Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-13-1993 r' CITY COUNCIL AGENDA PACKET APRIL 13, 1993 tl~a„.= rug AGENDA CITY OF DENTON CITY COUNCIL April 13, 1993 Special Call Session of the City of Denton City Council on Tuesday, April 13, 1993 at 5:15 p.m. in the Civil Defense Room of City Hall, 215 E. McKinney, Denton, Texas at which the following items will be considered: 5:15 p.m. 1. Executive Session: A. Legal Matters Under Sec. 2(e), Art. 6252-17 V.A.T.S. 1. Consider Goldfields' claim. B. Real Estate Under Sec. 2(f), Art. 6252-17 V.A.T.S. C. Personnel/Board Appointments Under Sec. 2(g), Art. 6252-17 V.A.T.S. 2. Receive a report and hold a discussion regarding jurisdiction of juveniles charged with Penal Code and other State statute offenses and give staff direction. 3. Receive a report and hold a discussion regarding an update on the state's progress with the Hartfelt Humane Society and give staff direction. 4. Receive a report and hold a discussion regarding alternatives to the ad-valorem tax and give staff direction. 5. Receive a report and hold a discussion regarding auditing the G.T.E. franchise agreement and give staff direction. 6. Receive a report and hold a discussion regarding a storm water utility and give staff direction. 7. Receive a report and hold a discussion regarding community Development Block Grant priorities and give staff direction. 9. Receive a report and hold a discussion regarding the Vision for Denton - 21st Century project and give staff direction. 9. Miscellaneous matters from the City Manager. 10. New Business This item provides a section fo: Council Members to suggest items for future agendas. AQN1Qe No. AQWs l Dale s/- i9 - 93 C E R T I F I C A T E I certify that the above notice of meeting was posted on the bulletin board at the city Hall of the City of Denton, Texas, on the day of , 1993 at _ o'clock (a.m.) (p.m.) CITY SECRETARY NOTE: THE CITY OF DENTON CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS IS ACCESSIBLE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT. THE CITY WILL PROVIDE SIGN LANGUAGE INTERPRETERS FOR THE HEARING IMPAIRED IF REQUESTED AT LEAST 48 HOURS IN ADVANCE OF THE SCHEDULED MEETING. PLEASE CALL THE CITY SECRETARY'S OFFICE AT 566-8309 OR USE TELECOMMUNICATIONS DEVICES FOR THE DEAF (TDD) BY CALLING 1-800-RELAY-TX SO THAT A SIGN LANGUAGE INTERPRETER CAN BE SCHEDULED THROUGH THE CITY SECRETARY'S OFFICE. ACCOOOFD i ii COUNCII III.. . L ii H a. r.: XT 0 +i+ ~ t J b. 17 ♦O Q 1 p O ~ ~ u t O~~J ~OL~ 4L00~ : 117132: LEI= } f t t { I l ~MnCtNo -D/02 hM L CfTY of DENTON, TEXAS MUNICIPAL BUILDING / 215 E. McKINNEY / DENTON, TEXAS 76201 i MEMORANDUM DATE: April 9, 1993 TO: Lloyd V. Harrell, City Manager FROM: John F. McGrane, Executive Director of Finance SUBJECT: JUVENILE COURT IMPACT The attached memo from Tom Josoy, Municipal Court Administrator, addresses the impact a juvenile court will have on our current system. Please advise if you have any quesv';iops or need additional information. /af AFF005A8 8171566.8200 D/FW METRO 434.2529 ApW l' OFFICE OF THE MUNICIPAL JUDGE MEMORANDUM T0: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL FROM. SANDRA H. WHITE, MUNICIPAL JUDGE SUBJECTr Jurisdiction of Juvenile Offenders, Ages 10 to 16 Committing Class C Misdemeanors Other Than Traffic Offenses DATE: March 26, 1993 i I This memorandum is written to highlight a recent problem which has surfaced concerning whether the Municipal Court should exercise jurisdiction over juvenile offenders, ages 10 to 16, who are to be charged with Class C Misdemeanors other than traffic offenses. Council direction is requested. Before discussing the current problem, let me first discuss the prior decisions which were taken concerning this matter. In October 1991, legislation went into effect which gave Municipal Courts jurisdiction over juveniles, ages 10 to 16, for all offenses except Public Intoxication, In 1987, Municipal Courts were given urisdiction over juveniles, ages 10 to 16, for all offenses, and in 1989, the Legislature returned jurisdiction back to the County Courts. In 1987 and 1988, we handled these juvenile cases until the 1989 legislation went into effect. In November 1991, you were briefed on House Bill 944 which gave Municipal Courts the right to exercise jurisdiction over juveniles. In a memorandum from Harlan Jefferson to Lloyd Harrell, dated October 19, 1991 (attached as Exhibit A), you were advised that based on the wording of the legislation, our legal department as well as myself took the position that we did not have to exercise jurisdiction over juveniles, ages 10 thru 16, unless they were charged with violating a City ordinance. (see memo from Tanya Cooper to Harlan Jefferson attached as Exhibit B, dated October 16, 1991.) The position taken was that we could waive our jurisdiction allowing the County Court to handle these offenses. The Council was advised in that memo and also on November S, 1991, of the problems the Court would face if we exercised jurisdiction over these cases. The Council decided to accept the Staff recommendation which was to waive our jurisdiction and allow the cases to be filed with the County Court. (See transcript of November S, 1991, Council Meeting, Page 421, attached as Exhibit C.) + Agendl Imo=-- _ Honorable Mayor and City Council DqN- -1/ i3 9.' March 26, 1993 Page two G~ The Juvenile Department at the Police Department began to send juvenile cases through the Diversion Program at the County Court, this was done as far as can be determined without any required waiver of jurisdiction documentation, so in April 1992, I wrote to Judge Whitten seeking to discover how she preferred us to handle the waiver of our jurisdiction. (See attached letter as Exhibit D.) No written response was received to the waiver letter, but in June 1992, Judge Whitten visited me to discuss ideas on a Teen Court Program. During this visit, she indicated that she had received my letter and believed that we could not waive our jurisdiction and that she was going to direct ie staff not to accept any more cases. Basically, Judge Whitten felt that the legislative intent was for Municipal Courts to exercise jurisdiction on at least first offenses, before we could waive jurisdiction on these cases. She and I met several other times to discuss the matter, but she did not change her position. In October 1992, the Police Department began receiving cases back from the County Court for the reason of "No Jurisdiction". (Copies of several examples attached as Exhibit E.) In February 1993, the Legal Department advised the Police Department to refrain from sending any cases to the County Court or to the Municipal Court until direction could be obtained on how to proceed. (See memo attached as Exhibit F.) In addition to this historical background, the Denton Independent School District has indicated a desire for the Police to issue citations to juvenile offenders committing offenses on school property and have those cases heard in Municipal Court. The DISD and the Police Department are holding cases until it is determined where jurisdiction lies. I still concur with our earlier interpretation of the law--which is that we can waive our jurisdiction and I still believe that we would be hard pressed to handle these cases for the reasons stated in Exhibit A, Page 2; however, it does not appear that we can force the County Court to exercise jurisdiction if they are interpreting the law in a different fashion. The question at hand then seems to be how to proceed. Sandra H. Wh to SHWrcm Attachments - Exhibits A - F I Agenda IleaL.._'' c1Tr Ol D/AiroN, IrMS MUN10PAL 8UIL04NG / 215 E MQKINNEY / DENTON, TEXAS 76201 M E M O R A N D U M j DATE: October 29, 1991 I TO., Lloyd v. Harrell, City Manager FROM: Harlan L. Jefferson, Treasurer ' SUBJECT: New Legislation Affecting Municipal Court Operations This report was prepared in response to the City Council's request for staff to meet with the Municipal Judge and prepare a detailed analysis of the recently approved state legislation affecting the Municipal court. The report was developed in a format to facilitate the city council providing staff with directions regar ing each bill. However, you will notice that many of the requiuments of the bills are mandatory, and we have complied with most of those provisions. For each bill, we provided a summary, impact analysis and therecobimmenldation where the municipalrcourt operations is also presented in the report summary. The individuals who participated in the development of this report were Sandra white, Municipal Judge, Michael Jez, Police Chief, Tanya Cooper, Assistant City Attorney, and myself. However, we relied exclusively on the legal department to summarize the bills. The above mentioned bills are listed as follows: I• $~~rv e! Houma Bi11 No,~,j House Bill No. 2 ends portions, else 6675 a-1, 6701d, and 6687b of Ve W e Tex 1 Statutes to add the requirement of show ev of financial responsibility in to register a v , •+bt&in motor order t vehicle inspection, r upon applying o ',g a driver's o license. This legislation also es e types of acceptable evidence of financial res ility. T types of evidence acceptable to satisfy thin. quirement are follows; Pa 817/566.8200 DiFW METRO 4342529 I y Agelldatte~n~_ _...__Memo to Lloyd V. Harrell, City Manager October 29, 1991 Page 10 I this procedure, and has included a time deadline of five (5) i ha working days for submission of, thew reports. Imtct of House Bill No. 944 - This bill will increase the workload of the Municipal court regardless of whether we retain or waive the additional jurisdiction. In the event we retain the jurisdiction, we will have to consider the following: 1. The cases will have to be maintained separately from the adult casea. I 2. The cases will have to be processed manually because of the sealing requirement. 3. Tracking of defendant conviction history will have to be done manually in compliance with the bill. 4. Cases will require closed hearings. This will necescitate the creation of a new docket. 5. Fines in excess of $100.00 cannot be assessed. 6. Because warrants cannot be issued for the arrest of juveniles, we have virtually no enforcement mechanisms. Juveniles will be able to go unpunished. In the event the city waives its jurisdiction and allow the County's juvenile court to handle these cases: M I. All information and findings must be forwarded to the y juvenile court. 2. The juvenile court has a wide array of options to encourage juveniles to adhere with judgements. These options involve the use of juvenile probation officers to sentencing the juvenile to detention in Texas Youth Commission facilities. ' Recommendations it is recommended that we waive this new jur- isdiction, This is recommended for the court will have no enforcement capability to assure compliance with its Judgements. This would make us less effective than the countyts juvenile court. Additionally, when considerinq the Minimal fine amounts and the fact that payment will only be on a volunteer basis, the tiMe, energy, and effort exhausted on Page 2 I ApandsNQ Agendaltint__ Memo to Lloyd V. Harrell, City Manager October 29, 1991 Page 11 these cases will not be offset. ue believe the city could only do an effective job with these cases if we establish a teen court. VTT." y,y_of House Bill go, 960 r House Bill No. 960 creates a new sectio/~e le 45 in the CMe of Criminal Procedure to spy de a municipal court judge with discretion td dant to enter a treatment program for chemical nd upon completion of this program gain disa pending criminal charge. The Court may defer pron a plea of guilty or polo contenders or on a tinuilty for a period of 90 days without entering an ado! guilt if the Court finds that the of tense resul was related to the defendant's chemical dependeng application for court-ordered treatment of t efendant is tiled in accordance with chapter 462 of the lth and Safety Code. At the conclusion of the deferral p , the judge shall dismiss the charge if satisfactory ev ce is presented that the defendant was committed t and completed court-ordered treatment. If the defend does not present satisfactory evidence of completion, thr' ourt may impose the fine assessed or impose a lesser fine 40 the imposition of any fine results in a final conviction of the defendant in the case. Impact o! House Bi+ V6. 960 The discrationary"luthority, regarding deferred adjudication, that this bill,&ovides the Municipal Judge already existed under Articl *v45.54 of the Code of Criminal Procedures. Therefore, wd'do anticipate any problems implementing this bill. The*pe of deferral it offers is very similar to the other de! als offered by the Municipal Court. The primary differeqbetween this bill and the Municipal Judge's existilt' authority is that this bill does not allow for the asse nt of a special expense to cover cost of administering the se. It is believed that the state wants to provide al natives to fine payment for dealing with Class C o nders. 4eaommendatiool It is recommended that as a standard practice, we continue to offer deferrals for this situation ' under article 45.34 of the Code of Criminal procedure. ?his will permit us to charge a special espense to offset adminis- tration cost. We find that most defendants would rather pay the special owpense fee than be convicted of a crime. Page 3 09te ~i : f Ul< I j i Tin OCT _.J OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTO ME-MORANDUM TO: Harlan Jeffers m, Treasurer - FROM: Tanya cooper, Assistant city Attorney SUBJECT: New Legislation Affecting Munichpal Court Operations DATE: October 16, 19)1 Pursuant to your request, I have analyzed selected pieces of newly enacted legislation which may have an impact upon municipal Court operations. These bills are listed as follows: Sousa bill No, 2 amends portions of Articles 6675 a- and 6687b of Vernon's Texas Civil Statutes to add the1, 'bent of showing evidence of financial responsibili re- to register a vehicle, obtain motor vehicle inspe , or upon applying or renewing a driver's license. The p quirements will hopefully increase the number of person to provide evidence of financial responsibility and r e to provide citations being issued for this vioets the number of also specifies the types of acca tabl This legislation responsibility. The t p e pence of financial tisfy this requirement are asp ollovsevida ~ cceptable to satisfy i 1. a liability insuranc minimum amounts required he lacy Motor in Vehicle least the Responsibility Act or a, Safety tocopy of the policyr 2. a standard pr of liability insurance form promulgated by thy' xas Department of Insurance and issued by a Zia y insurer that includes: (A the name of the i rs (B) the insurance policy numbers (C) the poll rinds (D) the name and address of each insuredt ( s olic limits or a statemp coverage the p nt that the minim poll Y complies with at least the Aott ants of liability insurance required by the Act (F) khe make and model of each covered veh i 3ti ,pan insurance binders a copy of a certificate issued by the Department of Public safety (DPS) showing that the vehicle is covered • by self-insurancei Page 1 'Aediearrd 1o Quud4 Sarkx' { apendaltem_~., ;r~~,_ Harlan Jefferson, Treasurer October 16, 1991 Page 5 Punishable by fine of not more than $5ao, other than parking or pedestrian violations. lious• Bill S98 amends provisions of the Uniform Tra relating to driving safety courses and provides th • r Act exercise discretion in granting a request to t ri may safety course under either the mandatory driving upon the written motion of the de[endant sub e e sections at any time prior to final disposition. p d to the court dent was required to request to attend sly, the defers- prior to the citationta a ing safety course dismissal of a ticket underethencs in order to require Uniform Traffic Act, As a pre orY provisions of the many driving safety course re matter, courts allowed time. This legislation more to be processed after that the Court to exercise die ovidea express authority for course requests which ar on in granting driving safety appearance date. a after the defendint's original This legislation a in the event a creates a new requirement on ttg Court, completion wit ndant tails to provide proof of course must notif the time allotted by the Court, the Court y afendant in writing of the default and require the person appear for a show cause hearing. If the defen- dant can good cause why the submit o the Court as required, othelCOUr completion may naliwas ownan exte of time during which the defendant may submit the uni certificate of course completion. If the defendant f to appear at the time and place for the show cause ring, this would constitute an offense punishable in the me manner as a violation of wrlbkst~y Y gouse D1l1 iio.~~f~e amends a n umber of statutes relating to the handling of situations involving grants a municipal court additional ujuriedictioneforgcriminal prosecution of juveniles (persons 15 and 16 s of a. Previously, municipal courts had jurisdiction overajuv nilesein offenses involving a violation of a motor vehicle traffic ordinance of an inco ` municipal court rporated city or town in this state. Now, offenses involving a mild meanor punishable y finet my ether than the offense of public intoxication and offenses involving a violation of a penal ordinance of a political subdivision. e Page 2 • agenda No Age ode11eq_ / e:! Harlan Jefferson, Treasurer October 16, 1991 Page 6 This legislation, however, allows municipal courts to transfer their jurisdiction to the juvenile court in certain situations and rearm M this transfer in specific instances. The bill provides a municipal court shall waive its original jurisdic- tion and refer a child to the juvenile court it the child has previously been convicted of: 1. two (2) or more misdemeanors punishable by fine only other than a traffic offense or public intoxica- tion) 2. two (2) or more violations of a penal ordinance of a political subdivision other than a traffic offense) or 3, one (1) or more of each of the types of misdemean- ors listed above. A municipal court may waive its original jurisdiction and refer a child to juvenile court if the child: 1. has not previously been convicted of a misdemeanor punishable by fine only other than a traffic offense or public intoxication or a violation of a penal ordinance of a political subdivision other than a traffic offense) or 2. has previously been convicted of fewer than two (2) misdemeanors punishable by fine only other than a traffic offense or public intoxication or two (2) violations of a penal ordinance of a political subdivi- sion other than a traffic offense. Additionally, if a municipal court retains its original jurisdiction in these cases, the municipal court in which there is pending a complaint against a child alleging a violation of a misdemeanor offense punishable by fine only other than a traffic or public intoxication or a violation of a penal ordinance of a political subdivision other than a traffic offense shall notify the juvenile court and shall furnish the Juveniatterle for court with a the copy of has not dispositions waived its original jurisdiction. 2t is my understandinq the Juvenile court for Denton County has developed a fora for this proce- dure, and has included a time deadline of five (5) working days for submission of these reports. .:?Jr/7TI Pr ;iW y?„~.r4.~y y.,, ^r:^1*'ST :v1' ti Page 3 /VWaNo D3 le Harlan Jefferson, Treasurer October 16, 1991 - Page 7 Clearly, whether the Municipal Court retains its newly created jurisdiction or opts to transfer the applicable non-traffic offenses to the juvenile court, this new legislation will require additional time be spent in processing these cases. Juvenile cases must be worked manually since they are sealed files which must be maintained separately from adult files and now the juvenile's history of convictions must be tracked to comply with the mandatory provisions of this legislation. Additionally, juvenile cases present numerous enforcement problems for a municipal court. In the event a juvenile fails to comply with the court's order in a case or fails to pay any fine assessed, a warrant cannot be executed for the incarcera- tion of a juvenile offender allowinq the juvenile's failure to comply to go unpunished. On the other hand, the juvenile court, assisted by juvenile probation officers, has a wider choice of available remedies to assist in the enforcement of its orders. (~~y , a 4P, M1 creates a new section, (Article 45.56) in the Code of Criminal Procedure to specifically provid municipal court judge with discretion to allow a defen o enter a treatment program for chemically dependenc upon completion of this program gain dismissal of a ps iminal charge. The Court may defer proceedings on a guilty or nolo contenders or on a finding of guilty period of 90 days without entering an adjudication t if the Court finds that the offense resulted from as related to the defendant's chemical dependency an application for court-ordered treatment of the d ht is filed in accordance with Chapter 462 of the Heal Safety Code. At the con- clusion of the deferral p , the judge shall dismiss the charge if satisfactory ev, a is presented that the defendant was committed for and eted court-ordered treatment. If the defendant does present satisfactory evidence of com- pletion, the Cou y impose the fine assessed or impose a lesser fine an imposition of any fine results in a final conviction o;. defendant in the case. ' )OW , This t bet case deferral will operate basically like all other rral situations currently being allowed in the Denton 0io itCourt and should not present any insurmountable am to implement if the Court chooses to exercise this new n. . However, this new section does not provide for the ,+k assessment of any special expense to the defendant which is specifically allowed under Article 45.54 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for suspension of a Court's sentence and Page 4 ACe~daNo EXHIBIT C Agenda tar,__ CIT: OF DENTON CITY COUNCIL MINUTES NOVEMBER 5, 1991 /J The Council convened into the Work Session at 5115 p.m. in the Civil Defense Room. PRESENT: Mayor Castleberry; Mayor Pro Tom Hopkins; Council Members Alexander, Perry, Smith and Trent. ABSENT: Council Member Chew 1. The Council convened into the EXaautive t+w~ aeu~e ; legal matters (considered sstLl.:~> fhthtar'. Cami V. City of Dantcn. at ai and Cq ettl•ement offer in Gard r v. City), real ostat e1/board appointments. err "~!~'~~A~M k~1! iMetil!4'~, "1a4~'lbrM°~•.~1s4i1+~N~p. . " ' .~YYYrrM1.ArHIW ylirly dvft ~ri ~ d• nr.. iil r ~ Y rr 1 ~A JIr .I , The Council received a report and held a dtacussion regarding legislation passed by the 72nd Legislature that might have an impact on this Municipal Court procedurally, fiscally or both. er, stated that this report was prepared in w's r1r MOt i'11+1~~-%N" i4 approved state legislation affecting the icipal Court. For each bill, a summary, impact analysis and recommendation where + appropriate was provided. Staff members providing input regarding + the bills included the Municipal Judge, Chief of Police, Assistant. "b City Attorney and Treasurer. f ' •~~y ''rr `St):i~7!?`~ ~J.S i e ~ ~a q t:'4 4a.11 .L.ti 3.' , n'," ,ZS1sj'~1~.~~~w.