Loading...
Minutes March 10, 198701 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES MARCH 10, 1987 The Council convened into the Work Session at 5:30 p.m. in the Civil Defense Room. PRESENT: Mayor Stephens; Mayor Pro Tem Alford; Council Members Alexander, Chew, Hopkins, McAdams, and Riddlesperger ABSENT: NONE After convening in the Civil Defense Room, the Council moved the meeting to the Council Chambers to accommodate the large audience present. 1. The Council held a discussion regarding potential funding for Flow Hospital. Lloyd Harrell, City Manager, presented a memorandum from John McGrane, Director of Finance, regarding potential funding options for Flow Hospital. He stated that several weeks ago, members of Council asked the City Administration to present to the Council some alternative places within the current City budget where reductions could be maae if the Council decided to make an allocation to Flow Hospital in an approximate amount of $200,000. He asked the Council to put a request for Flow funding in the context of other financial situations currently facing the City. Of special concern was the sales tax account which was about 25% of the general fund budget. Five months into the current fiscal year, the sales tax account was down by $240,000. The City Administration had taken action in the last four weeks to address the shortfall by taking two actions: (t) general fund positions had been frozen - vacant positions for the remainder of the fiscal year would remain unfilled, (2) general fund reduction of budgets by 2% of non-personnel, accounts. Those two actions projectea to raise about $220,000 by the end of the fiscal year. Harrell emphasized that soon the Council would begin seeing the effects of those reductions already made. An example given was the Library had three vacant positions which would not be filled and thus a cut back of the operational hours of the Library was necessary. The 2% budget reduction was in addition to approximately $500,000 of previous buuget reductions from current level. Harrell stated that the staff and Council needed to identify an additional $220,000 that would De earmarkeo for sales tax shortfall for the remaining portion of the fiscal year. Harrell presentea 12 alternative places identified where funds coula De found to earmark for the sales tax shortfall and other options available for a possible allocation ok $220,000 for Flow Hospital. Few funds for the City were allocated for Capital Improvements. Most of the Capital improvements ~or the City were done by Donas funos and those funds were not available to the City for any other use. Areas that were focused on were City operations. 02 City of Denton City Council Minutes March 10, 1987 Page 2 (1) Elimination of the hiring of scheduled to ~egin employment on April $42,500. three new 1, 1987. (2) Reduction of 18 current City employees. $200,000. police officersI Savings would -be Savings would be (3) Reduction of the General Fund reserve balance level. This reduction might possibly affect the bond rating given by the bond rating agencies. If the reserve level was too low, the agencies might downgrade the City which would cause interest costs to go up. Staff suggestion would be to not use this alternative. (4) Reduction of General Fund budgets in non-personnel costs. Savings would be approximately $60,000 for every percentage reduced. (5) Elimination of the reserve funds set aside for staffing at the new fire station when completed. If used, there would be no money for the operational expenses of the station. Savings would be $75,000. (6) Usage of the remaining money in the contingency fund Savings would be $75,000. ' (7) Reduction of the costs involved in the contract with the County for health services. Savings would be $76,000. (8) Elimination of the revenue study of fees/charges by the City done by an outside agency. In-house finance staff would do the interim work for the fees for next ~iscal year. Savings would be $20,000. (9) Elimination of the recreational fund for various miscellaneous projects for the City. Savings would be $50,000. (10) Elimination of the overlaying/resurfacing street program. Only street work done this fiscal year would be projects done with the bond funds. Savings would be $95,000. (11) Elimination of the youth sports contracts. The City would maintain the facilities with the sports leagues paying for the refereeing services and other costs. Savings would be $24,100. (12) Issuance of short term bonds which would result in an increase in property taxes the next fiscal year to pay off the bonds. The City's bond attorney stated that this could only be done with new state legislation. City of Denton City Council Minutes March 10, 1987 Page 3 Harrell presented the recommendation that first the City take care of its own -anticipated shortfall, which would be to identify approximately $221,000 to be earmarked for drop-offs in sales tax receipts for the remainder of the fiscal year. These recommenaations were in priority order and he suggested that each month as the sales tax report came in, the appropriate amount of money be taken from the first priority item until that item was gone and then move on to the next item. (1) Use the contingency funds of $75,000. (2) Use the health unit funds of $76,000. (3) Use the recreational fun~s of $50,000. (4) Use the funds for the revenue study of $20,000. The total amount to be earmarked for the sales tax shortfall would be $221,000. Harrell then presented the staff recommendation for money to be earmarked for Flow. Use the street improvement funds of $95,000. Use the salary savings from not hiring the three new police officers of $42,500. Use funds from a General Fund budget reduction of 1 1/2% of $82,500. The total amount to be earmarked for Flow Hospital would be $220,000. Harrell suggested that $25,000 be spent for a proposal by Deloitte, Haskins and Sells for an independent study of the Flow Hospital situation for the City/County. The study would look at the current Flow Hospital situation to see i~ the $200,000 would be of any help and to study the long term prospects for Flow. Harrell also pointed out to the Council that Flow was already in arrears of its utility payments for $137,000 and that there was a Charter provision prohibiting the providing of free utility services. At some point, that particular problem was going to have to be faced as well. Council Member McAdams asked if the contingency funds were used, would there be any money for final legal fees relative to the Flow Hospital problem. Harrell replied that the type of reductions made in the budget would take away any flexibility and unforseen expenses during the remainder of the fiscal year would require additional measures. 