to allow the Fire Department to purchase a quantity of a new type hose (Polymer) for trial testing purposes prior to completing the order." 3. On Page 212 in Amendment No. 2, the word sufficient should read 'insufficient" in the fourth line from the bottom of Section 2. 04. This Amendment should replace the Amendment No. 2 in the Ordinance calling the election. 4. On Page 213 in Amendment No. 3, the phrase "right to case the deciding vote" should read, "right to cast the deciding vote", in the seventh line of Section 2. 05. 5. On Page 218 in Amendment No. 18, the phrase 'as near a practicable" should read 'as near as practicable" in the fifth line of Section 6. 12. 6. On image 219 in Amendment No. 19, the phrase "for the one council place which we are now nominating" should read "for the one council place for which we are now nominating" in the second line from the bottom in the second paragraph of Section 7. 03. Page 224. 7. On Page 221 in Amendment No. 4, let the record show, Councilman Flaherty opposed the motion. Councilman Linn, McClung, Binford and Korioth voted "aye". 8. On Page 221 in Amendment No. 7, let the record show, "Councilman T ,itin moved that Amendment No. 7, Section 2. 09 be completely deleted. Councilman McClung seconded the motion. The motion carried 4 to I with Councilmen Linn, -McClung, Korioth and Binford voting "aye", and Councilman Flaherty voting "no"." 9. On Page 222 and 223 under the heading, "Land Acquisition'", the property spelling of the property owner should be Durrett not Durrant. 10. On Page 223 under heading, "Mrs. Zelma Hill's Claim", let the second sentence read: "Mrs. Hill claimed she was hurt by stepping into a meter box. " COUNCILMAN McCLUNG'S ABSENCE Mayor Grimmer explained that due to a death in the family Councilman McClung was absent but might come in late. GIRL SCOUTS RECOGNIZED Mayor Grimmer recognized and welcomed Cadet Girl Scout Troop 1072. PUBLIC HEARING - REQUEST FOR A SPECIFIC USE PERMIT FOR DALLAS CHRISTIAN COLLEGE. Mayor Grimmer opened the public hearing. The area was shown on a transparency. The location being on the Dallas Christian College property west of Ford Road. Mr. E. Dean Barr, President of the College, presented his request for a Specific Use Permit which would allow them to secure a building permit for the construction of another building on the campus. Mr. Barr explained he was unaware that the property was zoned R-4 and that they had to obtain a "Specific Use Permit", until they applied for a building permit in January. A lengthy discussion was held concerning the access road to the college. Mayor Grimmer asked if anyone else was present to speak in favor of the request. No one spoke. M~Lyor Grimmer asked if anyone was present that wanted to speak in opposition of the request. No one spoke. A motion by Councilman Korioth, a second by Councilman Linn, all voting "'aye", closed the public hearing. After some discussion of the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission, a motion by Councilman Korioth, a second by Councilman Linn, all voting "aye", approved the Specific Use permit as requested by Dallas Christian College, contingent upon the recommendation of the Planning and Page 225. Zoning Commission which was that before a Certificated Occupancy could be issued for the building, a new or revised site plan be approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission; and, the plans to show all entrances and exits from the college property be from Ford Road. The site plan should include such things as current and future building locations, fire lanes, utility easements, utilities, drainage, elevations, and other normal things site plans include. PARK DEPARTMENT'S PRESENTATION TO BE ON NEXT AGENDA. The visual presentation on the Park Department's accomplishments during 1970 was notgiven due to the illness of the Park and Recreation Director, John Burke. The Council expressed desire to have this on the next agenda. BID TABULATION - WATER METERS After reviewing the bids on the different sizes of water meters and discussing the quantity to be used in one year, Councilman Linn moved to award the bid on water meters for a period of one year to Hersey-Sparling Meter Company with an estimated expenditure of $20, 000. 00. Councilman Binford seconded the motion and all voted "aye". The bid tabulation sheet is attached to this page. RESOLUTION OPPOSING NEW PROPOSED PENAL CODE. Mayor Grimmer explained some of the reasons why a new penal code was presented before the legislature. Mayor Grimmer told of some of the crimes and of the proposed fines and sentences of these crimes. Councilman Korioth suggested that the letter from Henry Wade opposing the proposed penal code be made part of these minutes. They are attached. A resolution opposing the proposed penal code was discussed and it was felt by the Council that the resolution was not strong enough and suggested some changes. The resolution was tabled until the City Attorney could corporate the suggested changes and would be considered later in the meeting. Mr. George Locus of the audience spoke in favor of leaving the word denounce in the proposed resolution. ORDINANCE NO. 871 - NO PARKING ON EAST SIDE OF VALWOOD CIRCLE POST PONED. Mrs. M. D. Gage presented a request to prohibit parking on the east side of the entrance of Valwood Circle. She Stated that it was dangerous because children played in this area and could run out from behind_a parked car, and with the street being so narrow, could get hit by a car entering the circle. Mayor Grimmer asked if anyone else would like to speak in favor of the proposed ordinance. The following spoke. Page 226. CITY OF FARMERS BRANCH BID TABULATION February 3, 1971 2;00 P. M. ONE YEARS SUPPLY OF WATER METERS Meter Description and Size Disc Meters 5/8" X 3/41, meter less connections 1" meter less connections 1-1/2" meter with flange 2" meter with flange Compound Meters 2" meter 3" meter 4" meter 6" meter F.M.C.T. (Fire Line