~r Vr This bill added the requirement of showing evidence of f~aMt~bial responsibility in order to register a vehicle, obtain vehicle inspection or upon applying or renewing a dri Lcense. It 1 also specified the types of acceptable ev a of financial responsibility. The bill reworded tb~, quage creating the I offends of operating a motor vohiele.q&Wout required evidence of financial responsibility and prapt#dd for an increased penalty range. The overall effect of Aho bill would be an increase in the number of motorists aW*11►lto show evidence of financial responsibility, result in fewer citations for this violation. In addition, the City gpuld be required to train staff on the types of evidence accel a to satisfy the requirement of financial responsibility,t..kevs police officers check the suspected violator's driving history and file higher charges through the District , Attorney' O[fice for second and subsequent oftenses which would be outsidt Municipal Court jurisdiction, update the Affidavit of Probable cause to reflect new types of evidence acceptable to show financial responsibility, change the citation to reflect the new name of the Act and provide a warning regarding subsequent convictions. The recommendation of the Committee was that the City Page 1 2 Apenda No l2~- City of Denton City Council Minutes Agentlallem_._~.._.____..._. November 5, isgl (hte._ Page 2 C complete the action needed to become in full compliance with H.B. No, 2. Consensus of the Council was to proceed with tie staff recommendation. House Bill No 70 This bill provided for an additional $3 court cost to be assessed on all convictions under the Uniform Traffic Act. These funds were to be maintained for the municipality. The bill also changed the eligibility requirements for a person attending a driving safety course and created a condition that the defendant provide the Court with proof of financial responsibility before a driving safety course may be granted. Staff recommendation was to continue complying with H. H. 7P. Consensus of the Council was to proceed with the staff recommendation. Hcus■ 9111 Ne 166 subdivisions Nfrom 6es ab ishing or atsaintainl,lq andsystem for evaluating, promoting, compensating, or disciplining a peace officer based on the issuance of a specified number of traffic citations or a municipal court judge based on the amount of revenue collected from traffic convictions. It did not require any action by staff or the City. i House Bill No. 407 This pill related to increasing the fine for certain misdemeanors and amended some court costs. The only action required of staff was programming changes to the municipal court software which would accommodate the new court cost. This was done in September. It was recommended that the City continue complying with H. S. 407. it was possible that the Judge would Increase fines for these offenses isithisr on the prior reon a cordas of b this defondant,cnbowover, it awa not anticipated that there would be any drastic increases. Consensus of the Council was to proceed with the staff , recommendation. House 5111 No -g This bill amended provisions of the Uniform Traffic Act relating to I 4MV,8No 4 2 1 City of Denton City council Minutes November 5, 1991 Page 3 driving safety courses and provided that the court 'may exercise discretion in granting a request to take a driving safety course under either the mandatory or permissive sections upon the written motion of the defendant submitted to the court at any time prior to final disposition. The legislation also created a new requirement that in the event a defendant failed to provide proof of course completion within the time allotted by the court, the court must notify the defendant in writing of the default and require the person to appear for a show cause hearing. If the defendant could show good cause why the proof of completion was not submitted to the court as required, the court may allow an extension of time during which the defendant may submit the uniform certificate of course completion. It was recommended that the City not extend the time period a defendant had to request to take a driving safety course and comply with the remainder of the bill. Consensus of the Council was to proceed with the staff recommendatiotn., ~lflJ iiYwilVS i This bill criminal granted a municipal court additional jurisdiction for prosecution of juveniles. The municipal court jurisdiction had been extended to include offenses involving a misdemeanor punishable by fine only other than the offense of public intoxication. Staff recommendation was to waive the new jurisdiction. This was recommended as the court would have no enforcement capability to assure compliance with its Judgements. This would make the City less effective than the County's juvenile court. Additionally, when considering the minimal fine amounts and the fact that payment would only be on a volunteer basis, the time, energy, and effort exhausted on these cases would not be offset. It was felt that the City could only do an effective job with these cases~if a teen court were established. Consensus of the Council was to proceed with the staff recommendation. {L L ~ I 7h. bill provided that a municipal court judge had the discretion depend ~n e4"Want to enter a treatment program for chemical 19n of this program, gain dismissal of a Fending criminal cYh~rge:,,,~ p~(y difference between this bill and the municipal judges ii~'lIr!!wg' t the bill did not allow for the assessment of a special ewe cost of administering the case, it was believed that t e' Its wanted to provide alternatives to fine payment for dealinq with Page 2 ' 2 9 Agerdalleq- OgMIB.~L~ _ 3 City of Denton City Council Minutes November 5, 1991 Page 4 Class C offenders. It was recommended by staff that is a standard practice, the City continue to offer deferrals for this situation. That would permit the City to charge a special expense to offset administrative costs, it was believed that most defendants would rather pay the special expense fee than be convicted of a crime. Consensus of the Council was to proceed with the staff recommendation. Houss Bill No 1142 House Bill 1742 created an offense for a person to knowingly aacommercial idri ertsolicense. verification operator of a commercial vehicle could not attend a driving safety course and be granted a deferred adjudication for dismissal of a traffic offense if the offense was one defined as a serious traffic violation. This bill would require municipal court software. it was r citation* that the City comply with the bill by revising the citation form and the Municipal Court software. Consensus of the Council was to proceed with the staff recommendation. House Bill No 2181 This bill created penalty enhancements for the offenses of Purchase of Alcohol by a Minor, Consumption of Alcohol by 'a Minor and Possession of Alcohol by a Minor. It also provided that the court may require a defendant upon a first conviction for any of the previously listed offenses to attend an alcohol awareness course approved by the Texas Commission on Alcohol and Drug Abuse or a similar alcohol awareness course approved by the court. A mandatory portion of the bill would require the municipal court to maintain history files on Alcoholic Beverage Code violations in order to assess the proper fine amount. it was the staff recommendation to utilize the existing deferral program instead of the discretionary portion of this bill. Consensus of the Council was to proceed with the staff recommendation. Senate ei1l No 35= This amendment specified that the law enforcement agency that executed the arrest warrant or capias may request payment of this fee from the Court, provided that the request was made not later y -423 AgerlaI terj_. ii • City of Denton City Council Minutes November 5, 1991 Page 5 l"/) than the 15th day after the date of the execution of the warrant. This situation may be handled by an intarlocal agreement between law enforcement agencies. The executing agency would not seek to claim any warrant fees and allow 11 warrant fees to remain with the processing law enforcement agency. Staff recommended that the City enter into an intarlocal agreement and develop a mechanism to process requests from jurisdictions that were not a part of the agreement. Consensus of the Council was to proceed with the staff recommendation. a~.El~,e_ Bill No 4 60 I This bill allowed for the assessment of court costa not to exceed $5 for cases involving parking or stopping vehicles in violation of City ordinances. The funds generated from this now fee were to be earmarked to fund city programs for school crossing guards. In the event the city did not operate a school crossing guard progress the city may deposit these funds in an interest-bearing account or expend these funds for programs designed to enhance child safety, health or nutrition, including child abuao prevention and intervention and drvy and alcohol abuse prevention. It Vas recommended that the City not increase this court cost on parking gruel 1191n% V h/s33• vL~l•rishel Ih a would ~ont L s w~ s *Lsl Bns s a;er Irau4gs ssu• asalslOllss 7~q~gPeh• iys l~ we recommended to utilize tha revenue from the mandatory court cost to offast the city's existing child safety Program. Consensus of the Council was to proceed with the staff recommendation. Sonata Bill No 757 This bill provided that driving safety courses, in order to be acceptable for dismissal of violations of the Uniform Traffic Acts b the e conducted in Cantrat Education Agency approved schools. Also court docume t tsion was elii mated. It was recorsmend•d that the City ypec of completion comply with this bill ,s there were no discretiona bill, ry erase of the Consensus of the Council was to proceed with the staff recommendation. ` Senate Hill No 8a This bill allowed a peace officer to issue a citation that gave an 1 Page 3 I 2 4 AQeodo No Ageodallem City of Denton City Council Minutes D#8 -2 -f November S, 1991 Page 6 accused written notice of when and where to appear in front of a magistrate rather than taking the person into custody. Staff recommendation was that whenever feasible, the City issue a citation as opposed to arresting defendants. Consensus of the Council was to proceed with the staff recommendation. Jefferson continued that many of these bills increased the workload of the Municipal Court by adding time consuming tasks. The staff was already overburdened with procedural changes resulting from case law evolving in higher courts. rncreasinq the Court's automation capability should occur before attempting to evaluate the staffing levels. Three potential areas of improvement were an automated answering phone system, a word processing system, and initiate the process to rewrite or replace the Municipal Court computer system. The emphasis would be on locating the most cost effective system to meet current and foreseeable future needs. The Council then convened into the Regular Session at 7r00 p.m. in the Council Chamhers. I , PRESENT: Mayor Castleberry: Mayor Pro Tom Hopkins; Council Members I Chew, Perry, Smith and Trent. ABSEFt: Council Member Alexander I 1. Pledge of Allegiance The council and members of the audience recited the pledge of Allegiance. Council Member Alexander joined the meeting. 2. TNo Council considered approval of the minutes of the Regular Session of October 15, 1991 and the work Session of October 221 1991. Mayor Pro Tom Hopkins asked that the minutes be considered separately. , Hopkins motioned, Perry seconded to approve the minutes of October 150 1991. On roll vote, Alexander "aye", Hopkins "aye", Smith "aye", Chew "aye", Perry "aye", and Mayor Castleberry ways". Motion carried unanimously with council Member Trent abstaining. Aoeada Na EXHIBIT D Agenda 1A~ . _ CITyofDENTON,TEXAS MUNICIPALBU/L&NG/DENTON,TEXAS76201 TEL EPHONE 1817) 5 66-8200 OFPCE 19 ME MM OPAL ✓UOGE April 2, 1992 i r Honorable Darlene A. Whitten Denton County Court at Law No. 1 ! 210 S. Woodrow Lane Denton, Texas 76201 RE: waiver of Juvenile Jurisdiction Dear Judge Whitten: The City of Denton Municipal court, after review of House Bill 944, has decided to waive its' jurisdiction over all Juvenile offenses, except those involving violations of City Ordinances. We would like to know what procedure to implement to facilitate our waiver of these cases. We had hoped that a "blanket" waiver would be sufficient, however, if you require a waiver on a case by case basis, please advise. Respectfully ~a/ ~submitted, SANDRA H. WHITE Municipal Judge SHW:cm cc Debra Drayovitch, City Attorney Tom Josey, Municipal Court Administrator I i Page 1 Gertaonle~a 4 Ralt Speed Letter.a 904 ! l 41.gNAP- JW,, FCMS Thwd GOWWWWOM IS an EXTRA COPY Rnan Vol low and 90dano4topes d you wom to 4p two Coon `and poldawod Cq Speed Letter. , Agenda No Agenda ltarri :o~ecr~,da:~..aa, c>~ dm,.., ~.t Do C•QA.tic,~ .Ga ^ d ~ la ..Os • ~ J6.adi.f~l► a► ard,o 6~ MESSAGE n Rag T -t Qa..e4,aQ II ~a ~n A~ ~UeQ3 .a 2c v u Date, 3 Sipne~ REPLY apa0 oaad Date Signed oMOAtn RECIPIENT-RETAIN Ill CO", RETURN HNK COPY anlga e* • Y: ~'~~.'~}hi'lvii ~'.!~'~ri~ c My i ~A~ :o%i $s ~'~Y'.~!>ti. _i, .Sb?~.~~r AJ8;3,~'y:i~ " ,'4, -tQ • : is , Page 2 1 ~4Q9nde No _ - - Apendzrhe~L ~ ~ EXHIBIT E [)atti a o y CRIMINAL DISTRICT ATTORNEY iUVZNILE DIVISION ACTION TAKEN CHILD'S NAME: CHILD'S DOB: 7-2-76 OFFENSE & DATE: MIP 11-7.92 COMPLAINTANT: State ACTION TAKEN: Retumed REASON: No Jurisdiction DATE: 11-16-92 G!~ ACTION TAKEN BY: ELIZABETH A. PARMER Page 1 Agenda No Agenda Item`a era`. Y_- - g3 _.A CRIMINAL DISTRICT ATTORNEY JUVENILE DIVISION ACTION TAKEN CR[LLD'S NAME: i CULD'S DOB: 4.1-76 OFFENSE & DATE: DISORDERLY CONDUCT 11.18.92 COMPLAINTANT: DOUG BOYDSTON ACTION TAKEN: NONE PLACED IN FILE TO USE ON DISPOSITION REASON: THIS IS A CLASS C MISDEMEANOR AND THERE IS NO JURISDICTION. I DATE: 11.23.92 n ACTION TAKEN BY: ELIZABETH A. PARMER Page 2 Agendaito.-n, [t~te._~"1 CRIMINAL DISTRICT ATTORNEY JUVENILE DIVISION ACTION TAKEN CHILD'S NAME: CHILD'S DOB: 4.16-76 OFFENSE & DATE: Theft ur20 11-19-92 COMPLAINTANT: Montgomery Wards ACTION TAKEN: Returned REASON: This is a class C Misdemeanor and there 13 no jurisdiction. DATE: 11-24.92 ACTION TAKEN BY: ELIZABETIi A. PARMER Page 3 lp, agonMNo -e) . Agendalfaq- Date CRIMINAL DISTRICT A'TTOIRNHY JUVE141LE DIVISION f ACTION TAKEN CHILD'S NAME: CHILD'S DOB: 4-8-76 - OFFENSE & DATE: TIIEFT U/20 12-10.92 COMPLAINTANT: WINN DIXIE 4 ACTION TAKEN: RETURNED TO POLICE I REASON: NO JURISDICTION DATE: 12.14.92 ACTION TAKEN BY: EUZABETII A, FARMER Page 4 i 1 II Ago~;di No EXHIBIT F 0_0 1 OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY MEMORANDUM _37ly TO: Cary Matheson, Captain, Denton Police Department FROM: Tanya Cooper, Acsistant City Attorney SUBJECT: Filing of Class C Misdemeanors Against Juveniles DATE., February 10, 1993 i As we discussed in our conversation of Friday, February 5, 1993, Police officers should discontinue the filing of Class C misde- meanor charges against juvenile defendants through the Denton County Court-at-Law. When TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. sec. 51.08 was amended in September, 1989, the city Council determined the Mu- nicipal Court Judge should exercise provisions contained within that section to waive jurisdiction over all cases involving juve- niles other than traffic violations. This situation has apparently not proven to be an acceptable solution to the prosecution of these matters and Judge Darlene Whitten has requested that these cases no longer be presented to her Court. Therefore, until direction can be obtained and any new filing procedures for juvenile cases developed and implemented, please ad- vise your officers that fine-only penal offenses and ordinance vio- lations involving juvenile offenders should not be filed through the Denton County Court-at-Law. There should be no change in the way you presently deal with juvenile offenders charged with traffic offenses or violations classified as Class B misdemeanors or above. As I said, I would welcome any suggestions you or others within your department might have for an effective method of dealing with the problem of juvenile offenders. Please let me know if you have any questions regarding this matter or if I may be of any assistance to you. Tanya A. Cooper TC:br po: loyd V. HHar_.rfeI , City Manager 11 APPROVED! Debra A. Drayovitch E t%~1\WRKkAMIILI.164 I I :CITY ! ~~~~COUNCIL H F f I II I.~ ' ♦ I I ~ die r 4 r ~ c t s e 13 Q e M It QQ~~ f Mllw- ltl: I i agenda No Y r3 - , . Agenda Item A y ;ITY of DENTON, TEXAS MUNICIPAL BUILDING / DEN TON, TEXAS 76201 / TELEPHONE (817) 566.8200 ` MEMORANDUM I ` DATEi April 8, 1993 TOs Harlan Jefferson, Director of Treasury Operations I FROMe Tom Joeey, Municipal Court Admintstrator j SUSJECTs JUVENILE CASE IMPACT UPON MUNICIPAL COURT I ~ The potential Juvenile came load in Municipal Court would be approximately 30 cases per month. If this Police Department starts filing cases generated from public schools as has been proposed, another 30 cases per month would result. These cases would requires 1. Additional hearings and trials which would require more services from the Judge, Prosecutor and Court Clarke Office. 2. Separate and confidential files and record keeping to include computer files. I Detail of additional resources needed for juvenile cases in the Court Clarks ' Office. 15 hours per week Assistant Court Representative for document processing, docket preparation and hearingst approximately $8,300 per year. I one personal computer and software for case work and file trackingt approximate ;,30000.00 one time cost,* One four drawer ljcking file cabinet for the confidential files at approximately $500.00 one time cost.* The total cost for new juvenile came processing in the Municipal Court Clerks Office would be approximately $13,800 for the first year and $8,300 per year personnel resource thereaftor. I Tom Joeey • At the present tine, the Municipal Court Clarks Office does not have enough space for any additional equipment, so an alternate work site would have to be found. wP r AAA0154D i I, i AW0 0 3 D C11 Y of DENTONx TEXAS MUNICIPAL BUILDING / DENTON, TEXAS 76201 / TELEPHONE (817) 568_8307 Ollice of fhe City Manager TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Lloyd V. Harrell, City Manager DATE: April :3, 1993 SUBJECT: Update on Texas Department of Health Enforcement of Hartfelt Humane Society The City staff has been in close contact with Texas Department of Health (TDH) officials regarding their enforcement efforts on Hartfelt Humane Society. This contact has been ongoing since the meeting between city staff, TDH officials, and the Denton Humane Society on March 19. City staff will continue to be in contact with TDH officials at least on a weekly basis until this issue is resolved. Jerry Drake, Assistant City Attorney, wrote a letter to TDH's staff attorney relating the city's concern with the situation and asking to be kept apprised of the State's enforcement actiona. He will be contacting the attorney weekly. Nonie Kull, Environmental Health Services Manager, has also been in contact with TDH's veterinary staff expressing the City's interest in TDH enforcement activities and will be contacting that office weekly and asking for the TDH's schedule of enforcement. Animal Control staff indicated that no dogs were visible at Hartfelt Humane Society on April 7 but that dogs were seen outside on April B. There was also some indication that some things are being inside moved out of Hothe facility wever, there (is enoaevicarload dence off they things being entirely closed down. Additionally, any citizen complaints or information relating to the operation of Hartfelt Humane Society given to staff will be recorded and forwarded directly to TDH staff. Nonie Kull will dlso be in close contact with the Denton Humane Society to keep that organization informed on the progress of the State's enforcement actions. John Glover, Pollution Control and Abatement Officer, also sent, a notice and order letter to Steve Johnson, one of the owners of Ag"deNo pia Agenda ltqff [big y-i3 - 9-9 Hartfelt, regarding the illegal discharge into the creek behinds is facility. The notice requires Mr. Johnson to cease wastewater discharge into the creek. This was sent certified mail and Mr. Johnson signed for it. The notice gives him 20 days to come into compliance with City regulations. The notice and order is attached. Staff will compile information regarding TDH's enforcement activities and other related information as it becomes available. Please advise if I can provide additional information. k RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Lloyd V. Harrell City Manager Prepared by= Catherine E. Tuck Administrative Assistant V-1di No Agenda IteR__ 1 1 CITY of bENTON, uws WATER RECLAMATION PLANT / 1100 MAYNILL ROAD / DENTON, TX 76208 April 2, 1993 CertifS1d MeiI P 782 036 425 r Steve R. Johnson 2321 Leslie Street Denton, Texas 76201 pursuant to Section 26-189 City of Denton Re! Notice and order Code of Ordinanceal to wit: abatement of wastewater discharge to a natural outlet. Dear Mr. Jehnseni On March 29, 1993 S reinspected the creek behind your property (Hartfelt Humane Society) located at 1800 Ft. Worth Drive, Denton, Taxes. My inspection revealed evidence of a recent wastewater discharge to the creek from an enclosed kennel on your property. The discharge of wastewater to a creek (natural outlet) or to any storm newer is a violation of Section 26-189 of the Code of Ordinances. Corrective action must be taken to abate this violation within 20 calendar days from the service date of the notice and order. All wastewater discharge to the creek or ground surface must be terminated. Abatement may be accomplished by discharging all wastewater to the sewerage system, Discharge points to the sewerage system must be constructed in such a way which will prevent surface water infiltration to the sewerage system, Mother method of abatement may be achieved by plugging the floor drain in the enclosed kennel. Dog feces and excess food in the kennel could be disposed of as solid waste in the municipal landfill. Then the kennel area could be mopped and this water discharged to the sewerage system. The person to whom the notice and order is issued may appeal the notice and order to the environmental appeals committee by filing in writing with the executive director of utilities an appeal and filing fee within ten (10) days of the service of the notice and order. Failure to comply with the notice and order and failure to file a timely appeal could result in legal action. ✓t I i /,t8,31520 J ~gendaNo _ 9.~ -D i~ agendaltam 3 ~i Steve X. Johnson 6 page two I I trust that this will not be necessary. If you have any questions please contact me at (817) 383-7597, Respectfully, ((nn{{ John Glover, Pollution Control and Abatement Officer xci Debra Drayovitch City Attorney I r rymrva NO ---1+.G--+=~ 'u + Slend a. R: Comotete items f and 7 whin additional services en dulred, and complete items ~ Agendalt J put your add,eef in the' RETURN 10" Space on the -evens aide, Failure to do this vib piii this Mill 'W ~ -from being awned to you ~TThr~~r4_r_n_rii It* Will rove ;de yo r_th-!_nomay} ~jrEgn Qtill , r,d 11 and e~d1re ec t dc6v5!yf For addrfona! fees Ilea Foowmg aenicae are ' b O onsuit pon.nn f Dete_ L e dcF Wet or addA;one1 serviCelsl re¢ueatedd t ❑ Show to whom dellve ed, data end addnsaee's addiess 2. ❑ Putdcted Delivery y u(~ (Fria rAarprl IFtrra rMra rJ 3. Article Addleesed to: 0. Article Number Steve K Johnson P 182 036 425' 2321 Leslie StreetT -~paof Service: U Regletend O Inland Denton, Texas Ncerhned Ocoo 76201 0 Goren Mail Q' ern Rhcno Always obtain signarme or addrsnes I'.. or agent and DATE DELWERED. 