03 04 City of Denton City Council Minutes March 10, 1987 Page 4 Mayor Stephens aske~ if there were directions for staff. Council Membe~ McAdams stated that she did not have any directions but that she felt the Hospital needed to be looked at in terms of the study to see if the City did provide $220,000, would that have any bearing on the situation. Council Member Chew agreed with McAdams and also stated that the elimination of funding for the police officers needed to be looked at carefully. Mayor Stephens asked about certificates of obligation - could they be used for this type of program, the long-range effects on the fund reserve and bond rating. John McGrane, Director of Finance, stated that he had discussed many financing options with the City's financial advisor, Frank Medanich of the First Southwest Corporation. In Mr. Medanich's opinion, it would take a special act of the legislature to allow the City to do any type of financing bonds for Flow Hospital. Harrell stated that certificates of obligation were reserved for capital projects and would have to have a concrete capital project as opposed to operational expenses. Council Member Riddlesperger questioned that there was no way for the City to borrow money either through bonds, certificates of obligation or any other method for this kind of purpose. McGrane replied that the City does not have any authority to do that and it would take an act of the State Legislature to give the City the authority to do so. Mayor Stephens stated that it appeared the only option left to the City was the alternatives that the management had presented. Riddlesperger asked if the reduction in the street repairs was considere~ maintenance or capital improvements. McGrane replied that seal coating and resurfacing was considered maintenance. Riddlesperger statea it was maintenance and not part of the capital improvements. ~cGrane repliea yes. Capital portions of the street resurfacing program would be coming out of the bond funds of the 1985 sale. Riddlesperger asked if there was no way to change a program from a capital program and use the proceeds for the purpose of helping the Hospital. City of Denton City Council Minutes March 10, 1987 Page 5 Harrell replieH that if the City had budgeted a large amount of funds in the yearly budget for capital improvements, then that type of strategy would work. However, the operating budget had a very small amount of funds in it for capital improvements. Mayor Stephens stated that the Hospital was $1.2 million down. He questioned the projection with the Board working with Management, how long the downfall would continue, would it be eased in the next few months and had a chance to go the taxing method to reduce the total Dudget for next year or to increase the taxes for Flow Hospital. If the City were to fund $200,000, how much time would it buy for Flow - would it get the Hospital to the next fiscal year so that the City could utilize other areas of funding without destroying other aspects of the ongoing nature of the City. Harrell stated that it was staff's hope that the proposed study by Deloitte, Haskins and Sells would help give just that type of answer. Mayor Stephens asked if the Hospital Board had sent an estimation of how long the deficit would continue. Harrell replied not to his knowledge. McAdams stated that indigent care was usually a manageable amount of money but that as new hospitals were built in the City, various citizens were choosing to go to the new hospitals instead of Flow. In the past, Flow was able to cover non-paying patients by the profit of its paying patients. The number of non-paying patients had risen at Flow and the number of paying patients had gone down. Flow needed to tighten admission criteria, cut back dramatically and then rebuild. Council Member Alexander stated that Flow could not continue very long at its current status. He felt that it .was important that the study be performed for Flow. The study would have a very short turn around time. The answers were needed quickly because to linger over them very much longer, would mean that none of the answers would be useful anyway. Mayor Stephens stated that he believea that the study would not begin for 10 days. He felt that there would be a marked increase of health care costs in the County if Flow would fail. He asked the management to bring some comparison costs between Flow and other hospitals. Council Member Riddlesperger asked if Flow could borrow money itself against future assets. He stated that doctors were the ones that sent people to the hospital and that it was needed for the doctors to refer people to Flow. Flow needea broad community support and in particular, the medical profession. 05 06 City of Denton City Council Minutes March 10, 1987 Page 6 Debra Drayovitch, City Attorney, stated that the Attorney Generali had passed %everal opinions regarding Flow's ability to borLow . money. She stated that the Hospital was severely limited, much the same as the City. Mayor Stephens askea about revenue bonds backed by the City and County. Was that a possibility for funding. Riddlesperger stated that negotiations were on the verge of approving the 501 (C)(3) with an 80 year lease and the new corpora- tion might use that as a basis for loans. He suggested that that possibility also be explored. 2. The Council held a discussion on a joint funding proposal for drainage work in the Golden Triangle Industrial Park. This item was not discussed at the work session. 3. The Council convened into Executive Session to discuss legal matters, real estate, personnel and board appointment. No official action was taken. The Council convened into the regular meeting at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers. PRESENT: Mayor Stephens; Mayor Pro Tem Alford; Council Members Alexander, Chew, Hopkins, and Riddlesperger. ABSENT: Council Member McAdams 1. The Council considered approval of the minutes of the regular meeting of September 2, 1986, September 9, 1986, and October 21, 1986. Alexander motion, Chew second to approve the minutes as presented. Motion carried unanimously. Council Member McAdams joined the meeting. 2. The Council considered approval of a request by the Denton Kiwanis Club to place a banner across a public street to advertise The Kiwanis Children's Clinic annual garage sale. Alexander motion, Hopkins second to approve the request. carried unanimously. Motion 3. The Council received a report by Mr. Mike Berry regarding drainage problems at 4100 Setine Drive. City of Denton City Council Minutes March 10, 1987 Page 7 07 Mr. Berry stated that his property was included in the Stuart-Pershing drainage project. He was appearing before the Council because of a problem caused by the completion of the project. He stated that the City Manager and the City staff told him he mid not have a problem and that the Council was place to take his concern. As the project progressed to the end of Stuart, no one had contacted Mr. Berry regarding his property. No easements were gained and he had meet with the utility people from R.L. Roberts to set up an on-site review. He asked how his property would be affected. Mr. Posey indicated that while he did not have anything to do with the easements, workmen would be on his property. The right-of-way people from the City of Denton informed Mr. Berry that it would not be necessary for workers to be on his property while at the same time he was talking to the City Inspector, three workers were on his property. Mr. Berry felt that his complaint should have been worked out by staff and not brought to the City Council. He stated that he had not filed a damage claim or estimate. Mr. Berry showed the Council pictures of his property before and after the construction of the rip-rap. Council Member Alexander aske~ Mr. Berry what specifically was the request that he was making of the Council - what kind of relief was . he seeking. Berry replied that he needed his yard to drain properly, some type of fence was needed along the rip-rap and some landscaping along the fence. Council Member McAdams asked where the fence and shrubs would be placed - on Mr. Berry's property or the right-of-way. Berry replied on his property. He wanted to build the fence himself. Mayor Stephens asked Mr. Berry if he was requesting a settlement from the City. Berry replied that he intended to file a damage claim through the legal office. Mayor Stephens replied that that would be the proper procedure. Lloyd Harrell, City Manager, stated that Mr. Berry had been asked several times to file a claim with the Attorney's Office by Rick Svehla and by himself with no results. He recounted the one conver- sation that he had had with Mr. Berry in which Mr. Berry asked how to get on the Council agenda. Harrell informed Berry of the procedure for making a request to be placed on the Council agenda. Documentation showed that the staff had numerous contacts with Mr. Berry and triea to take certain actions to respond to specific complaints. 