Meters 4" meter 6" meter 8" meter 101° meter 10" X 12" meter Detector Check Fire Line Meters) 4" X 1" meter 6" X 1" meter 8" X 1" meter 1011 X 1" meter NEPTUNE METER CO. Amount of Bid-Unit Price 36.00 79.20 155.70 232.20 Not Available 659.40 1,096.10 2,186.10 826.79 1,564.36 2,340.98 3,120.15 Not Available Not Available Not Available Not Available Not Available HERSEY-SPARLING METED CO. Amount of Bid-Unit Price 34.07 74.80 146.60 217.95 398.50 619.00 1,019.00 2,081.00 911.00 1,641.00 2,396.00 3,436.00 3,973.00 368.00 464.00 719.00 1,306.00 '•.P * SFr HENRY WADE DISTRICT ATTORNEY DALLAS COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER DALLAS. TEXAS 75202 February 4, 1971 Chief Pete Green Box 14203 Dallas, Texas 75230 Dear Chief Green: During this month a bill containing sweeping changes in Texas I criminal law will be placed before our State Legislature for adoption. I believe that many proposals in this bill are de- trimental to effective law enforcement and urge that the adoption of this bill be opposed. Enactment of this bill, which embodies a whole new penal code, would result in severe reduction of the length of criminal sen- tences and would permit the possibility of much earlier parole than is now available. It is my opinion that such a reduction of criminal penalties is an open invitation to heightened criminal activity. Further, the proposed Penal Code-contains criminal defenses which are not presently available. These defenses would create additional jury trials and make it more difficult to obtain convictions. The proposed Penal Code also contains rules which would lengthen trial procedure and cause additional appeals. I believe such proposals are particularly undesirable at a time when our justice system is overburdened with criminal case load. The Dallas County District Attorney's Office, along with all Law Enforcement Agencies in Texas, has experienced the diffi- culties that are presented in implementing new laws and rules of procedure such as those promulgated by the Warren Court and those adopted by the Texas State Legislature in the latest revision of the Code of Criminal Procedure. I would hope that any broad change in our Penal Code would be delayed for some time to avoid compounding the present difficulties in applying criminal law. The committee which drafted this proposed code has worked under a cloak of secrecy, keeping its work product "confidential". In early December, 1970, the product was presented at a seminar in Austin, but until the middle of January copies of this code were not made available to interested members of the general public, the State Bar, or Law Enforcement Agencies. By way of example, the seven Judges of the Criminal District Courts of Dallas County were unable to obtain copies of this voluminous document for study purposes until this past week. Even though the general public, most lawyers, and law enforcement personnel have not been given an opportunity to study the proposed code, its drafting committee is aggressively pressing for its immediate adoption. As the passage of this proposed code would have a far reaching effect on the- administration of criminal justice in the State of Texas, I certainly urge that the Legislature postpone voting upon this bill until all interested parties have had a fair opportunity to make an in-depth study of this proposal. I would ask that the bill not be acted upon until the next session of the Legislature which would convene in January of 1973. In support of my observations concerning provisions of this code, I have prepared a brief memorandum of law for your con- sideration. This may be helpful in light of the fact that the proposed code with full interpretative commentary is 772 pages in length. If you agree with me that these provisions should not become the law of the State of Texas, and that the adoption of the proposed Penal Code should be opposed, or at least postponed for two years for proper consideration, then I urge that you contact your Legislators and voice your concern. Further, I believe that interested citizens in your area should be asked to oppose the passage of this bill by signing petitions to that effect and mailing them to their Legislators. PROVISIONS OF THE PROPOSED PENAL CODE REDUCED PENALTIES: Adoption of the proposed code would result in a general reduction in the length of criminal penalties. We feel that provisions which weaken criminal penalties are extremely undesirable at a time when criminal activity is so prevalent. The following comments point out the effect of the proposed code's penalty provisions: Many misdemeanor penalties would be cut in half. Section 12.32 of the proposed code provides that the maximum for a misdemeanor shall not exceed one year in jail, whereas presently many mis- s demeanor statutes provide for jail sentences up to two years in length. Further, the minimum sentences for misdemeanors would be drastically reduced. Section 12.05 provides that the penalty for any misdemeanor may be a fine without jail sentence. Section 12.33 provides that the minimum fine of $1.00 may be assessed as the complete punishment for any misdemeanor. Article 61 of our present penal code has been omitted from the proposed code. Article 61 provides that upon a second conviction of the same misdemeanor, a defendant shall receive double the punishment prescribed for such offense in ordinary cases, and upon a third or any subsequent conviction for the same offense, the punishment shall be increased so as not to exceed four times the penalty in ordinary cases. The proposed penal code has no provision for such enhancement of misdemeanor penalties with the exception that the third non-probated offense of misdemeanor theft would be a felony with a minimum sentence of one year and a maximum sentence of six years. This provision is of limited use to law enforcement due to the fact that most theft cases involve the taking of property iindcr the value of fifty dollars and under