5. Sign - Addressees S. Addrusfa')Addrese IOA'LY J x ` , f )t } T Jr trg,i fired turd fee paid) 8, %nerure - Agent X 7. Date of Delivery { PS Form 3841, Apr, 1989 .UeaFO, UUnae+s DOMESTIC RETURN RECEIPT . CS rorif l 3800, l n Inoo E r " T ~ F, o ro r R r9 v hj N R y i ' 7 e ^ r+ ii, pip rr, .s ! Z 0. C, PU ~ EA rn rD g d N N r _ t(77N In f V ;;::h E f II♦ t1tf~T♦ ^ + TM ~ ~ cif f T~♦i1 .N ~t + ~C I T y~ I:I:' 21ij{tfi'; 'afCOUN CIL I i I 1,417 iMT g~ o s e pp~" 6GtD~p~o` 71 x: I CITY Of DENTON, TEXAS MUNICIPAL BUILDING / 215 E. McKINNEY / DEN TON, TEXAS 76201 { i MEMORANDUM i h DATE: April 9, 1993 TO: Lloyd V. Harrell, City Manager i FROM: John F. McGrane, Executive Director of Finance SUBJECT: AD VALOREM TAX The Ad Valorem tax has long been a primary revenue source for funding of the General Fund. The problem with this approach is that in order for the revenue base to expand and meet increasing demands, the tax base must grow through new development, increases in property valuation, or through a tax rate increase. In the years where significant development occurs, or the economic climate has driven market values upward, thereby increasing assessed values, tax rates could remain constant or even decrease and still produce sufficient tay.revenues. Problems occur in years of slight or stagnant economic growth where little value is added to the tax rolls. To compound the problem, this normally occurs in recessionary times, and in order to stimulate growth tax incentives are generally used in order to compete for potential future developments. Also, in recessionary times, market values either stop increasing, or even decline and thereby cause the tax base to level out or shrink. Exhibit A demonstrates the fluctuations in the annual values associated with the ad valorem tax for the City of Denton. As you can see the values peaked in 1989 and have decreased the following three years. The second problem with the Ad Valorem taxes are the effect of tax exempt properties on the tax roll. Denton has considerable tax exempt property within its corporation limits. The two universities, Denton State School, FEMA, etc., all take away from ` property being added to the tax roll, although the presence of these institutions still require services to be provided to those areas (i.e., streets, transportation, safety, etc.). Therefore, the expenditure demands on the general fund are not supported by the primary revenue source the Ad Valorem tax. Exhibit B illustrates how other local communities tax rates and valuations compare to Denton's. Again, as you can see the rates are considerably lower. 8171566.8200 D/FW METRO 434.2529 J I AP* No CITY of DENTON, TEXAS MUNICIPAL BUILDING / 215 E. MCKlNNEY / DENTON, TEXAS 76201 MEMORANDUM i DATE: Apri:'. 9, 1993 TO. Lloyd V. Harrell, City Manager FROM: Jobn F. McGrane, Executive Director of Finance SUBJECT: AD VA 1GREM TAX I The Ad Valorem tax has long been a primary revenue source for funding of the General Fund. The problen with this approach is that in order for the revenue base to expand and meet increasing demands, the tax base must gross through new development, increases in property valuation, or through a tax rate increase. In the years where significant development occurs, or the economic climate has driven market values upward, thereby increasing assessed values, tax rates could remain constant or even decrease and still produce sufficient tax revenues. Problems occur in years of slight or stagnant economic growth where little value is added to the tax rolls. To compound the problem, this normally occurs in recessionary times, and in order to stimulate growth tax incentives are generally used in order to compete for potential future developments. Also, in recessionary times, market values either stop increasing, or even decline and thereby cause the tax base to level out or shrink. Exhibit A demonstrates the fluctuations in the annual values associated with the ad valorem tax for the City of Denton. As you can see the values peaked in 1989 and have decreased the following three years. The second problem with the Ad Valorem taxes are the effect of tax exempt properties on the tax roll. Denton has considerable tax exempt property within its corporation limits. The two universities, Denton State School, FEMA, etc., all take away from property being added to the tax roll, although the presence of these institutions still require services to be provided to those areas (i.e., streets, transportation, safety, etc.). Therefore, the expenditure demands on the general fund are not supported by the primary revenue source the Ad Valorem tax. Exhibit B illustrates how other local communities tax rates and valuations compare to Denton's. Again, as you can see the rates are considerably lower. 8171566.8200 D/FW METRO 434.2529 y agenda No ~3 -D~ Agenda llerr ~ Dale Memo to Lloyd V. Harrell ~f 7 April 9, 1993 Page 2 The final area where Ad Valorem taxes, as a primary General Fund base, causes problems is in the area of competition for tax dollars. The City currently competes for ad valorem property tax with the county and the school district. Exhibit C demonstrates how the various tax rates have increased for the past ter, years in all three areas. In addition, the City also competes in ad valorem taxes for revenues in order to retire debt for needed capital projects. In order to fiscally respond to the changing environments, alternative revenue so+irces should be explored in order to balance the General Fund resources. Listed below are several potential areas and are presented for review and discussion purposes: • Sales Tax - The tax rate on items sold within the City of Denton is 7.25%. Of the 7.25% generated, the city receives one (1$) percent which produces between $5.5 and $6 million per year. The State Legislature is currently addressing a possible amendment to the state tax code which would allow ! the City of Denton to vote on increasing its sales tax percentage in one-eighth increments up to a maximum of one-half of one percent. The passage of a vote to increase the sales tax would then be used to offset ad valorem taxes. Once again, this would allow for the possibility of redistributing the base of revenues in the General Fund. It would also allow those areas that are tax exempt to help contribute toward the financing of basic services through the use of payroll dollars which could be generated into sales taxes collected on purchases. If a full one-half of one percent were voted, approximately $2.75 to $3 million of gales tax would be used to offset ad valorem taxes. • Impact Fees - The next area that could be utilized is impact fees. These fees are assessed on properties based on the additional costs of service a particular development has on the city. It thereby shifts the burden of paying for increased services levels based on the increments of those new properties. Even though the new property would be added to the roll, if impact fees were utilized they would be used to offset any increases in the ad valorem tax rate. • User F1e1 - These fees shift the emphasis from utilizinc general tax dollars provided by all _ 93 -G/a? Agenda No Ageodaltem a~ Memo to Lloyd V. Harrell o/ April 9, 1993 `3 f Page 3 G/ citizens to revenues derived from receipts from fees that are charged to individuals that actually receive the service. These types of fees can range anywhere from ambulance service to restaurant inspection fees. The concept is that the revenue received from the fees either totally or substantially pay for the cost of the service provided. It is recommended that if this type of fee were to be considered, a comprehensive revenue fee study should be done in order to determine the actual cost of service. This would allow any implementation to be based on recovery of cost. Once a study was completed, fee adjustment would be reviewed by City Council before implementation. • Storm Water Utility - Considerable discussion has revolved around the issue of a storm water utility. The basic concept is the shifting to a fee basis from a tax base revenue source which would allow for the services to be continued while not impacting the ad valorem tax. It also allows the equitable distribution of the fee rather than having a broad general tax applying to all tax accounts. • park Dedication Fees - Once again, the concept is to utilize fees from the broad general tax base and apportion them to specific areas which are tied to various developments. A park dedication fee would require mandatory rash contributions and/or land dedication of park and recreation facilities. This would help pay for not only the acquisition, but the operation and maintenance of those types of facilities and would lessen the General Fund Ad Valorem tax which currently pays for these types of services. • Special Districts - Special districts is a means of creating districts that generate revenue to pay for specific purposes. An example of this is a downtown improvement district which would limit a service to a specific area and would be funded by an assessment on the properties in that area. A drainage district is another type. Again, the concept is that the areas where the improvement benefits the specific property owners then the owners would be assessed for that service. There are several types of districts that could be explored. AgondaNo _ Agenda Item__`~_ Ikie. ~1i3" 93 Memo to Lloyd V. Harrell y 7 April 9, 1993 Page 4 In addition to special district, special assessments are similar whereby property owners would agree to have a special assessment levied upon their property in order for an improvement (i.e., sidewalk, street improvements, etc.). These are just some of the ways that various alternative revenues sources could be implemented in order to either hold down or offset the tax rate that is currently in effect in Denton. The primary driving force in the tax rate for the City of Denton is the amount of tax exempt property and the decrease in the amount of assessed valuation. Although the City has not had the growth that other areas (i.e., Lewisville and Carrollton) has, its population has grown and does require services comparable to surrounding communities. The question remains what is the best method for f financing the continuing demand for service. If you have any questions or need any additional information, please advise. JFMcG:of AFFOOSA6 '14 1 EXHIBIT A i APPRAISAL ROLL COMPARISON 43 v S t Difference Difference Compared to Compared to Preliminary Roll Certified Roll Preliminary Certified Year Final Roll Roll 1992 1,965,941,225 1,891,722,188 (0.038) *1,912,818,288 0.0112 1991 2,043,852,257 1,951,304,490 (0.0453) 1,972,288,683 0.0108 1990 2,035,653,064 2,036,603,285 0.0005 2,092,796,973 0.0276 1989 2,257,406,373 2,128,213,395 (0.0572) 2,138,626,212 0.0049 1988 2,278,350,910 2,134,291,272 (0.0632) 2,138,360,945 0.0019 1987 2,146,731,452 2,050,294,577 (0.0449) 2,057,864,825 0.0037 * THIS TOTAL IS THRU THE THIRD 1992 SUPPLEMENTAL ROLL EXHIBIT B O 0 TAX RATFJVALUATION COMPARISON 25 S 1992 1991 1990 1989 low Rate Tax Value Rata Tax Value Rate Tax Value Rate Tax Value Rate Tax Value j Denton .7180 $1,891,722,188 ,6851 $1,951,304,490 .6551 $2,036,603,285 .6183 $2,139,001,561 .5928 $2,138,360,945 Carrollton .5866 $4,424,820,214 .5540 $4,500,530,043 .5540 $4,678,571,569 .5500 $4,801,531,776 .5100 $4,857,957,706 Lewisville .5608 $1,979,260,799 .5556 $2,038,625,059 .5321 $2,119,645,645 L.4807 $2,108,719,593 .4329 $2,008,361,462 J i y Agenda No 2 - Apentl~l4~~T ~ ~~f Date r~l L TAX RATES (10 Year History) SCHOOL YEAR CITY DISTRICT COUNTY STATE TOTAL 1984 0.5600 0.810 0.2120 0.00 1.5820 1985 0.5900 0.880 0.2116 0.00 1.6816 1986 0.5900 0.850 0.1750 6A0 1.6150 1987 Y 0.5900 0.7aU 0.2308 0.00 1.6108 1988 0.5928 0.770 0.2254 0.00 1.5882 1989 0.5928 0.830 0.2259 0.00 1.6487 1990 0.6183 1.065 0.2410 0.00 1.9243 1991 0.6551 1.228 0.2647 0.00 2.1478 1992 _ 0.6831 1.380 0.2844 0.00 2.3476 1993 0.7180 1.470 0.2924 0.00 2.4804 ♦H a.y ♦..Jn . r...w ri ...1Nr.~a1.2'ri. ~~CITY'~=='=~~ - - COUNCIL :J.r rt+l+i .tt i♦ y: I+ I x rr2.tf. } C r'{~jII . z+. Tmm X. m, ti I 2 I '2. i~ + ~~O~ v s~ a n 0 0 a { il.' ~ D CITY of DENTON, TEXAS MUNICIPAL SUILDING / 215 E. MCMAINEY / DENTON,,'EXAS 76201 MEMORANDUM j DATE: April 9, 1993 TO: Lloyd V. Harrell, City Manager FROM: John F. McGrane, Executive Director of Finance SUBJECT: GTE FRANCHISE AUDIT The City of Denton entered into a franchise agreement with General Telephone Company on October 4, 1983. The agreement allows GTE as a telephone utility to utilize the city's right-of-way for rendition of general local and long distance telephone business. in exchange for this right, the agreement calls for GTE to pay to the City of Denton two (2%) percent of the annual gross revenues for the preceding year received by the telephone company for the rendition of local exchange telephone transmission service to customers within the corporate limits of the City of Denton. The agreement is for a twenty (20) year period and will expire in the year 2003. This agreement was primarily an extension of prior franchise agreements dating back to the 19400s. I The deregulation of the telephone companies brought about many changes for telephone companies and the service provided. In order to accommodate these changes, certain types of services were j reclassified and recorded as revenue accounts thus making the formula for calculating the franchise fee more difficult. In 19880 the City hired M.A.S., Inc., to do a franchise audit on GTE, Lone Star Gas and Sammons Cable companies. The audit was performed and was paid for on a contingency basis. No errors were found for Lone Star Gas or Sammons Cable. The GTE audit, however, brought forth two issues. The first dealt with how the formula for calculating the fee was programmed. With the reassignment of revenues to various accounts, several revenue accounts had to be included in the formula for calculating the fee. The audit verified that certain customer codings were not included in the base calculation of the formula. As a result of the audit, GTE changed its base to reflect the proper allocation and we have no indication that the formula is not being allocated correctly. 8171566.8200 01FW METRO 434.2529 AOSINNa Agentlaltem.._ Memo to Lloyd V. Harrell April 9, 1993 (l Page 2 The second issue had to deal with what should be included in the agreement's definition of "gross revenues." As indicated earlier, franchise agreements throughout the state were originally entered into the 1930's and 19401s. At that time, calculation of gross revenues was fairly simple. Gross revenues were primarily broken down into local service and long distance service. The franchise fee was collected and paid only on local service. Deregulation broke out both long distance and local services and further defined local service revenues. For example, services that in the past were included in local service were now charged for separately and included in different revenue codes (i.e., service repair, directory assistance, operator assistance, etc.). The 1988 audit pointed out that the audit firm believed that certain types of services that were currently not being included in the formula should be subject to the city franchise fee. At the time, GTE responded that their definitions of what is included in local gross revenues excluded these services and were not subject to the franchise fee because they were not required for the transmission of local service. In addition, they had indicated that the franchise fee was a pass through fee and that since they had not collected the fee in the past, they would be required to put a surcharge on their customers accounts. After lengthy discussions with the City Attorney's office, the attorney for the auditing firm, myself, and representatives of GTE it was felt that a standstill had been reached and the only recourse would be legal action. Council was briefed on the situation and at that time, it was determined that since the actual franchise agreement did not specifically spell out the services that were to be included, that the city would not take any further action at that time. Subsequently, several cities filed a lawsuit against Southwestern Bell in order to litigate a similar issue. The City of Denton was asked to participate in this lawsuit but declined since the provider for local telephone service was G.T.E. Recently a lawsuit by the City of Garland has been filed against G.T.E. The City of Denton's franchise agreement specifically indicates that two (2%) percent is to be collected on the annual gross receipts for the preceding year received by the telephone company ' and for the rendition of local exchange telephone transmiss o service to customers within the corporation limits. The current franchise agreement doest not clearly define the term "local exchange telephone transmission services." Since the agreement runs through the year 2003, a change to re-define what is or is not included in gross revenues would require mutual consent by both the city and G.T.E. It has been brought to our attention that in other service areas. GTE is taking a stand that the definition of local transmission service is very narrow, It is also our understanding that recent lawsuit filed against GTE asks for a definition of gross revenues. , ApeadaN~ ~ -D%~ v + Agendal(em Memo to Lloyd V. Harrell April 9, 1993 Page 3 i I The City continues to collect two (21) percent of gross receipts for local transmission service which does exclude certain categories of revenue accounts. Sf the City desires to review the franchise agreement and/or the receipts from the enforcement of that agreement, three types of action could be taken. First, the 1 City could request another audit of the current formula calculation. This would not cnst the city any direct funds because these audits would be performed on a contingency basis. This would require that the city send out RFP's soliciting responses from firms to conduct this audit. These responses could be directed to the audit committee for selection. The second possibility is to enter into the legal process in order for the courts to determine what the definition of gross receipts for local transmission service should be. The City has been approached by an outside firm indicating a willingness to assist the city in any legal type action. The city would also issue RFP's soliciting firms to represent the city. This fee would also be based on a contingency fee and would only be payable upon actual revenue recovery to the city. Since a lawsuit has already been filed it may be possible for the City to become a participant in that lawsuit. The third possibility is to approach GTE in order to see if there would be mutual consent to amend the franchise agreement to fully define what would be considered gross revenues. It may also be to both parties advantage that if this action is taken that the term of the agreement be shortened so that the agreement can be reviewed on a more frequent basis. This would afesist in the updating of agreement terms in light of changing technology and regulations that occur in the telephone utilities area. Hopefully, I have not overwhelmingly confused the issues, however, since the City has been approached by an outside firm, and the issue of definition of gross revenues is continuing through the legal process, I feel that is incumbetlt upon us to revisit the city's current position and will look to City council for further direction. If you need any additional information, of have any questions, ' please advise. JFMcGief AFFOOSAS _ l i:`S HnxyYyp p9YYi1s r[eVIrRRRf //I Jt I Mti11RI~YV►f YFr`•* •MWiI . p, ~/IG rr) eFT, 1 Gl'rr J~ R ~ eI1 J• f !GG J6 IFt nF~: •H ♦cG ITT ~i'YG•1L'-' f - . . Jp . 0 r}t QdF 1.1 b R' 1 I I.J YM Jet I I } JJ41/ k :i.l1p.I.l.f A Mua d,r.l y~' Krn ifrl:r~ R JNnt♦ I .1 I I i I / J 4 L I I T Y 1•~ { ApNift ~ rLefG l TO: MAYOR AND ME14PERS OF THE CITY COUACIL FROM: Lloyd V. Harrell, City Manager DATE: April 13, 1993 RE: STORM WATER UTILITY Council members attended a special workshop on Saturday, March 27, 1993. Staff reviewed with council members challenges, demands, opportunities and issues facing the City of Donton regarding storm water management. 4 1 ' Approving the first ordinance which establishes the Storm Water Utilities would officially give notice to the citizens that the Council is giving serious consideration to a fee structure to fund the storm water activities. The public, the Council and the staff could then interact with workshops, public hearings, neighborhood meetings and public speaking engagements to fully explore the development of an equitable rate structure. ~ I In considering establishing a Storm Water Utility the major issues are: EQUITY, TAX RELIEF, and IMPLEMENTATION. Equity concerns are generally expressed by three questions. I 1.) Should the entity who contributes to the need pay in proportion to their contribution? 2.) Can a rate structure be developed which fairly defines each properties contribution of both volume and water quality? 3.) Will the rate structure result in fees within everyones ability to pay? Establishing the Storm Water Utility provides the opportunity of funding storm water costs from either ad valorem tax or from a fee. It is possible to continue funding the storm water budget from ad ' valorem taxes or moving all of the budget over to a fee basis, which is initially estimated to be $1.50/month per home and $14 to $19 per month per impervious acre for commercial property. It is also possible to use any combination of sharing the cost between a fee basis and an ad valorem tax. AWOItBr,L__'?`~. Date Page 2 Implementation can be worked out after the Storm Water Utility is established, if so desired. The Environmental Protection Agency will begin enforcing the requirements of the Clean Water Act on storm water on October 1, 1994. During the next year there will be sufficient time to work with the public to determine equitable rates and establish an appropriate timetable to implement the fees. i I I There have been some concerns expressed that creating a Storm Water Utility would entail creating an entirely new function of the City. However, Denton has been providing storm water service (flood protection) since its beginning as a City. Until two years ago storm water management was an integral part of street maintenance when it was transferred to the Utility Department. Storm water was then established as a separate division called Drainage. Like other divisions, planning for Capital Projects is accomplished in the budgeting process which includes P&Z and the Council. The only things new being implemented are EPA and State regulations plus the possibility of changing the funding method. Some exhibits are attached in response to several key questions expressed at the special workshop on March 27. Exhibit I is a draft resolution to accompany the first ordinance which expresses the precepts that will guide the Council as they work toward an appropriate fee structure. Exhibit II is a list of CIP Projects. Exhibit III is a list of major projects identified in the existing master plans. The projects in Exhibit II are the high priority projects from the master plans. Exhibit IV is comprised of three comparisons of fee revenues versus tax revenues needed to fund $800,000, for storm water activities. The first comparison is by overall class. The second is a sampling of actual establistunents in each class except residential. The third is a hypothetical comparison of a flat fee, block fee and tax fee on residences of varying appraisal value and lot size. All comparisons are based upon conditions at the time the committee , report was prepared. V - AgandaNo._ 2:L D/.? Agendalterrl. ale. Daro 3 Page 3 . Exhibit iv is a set of maps indicating reclaimed from the flood plain if channel lerimprovemen s may are accomplished. Jerry Clark, City Engineer, will present additional information regarding property value, project cost and their related impact. While we hope this addresses the majority of your questions, staff stands ready to serve at the Council's request. Respe,5;efully subm tted Lloyd V. Harrell City Manager Prepared by: I I Lee K. Allison, Director Water Engineering & operations I Approved by: VE. Le son, xecutive e Director of Utilities 2LA027 wp I I Ili I 1 I tgenda No 9.3 - J/a Agenda ~te+rt_ AMI0038F Date DRAFT RESOLUTION N0. i l DENTON CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION OF INTENT REGARDING THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A STORMWATER UTILITY. WHEREAS, by directives from Congress as a result court settlements, a date of October 1, 1994 has been established as the date by which the Environmental Protection Agency must include cities the size of Denton under the purview of the stormwater regulations; and i WHEREAS, the City of Denton will be asked to develop a comprehensive plan as to how Denton as a community proposes to manage stormwater pollution and then Implement the approved plan; and WHEREAS, other communities which are already subject to the Environmental Protection Agency regulations have found that the cost to comply with these new regulations regarding stormwater are ' substantial; and WHEREAS, current City of Denton costs for stormwater drainage ' are estimated to be approximately $373,000 per year for operation EXHIBIT I Agenda Nm _ _Q3 - Agenda !tern _ Este -5r I and maintenance expenses and $376,000 for debt retirement purposes; and -~I WHEREAS, the City of Denton finds it difficult to equitably fund current and future stormwater charges because of the large amount of tax exempt property within the community which does not help pay the cost associated with stormwater but represents some of the largest generators of stormwater runoff; NOW, THEREFORE, THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON HEREBY RESOLVES: That the City Council has determined that a stormwater utility should be created as provided for in Ordinance No. and that a stormwater utility fee should be Implemented at some time in the future. Furthermore, the Council pledges that the following guiding principals will be followed before utility fees are assessed against any property within the city: 1. Any fee structure proposed should be equitable between and within the various classes of users; 2. Any fee structure adopted should provide appropriate credits for measures which a property owner or developer implements to reduce the amount of stormwater runoff; and 4 Agenda No. Agenda lte►rir~ 0216- 3. Intense discussions should occur concerns all alternatives regarding the extent of property tax reduction which should accompany the implementation of a stormwater i utility fee. APPROVED and ADOPTED on this day of 1993. I BOB CASTLEBERRY, MAYOR ATTEST: JENNIFER FTALTEHS, CITY SECRETARY I 4 ~ BY: i APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM: DEBRA A. DRAYOVITCH, CITY ATTORNEY 1 J it BY: - i E I Agvdalfam 4~, _ STORAf WATER UTILI71' J / a CAPITAL PROJECTS ~J CAPITAL MPROMtENTS PROGRAM SUBSfrj7A1S April 8, 1993 ITEM - NO. DESCRIPTION CIP BOND EST. PROD. FY eTATUS STATUS COST 1• Cooper Creek Chaonel 2. ~ Approved No 500,000 Ave G. 97 Approved No 179,000 7. Good Samarilao Village 9g Proposed No 2S8,000 4• Peua Crt:k/RuddeB to Woodrow 9t Proposed No 725,000 5. Cooper Branch 91 Proposed No 105,000 6. Fletcher Branch 0 Iadiaa Ridge 98 proposed No 90,000 7• Cooper Creek Windsor to Bell 91 Proposed No 150 000 J.