08 City of Denton City Council Minutes March 10, 1987 Page 8 Council concurrence was that Mr. Berry would file a claim with the I Attorney's Office. ~__ 4. The Council received and considered a request from Mr. Jerry Cott to amend the approved City Council minutes of August, 19, 1986. NOTE: THE PORTION OF THESE MINUTES DEALING WITH THIS REQUEST ARE VERBATIM. Jerry Cott: Mr. Mayor, Thank you. Council. Sundown Ranch on Teasley Lane, Dimension Development is on the north part of my property. Their zoning case was Z-1818 and one of the issues of that zoning case was a wall that was to be built between their property and mine. In reading the original minutes that you ap- proved and there was not time with the prior City Secretary to get those minutes changed. They did not specifically state that the wall was to be built as you folks had agreed to, so I asked Mrs. Walters if she woula literally translate, whatever she did, and she did that and submitted it to me and to you. There is a significant difference in her February 17, 1987 literal translation. I would like Z-1818 February 17 literal translation, transmission included in the minutes versus the original ones because in this one, there is no doubt that the wall has to be built as it was so stated. In the original ones that you approved, there is some doubt because the[ minutes were paraphrased, not literally translated. Thank you. I Mayor Stephens: Okay, thank you, Sir. This of course you have in your packet, the taped account from the City Secretary's office. Mr. City Manager, what sort of, if this is a one time Case, there is no problem. But if this is a recurring thing, what sort of time constraints are we going to be looking at on the City Secretary's office? Lloyd Harrell, City Manager: Mr. Mayor, I guess that would be the administration's concern about this particular request. When Mr. Cott asked that a transcription be done, we did comply and try to provide that for him as kind of, I guess, backup to support the minutes that were done in summary form. I think that administra- tion's concern would be the same as the one you voiced. That in this specific case, certainly the work has been done and we tried to comply and make the transcript from Mrs. Walters to give that to Mr. cott. I think we have some concern if, as a regular practice, we would find ourselves asking for requests that transcriptions be made of Council proceedings anG having to transcribe those and attach those to the minutes. I think as Mrs. Drayovitch points out in the backup, the minutes that we now do are far more extensive than what law requires as far as the summary minutes of action taken by the Council. So, we would just make that comment, Mr. Mayor, that I think the Council, as they consider this specific request, I guess City of Denton City Council Minutes March 10, 1987 Page 9 from the staff's standpoint, if we had some assurance that it would be a very isolated case and would not reoccur, it probably does Dot do any harm. But we would be very concerned and probably raise that red flag to the Council, if we set a precedent and this starts reoccurring and it does take a lot of staff time. So we would comment and I think also point out as Mrs. Drayovitch does, a two-thirds vote from the Council if you want to add the transcrip- tion as part of the official minutes. Mayor Stephens: Okay, is there a response from members of the Council? Are you ready to take action? Council Member Alexander: As I understand it, the request is to simply ad~ to the minutes, by attaching the verbatim transcript. Mayor Stephens: Yes, the type written transcription of the tape. Debra Drayovitch, City Attorney: Technically, legally, that portion would be erased from the existing approved minutes and ~the portion, the exact wording, be typed in over it. Mayor Stephens: I thought it was just appended to the minutes. The minutes would remain as is and this would De appended to the minutes. I thought that was what we were asking for. Jerry Cott: Either is acceptable as long as these literal translations get into your minutes. Mayor Stephens: I don't think I would be in favor of expunging the previously approved minutes. Council Member Hopkins: Can we not just insert this after this paragraph and show that this is the literal transaction of this. Because I can understand Mr. Cott's position, .in that night, we made a great point to go to extreme circumstances to be sure that that was included ana could in no way be overlooked and when we finally had it all worked out, we had very specifically were trying to do this very thing, and I can understand that he would like it to be a part of this record. Debra Drayovitch: Well, I am not sure from, I see these brackets in the existing minutes on Page 247, is I assume what he wants cor- rected and if that is going to be substituted by the exact language, then this language that is in there now needs to be taken out and the exact language put in because you are changing what you have approved. Lloyd Harrell, City Manager: I think, Mrs. Walters, that the brackets were not provided by Mr. Cott, if I understand. The brackets were proviaed by you to indicate to the Council where his request that he is making, was done in the official minutes. So, that did not come Mr. Cott. 09 10 City of Denton City Council Minutes March 10, 1987 Page 10 Council Member McAdams: Then the question for me then, is exactly ~ what part of ~his transcript would we be putting in to substitute. -- I don't mind appending the whole thing, but it looks to me like if we're going the change something, perhaps the bracketed portion is what we need to put in. Mayor Stephens: Well, if I might respond to that. As I understand it, now Mr. Cott, you correct me if I am in error here. It is my understanding that all this is completely unnecessary. That that 8' fence, if that's sort of thing you are considering, that is to be addressed, when the staff says it will be addressed, at a more appropriate time. Mr. Cott: No sir, that was not the issue. Mayor Stephens: I know that you want to try and nail that down, as I understand it now. Jerry Cott: Page 6, "Council Member Alford: but how do we assure that it is there then" and that's what I really am concerned about from there on. And what I am saying is that is not to be an issue. That was agreed by you, not to be an issue on a going forward basis. That's automatic, that fence is to be there. This literal translation states that. This transliteration does not state that. Council Member McAdams: Mr. Cott, then the motion in the literal translation which doesn't start until the bottom of page 7 and 8 is where the literal part of that is, are you saying that's not suf- ficient that have substituted. I think part of our question is just how much substituting do we need. Mr. Cott: Well, I wasn't prepared to go through this paragraph by paragraph because the literal translation of these minutes is very clear that that fence is to be built. It is not to be addressed in any later sessions of anything. It is to be built. And that's what you agreed with. Debra Drayovitch, City Attorney: I was just going to try and further explain my reasoning why an addendum would not be appropriate, is just as Mr. Cott explained, if the actual minutes do not reflect what happened, then just merely adding on would not resolve the conflict. The record needs to speak of what truly occurred. Mr. Cott: How would you do that, Ma'am? Debra Drayovitch, City Attorney: Tell us where it is wrong and the Council will consider making that amendment. City of Denton City Council Minutes March 10, 1987 Page 11 Mr. Cott: I am saying that your entire as approved minutes are wrong, and I ~ould like this is correct as is. This new, February 17 in it's entirety. Because it was the literal conversation that you had and I tend to be a fairly thorough person and that is some- thing that I would be comfortable with ten years from now when nobody is here and something