the proposed code, such cases would be handled in corporation court where conviction records are generally in- sufficient to prove the prior convictions. Section 12.31 provides that even felonies of the first degree such as murder, rape, and robbery have a possible minimum of cne year in the penitentiary. Further, Section 12.05 provides that the penalty for any felony may be a fine without penitentiary sentence. Section 12.22 provides that the fine for any cate- gory of felony may be as little as $1.00 and shall not exceed $5,000.00. Also, the maximum sentence for most serious crimes would be substantially reduced. (See attachment A) . k The proposed code deletes present Article 62 which provides that a maximum sentence shall be returned upon proof that a defendant has previously been convicted of the same or similar felony offense. Present Article 63 states that upon proof that a defen- dant has been convicted of two previous felonies, his sentences shall be assessed at life. The proposed code weakens this pro- vision by providing in such cases for a sentence with a minimum of one year and a maximum of 30 years. Section 3.02 and Section 3.03 of the proposed code provide that a person may only be sentenced to one crime for all offenses committed during a "criminal episode" which is defined as all conduct incident to a single criminal objective. The State must join in one trial all offenses committed during the episode; those not joined are in general barred from subsequent prosecution. Even though convicted of a number of offenses in the same episode, a defendant may.generakly be sentenced for only one. Concerning a judge's right to set consecutive sentences, the proposed code substantially limits this right in Sections 12.45 (d) and (e) which provide that the Ragregate maximum may not exceed 30 years imprisonment. Thus a defendant who has committed four or five first degree felonies may only be effectively sen- tenced for one. Proposed article 42.08 states that after a judgment of guilt or sentence is reversed or set aside, the sentencing court may not increase the severity of the original sentence. Under present Page 2 . law, a judge may increase-a defendant's sentence after retrial if there is evidence in the record of the defendant's misconduct subsequent to the imposition of the original sentence. This type of evidence is available many times where a defendant has been released on an appeal bond and engages in criminal conduct during the time his appeal is being processed. t The material in Attachment A compares many of the sentences pro- vided for in the proposed code with our present law. The severe reduction of theft penalties should be of particular interest to businessmen who are the victims of shoplifting and hot check artists. All citizens should be concerned by the reduction of penalties among all the listed serious crimes. EARLY PAROLE: Under the proposed code, criminals would be eli- gible for parole even more quickly than under present rules. The sentencing procedure would allow a minimum sentence to be set within a period of one year up to a number of years, equaling one-third of the maximum sentence. Section 15 (A) states that a criminal is eligible when he has served his minimum sentence, and further that credits for good behavior apply toward serving that minimum. As an example, in setting a 30 year sentence in accordance with the proposed code, a minimum sentence between one year and ten years would have to be set. The defendant serving that 30 year sentence would be eligible for parole when he had credit for the minimum, which could be as little as one year. We are opposed to further liberalization of our parole rules. INSANITY DEFENSE: Section 8.01 of the proposed code states that a person is not criminally responsible for crimes if at the time of the crime he was unable to conform his conduct to the requirements of the law as a result of mental disease or defect. This is basically the "irresistible impulse" rule and represents an extention of our present insanity standard and will result in more criminals being freed from criminal responsibi- lity. Out present "right from wrong" insanity standard is now Page 3 the law in 26 of the 50 states.` As the insanity defense is pri- marily raised by violent offenders accused of serious offenses, an extension of our present standard would result in such offenders being held in mental hospitals which many times have inadequate security, and commonly return such criminals back to society in short periods of time. We favor the retention of the present standard of criminal insanity. SEPARATE HEARING ON INSANITY ISSUE: Under the proposed code Section 2.02, a defendant has a right to demand that the defense of insanity at the time of the offense be heard in a separate trial before a different jury than the one that determines the guilt or innocence issue. This provision would force the State to have two jury trials where one now does the job. We are op- posed to adding unnecessary trials to the crowded dockets which now exist. INTOXICATION: Defense Section 8.03 states that evidence of voluntary intoxication is admissible in evidence if it is re- levert to negate an element of the offense. Thus it would appear that such intoxication is a defense to the crime. This represents an extention of our present rule which states that intoxication is not a defense, but may be considered in miti- gation of ~unishs^ent. Adoption of this proposed section would permit a criminal to "build" a defense by getting drunk prior to engaging in criminal behavior. We favor retention of the present rule. MISTAKE OF AGE DEFENSE: Section 21.12 (A) states that if the criminality of conduct proscribed in the proposed code depenJs on a child being younger than 16 years, (this includes statutory rape, consentual fondling of a child, and consentual indecent exposure to a child) it is an affirmative defense to prosecution for the conduct that the defendant