- Coh Street Drainage 9t Proposed No eta,ooo SUBTOTAL 2,H7,000 OPeradou and Maintenance 6ohaacemeoN 9• Dwnlowo MjsW Pon 9! Proposed NA $2,000 10. Side Boom Mower 11. 91 Proposed NA 50,000 Grodall 95 Proposed NA 10,000 TOTAL $2,692,000 I i EXHIBIT 11 I NonJa No .__.1 Agendaitem Cate 9- . ai STORM WATER UTILITY c. CAPITAL PROJECTS MASTER PLAN CURRENT NEEDS APRIL 8, 1993 COOPER CREEK DRAINAGE BASIN STUART TO MINGO $2,500,000 ($500,000 TO $100009000 FOR DETENTION PONDS) COOPER BRANCH $ 1059000 SHERMAN CULVERT $ 250,000 SUBTOTAL $2,855,000 i PECAN CREEK DRAINAGE BASIN SYCAMORE TO RUDDELL $ 270,000 KERLEY TO WOODROW 450,000 RUDDELL TO WOODROW 725,000 BRADSHAW TO MAIN 253,000 WILLOW SPRINGS TO KERLEY 152,000 BELL TO PECAN CREEK 21000,000 CARROLL CULVERTS (CRESENT, CONGRESS, HICKORY 750,0(9 STUART.) SUB-TOTAL $39850,000 TOTAL. ~ $6,705,000 EXHIBIT III 1 Agenda ltem-21 Date STORM WATER UTILITY Fee vs Tax Comparison By Rate Class April 8, 1993 Rate Class / Annual Revenues Assessed Tax Tax M Feed Value ($1,000) RESIDENTIAL 349,296 28 4,868 MULTIFAMILY 62140 $930,773 9166 $165,585 w, 111,620 COMM / RETAIL 137,792 $367,174 143,673 OFFICE $16,431 36,148 INDUSTRIAL 137,643 $366,778 132,307 QISD 0 $$0,00 17,27, $o 23642 WW1 a $0.0 15,459 $0 ~E SCHOOL 14,322 sCHURCHES 0 $0.00 J114,322 0 OTHER 16,365 $0.00 VACANT 103,622 $276121 0 3,342 AGRICULTURE o $8,906 0 100,000 200,000 300,000 400,000 DOLLARS NOTE: Tax Rate necessary to provide $ 800,000 for Storm Water Utility = 0,036255, Fee = $ 1.50 per residential unit and $ 14.92 per Impervious acre for commercial activities. Sw2 0RW EXHIBIT IV-A Agenda No Agendaur! STORM WATER UTILITY Dole_ 3 Fee / Tax Combined Funding By Rate Class 50/50 SPLIT INTIAL EPA REQUIREMENT April 8, 1993 Rate Class / Assessed Tax Annual Revenues Value ($1,000) Tax O Fog fi RESIDENTIAL 174,648 $930,773 `31r}: ' # r 142.434 MULTIFAMILY 31 a70 $165,585 16,55,810 F3OMM/4RETAIL 67166 ?FFICE 3083 16,431 r 16,073 STRIAL 66,821 ti y 66,153 778 $0.00 0 9,639 $000 Z-j 11,621 0 $70 A 7,730 RTIME SCHOOL 0 C0 7,161 $ ORCHES 0 7,161 3,183 ?0 OH A o y qrJ s1,au 5278,121 0,671 AGRICULTURE 0 ~u yy 0 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 ' DOLLARS NOTE; Tax Rate necessary to provide $ 400,000 for Storm Water Utility, Fee necessary to provide $ 400,000 for Storm Water Utility = $ 0.75 per residential unit and $ 7,46 per Impervios acre for commercial activities. EXHIBIT IV-A-1 SW20PW VenoaNo Agenda ftern _ STORM WATER UTILITY Dale Fee / Tax Combined Funding By Rate Class $ 750,000 - 0&M 1$ 50,000 INTIAL EPA REQUIREMENT April 8, 1993 Rate Class / Assessed Tax Annual Revenues i I Value ($1,000) Tax Fee RESIDENTIAL 327,465 $930,773 17,804 MULTIFAMILY 58,265 $165,585 6,976 I 129,1 so COMM / RETAIL 6,980 $367, 1 74 OFFICE 5,780 $16,431 2,259 INDUSTRIAL 129,D40 $366,778 8,269 DSD 0 $0,00 1,080 $O 0 00 1,478 TWU 0 $0.00 %6 STATE SCHOOL 0 $000 895 CHURCHES 0 $0.00 895 OTHER 996 $0.00 97, S 46 VACANT 0 $276,121 3,133 AGRICULTURE 0 $8,906 0 100,000 200,000 300,000 400,000 DOLLARS NOTE: Tax Rate necessary to provide $ 750,0001or Storm Water Utility 0&M expences Fee = based on $50,000 for Initial Impact of EPA regulations EXHIBIT 111-A-2 SW20RW AlentlaNo STORM WATER UTILITY D0`e___~~. L__ ~JJT Fee vs Tax Revenue Analysis Of Storm Water Utility Funding Options April 8, 1993 Type of Annual Revenues CU510R12f Fee Tax v:-:7 RETAIL 1,593 RESTAURANT 116 ~ ai 109 BUSINESS 1,086 i.w.ui91 272 SMALL BUSINESS 1so 34 STRIP CENTER 1 1 ssz L" t • is ~ 7' . T3FSi4'jF"i~ 'A, ..'9.~5' ":Awl 1.641 STRIP CENTER 2 1,840 jWjkjj~~ 1,277 STRIP CENTER 3 d; V 758 _$~4+~?''- 628 APARTMENT 1 1,652 ,.1.:.~... 1,878 APARTMENT 2 537 673 APARTMENT 31412 CHURCH 1 306 CHURCH 2 748 0 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 DOLLARS NOTE: The above figures are based upon the available information of existing establishment, and were included in the Storm Water Utility Committies report. Property values and tax rates may have changed since then, BASEO M Annual c rges per Impervious Acre = $ 22628 Tax Rate (Drainage Share) _ $ 0.03753/$100 Valuation swl .oaw EXHIBIT IV-B. AGends No oealt 1 _r, Y3 `R" STORM WATER UTILITY We Residential Payment Comparison Tax / Flat Fee / Block Fee April 8, 1993 M Tex l'xl'i Stock Fee Lz:-:-] Fiat Fee ($1.50/nth) $ 0.60 TO 7000 SO FT LOT Unit $ 1.75 TO 10,000 SO FT LOT Description $ 3.00 TO 13,000 SO FT LOT r $ 5,00 TO 18,000 SO FT LOT 20 000 725 f.00 '"',.:ate f2 +F0Y000 foal I.C0 e.., 29;,¢ is I 0000 f a 5 18 1.00 fz F10 67,000 22 47 2.1, 24 N QQ x 80,0 00 27,19 t 2.00 ' 16 24 213, 000 is 41 69 9.50 xrs;f 42 $200,000 70 7 F1B 1e i, 4,. .k~ilrr'1560 I 0 20 40 60 130 I NOTE: DOLLARS Tax Rate necessary to provide $ 000,000 for Storm Water Utility = 0.036255, Fee based on lot size has not been nvahiated based upon a count of lots by size and the revenue requirements for residential establishment ' No Homestead Exemption " Homestead Exemption Ta4en Into Accotu,t EXHIBIT IV-C swadnw I Pecall Creek ~0e Denton Central Business District NORTH ZONE K RG Olt I ONE AE I - - ZONE K /ZONE X % TONE K ZONE % pp~ ,~RM 1 ~ GJN S'AFFT - Fr~i11 LONE AE e •r'i eF ,S ,e7i a 'I e ZONE % S1aFEi ~~'~ri ZONE L K DINE y RM 204E 12 LONE M- I JNf` i ~ RM ~1 ZONE K _ ZONE AE e ZONE 6~7 K f, 0 01 ZONE n JDETAILED % ZONE K STUDY ZONE I ~1 •f, - S.. ,n p ~~60 i J - I i e ON£ ~ RM19 _ J1 1 I i aM 20 ,,,)%F AF Date: 4 "1),'93 C.1 IV: 2" _ 1,I )rl(1' EXHIBIT V-A Pecan Creek Denton Central f~ls_ Business District et NORTH , r~• ZONE % ~ a JO I~ I b I Eye TE ZONE % ZONE At ZONE % oyy ( ~20Nf % 20Nf x r(~,~,,, " RM 1? ELAN Slpr[t 20NE AE I 20Nf % ..''q EE• n ~ 20,E M l ^ ~ I I Y 2 n : ~ A ij} Y Y RM 12 ..,ZONE x t eGa. 5*?FE' x e l _ 'd~'l6E vas i•eFF' ZONE % ZONE At ' LIMIT OF lONSEI=o`NE )EIAMD ZONE % i F.. i a ` • ONEI AEEr RM 19 1" 'V s; DF °F 1 I ZONE X 1 I bate, 419193 Scale: f" = 1,111u)' EXHIBIT V-f3 i Pecan Crock ACalsN°--/f° Denton Cenh",il tbla__ Business District 12/ l(J~ NORTH ,n NF R 1 ZONE x _ i RN - ~E ern e :ONE AE I/ I •3~ ZONE x /ZONE x ZONE x RA,1 17 ZONE x FT ZONE AE "Fii 0 ZONEx it,EE• - _y i ION` ZONE x J7 RP9 'ZONE 12 ONE X- x E. s .1 hC--r . RM 3 ZONE M "ZONE AE . iO%E 6 0MItOf ZONE PIirJ, OETAILEO Z ` x ZONE K STUDY ZONf t _n 5 ~5 FO _ L jy~ Qf~ e t "J'Fl ^ r •2ONEII Ft 19 r r Rti4<0 ZONE Ak llAtc: x,991 So It: _ ~,(IflO' EXHIBIT V-C Agenda No hE'l'illl CI'l'eh 4gendalterrq Uentrm Ccntra! (kale._._ ~3. 93 V~_ I3usilless District NORTH i f i, 20hE x Rti e I e n phG ~E ~ \ ALONE x lphc 2p44 x 1 ZONE X t~RM 17 5'aEf1 - 11~rA'J IOkE AE 1 zuhE x ZphE i i n 20NE R1~1• X 10%E x- •I ' t ~ l RM 2 r..- At ZO%E 02 M1f t0hE lli li.._ , v 2 x , LEMIE OF otiE DETAILED 10tiE x 57U9Y n E n X 1 1/ = RM ~ • y' 2C'".~ A Dale 4 9()l scale; 1" = i,IhiU' EXHIBIT V-D 4jenda No Perin Creek Agenda Item Delllerr Business District NORTH r , bib I r ' y gyp. - - /ZO%E x ~ - ZONE (firi4~ Rti117 ZJNE r ,e:J Z04E AE en ii 204E x 204E _ r 204E RM; 12 20NEx. i ~ .20NE r ZONE'' ) - ca -aJlj f.._- NE % ZONE AE x ©a5r ~i4c era RM 32 Z04E AE \ 20%E Z04E t :E x 7GVEf'~ -.P.. x 204E x - R M 1 9 s ~ Z J S~ ro . 04£ % ZONE AE S_ 204E r Unto, df1,4,1 5,nlc: 1" - I,urui' EXHIBIT V-E ~gerda No AgandaItern _ N'urth Pecan Creek t te.__'t_!3 Denton Center Area 19 A, NORTH 51J Hf16R10f6 4174 ZONE A t' ZONE X o5? ZONE X Vs.,tiG.s S•uFc• 665 ONE X . yid ScEE` AE ZONE X y JE 1 ZONE X ZONE X i W MA3u"Abp x sill P~9N O - vr 5'AEE! LANE L > W ~ n W 658,,i~j N ¢ N O9FENE9iAA 65~ y r r = ~ ~ SIAEFt i r i i !uLANF Si9ffr ZONE K~ Z0N K RM14 ZONE X 4 NH~957 n ZONE A VOW >~N 4 R IY,E*S, r. S! _ ENE9r - 1 ZONE ~'ES!GAtf S!"EV ~ZONE9 201 E % ZONE K 4DEll Starer 40NE % /RN Sr9EE1 - 16 4 I INDEN Sr4ECr Y , I '°Efr ZONE K ZONE AEE i ZONE K NONE; ZONE X Date: ar'9:9; Scale: I' = 1,11UI1' EXHIBIT V-F V AQ9ndQNU Agendalfe„~,_ North Pecan Creek Daie Denton Center Area NORTH \ DES P[vWl~ . 917A l 1 ZONEA w ZONE X e6? ZONE X G 4 5 o f. i X AE V ZONE X Ea=.EE E { ZONE X ZONE X I ~ w W 66 ! AL B.,RY N4G04AD SrnEEt 0 ~6E~ LANE 1 ¢ W 6 i W 3 658 W ti Y G4EEY8R4R 651 y " Y ; StREEt -.i J.65 ^ i n = o tUL4YF StRFFt~ X _ Rh114 ` ZONE M 2OP 0 7.ON°_ X o ` "ZONE A 4M'+J R r St v' sra~f 6 R t St J9,] EMERr Sf I ih Es%ATE SE4EET ZONE X I 'ODELL ZW E X - ZONE X StREEt C4ESf Nt JtgEEr ZONE X 16 e lihCEY S!Af Et E r ir4l[t ZONE X ZONE AE W N ` n ?ONE X = E74N ZONEX 10%F Ualc, 4,9;93 Srlle, I° = 1,IIfID' EXHIBIT V-G Cooper Creek Agenda No ltertt_~"%_ _ Agenda Churchill Urine Date ~3- Residential Area NORTH i ICI f Milt OF DE rA ILEO SrUov ZC%F I r/. ZONE X E ZO%E M R X RM 23 _ RM 29 E~J: ZONE AO' J GEPiH c 637 h30 03. , RM ~ r AM 30 ZONE r ^ , 6'r B t 6c. ~ 61g ~6 1611 10 v~ I ZONE X RM 25 ZJNE AE ZD ~A~ I t Mute: J Q,93 EXHIBIT V-H T I .i-ii" ~~~wa.~J,peoo G'riie+-i.rrr I.w ^y731~1 •trr:>~ rr Irt •iii' ar'r.-r .r4 r~ ar.rv ~r.rn rn rr rr. rr ar +rrrr .a rvr .a rn Iv a„ .i •«rr iIi .r:: ~ rI Iu i r; i ' r. b.irR rn w mrR rnA 6i1. K I 1 I r t 11~' AP* Nl r--~il 9-16 Apanealtem cafe -~16 - 9.3 DATEt 04-13-93 91TY COUNCIL REPORT FORMAT TOS Mayor and Members of the city council FROMt Lloyd V. Harrell, City Manager SUBJt CDBO Funding Process ~I' 8.~~l~NDAT I ON t I staff recommends implementation of a new CDBa budgeting process designed to increase city council involvement in funding decisions. BACKOROUNDs Recent staff discussions with council have focused on the increasing amount of CDBa funds that Denton is being allocated. As dollar amounts become more significant the need for council direction increases. AS a result, staff has developed a modified CDBa funding process. The current process is based on priorities established by city council several years ago. Attached is a copy of the document that lists those priorities. The document also describes other criteria which the CDBa committee uses to make decisions. 6UMMARYs Proposed changes to the process combine council prioritiaatio.i of eligible activities with staff input on specific projects. Those procedures along with the current public hearing and CDBa committee processes will continue to most all citisen participation requirements. A description of the proposed process and timeline follows 01101 --22115 ' Staff advertises the availability of funds and holds a minimum of two public hearings. summaries of the hearings are compiled. Applications for i,tnding are disseminated. 9, Ili - U12e Council is provided with a list of eligible CDSO activities. Information on current federal Report Format AgandaNo __._13~l1l1L•i Page 2 Apdnd2+l9~r~_ _ { 10 requirements, dy --~3 results of ma ts--,needs-- assessments, and public hear;ng comments- is q ,V provided to council by staff. Council priorit'zea CDBG activities. Priority rankings are for%;ard,ad to the CDB4 committee. 93&L..- 03110 Applications for ciaa funds are submitted to the Community Jwslopment Office. Applications inclule proposals by city staff and outside rgenoies. Staff proposals are reviewed by interrsl ranking te&m. 93/11 - 03/30 Funding hearings are held by the CDBG committee. Staff proposals are presented according to priorities set by the ranking team. The committee develops recommendations for council. 04/01 - 04/20 Human Services Committee holds funding hearings. HBO develops recommendations concerning CDBQ service agency funding. 05/01 - 01/15 committee chairpersons discuss CDBG recommendations with council. Publication of the Pr R"M Ftatement of Commun tt Deyeloment obieotives ar.d PaQiected Use of Funds. 05114 - 05/31 Resolution authorizing submittal of the Statement-ofQAW-Dity Development 9ie9-i01-109 Proisoted Use of Fund. M 0A-=-W-IQ CDBG application submitted to HUD. NOM The internal ranking team will consist of selected executive directory, department heads and the community development administrator. Advantages to the proposed system includes 0 Council more informed regarCing CDBO requirements. i Report Format Agenda No I Page 3 Agendaltarr,, tats 2- 0 CDBG committee priorities determined by current council members. 0 Prioritization by city staff relieves CDBG of the necessity of reviewing all projects submitted by any staff member. 0 Expanded consideration of funding opportunities by council and staff. Upon approval of council, the new process will be implemented with the 1994 CDSG program year. ! PROGRAMS. DEPARTMENTS OR GROUPS AFFECTEDs I City council CDBG committee community Development staff citizens in targeted areas local service agencies FISCAL IMPACTS There will be no impact on the General Fund. This system will alter the way funding decisions are made. It will not affect the amount of CDBG funds available for projects/programs. Resp fully m tte : GNU Ll yd V. Harrell City Manager Pr"are d bys ~J B rbara Ross Community Development Administrator Approveds JF ank obbins A P Executive Dirac or for Planning i Development Attachments Community Development Block Grant Funding Request document. ccrfcM.con I I Agenda No - 4 AgendaEteq 7 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT FUNDING REQUESTS 1 All individuals/groups requesting Community Development Block Grant funds must I prepare the attached questionnaire and return it to the Community Development i Office, 1108 West Oak, Denton, Texas, on or before March 25, 1991. If you have questions or need assistance please call 383-7726. The primary r,oal of the City of Denton's Community Development Block Grant Program is tc in participate projects which provide visible improvements to low and moderate income neighborhoods. Program/project assessment is based on the set of criteria below. It is not necessary for each project to meet all criteria. Please note also that the program and fiscal criteria are not rank ordered. The deacription is intended to assist those requesting funds to understand the Community Development Block Grant Committee's decision-making process. Final recommendations to City Council will based upon an analysis of proposals in relationship to satisfaction of criteria. i The attached questionnaire will be utilized by committee members to determine which requests merit further discussion. These individuale/groups will then be requantad to appear before the CDBG committee to state the,r proposal and answer any questions by committee members and staff. Project Priority Ranking 1. Housing rehabilitation and other housing activities 2. Demolition and clearance activities 3. Public facilities and improvements 4. Economic development activities Program Criteria 1. Meats one of three national objectives a. Benefit to low/mod b. Elimination of slum or blight c. Meats an urgent need 2. Approximate number of individuals/households benefiting 3. service/project constitutes a direct benefit activity or provides a substantial indirect benefit 4. Project feasibility a. Location b. Coot c. Need d. Staff monitoring requirements 5. Servico/project is unduplicated or will not be carried out in a timely manner without CD:iG funding Fiscal Criteria 1. Comparison of cost per household benefiting 2. Availability of other source funding for project 3. Probability of continued funding or sufficient funding to complete project r 4. Increase of other source funding 42 a result of CDBG donation k E `I iCOUNC III .;i 3„~I ~T1 i i . I i V e ~ I G0~' I ITT it.+s. -D o~ ApWaJ AWsl 00.e _f1 /i A VISION FOR DENTON - THE 21ST CENTURY OVERVIEW r During the past year, several organizations perceived a need to form a consensus about what type of community Denton should become and unite to achieve this vision rather than letting chance dictate our future. This desire led to the design of a visioning project which has been titled "A Vision for Denton - the 21st Century". As contemplated, this effort would be sponsored and lead by seven Institutions which have their own budget and authority to make decisions. These institutions would form a partnership committed to establishing a vision of the Denton of tomorrow, initiating action that promotes that vision, and implementin.l plans that will link vision to action. Although this effort would be sponsored by Denton's community-wide institutions, the essence of the project would be broad based citizen involvement. Believing that the process is at least as important as the product, great care would be given to involving the entire community and to ensuring that all elements of Denton are represented at the leadership and participant levels. This project, "A Vision for Denton - the 21st Century," acknowledges that citizens themselves should shape their city. It is through their actions that a city's soul takes form and then soars to new heights. This visioning project can enhance Denton's 1 ability to be a very special place. I I i t I I Agenda No Ageodalta -lie RECOMMENDATIONS - vISIONiNG PROJECT STEERING COMMITTn' 1 Jim Alexander, Carl Anderson, Russell Bates, Euline Brock, Dick Engle, Pat Gobble, Lloyd Harrell, Dean Kahney, Bettye Myers, Jack Miller, Linnie McAdams, Jeff Moseley, John Polster, Gerald Ponder, Victor Prybutok, Margaret Smith March 4, 1993 ; In accordance with action taken at January 13, 1993, Steering Committee meeting, Carl Anderson named a subcommittee consisting of arl Anderson, Lloyd Harrell, Dean Kahney, Jack Miller and Bettye Myers. That subcommittee was charged with the task of developing the suggested work plan for the project. Thereafter, the subcommittee met on three different occasions and formulated a work plan and project recommendations. These were submitted to the full Steering Committee on February 25, 1993. T and the revised project outline is submitted form were amended, revised recommendations are as follows: pProval. The • The purpose of the project is to develop a vision of Denton for the 21st century and to " formulate a strategy for reaching that vision. Accordingly, the project ahould be called "A Vision for Denton - the 21st Century". F • The following agencies would be invited become the sponsors of this community effort The City of Denton; the Denton Area Chamber of Commerce; the Denton Independent School District; Texas Woman's University; the University of North Texas; Denton County United Way; and tLe Denton Record-Chronicle. IF • Each of the sponsoring organizations will be asked to contribute various goods and services to the project such ass monetary support, I secretarial support, interns to assist each of 1 the impact committees, training assistance for I kickoff facilitators and impact committee 1 chairpersons. Each sponsoring agency will be asked to agree to assign two "decision makers" from their institution to serve on a project cabinet which will meet regularly to guide the project. In addition, this cabinet will continue to meet following the completion of the project in order to monitor the each agency !.s making to further the rvisress ion for Denton. AQandaltarn [tale RECOMMENDAT'.ONS Page 2 ` • The kickoff event should occur in September, 1993, although intense activities to promote the project need to be occurring until that date. - • The kickoff event Should be approximately four ' hours in length and be a general information gathering event. In addition to generating information which would be utilized to help determine the various impact areas, this session would be designed to get people excited, explain the purpose of the project and stimulate attendees to want to become a part of the effort. • Some type of outside speakers should be included in the k?ckoff event including the possibilities of a futurist and/or the city manager of Rock Hill, South Carolina. • A "Vision Room" should be located where various impact group could meet and the work projects could be displayed. • Impact r:oups should be charged with developing strategies for achieving "the vision" within their areas. In order to accomplish this goal, the groups should consider efforts such as public meetings, field trips, surveys, focus groups, etc. • Selection of the members for the Impact groups is considered to be a key element for the success of the project. Special attention should be given to ensure that the individuals selected are representative of the community. Therefore, criteria such as race, age, sex, length of residency within the community, etc. should be considered when forming the groups. The same criteria should be utilized when selecting the co-chairs for each impact group. AMM00248 r I f J I Agenda Item RECOMMENDATIONS DaI e Page 3 i • Although indicate the time line for the effort s date is ta May, 1995 concluding date, thteris entative and could be altered la. On the other hand, the process is at least as important as the product. Therefore, the effort should not be rushed unnecessarily. The Mayor should serve as the chairperson of the effort, and the City Manager should serve as the project manager. ' Other key recommendations are incorporated in the attached "pert chart" which describes the project in greater detail. In addition to the "pert chart", please find summaries of the subcommittee's meetings of January 22nd and January 29th. These summaries provide more details and describe other minor conclusions reached by the subcommittee, LJ AMM00248 A Vision For Denton - The 2 Century February February March 1993 1993 1993 DEF1N1170NS. Steering Committee- Small group of Individuals, choked by Carl Anderson, organized to plan visioning project. Pm*ct CeblMt- Overall policy-making group for visioning project, Makeup; two representatives from each sponsoring agency, chairperson, Finalize work plan by Share work plan with Share work plan with full project manager, and steering small committee steering committee; make committee; obtain committee chairperson, adjustments and approval endorsement impact GmWo- Citizen committees formed to study various areas of Denton and to design strategies for achieving goats g In each of the areas. I~ Sponsoring Agencies- The following organization will be invited to be sponsoring agencies, .e City of Denton Texas Woman's University l1a University of North Texas 1* , Denton Independent School District 1 Denton Chamber of Commerce rank Mbbinr, Jack Miller, Vt \ United Way of Denton County r uun. ara► meet w m city Denton Record-Chronicle mr caper, Pal Nitt, r m is rr A Vision For Denton- The 2 is` Century March - April 1993 City of Denton share work plan with City Council; ga!n Chamber of Commerce commitments and Denton Record-Chronicle share work plan wish approval share work plan with Board of Directors; gain Publisher and Editor; gain commitments and commitments and approval approval T Dentonlndependent Untied Way share work School District share plan with Board of work plan with School Directors; gain Board; gain commitments texas Woman's Uniwrsiry of North Was commitments and and approval University shore work share work plan with approval plan with Administration; Administration; gain gain commitments end commitments and approval approval W t ~b Rannin0 (h Darlmeni coordmete trends, toe retaeimpetmonch, a etc bout I Cenllnuln Muueh I Cenllnuln Ilnureh cantlnurn Ileuueh I Cenllnurn Ileuuah I Cendnutn Muereh Cenllnurn Iluureh N . 