like that has to be taken care of. Cecile Carson, Urban Planner: Mr. Mayor and Members of the Council: I would assume that the question regards the fence condi- tion as being when it would be imposed. During the discussions and if you noticed in the minutes, the conversations between Mr. Morris and the legal staff and our department during the processing of z-1818, was that the fence could not be added as a condition to Z-1818 because it was only a portion of the planned development and the entire southern boundary was not being affected. Our conversa- tions with Mr. Cott was that if he was concerned about the fence, that he might want to go on record as stating that the fence would be considered during a zoning action when it could be placed as a condition during the detailed site plan stage. But it could not be imposed as a condition to Z-1818 because it was, in our opinion, not a valid condition for the amendment and should be considered at the time that the detailed plan for the entire development was done. So it was a reference that you were telling him that you would make to the minutes and it is in the Planning and Zoning Commission minutes as well, that at the same time that the detailed plan was considered, we would look at the fence issue to determine where it would De located and at that point, if it was necessary, if the need was still there for the fence and his concerns were still, that the fence should be located on that boundary line. Mayor Stephens: Carson? Okay, any questions that you might have of Council Member Hopkins: No, but I think we were all clear on what Ms. Carson had stated that night and I didn't feel like that was what Mr. Cott, that's still not the issue. Because we can see in here what we actually approved. Mr. Cott: That is correct, Mrs. Hopkins. She is correct in what we said and that did not satisfy me that evening. This whole discus- sion is why I want this pinned down. And that is, that this was a proposal that there is no question that the wall is to be built. Not when ana where and how, but that wall is to be built before they start a development in Dimension Development. That was what you agreed to unanimously. Council Member Alexander: Could I ask a question to the City Attorney that might help resolve this matter? Could some action be taken tonight to reaffirm what the Council did back on that earlier date and make that a part of our minutes tonight and would that De satisfactory to Mr. Cott? Would that possibly resolve it? 11 ¸12 City of Denton City Council Minutes March 10, 1987 Page 12 Mr. Cott: Yes Sir. Debra Drayovi~ch: That is possible but if the Council inten~s tonight to agree that no matter how that final site plan comes back, there will be a fence a part of that, I do not think legallY the Council can agree that no matter what the conditions are of the future proposal, there will be a fence included. Mr. Cott: That's what was agreed to, Mrs. Drayovitch. Right there, what you said, was agreed to. Council Member Chew: I think that's where our problem is coming - miscommunication. Because the agreement was made that night that we would require that fence to be built. Mr. Cott: And that's why I am here tonight because it is not clear in your minutes. Lloyd Harrell, City Manager: I think as was point out, I don't anybody had any difficulty either Mr. Cott, if I recall, that a fence would be there. The people that were proposing the develop- ment had agreed, you had agreed and that was reflected in the discussion. There really was no disagreement. It was simply when was the appropriate time to show that particular improvement. And ....... Mr. Cott: No, Sir. What happened is that you agreed that before · that planned development was constructed, this had to be built. That's what you agreed to. And that's what I want in the minutes. As you can see, the the City Planning Office and the City Attorney, themselves, don't understand what was done at the last meeting. Council Member Riddlesperger: Mr. Mayor. Mayor Stephens: Yes, Mr. Riddlesperger. Council Member Riddlesperger: If I move that this transcript be incorporated in the minutes of this evening as evidence of the meaning of the minutes of such and such, as a satisfaction to Mr. Cott and everyone else, could I get a second? Council Member Chew: Yes. Mayor Stephens: We have a motion and a second to incorporate the taped transcription from the August 19, 1986 Council meeting onto the minutes of tonight's meeting. It is the tape dated 8-19-86. Mr. Cott: And transcribed by Jennifer Walters on February 17, 1987. City of Denton City Council Minutes March 10, 1987 Page 13 Debra Drayovitch, City Attorney: I'm trying to clarify the record, but perhaps someone would like to include that tonight's minutes ~e transcribed verbatim as well. So that there won't be any future misunderstandings for Mr. Cott's protection as well as ours. Mayor Stephens: Ail right, does everyone understand. further discussion? Yes, Madame City Secretary. Okay, any Jennifer Walters, Acting City Secretary: clarification on the verbatim transcription, portion of the minutes or the whole thing? I would like a of this particular Council Member McAdams: This portion, I would think. Mayor Stephens: Just this portion, please. Any further question. Okay, those in favor, say "aye", those opposed, say 'no' Motion carries unanimously. NOTE: THE NEXT PORTION OF MINUTES IS A VERBATIM TRANSCRIPTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL MINUTES TAPE OF 8-19-86, TRANSCRIBED 2-17-87. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES FROM TAPE DATED 08/19/86 Mayor Stephens: The next item is 3B. Z-1818-petition of Dimension Development Company requesting an amendment to a planned development PD-19 and PD-82 and approval of a concept plan for the single family (SF-10), single family (SF-7) cluster housing and park areas located east of Lillian Miller Parkway at the intersection of Teasley Lane, FM 2181. The 161.7 acres was zoned planned development by Ordinance 84109 and permits the development of cluster, multi-family, general retail, single family 10,000 square feet, single family 7,000 square feet, office, park and a community facility site. The amendment would change areas as mentioned in the ~backup material. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommenas approval. Is there anyone in the audience who woula like to speak in favor of Z-1818. Please come forward and like the others state your name and your anchor and proceed. Rick Neff: Mr. Mayor and members of the Council, my name is Rick Neff, I'm with Dimension Development Company. We bring this before you this evening asking approval of this change in the uses on our property. The property was zoned PD in 1984. We are coming before you to change some of the uses. We are also asking approval of a concept plan which was not required in 1984 which gives you a much better idea of what exactly it is we plan to do. I would be happy to answer any questions. 