believed the child to be 16 years of age or older. Presently, this offense is not recog- nized in the State of Texas nor in most American jurisdictions. We are opposed to creating this additional defense to sexual Page 4 crimes involving youthful victims. CORROBORATION OF TESTIMONY: Section 21.12 (D) states that a person may not be convicted of rape, sexual abuse, or indecent exposure on the uncorroborated testimony of the victim unless the victim made an outcry at the first reasonable time or within 48 hours of the offense. Presently no such rule limiting prosecution exists. Many victims of such offenses are reluctant to discuss such occurrences and occasionally the first outcry concerning a sexual offense is made more than 48 hours after the offense. We favor retaining the rule that a victim's testimony need not be corroborated. ARREST AND SEARCH: Section 9.51 severly limits a peace officer's right to use his firearm to effect arrest, or prevent escape from the scene of a crime. This provision substantially disarms an officer in providing that before an officer may use deadly force or the threat thereof, he must reasonably believe that the party being arrested used or attempted to use deadly force in com- mitting a crime, and that there is substantial risk that such party will kill or seriously injure another if the arrest is delayed. This provision would encourage-criminals to attempt to escape from peace officers. COMPULSORY JOINDER: Section 3.02 provides that the State must join in a single criminal action all offenses arising out of the same criminal episode. "Criminal episode" is defined in Section 3.01 as all conduct directed towards-the accomplishment of a single criminal objective. Section 3.03 Trovi.des that if a defendant is adjudged-guilty of a number of offenses arising from the same criminal episode he may generally be sentenced for only one of the crimes. Section 3.04 provides that the trial of one offense committed during a "criminal episode" would bar prosecution for other offenses committed during the episode. Thus, an acquittal for one offense committed during a criminal episode will bar prosecution for all offenses committed during the same "criminal episode". We favor joinder rules which Page 5 would aid in clearing trial dockets but strongly disagree with the approach found in the proposed penal code. This approach would in effect force the State to prepare and try multiple offenses in situations where an adequate penalty may be achieved in a trial on one offense. This rule adds unnecessary workload to an already overburdened justice system. JUDGE SENTENCING: Under proposed code, Section 42.02 (Conforming Procedural Amendments), punishments for criminal offenses would be set by judges. We strongly favor retention of the present rule that criminal sentencing may be done by a jury. Sentences set by juries serve as a clear and accurate indicator to our office of the community's attitude toward various offenses. As the cit- izens of Dallas County are the victims and potential victims of crime in this area, we feel they should have an opportunity to directly participate in setting the price for criminal conduct in this county. We feel that the uniformity of sentencing which is sought by instituting judge sentencing will not be achieved. Sentences set by an individual judge, of course, will be uniform but great diversity of sentences will exist from court to court, and from area to area throughout the state. Further, we urge that the present rule allowing the•criminal to pick and choose between judge sentencing or jury sentencing be abolished, and the right of such election be granted to the State's attorneys charged with enforcing the laws of the State. RAPE: Section 21.02 states that rape by force or threat (Where neither death, serious bodily injury or-the threat thereof are involved) shall be punished by a maximum of 12 years T.D.C. The present penalty for such offenses includes the death penalty or a sentence of life. We feel that this reduction of penalty is undesirable for a crime of violence. INDECENCY WITH A CHILD: Section 21.11 includes acts which are presently proscribed by the offense of fondling a child. The proposed code has set a maximum sentence for this behavior at Page 6' six years T.D.C. The present fondling statute carries a maximum of 25 years T.D.C. We favor the retention of the present penalty as a deterrent against child molesting. STATUTORY RAPE: Under proposed code, Article 21.09, the penalty for consentual intercourse with a female child would carry a maximum of six years T.D.C., unless the victim is 13 years of age or younger. Presently, such offenses carry a maximum of life or death. We oppose such drastic reduction of penalty for an offense that involves youthful victims. SODOMY IN PUBLIC: Under proposed code, Article 21.07, (A) (2) an act of sexual deviate intercourse in public would be a mis- demeanor carrying a maximum penalty of one year in jail. Such conduct presently is punishable as a felony carrying a maximum of 1S years T.D.C. We favor retention of the present penalty as a deterrent to such deviate behavior in public places. ROBBERY: Under proposed Code Section 29.02, robberies which do not involve the use of a deadly weapon nor involve serious bodily injury to a person carry a maximum penalty of 12 years T.D.C. Our current law provides a maximum sentence of life for such offenses. We favor retaining the present penalty as a deterrent to these crimes of violence. POSSESSION OF MARIHUANA: Section 48.07 of the proposed code defines "cannabis" or marihuana as an abusable drug. Section 48.11 circuitously provides that simple possession of mariliuan first offense shall be a class A misdemeanor. The maximum sen- tence for class A misdemeanors under the proposed code would be one year in jail. The minimum could be as little as one day in jail or a fine of $1.00. The present penalty for possession of marihuana is not less than two years nor