02,25A) i r A Vision For Denton - The 21 ' Century April May May May - June 1993 1993 1993 1993 Obtain feedback as to Prepare preliminary Hold press conference to Obtain 'Vision Room"- willingness to sponsor, budget and obtain project announce the project gain approval ani degree of commitment, cabinet approval; also, sponsors and time line; remodel as needed, etc, and Identify the project obtain approval of announce chairperson, cabinet members leadership positions for project manager and ro ec steering committee chairperson Contact private Brief other organizations foundations (Meadow's, about the project and etc.l regarding funding seek their support, these t support groups should Include the \ N retirement community, t church groups, special interest groups, etc, I cantlnuln• aeaaelLah f CaMlnulnS affe I caMlnurne aetaetoh r centl Yln aaeeereh I centlnvln aenereh I Continuing aeeeneh I Centlnvin aauuah I hnrlnuln A4044to 1' mnui A Vision For Denton-The 21st Century I June July August September i 1 j 1993 1993 1993 1993 Select leaders tot break- out session to be held at l the kick-off and finalize questions Determine location, Press notice of kick-off Train break-out leaders in Hold kick-off event r speakers, and make other event and speakers group process logistic arrangements for kick-off event Project cabinet members Invitations sent to g submit names of Individuals Identif;ed to Individuals who should be particpate In kick-off I asked to participate In the event W project I Review IRbings with prajecr I cenelnurnf Reaeateh I cehORUins Reeevah I centlnUl"s Ressereh I cenernamne Ibeeeroh I cenlln Ulns nbinet nH1fi/1 i~ r A Vision For Denton -The 2 1" Century I September October October November s 1993 1993 1993 1993 Project cabinet analyzes Based on impact areas Co-chairs obtain training Co-chairs work with information from kick-off, and participation, project in group process project manager and Planning Department and cabinet selects co-chairs assign Individuals to establishes the 5-7 for each Impact group various Impact groups Impact groups Staff support (secretarial and administrative) Ilk arrenged for each Impact group w 1 t r ~ t i i ovnu~ i i i I i I I 1 I I I I I ! A Vision For Denton- The 2 1st Century December January February September 1993 1994 1994 1994 I 1 I Individuals notified of Kickoff session for each Impact groups • co-chairs Impact group impact group- present progress repr A at assignments and first chairperson, project a public session session of the group manager, sub-committee announced chairperson- I greeting and Introduction of co-chairs I Co Ova Intl pI0iCC1 Cabinet: Merl by monthly - recelve progrets reports and obtain arty resoores requests; monitor } 1 progress \ t is J pR',1 s Co eMve MJ prajed manager _ W meet monthly to monna program \ ornu I I A Vision For Denton -The 21" Century Me may 1996 1996 I Impact groups . co-chairs present final repor,s at a public session Aalxl 111 11111 ISO Ill IlDOrt what) eRrl InILtuNnn h t doing to carry otd vision; results y pooled in l \ ICI a,i+ns 1 J I i HANDOUT TO COUNCIL 4-13-93 i TO. MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: Lloyd V. Harrell, City Manager DATE: April 13, 1993 RE. STORM WATER UTILITY i Council members attended a special workshop on Saturday, March 27, 1993. Staff reviewed with council members challenges, demands, opportunities and issues facing the City of Denton regarding storm water management. I Approving the first ordinance which establishes the Storm Water Utilities would officially give notice to the citizens that the Council is giving serious consideration to a fee structure to fund the storm water activities. The public, the Council and the staff could then interact with workshops, public hearings, neighborhood meetings and public speaking engagements to fully explore the development of an equitable rate structure. i In considering establishing a Storm Water Utility the major issues are: EQUITY, TAX RELIEF, and IMPLEMENTATION. i Equity concerns are generally expressed by three questions. 1.) Should the entity who contributes to the need pay in proportion to their contribution? 2.) Can a rate structure be developed which fairly defines each properties contribution of both volume and water quality? 3.) Will the rate structure result in fees within everyones ability to pay? Establishing the Storm Water Utility provides the opportunity of funding storm water costs from either ad valorem tax or from a fee. It is possible to continue funding the storm water budget from ad valorem taxes or moving all of the budget over to a fee basis, which is initially estimated to be $1.50/month per home and $19 to $19 per month per impervious acre for commercial property. :t is also possible to use any combination of sharing the cost between a fee basis and an ad valorem tax. Page 2 Implementation can be worked out after the Storm water Utility is established, if so desired. The Environmental Protection Agency will begin enforcing the requirements of the Clean Water Act on storm water on October 1, 1999. During the next year there will be sufficient time to work with the public to determine equitable rates and establish an appropriate timetable to implement the fees. There have been some concerns expressed that creating a Storm Water Utility would entail creating an entirely new function of the City. However, Denton has been providing storm water service (flood protection) since its beginning as a City. Until two years ago storm water management was an integral part of street maintenance when it was transferred to the Utility Department. Storm water was then established as a separate division called Drainage. Like other divisions, planning for Capital Projects is accomplished in the budgeting process which includes P&z and the Council. The only things new being implemented are EPA and State regulations plus the possibility of changing the funding method. Some exhibits are attached in response to several key questions expressed at the special workshop on March 27. Exhibit I is a draft resolution to accompany the first ordinance which expresses the precepts that will guide the Council as they work toward an appropriate fee structure. Exhibit II is a list of CIP Projects. Exhibit III is a list of major projects identified in the existing master plans. The projects in Exhibit II are the high priority projects from the master plans. Exhibit IV is comprised of three comparisons of fee revenues versus tax revenues needed to fund $800,000, for storm water activities. The first comparison is by overall class. The second is a sampling of actual establishments in each class except residential. The third is a hypothetical comparison of a flat fee, block fee and tax fee on residences of varying appraisal value and lot size. All comparisons are based upon conditions at the time the committee report was prepared. Page 3 Exhibit IV is a set of maps indicating properties that may be reclaimed from the flood plain if channel improvements are accomplished. Jerry Clark, City Engineer, will present additional information regarding property value, project cost and their related impact. While we hope this addresses the majority of your questions, staff r stands ready to serve at the Council's request. Respectfully submitted. Lloyd V. Harrell City Manager Prepared by: Lee K. Allison, Director Water Engineering & Operations Approved by: R. E. Nelson, Executive Director of Utilities 2LA027.wp araaoa ~ e ~ , 1 1 RESOLUTION NO. I DENTON CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION OF INTENT REGARDING TIDE ESTABLISHMENT OF A STORMWATER UTILITY. WHEREAS, by directives from Congress as a result of rerent court settlements, a date of October 1, 1994 has been established as the date by which the Environmental Protection Agency must include cities the size of Denton under the purview of the 1 stormwater regulations= and WHEREAS, the City of Denton will be asked to develop a I comprehensive plan as to how Denton as a community proposes to i manage stormwater pollution and then implement the approved plan; and 1 i WHEREAS, other communities which are already subject to the 1 Environmental Protection Agency regulations have found that the cost to comply with these new regulations regarding stormwater are substantial and I I WHEREAS, current City of Denton costs for stormwater drainage are estimated to be approximately 1 ;373,000 per year for operation ~ J I EXHIBIT I I i J I' i I 7l`470028F and maintenance expenses and $376,000 for debt retirement 1 IM Purposes; and + WHEREAS, the City of Denton finds it difficult to equitably fund current and future stormwater charges because of the large amount of tax exempt Property within the community which does not I help pay the cost associated with stormwater but represents some of Ih the largest generators of stormwater runoff; NOW, THEREFORE, THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON HEREBY RESOLVES: That the City Council has determined that a stormwater utility i should be created as provided for in Ordinance No. and that a stormwater utility fee should be implemented at some time in the future. Furthermore, the Council pledges that the following guiding principals will be followed before utility fees are assessed against any property within the cityi t t 1. Any fee structure proposed should be equitable between and within the various classes of users; h k 2. Any fee structure adopted should provide appropriate credits for measures which a property owner or developer implements to reduce the amount of stormwater runoff; and r 3. Intense discussions should occur concerning all alternatives regarding the extent of property tax reduction which should accompany the implementation of a stormwater utility fee. APPROVED and ADOPTED on this day of , 1993. t f ' BOB CASTLEBERRY, MAYOR I ATTEST: JENNIFER WALTERSO CITY SECRETARY I BYs I i 1 APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORMi DEBRA A. DRAYOVITCH, CITY ATTORNEY i BYs STORM WATER UTILITY CAPITAL PROJECTS CAPITAI, MPRONTNENTS PRO RA.AI SURAII'ITALS April S, 1993 ITEM CIP BOND EST. PROD. NO. DESCRIPTION FY STATUS STATUS COST L Cooper Creek Channel 97 Approved No 500,000 2• _ Ave G. 97 Approved No 139,000 3• Good Samaritan Village 98 Proposed No 258,000 41 Pecan Crce"uddell to Woodrow 98 Proposed No 725,000 Cooper Branch 98 Proposed No 105,000 6. Fletcher Branch 0 Indian Ridge 98 Proposed No 90,000 7• Cooper Lreek Wiadsor to Bell 91 Proposed No 150,000 8. Colt Street Drainage 91 Proposed No 180,000 SUBTOTAL 2,147,000 Operation and Maintenance Enhancements 9. downtown Master Plan 94 Proposed NA 51,000 10. Side Boom Mower 94 Proposed NA E$0,000 11. Grodall 95 Proposed NA 80,000 TOTAL 82,692,000 EXHIBIT 11 I STORM WATER UTILITY CAPITAL PROJECTS MASTER PLAN CURRENT NLEDS j APRIL S, 1993 + COOPER CREEK DRAINAGE BASIN STUART TO MINGO $29500,000 l ($500,000 TO $1,000,000 FOR DETENTION PONDS) COOPER BRANCH $ 105,000 'E StIER,NIAN CULVERT $ 250,000 i I I` SUB-TOTAL $2,855,000 ~I PECAN CREEK DRAINAGE BASIN SYCAMORE TO RUDDELL $ 270,000 KERLEY TO WOODROW 4509000 RUDDELL TO WOODROW 725,000 BRADSHAW TO MAIN 253,000 WILLOW SPRINGS TO KERLEY 152,000 BELL TO PECAN CREEK 200000000 CARROLL CULVERTS (CRESENT, CONGRESS, HICKORY 7501000 STUART.) SUB-TOTAL $3,8509000 TOTAL $697059000 EXHIBIT III STORM WATER UTILITY Fee vs Tax Comparison By Rate Class April 8, 1993 Rate Class ! Annual Revenues Assessed Tax Tax M Fee E-LJ Value ($1,000) 349,296 RESIDENTIAL $930,773 A 284,866 ..,:;..ds $165T585MILY 62 140 - 111,620 COMM l RETAIL 137,792 $367,174 143,673 OFFICE 6166 $16,431 36,146 ' kNDUSTRIAL 137,643 w» 132,307 366,778 5 'x :r3 : 17,"77 F00 0 0 h $000 23,542 Muo A 15,45) ESTATE SCHOOL ~1 14,322 $0.00 CHURCHES 14,322 $0.00 0 _ 103,622 OTHER t3.342 $$0,00 00 $276.121 AGRICU LTURE $6,906 0 100,000 200,000 300,000 400,000 DOLLARS NOTE; Tax Rate necessary to prov'de $ 600,000 for Storm Water Utility = 0.036255, Fee = $ 1.50 per residential unit and $ 14.92 per Impervious acre for commercial activities. SW2DRW EXHIBIT IV-A STORM WATER UTILITY Fee / Tax Combined Funding By Rate Class 50150 SPLIT INTIAL EPA REQUIREMENT April 8, 1993 Rate Class J Assessed Tax Annual Revenues r Value ($1,000) Tax Fee L ':J i i ESIDENTIAL 174,648 $930,773 ai La',:.. ;ate 142,434 MULTIFAMILY 31 079 $165,585 :~t 55,810 COMM RETAIL 68,896 $$3387,1 4 71,838 OFFICE 3 $16,431 1a,o73 lf+ PITP1AL 68,821 $366,775 66,153 pI 0 5UU0'00 8,639 11,821 5~O c ~~1 A 7.730 $T~ c ~E SCHOOL 0 b ~ 7,161 J C~i URCHES 7,161 $ 0 TgR 13,183 Q0,00 5 51,81 1 28ANN 01,671 (~8 RICULTURE 0 5 908 . 0 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 DOLLARS NOTE: Tax Rate necessary to provide $ 400,000 for Stnim Water Utility, Fee necessary to provide $ 400,000 for Storm Mier Utility - $ 0,75 per residential unit and $ 7,46 per Imporvlos acre for cornmorcial activities EXHIBIT IV-A-1 SWxoNW I i i I STORM WATER UTILITY Fee / Tax Combined Funding By Rate Class $ 7500000 - 0&M / $ 509000 INTIAL EPA REQUIREMENT April 8, 1993 Rate Class / Assessed Tax Annual Revenues Value ($1,000) Tax 0 Fee C--- RESIDENTIAL 327,465 $930,773 17,604 MULTIFAMILY 56,265 $165,585 6,976 COMM / RETAIL 129,160 $367,174 6, 960 OFFICE 5,780 $16,431 2,259 INDUSTRIAL 129,040 $366,778 6,269 DISD 0 $0.00 1,080 UNIT 0 $0.00 1,478 0 $000 966 STATE SCHOOL 895 $0.00 CHURCHES 0 $0.00 695 OTHER 0 $0,00 396 97,146 $278 121 0 3,133 AGRICULTURE 0 $8,906 0 100,000 200,000 300,000 400,000 DOLLARS NOTE, Tax Rate necessary to provide $ 750,000 for Storm Water Utility O&M expences Fee = based/ion $50,000 for initial impact of EPA regulations EXHIBIT IV-"-2 SW2DRY1 1 1 f STORM WATER UTILITY Fee vs Tax Revenue Analysis Of Storm Water , Utility runding Options April 8, 1993 ' C SpOfT12f Annual Revenues Fee ~ Tax F _-7 li r RETAIL S 1.593 1,009 RESTAURANT 109 RIV NESS f. 272 1,085 j SMALL BUSINESS 150 1 STRIP CENTER 1 1,552 1,641 STRIP CENTER 2 1,840 1,277 STRIP CENTER 3 758 828 APARTMENT 11 1,552 71879 APARTMENT 2 537 673 I APARTMENT 3-ti. 1492 CHURCH I 308 CHURCH 2 748 0 I 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 NOTE: DOLLARS The above fi,3ures are based upon the available information of existing t establishment, and were included In the Storm Water Utility committees report, Property values and tax rates may have changed since then. BASED M Annual carges per Impervious Acre = $ 226.28 Tax Rate (Drainage Share) _ $ 003753/$100 Valuation EXHIBIT IV-B sw, oAw I I STORM WATER UTILITY Residential Payment Comparison Tax / Flat Fee / Block Fee April 8, 1993 Tax K'X x5 Block Fee Flat Fee ($1.50,fmth) $ 1.00 TO 7000 SO FT LOT Unit $ 2.00 TO 10,000 $0 FT LOT Description $ 3.50 TO 13,000 SO FT LOT $ 5.00 TO 6,000 SO FT LOT F~044 7 zs 16 1.00 `S."~!x}'~xTM12_ F0~000 1o e7 . 18 1.00X2 r1F0000 14 s ,00 1z SF 7,000 22.47 f 1e 12.00 s, 24 F0000 27.19 I 2.10 ~F, F13000 41 69 a to 3.50 42 n $200,000 70.7 S4 ,i F16`.p~ 1s 5.00 1r ~.S?Y' 60 { 0 20 40 60 80 NOTE; DOLLARS Tax Rate necessary to provide $ 600,000 for Storm Water Utility = 0.036255, Fee based on lot size has not been evaluated based upon a count of lots by size and the revenue requirements for residential establishment. No Homestead Exemption " Homestead Exemption Taken Into Account SW3 DRW EXHIBIT IV-C i HANDOUT TO COUNCIL 4-13-93 i M E M 0 R A N D U M-- 1 TG: Lloyd V. Harrell 1 City Manager FRJM Nonie Malo-Kull, Manager Environmental Health Services DATE: April 8, 1993 SUBJ: Hartfelt Humane Society On February Its, 1993, Dr. Thomas Murnane of the Texas Department of Health inspected the Hartfelt Humane Socity, 1800 Fort 'north Drive Denton, Texas. After completing his inspection Dr. Murnane came to the animal control facility to 4 determine if the city would be willing to accept the animals from the humane socity if he could convience the organization's leadership to release them. Dr, Murnane was told that we would ' be able to tra,isport the animals and to shelter them if they were released to us. Dr. Murnane returned to the Hartfelt Shelter anu recommended that the shelter discontinue operation until substantial ` improvements were made to the facility. He also recommended that the humane society director, Laura dill, release the shelter animals to animal control, which she choose to do. Animal control picked up fifty-six dogs and one cat that t afternoon. The next day Dr. Steve Meyerdirk, D.V.M. and Dr. Don Dyal, D.V.M. came to the animal control facitlty and perfomed superficial examinations of the the animals. Dr, Dyal, who was the first to observe the dogs and the car„ prescribed medication for the dogs to combat a heavy parasitic infestation. The city was only charged for the drugs, as both R doctors donated their time. The total medical expense for these animals was $31.80. Subsequently, twenty-eight dogs died while at the animal control center, twenty-five were euthanasized, two were returned to their original owners, and two were adopted to new owners. It costs the city approximately $4.22 per day to shelter one animal. The chart on the following page illustrates the holding cost of housing the iifty-seven animals from the Hartfelt Humane Socity. I f r Hartfelt Humane Socity April 8, 1993 Page -2- i Disposition No. of Animals/Method of Disposition Holding j Date Per Day Cost I1 ~ Adopted Returned Died In Euth, ; to Owner ; Kennel 02-18-93 02-19-93 $ 8.94 1 02-20-93 02-21-93 ; 02-22-93 02-23-93 2 42.20 02-24-93 5 126.60 02-25-93 4 118.16 02-26-93 2 135.04 02-27-93 I 2 113.94 I 02-28-93 3 03-01-93 2 139.26 03-02-93 ' 109.28 ~ 2 109.72 03-03-93 6 25 11,831.48 - . M TOTAL ' - 2 2 28 25 2,726.12 i The city spends approximately $9.39 to euthanize a dog or cat. $ 9.39 x 25 $ 234.75 i The total cost for housing the animals from the Hartfelt Humane SOcitey was $2,960,67. The city was not required to hold these animals for any specified amount of time as they became our property when they were released to us. We choose to hold them for two weeks in the hope that new homes could be found for those who were healthy enough to put up for adoption, I ,r Hartfelt Humane Socity April 8, 1993 Page -3- On March 19, 1993, Jerry Drake and I had a meeting with Barbara Coe, Bettye Johnson, and Gretchen Johnson of the Denton Humane Society, and Jan Buck and Dr. Murnane of the Texas Department of Health. The purpose was to look for a way to respond to the numerous calls all three of our respective agencies had been receiving concerning the continued operation of the Hartfelt Humane Society. Merry promised to research the legal issues concerning which organization would have Jurisdiction in this case. The humane society and animal control agreed to record any activity we observed at 1800 Fort ',forth Drive and to share this information with the State Health Department in an effort to prove that the facility was still being used as a shelter. Animal Control Officers are making numerous trips past 1800 Fort Worth Drive daily. A -log is being kept of the dates and times animals have been seen at the facility, as well as a brief description of the animals, I will be in contact with Dr. Murnane, when he returns to his office, on April 14, 1993, in an effort to determine what his intent is in this matter, when he will be doing his next inspection, and if he is in need of any additional assistance from this office. Please advise if I can provide any additional information. , HANDOUT TO COUNCIL 4-13-93 i i I I ~ { I 15 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1. JURISDICTION OVER JUVENILES There are three types of jurisdiction over juveniles in municipal court: traffic, criminal and alcohol offenses. I A. Traffic Offenses Article 67011.4, Vernon's Texas Civil Statutes, defines jurisdiction over traffic offenses by juveniles. The offenses named under this Section shall be under the jurisdiction of the courts regularly empowered to try misdemeanors which carry a maximum fine-only pe,;,lty of S 100 and shall not be under the jurisdiction of the juvenile courts. Section 5.07, Penal Code and Section 51.03, Family Code, both reflect that traffic prosecutions are an exception to general jurisdictional rules. That means that a municipal court has the jurisdiction to try juveniles charged with traffic offenses, including motor vehicle traffic ordinances of an incorporated city or town. Article 67011.4 is very specific about the age of the juveniles that are subject to criminal prosecution for statutory traffic offenses. As defined, juveniles are those who have passed their 14th birthday but not yet reached their 17th birthday. Children younger than 14 do not fall within the municipal court's jurisdiction over statutory traffic cases. However, children aged 10 and over can be prosecuted in municipal court for municipal ordinance traffic violations. Persons 17 and oldAr are defined as adults and are not subject to juvenile procedures. Juveniles have the same rights and privileges as adults to request the right to complete a driving safety course. Juveniles are required to enter a plea of guilty or no contest when requesting to take a driving safety course under Articles 6701d, Section 143A a 2 , Vernon's Texas Civil Statutes. Courts have the authority to grant probation under Article 45.54, Code CA41ver 15.- Juveniles and Minors, Page 1 h { I Of Criminal Procedure. Juveniles have the same rights as adults under this Article. Under Article 45.55, code or criminal Procedure, municipal courts have the a.thority to defer proceedings for 90 days against defendants under the age of 18 or enrolled full time in an accreditai secondary school program leading towards a high school diploma whoare charged with a misdemeanor punishable by fine only or a violation of a penal ordinance of a political subdivision, including traffic offenses punishable by fine only, and allow them to complete a teen court program. B. Criminal OfTenses As of September 1, 1991, municipal courts have jurisdiction over criminal matters involving juveniles. Section 51.03, Family Code, was amended to add Subsection (f). Now not only are traffic offenses excluded from the detinhica of conduct in need of supervision, but also excluded are violations of municipal ordinances and penal laws, except public intoxication. Section SI.02(l)(A), Family Code, defines a child as a person who is 10years of age or older offenses for and under 17 years of age. Municipal courts may handle Class C this age BrouP, but they must be handled under juvenile law guidelines. C. Alcoholic Beverage Code Offenses Juvenile jurisdiction over alcohol offenses are similar to criminal offenses. Persons from age 10 up to the age of 17 may be tried in municipal court for alcohol related offenses as a juvenile. 