13 14 City of Denton City Council Minutes March 10, 1987 Page 14 Mayor Stephens: Okay, what did you say your name was please sir? Rick Neff: Mi name is Rick Neff, N-E-F-F. Mayor Stephens: As in Pat, Governor Pat Neff? Rick Neff: Yes sir. Mayor Stephens: Okay. You related? Rick Neff: Yes sir. Mayor Stephens: Are you? Ail right, that was a long time ago, that won't help you or hurt you. Rick Neff: I'm glad to hear that. Mayor Stephens: Okay. Anyone else like to ask Mr. Rick Neff any questions? Council Member Riddlesperger: I noticed that it's on Lillian Miller. Rick Neff: Yes sir. Council Member Riddlesperger: Are you going to pave the other two lanes of that street? I didn't see this in your material, I just wondered? Rick Neff: There must have been a reason for that sir. No sir, we don't have that in our plans at this moment. Council Member Riddlesperger: It seems to me that there is a part, a part of the problem your going to have there and in terms of access and I just wondered why that wasn't in that plan? Rick Neff: That's a good question sir. I'm not sure I have a real good answer for that, except that's not in our plans at this point. Council Member McAdams: Is there going to be right-of-way for that left. Rick Neff: We've dedicated the right-of-way already. Council Member McAdams: Okay. Mayor Stephens: Okay, other questions Mr. Neff? Thank you sir. Rick Neff: Thank you. Mayor Stephens: Is there anyone else in the audience who would like to speak in favor of this petition? City of Denton City Council Minutes March 10, 1987 Page 15 15 Jerry Cott: Mayor Stephens and City Council Members, I'm Jerry Cott, Sundown. Ranch, justito the south of this. Basically we are'in favor of this with two comments. Comment number one is that in the original agreement wherei you see a black line on the south of Dimension Development's Property, Mr. Wachter, many years ago when he started and many timesl since has agreed to put a permanent brick or stone eight-foot wall between that property and my property and I just wanted to make sure that that was in the petition. Number two. Please don't accep~ this as a lecture, but all of those properties are now zoned on a first-come, first-served basis and I know that this City CounCil and the zoning and the people of this community are wrestling with that issue. There is no zoning, I am zoned agricultural, that I could have at this point in time except SF-16, which would not g!o over the City Guide according to the Planning Guide, and I strongly urge that you take the issue of first-come, first-served up and seriously eliminate that as part of this community's operatingiprocedure. Thank you. Mayor Stephens: Okay, any questions to Mr. Cott? Thank you sir. Is there anyone else who like to speak in favor of Z-18187 Anyone else who would like to speak in favor of this petition? Anyone else in favor? Hearing none,! let me ask if there is anyone in the audience who like to speak in opposition to Z-18187 Claudia Brown: My name is Claudia Brown and I live at 315 Ridgecrest in Southridge i and I just want to know if this is approved, what is he going !to do, or what is the City going to do so that these people can get iin and out, because we can't get in and out, and that's my only opposition to it. Council Member Riddlesperger: You're asking the same question I asked. Who's going to pave the other two lanes of Ridgeway? Claudia Brown: Well, I'!ve only there four years and to my knowledge, I can either get out by Teasley Lane or I can get out by Lillian Miller, which is y~ou know, fairly new, or you can leave by the access road. Well you can't leave by the access road becauSe the traffic backs up off the interstate and so you can't get back, you can't get by to go back to town which is where I work. And if you go out Lillian Miller, ithen in the morning I have to wait three or four traffic lights to !go that way. And I can't even get out anymore on Teasley, so I just, how am I going to get to work? Mayor Stephens: Okay, I see what you mean Ms. Brown. Any questions of Ms. Brown? Okay, thank you. Staff will address, I presume when the time comes, the traffic situation. Okay, is there anyone else who would like to speak~ in opposition to Z-18187 Anyone in opposition? Anyone in opposition? Let me declare this, well wait a minute we have a rebuttal. !Would the petitioner like to address the particular question raised land limit yourself only to the question raised? Okay, thank you.! We declare the public hearing to be closed and call upon thie City Manager to direct his staff presentation. 16 City of Denton City Council Minutes March 10, 1987 Page 16 City Manager Harrell: Planning Staf~ to make the primary presentation please. Cecile Carson, Urban Planner: Mr. Mayor and Members of the Council, as already has been mentioned this is a planned development that is approved and in place under Ordinance 84109. This is an amendment to that proposal and a request for approval of a concept plan on the residential areas. The three areas of concern are basically, I would like to point out to you for clarification is, a change from 15 acres of cluster housing that would have abutted Mr. Cott's property on the south, to a single family SF-7 district; a 30.39 acre single family area on the north boundary line that was SF-10 that would be changed to single family on 7,000 square foot lots also; and an addition to the until in the 28.53 acre cluster housing area that abuts the light industrial planned development on the eastern boundary line. This property does abut Lillian Miller Parkway and Teasley at the intersection in the original planned development when it was approved right-of-way, to answer one of the questions, was provided by these developers and paving was done of those two lanes. Additional right-of-way has been provided by the developers to construct the additional two lanes for Lillian Miller's expansion and it's my understanding that the money situation for that will be involved through the bonding process or the bond approval to actually do the paving of those additional lanes on Lillian Miller north of 35. To clarify the issue brought up by Mr. Cott concerning the fence. In the original ordinance, there was not a condition imposed to build or construct that fence. In discussions with the Legal Department, since this is an amendment, it was stated that that item is something that should be addressed technically during the detailed plan stage when these developers would be required to bring back their specific details and screening for the project and it is not an item that should be addressed at this point. However, we did mention to Mr. Cott that it would be for his best benefit to have it on the record of the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council that he is still concerned and still interested at that detailed plan stage to have the fence constructed. The overall amendment does not significantly change the intensity or the density in this area. It remains at the consistent amount of approximately six percent over the standard. The proposal does seem to add a number of benefits including diversity in the area and the Planning and Zoning Commission did recommend approval by a vote of 5-1. There were nine reply forms mailed to property owners within 200 feet and one was returned in favor. AnG if you have any questions I will be pleased to respond. Mayor Stephens: Any questions of the Council to Ms. Carson. Ms. Carson would elaborate just a little bit more. You said that it would not change the density all that much. To change from SF-10 to SF-7 and to increase the number of cluster housing, whatever cluster housing is, and that comes under different definitions I think, looks like that would increase the density a bit. Yes, let me at least start by asking the ~ City of Denton City Council Minutes March 10, 1987 Page 17 17 Carson: In certain areas iit will change the density as an increase, but by eliminating the Cluster housing which had a density ~f approximately 120 units and reducing it to single family SF-7, which is approximately 4.7 units per acre, you have a significant reduction in that one area. The single family 10 and single family 7 is about a .7 difference between the .density that has been proposed by the developers, so there's not a whole unit difference on the percentages and ini the cluster area, they are increasing it by approximately 25 units. But there's still an overall decrease in their total units for the~project and that really has a great deal to do with the fact that their figures or their density figures for the SF-7 is slightly lower than what we use as a standard in most straight zoning requests for single family with 7,000 foot lots. Mayor Stephens: How will that affect the property to the south then, in the transition from agricultural to this development. Carson: What has been recommended in the Development Guide basically is when one of ~hese intensity areas is over the standard that we look at it from an entire planning area and what the surrounding land uses are. This will provide some additional flexibility for Mr. Cott or whoever may at some point zone the' property to the south. That we would look at what the surrounding zoning is in order to consider a proposal for his property though it is over the standard. It would be more of a lan~ planning issue than an intensity issue at that point, since the intensity has been used. Mayor Stephens: Then on the other side, has the transition to the north side been changed. The Village, or what ever that was. Carson: The property to the north that abuts the single family, or that abuts this family is single family with 10,000 square foot lots. Mayor Stephens: On that the Village? The wall on it? Carson: That property abuts Teasley and comes back towards this corner, and you might point it out, the property is split on the northern boundary so that there is a double transition, the sevens going to the tens does not significantly alter it. Mayor Stephens: Then one last thing. Would you address Mrs. Brown's inquiry concerning traffic. As I understand it, the intensity, as you explained it, the intensity is not changed not much. Carson: As far as our traffic generation, correct. Mayor Stephens: So that was I believe was the extent of her question which means this zoning will not adversely affect it any more then its already been affected, then what is already in place. 18 City of Denton City Council Minutes March 10, 1987 Page 18 Carson: Right, the zoning that is in place today would be the same i traffic generator as the amendment that's being proposed. ~ Mayor Stephens: I see. Carson: So they will not generate any more traffic and then the road itself would be as part of that bond proposal to actually do the other lanes for construction which would improve the area but the intensity would not change because of this amendment. Mayor Stephens: Mr. Riddlesperger's question, do you want to address that in a moment? Mayor Stephens: Well let me see, any more questions for Ms. Carson though. Carson: Mr. Ellison was just pointing out as something that the citizens of the area might be interested in is that there is a proposed collector that's shown through this property that connects Lillian Miller. At this point it would dead end in that cluster area. The developers in this request have been working with the State School and with the adjoining property owners to extend that collector street to State School Road which would ultimately be Loop 288. That would add an additional access out of that Southridge, southeast Denton area to the south and to the east which would provide some additional assistance in traffic. Mayor Stephens: Across state property? Carson: The property that is presently owned by the State School. Where the park, Brier Cliff Park is presently located and is a lease agreement with the City for the park to be located there. The collector street alignment at this point would go through that property and connect into State School Road. Mayor Stephens: Who would pay for the road across state property? Carson: I believe that the developers would pay the majority of it that went through their actual Oevelopment. Mayor Stephens: Yeah, I know, but, on State School Road, who would pay for that? The developer? Carson: I believe that it would be, you know, something that woulc have to be worked out, where the developers and probably the City would have participation of some kind of agreement to build that road. The specifics have not determined that I know of. ~ayor Stephens: Okay, thank you. Mr. City hanager. City of Denton City Counci~ Minutes March 10, 1987 Page 19 Lloyd Harrell: Yes, Mr. iMayor, I just wanted to elaborate just a bid on Council Riddlespergier's question regarding Lillian Miller and clarify to the Council, ithat as part of the Capital Improvement Program that has been fi~ed with the Council by the Planning and Zoning Commission. It does call for funding to complete that section to a four-lane section on Lillian Miller. And as Council is aware that now will bel funneled back to the Citizen Capital Improvement Committee thait the Council has recently proposed and that will be back to you iprobably within the next couple of months for final decision, and th~n possibly a bond issue. Council Member Riddlespergler: We can get some votes that way. How far is it from this proposed street over to State School Road? How far is it across there? Mayor Stephens: How far is it to cross the way? Carson: About a mile. Mr. Neff: First of all, we also are owners of the adjoining tract. There are two thoroughfares or collectors planned. One would go directly across this, we ~re showing right now, to 35. The other would wind around the lake and go down to the southeast portion of the adjoining property, across this northern tab of the green here, which is State School property. I have been working with the State Department of Mental Health and Mental Retardation now for many months. They are in agreement with us that we need a collector across there and they agree to give us access, or right-of-way. Mayor Stephens: And you w~uld pay for the whole thing. Mr. Neff: Sir, as Cecileiwas kind enough to point out, the details on that haven't been worked out. But it is certainly an essential part of our development i~ this whole area of development as far as access to the entire area. Mayor Stephens: Does anly member of the Council have anything further to add? Council Member Alford: I was curious as to perhaps, Mr. Mayor, in regard to the buffer wall ~hat Mr. Cott was referring to. Mayor Stephens: Eight foo~. Council Member Alford: I~ this included in it, or did the City Attorney have some commention that. Did I misunderstand that? Mayor Stephens: I believe the question was, is the Planning Staff have that written into theiagreement. 19 20 City of Denton City Council Minutes March 10, 1987 Page 20 Council Member McAdams: And they said no, that it was not. Mayor Stephen~: You know, I did not catch that. Okay. Council Member Alford: Okay, that is what I thought I heard. Mayor Stephens: Ms. Debra Drayovitch, City Attorney Debra Drayovitch: From the notes indicated at the Minutes of the Planning Commission and Ms. Carson's communications with Mr. Morris who is our zoning representative, I believe it is indicated that the appropriate time to insert that requirements for the screening wall is at the detailed site plan approval stage. Council Member Alford: But how do we assure that it's there then. Mayor Stephens: By putting it in now, really. Council Member McAdams: But, we've got it, unless we are going to amend our ordinance, see we have got an ordinance, it does not include it, an amendment. Carson: I~ I might address this more specifically, the main reason for this is because the amendment does not affect the entire southern boundary of that project. It only affects one small property, which, since it is an amendment we would technically only have control over requesting that that masonry wall be located along, that one section of SF-7. Which could potentially create more of a problem then waiting until the detail plan when it could be placed all the way across the southern boundary. And what has been done, is there are letters and statements from Mr. Cott and it is in the Minutes of the Planning and Zoning Commission and now in the Minutes of the City Council, that this is an item that should be addressed. So that it will be on file and in the planning staff's records so that when the detailed plan is submitted, that item can be inserted as a condition to that detailed plan. Mayor Stephens: Well, why couldn't it be inserted now so you can remove that uncertainty and have it as a matter of record? Carson: It is my