more than life in the penitentiary. We feel that such drastic reduction in this penalty will serve as an invitation for more youngsters to use marihuana. Page 7 SALE OF MARIHUANA AND OTHER ABUSABLE DRUGS: Under Section 48.06 of the proposed code the sale of an abusable drug (includes marihuana) would caz•ry a penalty with a maximum of six years T.D.C. and a possible minimum, of one year T.D.C. or a fine of $1.00 to $5,000.00. The present penalty for sale of marihuana is not less than five years T.D.C. nor more than life. POSSESSION OF NARCOTICS: Section 48.05 of the proposed code defines such narcotic drugs as heroin, Morphine, and Opium as "dangerous drugs". Section 48.11 provides that possession of these hard narcotics, first offense, would carry a maximum sen- tence of six years T.D.C. and a possible minimum of one year a T.D.C. or a fine of $1.00 to $5,000.00. The present penalty for possession of hard narcotics is not less than two years T.D.C nor more than life. We are strongly opposed to reducing the present penalty for this serious offense. SALE OF NARCOTICS: Reduction of penalty for sale of hard nar- cotics such as Heroin and Morphine are unwarranted and undesirable from a law enforcement standpoint. Under the proposed code Section 48.04, the penalty for the sale of hard narcotics first offense would be a maximum of 12 years T.D.C. and a possible minimum of one year T.D.C. or a fine of $1.00 to $5,000.00. The present penalty is not less than five years T.D.C. nor more than life. We favor retention of the present penalty as a deterrent to dope pushers. PROVISIONS CONCERNING ORGANIZED CRIME: Law enforcement recog- nizes that bookmaking is the life blood of organized crime. Gambling operations in the United States provide organized crime with an estimated seven billion dollars revenue each year. This money is "reinvested" in loansharking operations, whole- sale narcotics trade, and sophisticated business swindles. i Despite these facts, we find that the provisions under which our office would prosecute an organized criminal offender are impotent. PajYe 8 Section 12.43 provides that an "organized criminal offender" may receive a sentence with a minimum of one year and a maximum of 30 years upon conviction for a second or third degree felony. To prove that the defendant is an "organized criminal offender", the State must prove that the felony is a part of a pattern of conduct continuing over a protracted period of time and carried on in concert by the defendant and ten or more other persons. Such standards are nearly impossible to prove and make this article useless to law enforcement. Section 47.04 (Aggravated Gambling Promotion) is the only gambling offense which would carry felony penalties. This statute is of very little use to law enforcement as the State must prove that the defendant is operating a gambling enterprise with another person on a regular basis. Such proof is nearly impossible to obtain in secretive criminal operations. Thus, we find that the only statute under which organized gamblers could be effectively prosecuted is Section 47.03, a misdemeanor carrying a maximum of one year in jail, and a possible minimum of one day in jail or a fine of $1.00. This is opposed to the four and five year maximum felony penalties found in our present gaming and bookmaking statutes. It is generally agreed that to obtain convictions of organized offenders, conspiracy prosecutions are most useful. Linder the proposed code such prosecutions for gambling activities are basically precluded by the fact that the one offense that is subject to proof (Section 47.03) is not a felony and conspiracy to commit a misdemeanor is not a violation of the law. Organized crime in Texas further is involved in the importation of hard narcotics in wholesale lots. The proposed penalties for possession of Heroin, etc., have been reduced to a minimum of one year and maximum of six years. The sale of Heroin penalty would be a minimum of one year and a maximum of 12 years. Con- spiracy to possess Heroin would be a misdemeanor carrying a min- imum of no jail time and a maximum of one year in jail. Conspiracy Page 9 to sell Heroin would carry a minimum of one year and a maximum of six years in the penitentiary. We certainly believe that the provisions of the proposed penal code are wholly inadequate to deal with organized crime. The references listed below will prove helpful in locating articles mentioned in the preceding commentary: Page 1: Section 12.33 concerning misdemeanor fine is section. 12.23 on page 117 of the final draft of the proposed code. ` Page 2: Section 42.08 concerning prohibition of increased sen- tence after appeal is incorporated into the conforming amendments on page 414 of the final draft of the pro- posed code. Page 3: Section 15 (A) concerning eligibility for parole is in- corporated into the conforming amendments in Article 42.12 on page 420 of the final draft of the proposed code. Page 4: Section 2.02 concerning separate jury trial on issue of insanity at the time of the offense is incorporated into the conforming amendments in Article 46.02 on page 388 of the final draft of the proposed code. Page 6: Section 42.02 (Conforming Procedural Amendments) con- cerning Judge Sentencing is found on page 402 of the final draft of the proposed code. Page 10 Attachment A--Page 1 PROPOSED CODE Section Offense 71in. 12.42 Extended term for Ha- 1 yr. bitual Offender (3rd non-probated•Felony) 1:.43 Extended term for or- 1 yr. ganized offender (o£ no value to law'enfor- cement as is virtually unprovable) 12.44 Extended term for Ha- 1 yr. bitual pelty thief (3rd non-probated mis- demeanor) (of limited value to law enforce- ment as most thefts will be prosecuted in Corporation Court where inadequate records are kept to prove previous offenses.) 