11. WAIVING JURISDICTION The municipal court may not waive jurisdiction and transfer the case to juvenile court if the cases are based on municipal traffic ordinances or state traffic violations. Although there are differing opinions, there is reason to substantiate the belief that municipal ordinance violations, other than traffic, are transferrable. The municipal court must waive jurisdic0on and transfer the case to juvenile court if the child has been previously convicted of two prior fine-only offenses other than traffic, whether based c , state law or non traffic municipal ordinances. Judges may waive jurisdiction of those cases if they are the first or second offenses. Chapter 15: Juvendes and Minors, Page 2 JURISDICTION OVER FINE-ONLY MISDEMEANORS FiN&ONLY MISDFNIFANORS Municipal Courts Juvtnik Courts Traffic Offenses v rxclmive original jurisdiction may not • No original jurMiction. (state lax or city ordinance) he waived. a Nojur6dktkn at all. Non-Traffic Criminal ORensea a Original jurisdiction except P.1. • No original juriedkim except PI (state Iax) (Peblk Intndatid+) a Must accept tramrer from criminsi e May waive Jurisdiction and Irmi Io court. juvenile court if no or just one prior 00i iclio¢. r City Ordinance Offense • Probabk traurmbility tojuvenile s Prmtnble traoatershbr) w juvcnik (n'U-traffic) court see $tmy for compkie neon See !'vi for c, mplete discuseton. Jac uuina Alcobolk Beverage Code Chapter 106, Akobotk Ikverge Must a;eep transfer frtm. nmms. Offrnses Code, originaljuriedkik~ caun. May m iw jurisdktkm if nn « just nne pci r comxtk,r Public Intoxication • No jurisdiction Musa be filed in jalnile court. Juvenile Court exclusively: Felonies, Jailabie misdemeanors and public intoxicatkm. Juvenik Court aatd Justice at Truants. the Peace concurrent: Municipal Court sad Justice Fine-only state law misdemeanors except publ c intoxication. If no or one 'J of the Peace concurrent: prior conviction, criminal court may waive jurisdiction and transfer case to juvenile coup it two or ttlltm prior convktfons, criminal court must waive jurisdiction and transfer to Juvenile court. Exception: nowalver or transfer 11 i of traffic rases. h1unklpel. Court exclusively-. City ordinance violations. If no or one prior conviction, criminal court may waive jurisdiction and transfer cue to Juvenile court. If two or more prior convictions, criminal court must waive jurisdiction and transfer to Juvenile court. Exception: no waterer or transfer of traffic cases. r Chapfer 15: Jut ertiles and Minors, Page b H. RAIDER OF JVRI.SDICTIOA' AND TRANSFER 7'0 JUVENILE (OC RT Cause No. The STATE of TEXAS T VS. N'1 In the MUNICIPAL COURT C City of C County of Defendant's Birthdale: Offense Charged WAIVER OF JURISDICTION AND TRANSFER TO JUVENILE COURT 'CO: Juvzniie Court Pursuant TOOL - .thority of Section 51.08, Family Code, the municipal coup referenced above waives its jurisdiction in the case set out and transfers the case to the Juvenile court named, the case was not Transferred to the municipal court by the juvenile court punuant to Section 54.02, Family Case, nor is it a case alleging the offense of perjury, public intoxication or a traffic violation. The case does allege an offense classified as a misdemeanor punishable only by fine or violation of city ordinance other than traffic. The records of this municipal court show of this defendant; ❑ No prior case filed Juvenile Docket No.; ❑ No prior conviction Offense: ❑ Previous conviction(s) Punishment assessed: Final Disposition: TMCTC Nets Check only what is applicable. Add u ma I nY prim oomicdom a your recarda show aarepf arpir. The following marked documents are enclosed to effect this waiver of municipal court jurisdiction and transfer of the case to the Juvenile Court. ❑ Citation ❑ Appearance Bond ❑ Complaint ❑ Notice to Juvenile and ❑ Magistrate's Warning Certificate Pare nt(s) /Ouardfan(s) of Sctting ❑ Juvenile ConfessiotiNolunlary ❑ Subpoena for Hearing Statement Warnings ❑ Writ Summoning Venire ❑ Waver of Rights by a Juvenile ❑ Venire ❑ Magistrate's Certification and ❑ Jury List Acknowledgment of Voluntary ❑ Verdict Statement of Juvenile ❑ Certified Copy of Judgment Signed and entered this - day of . AD., 19 1 J.idge, 1GcJpal Court City of Cou ty T TMCTC Naar, Municipal amn Mould check only those items that are av"bk Ina particular can. Na every err w h lave etrry Item. In trantferribe the ease, the municipal court Mould send an oriklna} paw to the )vvm0e coup, bulk abound keep enplea to Ira owo oat frk. Chnprrr 15. Juvendes and Minors, Pahr 7 IU• ORDER OF RAIVI,'R OF JURISDICTION AND TRANSFER TO M'ENILE COURT Cause No. i IN RE: T N1 In the MUNICIPAL COURT C City of T County of ORDER OF WAIVER OF JURISDICTION AND TRANSFER TO JUVENILE COURT The honnr%)le judge of the city of municipal court, having , examined the pr,'„r records in the matter of the abmc named juvenile, makes the following findings: I• the juvenile is _ years of age, born b)ect to the juvenile court's age limitation under Section 51 U2, Texas .'amilyaCode, 2. the jtvenile has previously been convicted of the offense or juvenile docket no. of the city of municipal court and of the offense of jWenile docket _ of the city of municipal court OR 2. the juvenh I has not been previouay convicted by the crcy of municipal ar,trt; 3. the of"ensa for whic,l the juvenile has been previously convicted are misdemeanors punishat,le only by fine and constitute vio?aiotu of state law or city ordinance other than traf iq and 4. the offense with which the juvenile stand, charged In this case is a misdemeanor punishable only by fine and constitutes a violation of stale law or city ordinance other than traffic. Now, therefore, this honorable court Orders That Its criminal jurisdiction is walved In this matter and that this cause is transferred to the (en'er pmm name of appropriate juvenile cmn) of this county, also referred to as the _ county juvenile court, for further proceedings consistent with the Tetras family Cod cane and other applicable law. Signed and entered this day of A 'D.' l9 Judge, Municipal Court sty County, Texas tMCTC Nokt Rather than, Of in Wditioa to. the tnneminat ktter is Mutratioe lt. or this Chapter, the own might prchr to tofu ?his order vaMng Jurisdiction and transferring the cane to juvenile Court. Either ahwtd sufnee to accomplish the task 11111d to document the Minn, Chal,rrr 15: Jurrniles and hfinmr, Page x 1 HANDOUT TO COUNCIL 4-13-93 j f i I~ J JUVENILES AND MINORS IN MUNICIPAL COLRT There are special jurisdictional problems and procedures for hands,., juveniles and minors. This article will cover juvenile jurisdiction, senten, ne alternatives, magistrate warnings, and special provisions pertaining to minor, 1. Jurisdiction There are three types of jurisdiction over juveniles in Municipal Court: Trafri:, Criminal and Alcohol Offenses. Each is unique and is handled differently. Traffic Article 67011-4, Section 1, of the Texas Statutes lists the traffic offenses which a juvenile may be charged. It includes all offen;es covered by the Uniform Traffic Act (Article 6701d), the safety responsibility law (Ani;le 6701h), the driver's license provisions (Article 6687b), the vehicle registration provisions (Article 6675b), the motorcycle helmet law (Article 6701c-3), and th; vehicle equipment regulations (Article 6701d-11). ' Minors, fourteen through sixteen years of age, who violate these lau, ma,. be handled in the municipal court. Once the minor reaches se%enteen. h; considered an adult and juvenile procedures do not apply. Minor traffic offenders are generally subject to the same procedures as i adults. They have the right to trial by judge or jury; they may be repr,,; by an attorney; the burden of proof is on the state; and they has; " appeal rights. A significant difference in the way a juvenile case is handled is appearance in court. First, the juvenile is required to physically come to cour, While the law allows adults to dispose of their citations by mail, a ju%~,ni13 cannot. Second, Article 67011-4, Section la, requires the minor to b: accompanied by their parent or guardian when entering a plea or appearing in court. A municipal court is prohibited from convicting a minor in their parer! or guardian's absence unless the court is unable to locate or compel the paren~; presence after "due diligence". The maximum punishment for a juvenile's traffic offense is different than the sine which may be levied against an adult. A court may only assess up to a one-hundred dollar fine for any of the above described traffic offenses. tThis one hundred dollar limit does not include the court costs which must be assessed.) There are also sentencing alternatives which are special to juveniles Those will be detailed later in this article under "Punishment Criminal As of September 1, 1991, municipal courts have jurisdiction over criminal matters involving juveniles. Texas House Bill 944 gave Municipal Courts jurisdiction uver minors for fine only Penal Code and municipal ordinance violations. Offenses committed after their tenth birthday but prior to their seventeenth birthday must be handled under juvenile law guidelines, Offenses committed before age ten in Texas cannot be prosecuted under present law. Municipal courts are also not allowed to handle public intoxication cases. They are handled by the juvenile court which is probably a district court or counts court of law in your area. , When handling a juvenile under the criminal statutes, it is important to notify the parents of all proceedings. If a guardian at litem has been appointed to represent the child, they should also be notified. Consequently, a parent should always be present during any proceedings. 2 If a parent does not come to court with the child, the court should use diligence" to compel the parents appearance. The parents cannot howe~er• , forced or arrested to compel their attendance. If the parents do not µish t , appear or their they cannot be located, the judge may waive their appeara%., and see the child alone. As in all cases in municipal coup, the defendant, even if they are aj,i%en,ie• has the right to have a jury hear their case, may have an attorney represent them, may appeal any adverse decision, and is entitled to have ail the evidentiary rules apply. The juvenile in municipal court probably does not have a right to have an appointed lawyer. The court must be cautious, however. If the child does not j understand the proceedings or is incompetent to handle their own defense, assistance of appointed counsel may be necessary. The child should also be excluded from the public during all proceedings in municipal court. Texas Family Code Section 54.08 limits public access to court proceedings regarding juveniles. The same principles should apply in municipal court. In addition, all court documents should be maintained separately from adults. This allows the court to follow Family Code Section 51,14 which limits access to juvenile records to the judge, juvenile probation officials, the professional staff of the court, an attorney in the proceeding, or any other individual who has a legitimate interest in the matter. Under House Bill 944, recently passed, the court must also notify the juvenile court in their county of all cases filed against juveniles and of the disposition of those cases. The municipal court must also waive jurisdiction and transfer a juvenile's case to juvenile court if the ON has been previously convicted of two prior "fine only" offenses. If the judge needs to do this, he or she should gather all pertinent documents in the rase and forward them to the juvenile court along with an order showing the previous two convictions. It is then the responsibility of the juvenile court to handle the case. The municipal court may also waive the first or second offenses if the judge wishes. The exception to transferring a case is for city code violations. Those cases remain the responsibility of the municipal court even if the juvenile has been 3 HANDOUT TO COUNCIL 4-13-93 I i I II li I I 15 ESSAY ON JUVENILES AND MINORS INTRODUCTION Children who commit crimes present a problem for the criminal justice system. They are presumed to have something less than mature adult judgment, as can be seen in a variety of statutes both civil and criminal. Because of presumed lesserjudgment and maturity, there is a question of just how culpable the law should hold children for their actions. On the other hand, the law must protect citizens from crimes committed by juveniles as surely as from those committed by adults. The initial issue for the criminal justice system is jurisdiction. What court(s) should have jurisdiction over children and the crimes they commit? Frankly, the answer to that question has changed many times over the years as the juvenile justice system has developed. Before i 1973, for instance, criminal courts and juvenile courts were granted concurrent jurisdiction over children's traffic offenses. In that year, exclusive jurisdiction over thou cases was vested in the criminal courts and dropped from the juvenile courts. The decade of the seventies also saw what some call a "revolution" in juvenile justice, as the system struggled seriously to balance the need to treat children as less sophisticated than adults and, therefore, less culpable against the need to deal with the ever more serious problem of the crimes children commit. The Legislature, in 1991, after basically divesting municipal courts of juvenile jurisdiction in 1989, reinvested criminal courts with jurisdiction over many juvenile offenses. Today, juvenile courts have jurisdiction over delinquent conduct and conduct indicating a need for supervision, including felonies, jailable misdemeanors, public intoxication and conduct (like running away from home) that is not criminal. The juvenile court may certify as an adult a child of 15 or more who commits a felony and transfer the case io district court where the Chapter 15. luvenilrr and Minors, Page 17 child may be tried, convicted and punished as an adult (except in capital murder cases). Juvenile courts and justice of the peace courts, but not municipal courts, share jurisdiction over truants-children who do not attend school as required. However, municipal courts do have jurisdiction over parents or legal guardians of truant children.' 1. MUNICIPAL COURT JURISDICTION The title of this Chapter draws from one of the jurisdictional lines that must be examined and understood. What is the difference between a "juvenile" and a "minor"? Those terms are not interchangeable, even though they are often used that way. Section 8.07 of the Penal Code sets out a general rule that has many exceptions. That statute provides that a person cannot be convicted of or punished as an adult for most criminal offenses committed when the person was younger than 17 years of age unless the juvenile court waives its jurisdiction, certifies that the child is competent to be tried as an adult, and transfers the case to criminal court. Without yet considering all the exceptions to this general rule, we have one of the basic terms of art that is important to this discussion- A juvenile is a person who is younger than 17 years old. Section 51.02, Family Code, reflects this definition in the Penal Code. The Family Code also sets a minimum age of 10 for prosecuting children. Chapter 106 of the Alcoholic Beverage Code sets the minimum age at which a person may legally drink or possess alcoholic beverages. That age is 21 years old. A "minor", then, is a person younger than 21 years of age. While there is some overlap between the terms, this discussion will generally use the term "minor" to refer to a person younger than 21 charged with a violation of the Alcoholic Beverage Code. The term 'juvenile" or "child" will generally be used to refer to a person younger than 17 who is charged with any other offense. Along with the jurisdictional author.'ty and limitations discussed in Chapter 4, Processing Cases, in this Manual, the age of the defendant also limits the municipal court's jurisdiction. Still other limitations exist because of the nature of the cases that may be filed. This section and the next will draw distinctions between traffic cases, non-traffic criminal cases, alcohol cases and city ordinance cases. See Illustration 1. in the Illustrations Section. Chapm, IS: Juveniles and Minors, Page 18 W W_ A. Statutory Traffic Cases Article 670I1-4, Vernon's Texas Civil Statutes, defines jurisdiction over driving offenses by juveniles. Section 8.07, Penal Code, and Section 51.03, Family Code, both reflect that traffic prosecutions are an exception to general jurisdictional rules. That means that the criminal courts that usually have original jurisdiction over traffic prosecutions 4e., municipal and justice courts-retain that jurisdiction even if the defendant is a juvenile. Article 67011.4 is very specific about the age of juveniles who are subject to criminal prosecution for traffic offenses. Subject juveniles are those who have passed their 14th birthday but not yet reached their 17th. Hence, the municipal court is empowered to hear statutory .raffic cases against children aged 14, 15 and 16. The juvenile who has been found guilty of a state traffic offense shall be punished by a Fine of not more than $100. Cases against children younger than 14 years should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Persons 17 or older are treated as adults. The municipal court does not need any special grant of jurisdiction for persons older than 17 nor are they subject to special juvenile procedures. Juvenile courts do not have and cannot acquire jurisdiction over traffic offenses committed 1 by juveniles between the ages of 14 and 16. I Article 67011.4, Section 1(b), defines "traffic law" to include all of the following: • Article 6675a-1, et seq. Registration of Vehicles t • Article 6675a-5e.1 Disabled Persons-Parking • Article 6675b-1 Operating Unregistered Vehicle • Article 6675b-2 Operating under Improper Licerse • Article 6675b-3 Motorcycle without Seal • Article 6675b-4 Unauthorued Distinguishing Seal • Article 6675b-5 Sale of Imitation Seal or Number • Article 6675b-6 Own Number and Seal • Article 6675b-7 Wrong or Unclean Number Plate • Article 6687b Driver's License Chapter 13: 1wenites an4 Minas, Page 19 + i I I~ • Article 6701c-3 Protective fit idgear for Motorcycle Operators an:: Passengers • Article 6701d Uniform Act Regulating Traffic • Article 670ld-11 Operation of Vehicles • Article 6701h Motor Vehicle Safety Responsibility t B. statutory Non-Traffic Criminal Cases Besides traffic cases, other fine-only misdemeanors ma} be filed and prosecuted against juveniles in criminal courts, including municipal courts. These include such offenses as petty shoplifting, Class C assault and disorderly conduct under the Penal Code. One specific exception is the Penal Code offensa of public intoxication. All the jurisdictional statutes already reviewed specifically require that public intoxication cases against persons younger than 17 years of age be filed in juvenile court. No other court has jurisdiction. All other state law violations that meet the requirements for municipal court jurisdiction may be riled against juveniles. Those requirements include; 1 I • misdemeanor; • punishable only by fine; and I • maximum fine of $5002 i This grant of jurisdiction is more general than the traffic statute just discussed. It is made by amending the more general provisions in Section 8.07, Penal Code, and Chapter 51, Faml'y Code. Section 51.02, Family Code, does not permit prosecution of a child younger than 10 years of age. The Family Code provides the only statutory guidance for many procedures involving the juvenile defendant. Municil a courts should look to the purposes and procedures set out in the Family Code in the absence of other specific statutory provisions. Chapter 13: lureniles and Afinors, Page 20 C. Alcoholic Beverage Code Cases Public intoxication charges against juveniles must be filed and prosecuted in juvenile courts. As already explained, specific reservations of jurisdiction mean that criminal courts do not have and cannot acquire jurisdiction over juveniles' public intoxication cases. This p&rt of the discussion focuses on Chapter 106 of the Alcoholic Beverage Code and lawful interpretations made of those provisions. The provisions, procedures and punishment set out in the Alcoholic Beverage Code make these cases against minors different from other cases. While the definition of "minor" as a person younger than 21 years of age sets some jurisdictional parameters, there is no specific grant of jurisdiction in Chapter 106. Only by lawful interpretation of the statutes has the question of jurisdiction been decided. Lawful interpretations of jurisdiction under Chapter 106, Alcoholic Beverage Code, have k come primarily from Attorney General Opinions. A number of Opinions have repeatedly confirmed that minors 15 years of age and older can be prosecuted in criminal courts.' Among the charges that may be filed against minors under the Alcoholic Beverage Code are: • Section 106.02 Purchase of Alcohol by a Minor • Section 106.04 Consumption of Alcohol by a Minor • Section 106.OS Possession of Alcoho! by a Alinor Section 106.06 Purchase of Alcohol for a Minor, Furnishing Alcohol to a Minor • Section 106.07 Misrepresentation of Age by a Minor D. Municipal Ordinance Cases Municipal ordinance violations may be filed against juveniles in municipal court by virtue of recent legislative amendments to Section 8.07, Penal Code, and Section 51.03(f), Family Code. Though confusing language hints at some distinction between city ordinances that regulate traffic and all other city ordinances, the consensus of opinion is that there was in fact no legislative intent to draw such a distinction. Chap,rr 1S: luieniles and Minors, Page 21 Of course, municipal court jurisdiction is limited to fine-only offenses. Under Article 4.14, Code of Criminal Procedure, which gives the municipal court exclusive original jurisdiction over fine-only city ordinance cases, the maximum fine is set at $500 in most cases. In cases where the ordinance violation involves fire safety, zoning or public health and sanitation, including the dumping of refuse from a motor vehicle, however, the maximum fine may increu~.e to up to $2,000 without exceeding municipal court jurisdiction. 