'Tax. 30 yrs. 30 yrs. 6 yrs. 21.07 Public Lewdness 1 day or 1 yr. (includes sodomy $1 fine jail in public) P'? E SF..'kTT L A111 . Article Offense Vin. ax. 63 Same Al iT 0^.1AT I C LIFE 1436e 3rd Phonlifting 2 yrs. 10 yrs. offense wliere goods are under $50.00 2nd conviction for PE?dALTY DOUBLED same misdemeanor offense 3rd conviction for PENALTY same misdemeanor OUADRUPLED offense 524 Sodomy 2 yrs. 1S yrs. Attachment A--Page 2 PROPOSED CODE PRESPNT LAPS Section Offense Min. Max. Article Offense Min. Max. 21.09 Rape of a child 1 yr. or Life 1189 Rape 5 yrs. Death or (under 14) $1 fine Lire 21.11 Indecency with 1 yr. or 6 yrs. 535d Fondling 30 days 25 yrs. child (includes $1 fine jail fondling) 28.02 Arson 1 yr. or 12 yrs. 1314 Same 2 yrs. 20 yrs. $1 fine 29.02 Robbery (not 1 yr. or 12 yrs. 1408 Robbery 5 yrs. Life involving serious $1 fine (by assault) bodily injury or use of deadly i%eapon) 31.03 Theft ($250.00 or 1 yr. or 6 yrs. 1421 "50.00 or 2 yrs. 19 yrs. more but less than $1 fine more $10,000) Theft (more than $50.00 1 day or 1 yr. 1421 $50.00 or 2 yrs. 10 yrs. but less than $25.00) $1 fine jail pore Theft ($50.00 or less) $1 fine $200 1422 over $5.00 1 day 2 yrs. fine Tinder ~50.no P Attachment A--Page 3 PROPOSED CODE PRESENT LAW Section Offense Min. Max. Article Offense "Ain. ~'ax. 32.41 Issuance of Bad Checks $1 fine $200 567b 1Jnder $58.00 1 day 2 yrs. fine $50.00 or more 2 yrs. 10 yrs. 40.63 Prohibited 'Keapons 1 yr, or 12 yrs. 1723 Possession of 5 yrs. 25 yrs. (includes bombs) $1 fine Sec. 2 Bombs [and/or $1,000 to x10,00) Death if mayhem o r death results] 47.03 Gambling promotion 1 day or 1 yr. 652a Dookmakina 10 days yrs. (includes bookmaking $1 fine jail jail TDC etc.) 47.04 Aggravated Gambling 1 yr. or 6 yrs. 619 Keening Gaming 2 yrs. 4 yrs. Promotion (of no value $1 fine Table to law enforcement as is virtually unprovable) 625 Keening Premises 2 yrs. 4 yrs. for gaming 642c Policy Games 2 yrs. 4 yrs. 48.04 Sale of "Dangerous 1 yr. or 12 yrs. 725b(23) Sale of 5 yrs. Life Drugs" (includes $1 fine ',,Tarcotics Heroin, P,orphine, etc.) 48.06 Sale of "Abusable Drugs" 1 yr. or 6 yrs. 725b(23) Sale of 5 yrs. Life (includes `Marihuana) $1 fine nIarihuana Attachment A- Page 4 PROPOSED CODE PRRSF?NT LVq Section Offense ?Tin. `?ax. Article Offense "in. ?Tax. 48.11 Possession of."Dangerous 1 yr. or 6 yrs. 725h(23) Possession of 2 yrs. Life Drugs" (includes Heroin, $1 fine 'Jarcotics Morphine, etc.) 48.11 Possession of 1 day or 1 yr. 725b(23) Possession of 2 yrs. Life "Abusable Drugs" $1 fine jail `Iarihuana (includes Mari- huana) Mr. George Locus, who lives on the west side of Valwood Circle, stated that no parking was already on the west side and that if a car is parked on the east side of the street, only one car can pass. IkIr. Locus spoke in favor of no parking on the east side. Mr. Locus stated that people who do not live on the street park on this street. He explained that no one living in the circle needed the space for parking. Mayor Grimmer asked if an.yone was present to speak in opposition of the proposed ordinance. The following spoke. Mr. Bill Burks, 2873 Valwood Circle, stated if both sides were restricted to no parking there would be no space for extra cars if needed. He suggested if both sides were restricted why not restrict the whole cul-de-sac. . Mr. Arthur Runkel, 2855 Valwood Circle, asked if both sides were restricted to no parking where would the people park if one of them had social activities. Mr. Runk~l was opposed to the no narking on both sides. Mrs. Arthur Runkel stated she drives a school bus in and out of Valwood Circle and has no trouble getting in or out. She objected to no parking on both sides. After some Council discussion, Councilman Linn moved to table the actions on this proposed ordinance for No Parking on the east side of Valwood Circle, as requested, in order that the City Administration could study this situation and come back to the Council with a recommendation. Councilman Flaherty seconded the motion. Councilmen Linn, Flaherty and Binford voted "aye" and Councilman Korioth abstained. ORDINANCE NO. 872 - ORDER CALLING CHARTER AMENDMENT ELECTION. With the corrections being made as stated in the Approval of the Minutes, and the word except added after the word mayor in the third line of Section 2. 08 in Amendment No. 6, and, the word charge be changed to discharge in the second line of Section 9.18 in Amendment No. 16, and, the misspelling of of preserved be corrected in the second line of SECTION 7, a motion by Councilman Linn, a second by Councilman Flaherty, all voting "aye", passed the following captioned ordinance: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF FARMERS BRANCH, TEXAS TO CALL FOR A CHARTER ELECTION AND TO SET OUT THE PROPOSED CHARTER AMENDMENTS FOR SUBMISSION OF SUCH MUNICIPAL ELECTION HELD FROM 7:00 A. M. TO 7:00 P.M., APRIL 3, 1971; AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY. ORDER PASSED FOR CALLING AN ELECTION OF THREE COUNCILMEN- PLACE 1, 1-, -and- 5. After r viewin,,.,~.,the. ord r calling an election for Councilmen Place 1, 3, and 5, and fatter cofheeamri o pa°crl to the election judges and clerks from $6.00 to $2. 00 per hour, Councilman Linn moved to pass the order calling an election Page 22 7 for Councilmen Place 1, 3, and 5 on April 3, 1971 to be held at the Central Fire Station and appointing Wayne Glenn as presiding election judge, and Phil Hunker as ~Iternate presiditg judge. If Phil Hunker for some reason cannot serve, Jean Ogletree would then be asked to serve as alternate presiding judge. Councilman Korioth seconded the motion and all voted "ave" ELECTRICAL ENTRANCE PANEL AUTHORIZED City Manager Paul West explained why a new electrical entrance panel was need by stating: "The present electrical entrance panel at the City Hall has a rating of 400 ampers. It was found that the present panel now has a potential 390 ampere load connected, with no provision for over-currents during starting of compressor .motors, etc. This 390 ampere load existed before any remodeling work was begun on the City Hall. Additional lighting, air conditioner