11. POSSIBILITIES AND LIMITS OF WAIVING JURISDICTION There are cases over which criminal courts must waive their jurisdiction and transfer the cases to juvenile court. There are other cases where waiver and transfer are permitted but not required. There are still other cases where waiver and transfer are prohibited. This discussion wifl be of Section 51.08, Family Code, which governs the transfer of cases from criminal court to juvenile court. See Illustrations It. and Ill. in the Illustrations Section. A. Statutory Traffic Cases State law vests jurisdiction over fine-only traffic offenses, whether they arise under state law or municipal ordinance, in criminal courts rather than juvenile courts! Juvenile courts do not have and cannot acquire jurisdiction over traffic offenses committed by juveniles. These traffic cases may properly be filed in either municipal court or justice court, depending on where the offense was committed. S:1i they cannot be filed in juve file court. Furthermore, the criminal courts cannot divest themselves of jurisdiction over juveniles' traffic cases. Neither the municipal court not the justice court can waive jurisdiction over traffic cases where the defendant is a juvenile. They cannot transfer the cases to juvenile court. This is the rule, no matter how many or Oat kind of prior convictions a juvenile has acquired. Confusing language in recent legislative amendments to Section 8.070 Penal Code, and Section SI.03(01 Family Code, causer! some initial confusion regarding cases that involve violations of city traffic ordinances. See Section L, Municipal Coeur funsdicrion, Subsection D., Chy Ordinance Cases, of this Chapter. At the time of rublication, the belief is that traffic cases--whett er they arise under state law or municipal ordinance-must be filed in municipal or justice court when the defendant is a juvenile. Furthermore, the consensus is that the I Chapter 15: Juveniles arur Minors, Pop- 22 criminal courts cannot waivej. risdiction and transfer such cases to juvenile court, no matter how many prior convictions or what kind of prior convictions the defendant may have. B. Statutory Non-Traffc Criminal Cases Criminal courts have some discretion over whether or not to exercise jurisdiction in juvenile, non-traffic criminal cases that arise under state law. Section S1.08(b), Family Code, governs waiver of criminal court jurisdiction and transfer of cases to juvenile court. Subseclloe (b)(1) is the mandatory waiver provision, and Subsection (b)(2) is the discretionary provision. 'I 1 1. Mandatory waiver 7 Subsection (1) requires the criminal court to waive jurisdiction, transfer the case and refer the child to juvenile court in some cases. Where a child is charged in criminal court with some offense other than traffic or public intoxication, and where the child has two or more prior convictions for fine-only misdemeanors under state law (excluding traffic and public intoxication) or non-traffic city ordinances, then the criminal court must waive jurisdiction and transfer the case to juvenile court. What convictions do not count toward mandatory waiver? Traffic, public intoxication (since jurisdiction is already vested in t5c juvenile court) and municipal traffic ordinances. Two prior convictions of the child of any otr.,r fine-only misdemeanors triggers the mandatory requirement of waiver of jurisdiction an,t transfer. If there are two or more countable convictions, then the criminal court must lrans`er the case to juvenil: court. 2. Discretionary waiver Section S1.08(b)(2), Family Code, allows the criminal court to excrcis.; discretion over jurisdiction in some juvenile cases, in cases where a child is charged with a fine-only 4 Ik misdemeanor except any traffic violation (state or municipal) or public intoxication, the t criminal court has discretion about whether to process the case or transfer it to juvenile court. If the child has not been convicted previously, or if the child has only one prior conviction for a fine-only misn~.n,eanor, the criminal court may choose to waive its r iurisdiction and transfer the case to ju-.nile court. Chapter 13: /rveniles and Minor. Page 2? I f t i I Criminal courts must handle traffic cases against juveniles age 14 through 16, whether the cases arise under state law or city ordinance, and jurisdiction cannot be waived. Discretion may be exercised if the child has not been convicted, or only convicted once, of a fine-only misdemeanor not involving traffic or public intoxication. But if the child has two or more i previous convictions for non-traffic misdemeanors punishable by fine only, and is charged in municipal court with another such offense, then the municipal court is required to waive its jurisdiction and transfer the case to the juvenile court. With one prior conviction or with _ no prior conviction in a non-traffic case, waiver and transfer are discretionary. Two or more ` previous comictions make waiver and transfer mandatory. i i If the municipal court waives jurisdiction over a non-traffic fine-only misdemeanor and transfers the case, the juvenile court takes jurisdiction under Section SI.04, Family Code. Wh.ther the criminal court's waiver is mandatory or discretionary, the juvenile court would lake jurisdiction under its authority over conduct indicating a need for supervision (GINS). Juvenile court jurisdiction in a waiver and transfer case does not depend on the child's prior ! conviction(s), if any. The transfer itself is necessary to vest jurisdiction in the juvenile court. ~ i C. Alcoholic Beverage Code Cases i { I These cases arc in the same category as th,! other non-traffic cases arising under state law, as discussed in the preceding section. Alcoholic Beverage Code cases are, therefore, handled in the same manner and with the same applications of discretionary and mandatory I waivers of criminal court jurisdiction and transfer to juvenile court. i 1). Municipal Ordinance Cases This area is less certain than the others previously discussed because of the confusing language of recent legislative amendments to Section SLOB, Family Code. The confusing language ccnsists of a double negative and pertains to waiver cf jurisdiction by criminal courts and transfei of cases to juvenile courts. It seems to distinguish city ordinances that regulate traffic from other city ordinances. That reading would hold that traffic cases arising under city ordinances must be filed in municipal court and cannot be transferred to juvenile court. It would also not count convictions in those cases toward mandatory waiver and transfer. Because of this possible reading, our discussion here notes the possible distinction. Chaprrr 13: Jurender and Minor., Page 24 There is another interpretation possible, however. It derives lfU1TI reading several statute, in tandem. 'fhe 1991 legislative amendments to Section &07, Penal Code, do not contain the same ambiguous language as the Family Cade piovisino governing transfers of cases from criminal court to juvenile court. [The Family Gyde g(nrrrs matters pertaining to juveniles while the Penal Code governs criminal offenses,} The Penal Code changes refer only to "violation of a penal ordinance of a prilnical suNInision" arid do not distinguish non- traffic from traffic. Furthermore, Article 4,14 of the Cwle of Criminal Procedure sets out municipal court jurisdiction. For city ordinance violaiions where punishment is by fine only ^ and the maximum fine is either $500 or $2,O.K1, depending on the nature of the case, municipal court jurisdiction is not only original but also exclusive. Neither the Penal Code nor the Code of Criminal Procedure draws any &tinctior. b-awepn traffic ordinances of a city and any other municipal ordinances. On that basis, marry believe that municipal ordinance cases-regardless of type-are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the municipal court and that the municipal court cannot waive its jurisdiction or transfer such cases to juvenile court, If the latter interpretation were correct, then city ordinance cases would be handled in the same manner as traffic canes. The municipal court would have no discretion over jurisdiction. It would have to handle the case. Waiver of jurisdiction and transfer would be prohibited, In conclusion, the municipal court must handle all fine-only misdemeanor cases arising under state laws governing traffic, city ordinances governing traffic, and quite likely all city ordinances. There is no discretion In those cases over jurisdiction. Jurisdiction cannot be waived, and the cases cannot be transferred to juvenile court, no matter how many or what kind of prior convictions the juvenile defendant has. Convictions in these cases are riot counted toward the mandatory waiver of jurisdiction. In all other fine-only misdemeanor cases, including alcohol cases with the exception of public intoxication, the municipal court has some discretion over the exercise of jurisdiction. If the juvenile has no prior convictions or just one prior conviction in this kind of case, the municipal court may choose to waive its jurisdiction and transfer the case. If the juvenile has two or more previous convictions in this kind of case, the municipal court is required to waive its jurisdiction and transfer the case to juvenile court. One noted authority and author in the area of juvenile law, Professor O. Dawson of the University of Texas School of Law, suggests that the municipal court might hold some very informal hearing on the waiver of jurisdiction and transfer, even though no statutory procedural guidelines have been enacted. lie suggests that some due process hearing might Chapter 15.- lurendes and Motors, Page 25 I1 I be required because of the consequences of waiver and transfer. Whereas the municipal court can only impose some kind of probation under various deferred proceedings statutes or a fine, the juvenile court could, on a transferred case, impose CINS (Children In Need of Supervision) probation supervision for a year at a time extending up to the day before the child's 18th birthday. Professor Dawson suggests notice to the child and the child's parent(s) or legal guardian(s) that the municipal court is considering transferring the case to juvenile court, lie also suggests giving them the opportunity to argue against transfer. Besides demonstrating a consideration of due process of law, such a hearing could also have the ingenious practical effect of giving the child a vested interest in satisfying the municipal court's judgment that the child might not otherwise have. 't'his procedure would not apply in rases where the municipal court cannot waive its jurisdiction or in cases where the municipal court is required to waive its jurisdiction. In those cases, the court has no discretion over jurisdiction and the juvenile defendant's arguments for or against exercising or waiving jurisdiction would be pointless. But in those cases involving non-traffic state law violations, where the defendant has not yet acquired two or more similar convictions, and where the court may choose to exercise or waive jurisdiction, the juvenile defendant faces serious consequences if the municipal court transfers the case to juvenile court. In those cases, the court might notify the child and parent(s) or legal guardian(s) that it is considering transfer and allow them to argire against the transfer to juvenile court. Due process requires a hearing when juvenile court waives its jurisdiction' The reason is, however, because the possible penalty to be imposed is greater in criminal court than in juvenile court, Ill, SPECIAL PROCEDURES IN MUNICIPAL COURT Some recent procedural changes have an indirect effect on juvenile cases. Perhaps the most significant is the amendment of Article 14.06, Code of Criminal Procedure, which allows a peace officer to issue a citation in lieu of making a warrantless arrest in any Class C 11 misdemeanor case except public intoxication. Neither the statute nor the amendment distinguishes between adults and juveniles, so the statute is presumed to apply equally to j both. Public Intoxication is the exception because of the element of danger (to say nothing of the potential for liability for releasing or allowing dangerously drunk people to remain out of the custody of a responsible person) and because the public intoxication statute sets specific terms for the release from custody. Being able to issue a field release citation to a juvenile in lieu of taking the child into custody simply avoids the detention and rel-ase problems discussed in Chapter 6, Afagisrrate Wantings and Arrest Procedures, of this Manual. Chapter IS., lusendes and Minors, Page 26 i Other recent changes impact municipal court procedures directly. Boih the Alcoholic Beverage Code and Article 67011.4, Vernon's Texas Civil Statutes, the statute which vests jurisdiction over juveniles' traffic offenses in the criminal courts, set out specialized ` procedures for cases involving juvenile defendants. Any discussion of alcohol cases here involves offenses under the Alcoholic Beverage Code only and specifically excludes public intoxication over which the municipal court has no jurisdiction when the defendant is a juvenile. A. Defendant's Appearance In Court 1. Traffic cases ~I Article 67011.4, Section la, Vernon's Texas Civil Statutes, provides that no,juvenile may enter a plea except In open court in the presence of the defendant's parents or legal guardian. It also provides that no juvenile may be convicted or fined except in the presence of a parent or legal guardian. Therefore, a child cannot enter a plea, pay a Fine or process a case by mail like adults may do under Article 27.14, Code of Criminal Procedure. Section Is also imposes a duty on the court to summon or otherwise cause parent(s) or legal guardian(s) to be prerrnt for all proceedings, That duty must be discharged unless, after due diligence, the court is unable to locate them to compel their presence in court. In that case, and apparently in gnly that case, the court may waive the presence of the responsible adults. Of course, that same case may raise the issue of appointing counsel for the child In the interest of justice, particularly if the child does not appear capable of se if -representation. In traffic cases the child must appear personally. Juveniles cannot dispose of traffic cases by mail or simply pay at the window because Article 670114 would override the more general provisions in Article 27.14(c), Code of Criminal Procedure. ;t also follows that the juvenile may not appear by counsel, pursuant to Article 4537, Code of Criminal Procedure, rather,than in person. The juvenile traffic law is the more specific law in these cases. It seems logical to conclude that the parents or legal guardians cannot appear by counsel. That is, hire an attorney to represent the juvenile In court instead of personally being present. Chapter 15: luvendes aM Minors, Page 27 r h 1 2, Non traffic criminal cases In the absence of a specific statutory requirement that the child appear in court in person, such as exists in state traffic law and the Aleobolle Beverage Code, it would appear that more , general statutes governing appearances apply to juvenile defendants in the same manner as adult defendants. These general statutes include Article 4537, Code of Criminal Procedure, i which allows appearance by counsel; Article 27.14(a), Code of Criminal Procedure, which allows a plea of guilty or no contest in open court to be made in person or by counsel; Article 27,14(b), Code of Criminal Procedure, which allows fine-only misdemeanors to be handled entirely by mail; and Article 17.16, Code of Criminal Procedure, which allows a plea of not guilty to be made in person, by counsel or by mail. It is just as important that the parent(s) or legal guardian(s) be notified of the criminal proceedings against the child In these cases as in cases that arise under the traffic laws, Alcoholic Beverage Code or any others. The court should use due diligence to ensure the presence of parent(s), legal guardian or legal counsel with the child. If those adults live within the county, their presence may be compelled by subpoena which may be enforced by writ of attachment. Quite clearly, the preferred practice is to have both juvenile defendant and parent or legal guardian in court during all proceedings. 3, Alcoholic Beverage Code cases This Section, like all those in this Chapter discussing alcohol cases against juveniles, Is limited to violations of the Alcoholic Beverage Code, Public intoxication under the Penal Cale is specifically excluded because municipal courts have no jurisdiction over juveniles so accused. This is also the area where the term "minor" is used because this Code sets special procedures for cases in which the defendant is a minor, a term which applies to any person who has not yet reached the age of 21. Section 106.10, Alcoholic Beverage Code, prohibits any plea of guilty by a minor except in open court. Section 106.11(a) supports the idea that a minor must personally appear in court and requires the presence of a pared or legal guardian with a defendant younger than 18 by providing; Except as provided in Subsection (d) of this section, no person under eighteen r years of age may be convicted of an offense under this chapter unless his parent or legal guardian is present in court. Chapter 15: Juveniles and Minas, Page 28 I These are more specific statutes, both as to the age of the defendant and the charge(s) filed, The consensus opinion is that these more specific statutes would apply over the more general provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure cited earlier. 4. Municipal ordinance cases Given the plethora of state statutes, both general and specific, regarding a defendant's appearance in court, there appears to be no reason a city could not enact ordinances in harmony with the state laws. Unless there ire city ordinances adopted to govern court appearances, however, appearances in those cases would be governed by state laws. The most general are discussed earlier in Section Ill., Special Procedures in Alwd6pal Court, Subsection A.•2., Defendant's Appearance in Courr-Non-lraffc criminal cases. B. Accompanied by Parent or Legal Guardian Both traffic laws and the Alcoholic Beverage Code address this requirement. Section la of Article 67011.4 provides In part: No such minor shall be convicted. , . or fined... except in the presence of one or both parents or guardians.... The court shall cause one or both parents or guardians to be summoned to appear in court and shall require: one or both of them to be present during all proceedings in the case. Section 106.11 of the Alcoholic Beverage Code, in language quoted earlier, prohibits the court from convicting a minor younger than 18 unless a parent or legal guardian is present in c• urt. Both also impose on the court the duty of exercising due diligence to ensure the presence of parent(s) or legal guardian(s). Both also recognize limitations on the court's ability to compel the adults' presence, and so both allow enough leeway to the court to process cases if the court's efforts fail. Section la of the traffic law provides; However, the court may waive the requirement of the presence of parents or guardians in any case in which, after diligent effort, the court is unable to locate them or to compel their presence. Chapin 1St luvemdef and M;nors, Page 29 i 6 I I I Section 106.11 of the Alcoholic Beverage Code requires the court to summon the parent or legal guardian who lives within the court's jurisdiction and to require that adult to be present at all proceedings in the case against the minor defendant younger than 18. If the parent or legal guardian lives outside the court's jurisdiction, the court is still required to give that adult written notice of the charge. That notice gives the responsible adult the opportunity to be present. Subsection (d) takes t'. a worst possibility into account; If the court is unable to locate or to compel the presence of the person's i parent or legal guardian after diligent effort, the court may waive the requirement of presence of a parent or legal guardian. I In traffic or alcohol cases where the municipal court lacks the power or is otherwise unable to compel the defendant's parent(s) or legal guardian(s) to be present, the law allows the I court to go forward with proceedings in the case. The absence of parent(s) or legal guardian(s) should be noted in the docket, along with the court's written notice to the responsible adult(s) and notes of all efforts expended to secure their presence. Those cases may be considered for exercise of the court's power to appoint a lawyer to represent the defendant under Article 1.OS1, Code of Criminal Procedure, in the interest of justice. I Although not specifically stated in statute, it is clear that the magisterial and juvenile procedures contained in the Family Code apply to and include any case in which a juvenile is involved. Hence, when handling a juvenile under the criminal statutes, it is important to notify the parent(s) or legal guardian(s) of all proceedings. If a legal guardian ad litem has been appointed to represent the child, they should also be notified. The purpose of the procedural safeguards is not to Impose any additional burden on the child, parents or legal guardian(s). Rather, they are designed to take the defendant's age and maturity Into account when assessing criminal culpability and even punishment. They are also designed to impose accountability and consequences for wrongdoing without stigmatizing a child as a criminal. That process is also designed to modify the child's behavior, to turn a law breaker into a law abider C. Public Access to Proceedings Section 54.08 of the Family Code authorizes the juvenile court to exclude the general public from hearings that involve children accused of delinquent acts or conduct indicating a need for supervision. The same law also allows the juvenile court to exercise discretion over Chapin IS.- luvendes and Almors, Page 30 I 1 r admitting certain members of the public as the court deems proper. Earlier versions of this statute withstr od constitutional challenge! When the Legislature vested jurisdiction over all juveniles' fine-only misdemeanors injustice and municipal courts in 1987, most courts instituted juvenile dockets separate from adults' in all but traffic cases. This procedure was intended to provide the kind of privacy that the Family Code requires juvenile courts to provide. It may be that those same courts, now that jurisdiction is reinvested, adopt similar procedures. Similar considerations, coupled with the rights to have juvenile records sealed or expunged and restricted rights of access, may cause courts to maintain separate records as well. 1 ~ 14 D. Other Considerations Although there are some procedural differences between adult cases and juvenile cases, in municipal court, many of the same rights apply. A juvenile is entitled to trial byjury or trial by judge. A child has the right to counsel. A child has the right to remain silent or to testify in ccurt, The state bears the burden of proof and must prove each and every element of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. In municipal court, the rules of evidence are the same. If convicted, a juvenile or minor may appeal just as and in the same manner as in cases involving adult defendants. 1. Nrent's, legal guardian's or another's liability and responsibility for acts of child Are there provisions for holding a parent, legal guardian or another responsible and liable for the acts of a child? Section 7.02 of the Penal Code sets out criminal responsibility for the conduct of another. Sections 145 and 146 in Article 6701d, Venon's Texas Civil Statutes Uniform Traffic Act also provide the legal basis for making one person a party to a traffic offense committed by another. Section 145 makes it unlawful for one person to aid or abet the commission of any traffic violation and makes that person as guilty of the offense as the person who committed it. Section 146 makes it unlawful for the owner of a vehicle or another who directs the operation of vehicles (like an employer) to require or to knowingly permit the operation of a vehicle in any manner contrary to law. Although these statutes are available, the parents or legal guardians have to have the r required culpable mental state to be prosecuted. In other words, the parents or legal guardians would have to act With the intent of promoting or assisting the commission of the Chapter IS: Juveniles and brinort, Page 31 violation, This situation rarely, if ever, happens. Hence, parents or legal guardians are not often prosecuted for the wrongs of their children. 2. Truants and parents The question is often asked whether the municipal courts can do anything in cases involving children who will not go to school as the law requires. Section 51.03(b)(2) of the Family Code defines truancy as conduct indicating a need for supervision. Jurisdiction over tenant children is vested in the court designated by the county juvenile board acting pursuz,st to Section 51,04, Family Code. That court may be a district court, county court, statutory county court exercising the constitutional jurisdiction of either a county or district court, or a district court designated as a juvenile court-but not a municipal court, i However, Section 4.25 of the Education Code provides for sanctions against the truant child's parent(s) or person(s) standing in parental relation to the child (legal guardians), as well as for referral of the child to the juvenile probation department. The attendance (truant) officer is first required to warn the parent (or person standing In parental relation) that the child is required by law to attend school. But if, after being warned, the parent 1 intentionally, knowingly, recklessly or with criminal negligence still fails to require the child 1 to attend school, that parent or person standing in parental relation commits an offense, If the parent fails to compel the child to attend school even after being warned, then tha attendance or truant officer shall file a complaint against the parent. The complaint may be filed in the county, justice or municipal court where the parent resides. ' Attorney General Opinion Number JM•1159 (1990) reviewed this statute and found that Texas law has provided sanctions against the parent(s) of truants since 1915. Referral of the truant child is to the juvenile probation department. The Opinion held that clear legislative intent is that both the parent and child are subject to sanctions. It also held that nothing i in Section 4.25 of the Education Code or any other law prohibits simultaneous prosecution of the parent of truant child and the truant child. Parents sometimes challenge compulsory school attendance laws. In one Texas case' the parents' challenge was that such laws violated their freedom of religion. The challenge was unsuccessful' I Chapter 15. Juveniles and Minors, Page 32 1 I If the defendant successfully completes the jury's senterice and tj,.e retin court program and presents satisfactory evidence of completu)n to the emit by the eixl of the 90-day period, the court dismisses the charge. Dismissed chargei are not u part of the child's criminal record. If the charge dismissed is for a traffic s41r.ose, hov.vset, completion of teen court to dismiss it is reported to the Department of Pohlic Sulcty (DPS) and included on the driving record, although neither the charge itself not ccntvicti m is recorded. r.~ If the teenager does not submit evidence of completion within the, 90-day deferral period, li the court may impose a judgment of conviction in the case based on the plea entered. i 4. Article 4S.56, Code of Criminal Ptocedune In 1991, the legislature enacted another deferred sentencing scheme aimed at chemically dependent persons. On a plea of guilty or no contest, or on a finding of guilt, the court is authorized to defer proceedings for as long as 90 days without entering an adjudication of guilt if. • the court finds that the offense was related to or resulted from the defendant's chemical dependency; and • an application for court-ordered treatment of the defendant is filed In accordance wish Chapter 462, Health & Safety Code. See Illustration VII. in the Illustrations Section. An in-depth discussion of this sentencing alternative, because the statute makes no distinction between juvenile and adult defendants, Is presented in Chapter 13, Case Mposrrlons, of this Manual. D. Enforcing Judgments One ingenious enforcement measure Is built into the traffic and alcohol statutes. They specifically require that parent(s) or legal guardian(s) attend all proceedings with juveniles. The traffic statute goes further than any other in enforcement measures. Article 67011.4, Section Ic, Vernon's Texas Civil Statutes, requires courts to report juveniles who do not appear as required to the UPS. See Illustration VIII. In the Illustrations Section. Final dispositions must, of course, also be reported. Even juveniles' defaults In paying fines Chapter 13: luvenlles and Maws, Page Jr i i must be reported to DPS under Section 2(a). But no child can be jailed for failing to pay a fine. Whenever a non-appearance or default is reported to DPS, final disposition must also be reported. Each of these reports adversely affects the person's driving privileges and 1 license. Except in traffic cases (whether state law or city ordinance violations) and perhaps in all _ municipal ordinance cases, the municipal court has discretion-and in some cases the duty-to waive its jurisdiction and transfer the case to juvenile court. The juvenile court can Impose and maintain C1NS (Child in Need of Supervis,an) supervision on a child through probation yearly that could extend to the day before their 18th birthday. That may strike a child as more severe than the sentencing possibilities In municipal court. Considering all the alternatives could encourage a child's compliance. V. RECORDS AND REPORTS I This Section will not focus on any records and reports except those that relate only to juveniles' and minors' cases, In that respect, it is not comprehensive. See Chapter 17, , Financial and Records Management, of this Manual for more information. This information should be read in light of other recording and reporting requirements of the court, Section 51,14, Family Code, limits public access to juvenile court records. Juvenile court judges, clerks, prosecutors, defense lawyers, professional staff and probation officers are I allowed to inspect the court's records, as are agencies or institutions that have supervision or custody of the child under court order, The court may also allow access to a person or agency that has a legitimate interest in a particular proceeding or in the court's work, Subsection (c) of Section S1.14 provides that law enforcement files and arrest records ' :oncerning children should be kept separate from those of adults and that, with limited statutory exceptions, juvenile files and records should be kept locally and not sent to central state or federal records repositories. Subsection (e) specifically provides that juveniles' traffic records are exempt from these requirements. I The Attorney General has approved the release of statistical information that does not disclose the identify of specific juveniles. For instance, the DPS may get the number of juvenile traffic offenses and even the nature of the offenses within a particular jurisdiction 1 Chapter !S: Juveniles and Minors, Page 38 but not offenders' names." Agencies may indeed dernonstrate a legitimate interest in certain proceedings or in a court's work." 'T'hese provisions govern juvenile courls spc6 icalfy F-.xcep,t Prn the specific exception in Section 51.14(e) for juvenile traffic records, and the spe6fic provision in Section 106.12, Alcoholic Beverage Code, for expunging records of a minor's conviction for an alcohol offense, there are no other statutes that deai sl►ccifc¢ally With access to or expunging juveniles' and minors' records. Experts in the field agree that the municipal court should also follow the statutory limitation of public iieca ss inilw-scd on juvenile courts. I' A. Tii-uMc Cases Section S1.14 (second Subsection e), Family Code, spccifivally exempts records of traffic offenses committed by juveniles from the statutory limitations on public access that is imposed on juvenile courts. No statute compels that juvenile traffic records be kept separate from adult traffic records. There are reports that must be made to the Department of Public Safety (DPS). As in adult cases, final convictions must be reported in;uvenile cases. There Are additional reports, too. The court must report a child who does not appear to answer a traffic charge under Section 2(a) of Article 670114. That same provision requires the court to report a juvenile's failure to l;wsy a fine assessed. Although a child cannot he jailed for failing to pay a fine in a traffic case, both of those reports and the reports of final dispositions which must follow will adversely affect the child's driving privileges. Failure to pay a fine or to appear to answer a traffic charge keeps the DPS from issuing a driver's license to the offending child. If the child already has a license, then the DPS may, on those reports, suspend it. The required DPS hearing replaced the repealed enforcement tool whereby criminal courts were in the past empowered to take physical possession of the driver's license. B. All Cases Criminal courts are now required to report to the juvenile court of that county, all criminal complaints filed against juveniles. The criminal courts are also required to furnish the i juvenile court copies of final dispositions against juveniles it all cases where the criminal court exercises its jurisdiction rather than transferring the cases to juvenile court. See Chaprer 15: Juveniles and Minas, Page 39 1 I Illustration M in the Illustrations Section. The only exceptions to these reporting r requirements, located in Section 51.08(e) of the Family Code, are: • traffic offenses (criminal court cannot waive jurisdiction, juvenile court cannot exercise jurisdiction); and • public intoxication (criminal court cannot exercise or waive jurisdiction, exclusive original jurisdiction lies with the juvenile court). In cases where the criminal court cannot exercise jurisdiction, and in cases where the crimi.tal court cannot waive jurisdiction, the criminal court is not required to report the filing of a complaint or the disposition of the criminal charge. Those are not the kinds of cases where waiver of jurisdiction is possible, either under the discretionary or mandatory E provisions. Convictions in these cases would not impact the juvenile court, so reports are unnecessary. C. Public Access to Munlcit al Court Records or juvenile Proceedings 1. Records maintenance It has been noted that the only statute that bears directly on municipal court records of juvenile cases provides that juvenile traffic records do not have to be kept separate from adult traffic records. However, other municipal court records should be maintained according to Section 51.14, Family Code, which is to say with limited public access, absent legal authority to the contrary. 2. Sealing records As reiterated repeatedly, the Family Code governs juvenile courts. Article 58.01 of the Code of Criminal Procedure requires that the sealing of the files and records of criminal courts bt he same manner and under the same conditions as Section S1.16, Family Code, requires of a juvenile court. The Penal Code provision is more specific to municipal courts than analogous to Family Code provisions. Besides the kind of records covered and the circumstances and conditions specified, therefore, the municipal court would presumably also be required to give notice and copies of any sealing order to the same persons and by way of the same methods as the juvenile court. Procedures not detailed In Article 58,01, Code of Criminal Procedure, may be extrapolated from the more detailed Family Code provisions. Chapter 15: lu+rniler and Minas, Page 40 Section 51.16 of the Family Code governs the sealing of juvenile court records of children taken into custody or adjudicated for having engaged in delinquent conduct or conduct indicating a need for supervision. Those records include the files of the court and the prosecutor, agencies or institutions that supervise or have custody of a child, law enforcement files and records except driving records, and fingerprints and photographs of the child. Subsection U) of that statute prohibits the destruction of files and records that relate to a felony adjudication, Subsection (k) says sealing felony record.i is permissible if the person is at least 23 years of age and has not been co-Acted of a felony since reaching the age of 17 and the files have not become part of an adult record or been used as evidence in another trial. Subsection (a) provides that files and records shall be sealed if the court, upon motion, finds that; • at least two years have passed since the child was discharged or since the last official act in an unadjudicated offense; • during that same period, the person has not been convicted of a felony, or a misdemeanor involving moral turpitude, or found to have engaged in delinquent conduct or conduct indicating a need for supervision and there is no proceeding now pending that seeks conviction or adjudication of the person; and • it is unlikely that the person wit! engage in conduct set out in Subsection (2). Under Section 51.16(b), the court may release itself from the two-year limitation of Subsection (a)(1) if there was not an adjudication. Instead, the court may order sealing at anytime after the last official court action or discharge of the person. Subsection (i) permits that except for the provisions of Subsection Q) the court may order the destruction of files and records of a person adjudicated delinquent or conduct indicating a need for supervision if the Ferson was not adjudicated for a felony. The defendant must be at least 23 years old and have not been convicted of a felony. Inspection of fifes and records sealed may thereafter be ordered by the court on petition of the person who is the subject of the records. The person need not disclose thereafter that the proceedings occurred. Section 51.16(c) of the Family Code requires that the court notify certain persons of any hearing on a petition for sealing. Reasonable notice must be given to the petitioner or person who is the subject of the records, the prosecuting attorney, the institution or parole Chalver 15: luvrniter and Minors, Page 41 authority granting final discharge, and any public or private institution or agency-including law enforcement agencies-that have custody of any of the files and records named in the sealing application or motion. Those officials and agencies must be notified of any hearing. They must also be sent copies of the sealing order. The sealing order, under Section 51.16(e), requires that all files and records covered by the i order to be sent to the court for sealing or sealed. All index references must be deleted. Any official or agency later asked about the records shall reply that no records exist. Subsection (e)(5) even vacated the adjudication and treats the proceedings dismissed as if the case never occurred. Article 58.01 of the Code of Criminal Procedure applies the same powers and procedures to criminal courts that Section 51.16 of the Family Code applies to juvenile courts. 3. Expunging records Of all the specific kinds of cases discussed wherein municipal courts have juvenile jurisdiction, only the alcoholic beverage cases are covered by a specific expungement statute. Section 106.12 of the Alcoholic Beverage Code permits a person to apply to the court to expunge the conviction. The applicant must be at least 21 years old and must have only one conviction as a minor under the Code. Convictions under other statutes or codes do not adversely affect eligibility to apply for expungement for the alcohol conviction. The application must contain the petitioner's sworn statement that the Alcoholic Beverage Code violation to be expunged is the only Alcoholic Beverage Code cotviction entered against the applicant. Under Section 106.12, Subsection (c), the court must order expunction if the court finds that the applicant was not convicted of any other violation under the Alcoholic Beverage Code while the applicant was a minor. The court's expunction order covers complaints, verdicts, sentence, conviction and all other documents relating to the offense. After the court enters its order, the conviction may not be shown or made known for any purpose, and the person is released from all disabilities that may result from the prior conviction. The Attorney General has ruled that no one subject to Texas jurisdiction can legally communicate or refer to the expunged conviction in any manner to any person or organization. The prohibition applied specifically to any person attached to a sheriff's office, the Highway Patrol or a police department 16 See Illustration X. in the Illustrations Section. Chapter IS.- luvtnUrs and Minas, Page 42 Chapter 55 of the Code of Criminal Pnwedure sets out conditions and procedures required to expunge criminal records. Article SS.02 vests the power to expunge in a district court for the county where the petitioner was arrested. Article SS.05 requires that the person responsible for the release or discharge of a person arrested to give the person arrested a copy of the laws governing expunction and a written explanation of rights under its provisions. Because municipal courts are not generally empowered to expunge records under these law. no more detailed analysis of the procedures is presented. But there is one final note. Article $5.04 creates a Class B misdemeanor for a person who knowingiv releases, disseminates, fails to return or obliterates identifying information or otherwise , srs the records or riles covered by an expunction order. i SUMMARY Juveniles are a special problem for the justice system. They art' presumed to be less mature and less sophisticated than adults. That Impairs judgment. Children may not appreciate the possible consequences of their behavior. Yet some of that behavior may be so dangerous that the law defines it as criminal and punishes it accordingly. The justice system, then, must draw some balance between the lesser judgment of a child and criminal culpability on the one hand and, on the other, the need to enforce criminal laws to protect and preserve the public and society. A part of this balance is drawn by the safeguarding of a child's rights. Requiring proceedings to be In open court and parents or legal guardians to be present is a part of that safeguarding process. Holding juvenile proceedings separate from adults', except perhaps in traffic cases, is another part. Providing for the seating and expunging of records is still another facet of protection. That allows a child to make a mistake and learn from it and to grow into maturity without the stigma or other collateral consequences of carrying a criminal record into adulthood. i Punishment is the other part of the balance. Society is not safe if persons under any j dtbignated age limit can commit crimes without suffering any consequences at all. If that were the case, people might well become accustomed to the unfettered freedom to commit crimes and pass beyond the reach of rehabilitation by the time the adult criminal justice system were allowed to take over. The variety of sentencing options made available to municipal courts allows for some latitude In making the punishment fit the crime and devising judgments designed to help alter a child's misbehavior. Chapter 15.- Juveniles and Minas, Page 43 Juvenile crime is a serious problem, and municipal courts are lucky not to have to try the most serious offenses juveniles commit. Municipal courts deal with the least serious juvenile crimes. But because municipal courts encounter the offenses most frequently committed and, therefore, so many juvenile offenders, the municipal court can have a substantial impact on children's perceptions. If the municipal courts deal withjuvenile offenders effectively and fairly, the adult criminal justice system may not have to deal with them at all. That goal is very long range. Although the court must familiarize itself with special procedures and exert extra care, juvenile cases may be among the most mutually rewarding cases that municipal courts process. Note; Juvenile warnings and detention are analyzed at Chapter 6, Magistrate Wamings and Arrest Procedures, of this Manual. This Chapter was written by Jeanne Bradley Kitchens with the editorial assistance of Richard L Butler and Laurel D. Arnold. I Chapter 15: Juveniles and Minas, Page 44 I I 1 I HANDOUT TO COUNCIL 4-13-93 M E M O R A N D U M i TO: Lloyd V. Harrell City Manager FROM: Nonie Halo-Kull, Manager I Environmental Health Services DATE: April 8, 1993 SUBJ: Hartfelt Humane Society On February lb, 1993, Dr. Thomas Murnane of the Texas Department of Health inspected the Hartfelt Humane Socity, 1800 Fort Worth Drive, Denton, Texas. Alter completing his inspection Dr. Murnane came to the animal control facility to determine if the city would be willing to accept the animals from the humane socity if he could eonvienee the organization's leadership to release them, Dr. Murnane was told that we would be able to transport the animals and to shelter them if they were released to us. Dr. Murnene returned to the Hartfelt Shelter and recommended that the shelter discontinue operation until substantial improvements were made to the facility. He also recommended that the humane society director, Laura Gill, release the shelter animals to animal control, which she choose to co. Animal control picked up fifty-six dogs and one cat that afternoon. The next day Dr. Steve Meyerdirk, D.V.M. and Dr. Don Dyal, Ii. v. m. came to the animal control facitlty and perfomed superficial examinations of the the animals, Dr. Dyal, who was the first to observe the dogs and the cat, 'prescribed medication for the dogs to combat a heavy parasitic infestation. The city was only charged for the drugs, as both Il doctors donated their time. The total medical expense for these animals was 831.80. Subsequently, twenty-eight dogs died while at the animal control center, twenty-five were euthanasized, two were returned to their original owners, and two were adopted to new ' I owners. It costs the city approximately $4.22 per day to shelter one animal. The chart on the following page illustrates the holding cost of housing the fifty-seven animals from the Hartfelt Humane Socity, i Hartfelt Humane Socity April 8, 1993 Page -2- Disposition No. of Animals/Method of Disposition ; Holding Date Per Day Cost Adopted ; Returned Died In ; Euth. f ; to Owner Kennel ` 02-18-93 ; $ 8.44 ` 02-19-93 02-20-93 ` 02-21-05 ; 1 I 1 02-22-93 ; 2 ; ; 42.20 02-23-93 5 126.60 02-24-93 4 118.16 02-25-93 4 ; 135.04 02-26-93 ; 7 ; 2 113.94 02-27-93 ; 02-28-93 ; 3 ; ; 139.26 03-01-93 ; 2 ; 101.28 03-02-93 ; 2 109.72 03-03-93 6 ; 25 ; 1,631,48 : : TOTAL ; 2 ; 2 ; 28 ; 25 ; $ 2,726.12 I The city spends approximately $9.39 to euthanize a dog or cat. $ 9.39 x 25 $ 234.75 The total cost for housing the animals from the Hartfelt Humane Socitey was $2,960.87, I The city was not required to hold these animals for any specified amount of time as they became our property when they were released to us. We choose to hold them for two weeks in the hope that new homes could be found for those who were healthy enough to put up for adoption. f ,I Hartfelt Humane Socity April 8, 1993 Page -3- On March 19, 1993, Jerry Drake and I had a meeting with Barbara Coe, Bettye Johnson, and Gretchen Johnson of the Denton Humane Society, and Jar, Buck and Dr, Murnane of the Texas Department of Health. The purpose was to look for a way to respond to the numerous calls all three of our respective agencies had been receiving concerning the continued operation of the Hartfelt Humane Society. Jerry promised to research the legal issues concerning which organization would have jurisdiction in this case. The humane society and animal control agreed to record any activity we observed at 1800 Fort Worth Drive and to share this information with the State Health Department in an effort to prove that the facility was still being used as a shelter. Animal Control Officers are making numerous trips past 1800 Fort Worth Drive daily. A log is being kept of the dates and times animals have been seen at the facility, as well as a brief description of the animals. I I will be in contact with Dr, Murnane, when he returns to his office, on April 14, 1993, in an effort to determine what his intent is in this matter, when he will be doing his next inspection, and if he is in need of any additional assistance { from this office. Please advise if I can provide any additional information. I