compressors, equipment planned for the future and a reasonable margin for safety will require that an 800 ampere panel be installed. Quotations have been received from three electrical contractors. The contractor submitting the lowest quotation is Groves Electrical Service. The cost for furnishing and installing the required panel is $1, 680. In addition, new entrance service wires must be run to accomodate the increased load. The estimated total cost is less than $2, 000. " After a brief discussion, a motion by Councilman Korioth, a second by Councilman Linn, all voting "aye", authorized the expenditure for the electrical panel in the new entrance to the city hall. ORDINANCE NO. 873 - AMENDING ORDINANCE 870 - PARENTAL RESPONSIBLE ORDINANCE. After making changes clarifying the age, a motion by Councilman Binford, a second by Councilman Korioth, all voting "aye" adopted the following captioned ordinance: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF FARMERS BRANCH, TEXAS AMENDING SECTION 4 AND 5 OF ORDINANCE NO. 870; THE PARENTAL RESPONSIBILITY ORDINANCE, SO THAT IT INCLUDES IN THE CURFEW, MINORS OF THE AGE OF 12 THROUGH 16 YEARS; AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY. _RESOLUTION OPPOSING HOUSE BILL NO. 189 - UNION DUES CHECK-OFF Mayor Grimmer read the proposed resolution opposing H. B. 189. After some discussion and corrections .made, a motion by Councilman Linn, a second by Councilman Korioth, all voting "aye", passed a resolution opposing H. B. 189, "Union Dues Check-off" , which permits any city over 10, 000 to authorize its employees to request and for the the city to honor the request, for check-off union dues, and provides "No city which makes voluntary payroll deductions for other purposes may discriminate against its employees by refusing to make deduction or administrative fees, the city must implement the policy without discrimination against its employees regarding deductions Page 228 for membership dues. and, which tends to legislate what a city must or must not do in regard to the administrative function of deciding what association's membership dues may or may not be included in the payroll deductions of the employees of the city. ADDITIONAL FUNDS APPROPRIATED FOR JUVENILE OFFICER. Mavor Grimmer explained that Farmers Branch has no juvenile officer at this time and since adequate administration of the parental responsibility ordinance increases the need even more, it has been recommended by the City Administration that the Council appropriate $6,300. 00 from the unappropriated reserve to pay the cost of a juvenile officer for the balance of this fiscal year. City Manager Paul West stated that one of the old patrol cars will be kept instead of auctioning it off to provide transportation if the Council should act favorably on this recommendation. After some discussion, a motion by Councilman Linn, a second by Council- man Korioth, all voting "aye", approved to appropriate $6, 300. 00 from the unappropriated reserve funds for a juvenile officer. RESOLUTION CONCERNING THE DRUG STUDY'S REPORT Mayor Grimmer read a resolution that had been prepared for the Council's consideration. Councilman McClung arrived at 9:10 P. M., as discussion was in process on this topic. The pros and cons were discussed on the Drug Study's report by the Council. After some discussion on the resolution being a starting point by setting up a Board, Councilman Linn moved to adopt the resolution presented. Councilman Korioth seconded the motion. After some discussion on the funding that would be needed, Councilman Linn withdrew his motion and Councilman Korioth withdrew his second. Councilman Linn made a motion to approve the resolution by making Section 5 to read, "That no funds have been committed or allocated for the adoption of this program at this time", and making Section 6 what was Section 5. Councilman Korioth seconded the motion. The motion carried 4 to I with Councilmen Linn, Korioth, Flaherty and Binford voting "aye", and Councilman McClung voting "no". The resolution is attached to this page for record. Page 229. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF FARMERS BRANCH, TEXAS WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Farmers Branch has received the report of the Drug Study Committee; and WHEREAS, it is of the opinion of the City Council that the drug abuse problem is serious in the City of Farmers Branch; and WHEREAS, the City Council agrees in general with the recommendations of the Drug Study Committee. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FARMERS BRANCH, TEXAS: SECTION 1. That the Steering Committee consisting of Al Korioth, W. D. Green, Tommy Standridge, W. J. Cooper, Newman Smith, and Kenneth Bush continue to implement their plan. SECTION 2. That the Steering Committee is hereby instructed to draft an inter-governmental agreement to implement the truth house and recreational center phases of the report of the Drug Study Committee. It is recommended that the draft include but not be limited to, the following provisions: Overall independent supervisory board be established for the further implementation and continuing operation of the truth house and recreational center phases of the Drug Study Committee's report. This committee is to consist of two representatives from each governmental agency, one of which is to be an elected official, the other to be a member of the agency's administrative staff. Each governmental subdivision is to have the power to remove its representatives for any cause it deems necessary at any time. SECTION 3. The Council recommends that the Steering Committee proceed with- out delay to take whatever steps are necessary to apply for funding for the truth house and recreational center phases of the Drug Study Committee's report. SECTIONA. That the intramural program should be implemented by the cooperative effort of the three (3) governmental agencies. Each agency being responsible for its portion of their program with the cooperation of the other agencies. SECTION 5. That no funds have been committed or allocated for the adoption of this program at this time. SECTION 6. That the City Council expresses its sincere appreciation to the dedicated citizens who served on the Drug Study Committee for their fine work in preparing the Drug Study Committee's report which we feel has contributed so much to our local community, DULY PASSED this the 15 day of February , 1971. MAJOR FOR E G. GRIMMER ATTEST: zty Secretary Ruth Ann Parish RESOLUTION OPPOSING NENA' PENAL CODE PASSED_ City Attorney George McDonald read a revised resolution opposing the new penal code. A motion by Councilman Korioth, a second by Councilman McClung, all voting "aye", passed the attached resolution opposing the new penal code that is up before the Legislature. CITY MANAGER REPORTS City Manager Paul West gave a report on some of the bills that affects cities which are up before the Legislature. He presented a resolution opposing House Bill 189 which has been previously discussed and House Bill 318. He stated House Bill 318 requires cities to raise the longevity pay of firemen and policemen from $3 to $5 per.nionth for each year of service. He explained that the cities should have the authority to decide whether more money should be spent by that city. After some discussion, a motion by Councilman Linn, a second by Councilman Korioth, all voting "aye", passed the attached resolution opposing to House Bills 189 and 318. The City Manager gave a very extensive and informative report on the operations of each department of the city. OTHER DISCUSSIONS 1. Councilman Linn gave a report on his trip to Austin where he appeared at the hearing of Senate Bill 77. This bill is proposed to form a Commission on telephone rates in the State of Texas. Councilman Linn read a statement that he gave at the hearing. He thanked the Council for letting him have the opportunity to go to Austin. 2. Mr. Doug Crocker, 13620 Sundown Trail, suggested a warning sign be put up 200 feet before the new stop sign on Dennis Lane. He suggested that the sewer .mains be cleaned every six months. He complained of dogs running loose in the area of his home. He reported profanity words that were written on the park equipment in Cox Park and suggested this equipment be painted. 3. Mrs. Doug Crocker reported that a red car and a blue car (she thinks a corvette) drag race up and down Sundown. EXECUTIVE SESSION Appointments to Board of Equalization Upon a motion by Councilman Korioth, a second by Councilman Binford, all voting "aye", appointed Dick Thomas, Ken Quevreaux, and Charles McKee to the Board of Equalization for the coming year. Page 230. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF FARMERS BRANCH, TEXAS WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Farmers Branch deems it urgent to voice its vigorous disapproval of the proposed new penal code which is in the form of a bill which is to be placed before the State Legislature for its adoption. WHEREAS, the new penal code will result in severe reduction of the length of the criminal sentences and will permit the possibility of a much earlier parole, it is an invitation to increase criminal activity. WHEREAS, the proposed penal code might very well increase the volumn of criminal cases which is already an overburden upon the present judicial system. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FARMERS BRANCH, .TEXAS: SECTION 1. That the proposed penal code bill is hereby opposed by the governing body of the City of Farmers Branch and it hereby makes a plea to the citizens of the City of Farmers Branch to contact State Legislators to voice their concern. SECTION 2. That this proposed penal code should be rejected. SECTION 3. That this resolution is a firm request to the State Legislature to reject the proposed penal code and to draft a new penal code to strengther~ rather than weaker the criminal statutes. DULY PASSED this the 15 day of February , 1971. ADOPTED AND APPROVED: MAYOR GEO G Elp . GRIMMER ATTEST: a City Secretary Ruth Ann Parish RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF FARMERS BRANCH, TEXAS WHEREAS, by reason of house Bill 189, which will require cities to deduct union dues, and House Bill 318 which will require cities to raise the longevity pay of firemen and policemen from $3 to $5 per month for each year of service; and WHEREAS, the above bills if adopted will dictate to all cities over 10, 000 in population what they must or must not do without any determination or decision to be made by the cities; the cities are forced to comply with the above bills if they are adopted and without any say so in the matter; and WHEREAS, the House Committee on Urban Affairs will meet at 7:30 P.M. on Wednesday, February 17, 1971 at the Old Supreme Court Room, Capitol Building in Austin to consider both of the above bills which in effect spend the money of the city and dictate extra work for the cities without their approval; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FARMERS BRANCH, TEXAS: SECTION 1. That the governing body of the City of Farmers Branch, Texas detests and opposes the House Bills 189 and 318 because they both dictate that extra money and extra work must be expended for purposes that the state deems necessary without any approval by the city. SECTION 2. That the House Bills No. 189 and 318 must not be adopted for reasons stated above and for the reason that only the Governing Body and the Administration of the City of Farmers Branch should have the authority to dictate or decide whether or not more work should be added or whether. more city money. should be spent for whatever purposes. DULY PASSED the the day of 1971. ADOPTED AND APPROVED: ADJOURNMENT. Upon a motion by Councilman Korioth, a second by Councilman Binford, all voting "aye", adjourned the meeting of the City Council of February 15, 1971 at 10:45 P. M. . Mayo Ge rge i.mmer City Secretary Page 231.