understanding that Mr. Morris had a problem with it because it was only an amendment to a portion of the planned development and you could only require the fence along that portion of the planned development that was being amended. So it might actually divide the neighborhood and have part of it with a fence and part of it not depending on how their detail plan was submitted. Lloyd Harrell: Mr. Mayor, if I may. My understanding is that all the parties are in agreement. That fence, if I understand correctly, from the developer, everyone is in agreement that that City of Denton City Counci Minutes March 10, 1987 Page 21 will be provided during ithe development process, and what we're talking about is just ~he technique for insuring that it ~s accomplished. And I thin~ that is why the staff suggested that we put that request in the M.nutes and what I would suggest is just a statement similar to the' one that I made. That everyone is in agreement that that fence will be provided at the appropriate time when the final development plan is produced, so that everybody understands that. I thinl, from a legal standpoint it's best to do it later although the inte]~sions should be expressed at this point. Debra Drayovitch: I thinik if you go ahead and have a portion, I mean you could go ahead iand include that as a condition of the ordinance before you, andi I'm not sure of the affect it would have later on. But I think yo~ still have the opportunity to come back at a later point in timeI and will have the authority to withhold development approval untilithat condition is met. Council Member McAdams: I~ the motion in order? Mayor Stephens: Yes the m~tion is in order. Council Member McAdams: Then I want to move the approval of Z-1818, - the ordinance, as provide~ in the agenda packet. And add as a note in the Minutes that Counci~ desires at the time of the review of the detailed site plan, that ai fence along that northern, do we consider that.., the southern wall,I southern, I mean southern boundary, that the solid fence along theisouthern boundary be incorporated in that detailed site plan. ~ Council Member Alford: SeCond that. Mayor Stephens: Okay, motion second to approve the ordinance before us with the condition of ithe eight-foot masonry fence be added at the appropriate time. Any On roll call vote, McAdam Alford "aye," Riddlesperg~ "aye." Motion carried unar Mayor Stephens: All voted 1517j further discussion,.Madam Secretary. s "ayet" Alexander "aye," Hopkins "aye," !r "aye," Chew "aye," and Mayor Stephens .imously. 7e. 21 NOTE: THIS COMPLETES THE VERBATIM PORTION OF THE MINUTES 5. Public Hearings i A. The Council held a public hearing on the request of Teasley Road Associates f~r annexation of approximately 80.82 acres being part of the James ~oltart Survey, Abstract 288, and located northwest of new Loop 288 north of Kings Row, and west of Farris Road. (A-42) 22 City of Denton City Council Minutes March 10, 1987 Page 22 The Mayor opened the public hearing. Brian Burke, ~etroplex Engineering, spoke in favor of the request. He stated that the owner was requesting the annexation. After annexation, the owner wanted to proceed with zoning and residential development of the property. It was an extension of property already annexed. No one spoke in opposition. The Mayor closed the public hearing. Cecile Carson, Urban Planner, stated that this was a voluntary annexation request by Teasley Road Associates. It was in conjunc- tion with an annexation which was approved and requested by Teasley Road Associates last year. There was construction occurring on that annexation for a school and zoning had been approved by the City Council on that tract. This was a continuation of their property in the area. There was no existing land uses on the property. The owners did anticipate a zoning request in the near future. There were three reply forms mailed to property owners - 1 returned in favor, 0 in opposition. The next public hearing was scheduled for March 17, 1987. Consensus of the Council was to continue with the annexation schedule. B. The Council held a public hearing to determine the correct name for Paige/Pockrus Road. The Mayor opened the public hearing. Lucy Jones spoke in favor of the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission. She was the manager of the Sherwood Mobile Home Park which was on the road in question. She was in favor of changing the name of the road to Page Road. She stated with all the changes of the name, people were losing their mail and that it was very confusing. Council Member Alexanaer asked Ms. Jones which spelling she wanted the road to be - Page or Paige. Jones dim not have a preference as long as it was Page/Paige. Mrs. H.W. Pockrus spoke in opposition to the recommendation. She stated that her family had owned the property in the area of Page/Pockrus from 1945. She stated that in 1976, the County Commissioners named the road Pockrus Road, signs were in place as Pockrus Road and maps had been made with Pockrus Road. She felt that it would be very expensive to have to change all those signs, etc. The Historic Commission had agreed with the name of Pockrus. City of Denton City Council March 10, 1987 Page 23 ~ Minutes Mayor closed the publi~ hearing. The Denise Spivey, Urban Planner, stated that name of this road had been a problem for people living on Paige/Page/Pockrus Road. The road was annexed into the City iin 1985. The traffic engineering division posted signs with the name of Pockrus Road which corresponded with the name which was on tihe official County Road Map. The last official name designated bY the County Commissioners Court in 1976 was Pockrus. The County H!istorical Committee recommended Pockrus at that time also. The Cityldid have the authority to change the name since it was in the City llimits. The Historical Landmark Commission recommended to retain thei name of Pockrus Road. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommenided the name of Page Road. Staff had no particular recommendation lother than to get the issue resolved one way of the other. ~ Mayor Stephens asked Spivey how the "i" got in the Paige version of the road name. ~ Spivey replied no one seemed to know how it got in there. The following ordinance wag considered: NO. 87-039 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS PROVIDING FOR THE NAMING OF A PUBLIiC STREET SITUATED IN THE CORPORATE LIMITS OF THE CITY OF DiENTON, TEXAS; AND DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Ridalesperger motion, ChewI second to have the name of the road be Pockrus Road. On roll ca!ll vote, McAdams "aye," Alexander "aye," Hopkins "aye," Alford "aye," Riddlesperger "aye," Chew "aye," and Mayor Stephens "aye." Motion carried unanimously. 6. Consent Agenda Riddlesperger motion, Chewl second to approve the Consent Agenda as presented. Motion carried iunanimously. Consent Agenda A. Bids and Purchase Orders: Bid #97Q3 - Dry Type Transformers Bid #9707 - Electric Motor Bid #971il - Oils and Greasos City of Denton City Council Minutes March 10, 1987 Page 24 Bid #9717 - Herbicides Bid #9718 - Tractor/Mower Combination 6. Bid #9723 - Refuse Containers 7. Bid #9713 - Asbestos Removal B. Plats and Replats Consider approval of preliminary plat of the Southeast Airport Addition, Lot 1, Block 1. (The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval.) Consider approval of preliminary replat of Lots 1-4, Block 6, of the Northside Addition. (The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval.) Consider approval of general development plan for Surrey Ridge Addition. (The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval.) C. Tax Refunds 1. Consider a tax refund to Grady Gandee in the ~ amount of $1278.94 7. Ordinances Consider a tax refund to Lawyer's Title in the amount of $869.78 A. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance accepting competitive bids and providing for the award of contracts for the purchase of materials, equipment, supplies or services. The following ordinance was considered: NO. 87-040 AN ORDINANCE ACCEPTING COMPETITIVE BIDS AND AWARDING A CONTRACT FOR THE PURCHASE OF MATERIALS, EQUIPMENT, SUPPLIES OR SERVICES; PROVIDING FOR THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS THEREFORE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. McAdams motion, Alford second to adopt the ordinance. On roll call vote, McAdams "aye," Alexander "aye," Hopkins "aye," Alford "aye," Riddlesperger "aye," Chew "aye," and Mayor Stephens "aye." Motion carried unanimously. City of Denton City Council Minutes March 10, 1987 Page 25 B. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance accepting competitive bids and providing for the award of contracts for public works or improvements - ! The following ordinance wa~ AN ORDINANCE ACCE THE AWARD OF CON PROVIDING FOR T~ considered: NO. 87-041 PTING COMPETITIVE BIDS AND PROVIDING FOR tRACTS FOR PUBLIC WORKS OR IMPROVEMENTS; [E EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS THEREFOR; AND PROVIDING FOR AN ~FFECTIVE DATE. McAdams motion, Alford sec vote, McAdams "aye," Alexs Riddlesperger "aye," Chew carried unanimously. C. The Council considered adoption of designating and establishing school safety speed Street, Ruddell Street and Davis Street. The following ordinance was considered: AN ORDINANCE DESI SPEED ZONE ON INTERSECTION WITH NORTH OF ITS INTE FROM ITS INTERSEC~ WITH RUDDELL STRE~ LIMIT FOR SUCH PO} TWENTY (20) MILES A PENALTY OF A ($200.00); PROVID AN EFFECTIVE DATE )nd to adopt the ordinance. On roll call nder "aye," Hopkins "aye," Alford "aye," "aye," and Mayor Stephens "aye." Motion an ordinance zones on Wood NO. 87-042 GNATING AND ESTABLISHING A SCHOOL SAFETY WOOD STREET 300 FEET NORTH OF ITS DAVIS STREET; RUDDELL STREET 300 FEET RSECTION WITH DAVIS STREET; DAVIS STREET ~ION WITH WOOD STREET TO ITS INTERSECTION T; REDUCING THE MAXIMUM PRIMA FACIE SPEED ~TIONS OF SAID STREETS FROM THIRTY (30) TO PER HOUR DURING CERTAIN HOURS; PROVIDING FINE NOT TO EXCEED TWO HUNDRED DOLLARS lNG A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND DECLARING Lloyd Harrell, City Manager, stated that this item was a clean-up matter of a school zone. i Chew motion, McAdams secor vote, McAdams "aye," Alexa Riddlesperger "aye," Chew carried unanimously. Item E. was moved ahead in d to adopt the ordinance. On roll call nder "aye," Hopkins "aye," Alford "aye," "aye," and Mayor Stephens "aye." Motion the agenda order. E. The Councii~ considered adoption of ordinance aesignating and establish~ing school safety speed zones on Fulton Street, Bryan Street, Linden Drive and on Crescent Street. City of Denton City Council Minutes March 10, 1987 Page 26 The following ordinance was considered: NO. 87-044 AN ORDINANCE DESIGNATING AND ESTABLISHING SCHOOL SAFETY SPEED ZONES ON FULTON STREET BEGINNING 200 FEET SOUTH OF ITS INTERSECTION WITH LINDEN DRIVE AND ENDING AT ITS INTERSECTION WITH CORDELL STREET; ON BRYAN STREET BEGINNING 180 FEET NORTH OF ITS INTERSECTION WITH LINDEN DRIVE AND ENDING AT ITS INTERSECTION WITH CRESCENT STREET; ON LINDEN DRIVE BEGINNING 150 FEET WEST OF ITS INTERSECTION WITH FULTON STREET AND ENDING 190 FEET WEST OF ITS INTERSECTION WITH ALICE STREET; ON CRESCENT STREET BEGINNING 370 FEET EAST OF ITS INTERSECTION WITH BRYAN STREET AND ENDING 150 FEET EAST OF ITS INTERSECTION WITH FULTON STREET; REDUCING THE MAXIMUM PRIMA FACIE SPEED LIMIT FOR SUCH PORTIONS OF SAID STREETS FROM THIRTY (30) TO TWENTY (20) MILES PER HOUR DURING CERTAIN HOURS; PROVIDING A PENALTY OF A FINE NOT TO EXCEED TWO HUNDRED DOLLARS ($200.00); PROVIDING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Lloyd Harrell, City Manager, stated that this item was also a clean-up item for school zone. Alford motion, Hopkins second to adopt the ordinance. vote, McAdams "aye," Alexander "aye," Hopkins "aye," Riddlesperger "aye," Chew "aye," and Mayor Stephens carried unanimously. On roll call Alford "aye," "aye." Motion The Council returned to the regular agenda order. D. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance designating and estaDlishing speed zones for east and west bound traffic on U.S Highway 380 from its intersection with Interstate Highway 35 to western city limits. The following ordinance was considered: NO. 87-043 AN ORDINANCE DESIGNATING AND ESTABLISHING SPEED ZONES FOR EAST AND WEST BOUND TRAFFIC ON U.S. HIGHWAY 380 FROM ITS INTERSECTION WITH INTERSTATE HIGHWAY 35 TO WESTERN CITY LIMITS FOR A DISTANCE OF 2.592 MILES; REPEALING ORDINANCE NO. 83-03; PROVIDING FOR A PENALTY OF A FINE NOT TO EXCEED TWO HUNDRED DOLLARS ($200.00); PROVIDING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Hopkins motion, McA~ams second to adopt the ordinance. On roll call vote, McAdams "aye," Alexander "aye," Hopkins "aye," Alford "aye," ~ Riddlesperger "aye," Chew "aye," and Mayor Stephens "aye." Motion { carried unanimously. ~-~ City of Denton City Council Minutes March 10, 1987 Page 27 , F. The Councit considered adoption of an ordinance amending Chapter 10.5 "~lood Damage Prevention", of the Cod 'o~ Ordinances of the City oN Denton, Texas to provide for adoption o~ the requirements of the Federal Emergency Management Agency; providing for amendments |thereto; providing for additions thereto and providing for deletion~ therewith. The following ordinance wa: AN ORDINANCE A~ considered: NO. 87-045 ~ENDING CHAPTER 10-1/2, "FLOOD DAMAGE OF THE CITY OF PROVIDE FOR ADOPTION OF THE REQUIREMENTS ~ERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY; PROVIDING FOR TO; PROVIDING FOR ADDITIONS THERETO; ETIONS THEREWITH; PROVIDING FOR A PENALTY OUNT OF $1,000.00 FOR VIOLATIONS THEREOF; AN EFFECTIVE DATE. PREVENTION", OF iTHE CODE OF ORDINANCES DENTON, TEXAS TO OF THE FEDERAL Ei AMENDMENTS THERE PROVIDING FOR DEL IN THE MAXIMUM AM AND PROVIDING FOR Rick Svehla, Assistant City Manager, stated that FEMA had made some additions to their ordinance that · dealt with manufactured homes/mobile homes in terlms of anchoring, and the same kinds of details that were require~ of stick homes. More definitions and more detailed specifications for damage had been added. Hopkins motion, McAdams mo~ion to adopt the ordinance. On roll call vote, McAdams "aye," Alex~n0er "aye," Hopkins "aye," Gorton "aye," Ayer "aye," BoyO "aye," and Mayor Stephens "aye." Motion carried unanimously. G. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance approving a contract betwe.~n the City of Denton an Deloitte Haskins and Sells for professional service relating to' an evaluation of Flow Memorial Hospital; and decl.~ring an effective date. The following ordinance wasI considered: NO. 87-046 AN ORDINANCE APPROVING A CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY OF DENTON AND DELOI!TTE HASKINS & SELLS FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES RELATING TO AN EVALUATION OF FLOW MEMORIAL HOSPITAL: AND DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Lloyd Harrell, City Manager, stated that the firm would have two tasks; one would be a shorit term view of the Hospital to give the City a picture of where the Hospital was and if an infusion of some short term money from theiCounty and City would be successful in prolonging the operation o~ the Hospital. Would an allocation of 27 28 City of Denton City Council Minutes March 10, 1987 Page 28 $220,000 from the City and money from the County provide any useful assistance at. that point in time. The second part of the study would be a long term view of the Hospital in determining possibilities of the HOspital, examine various alternatives that might be available and provide the Council with some information that would be helpful in finding some structure or organization that would De successful in allowing Flow to operate within the community, the timing called fro the firm to begin work within 10 days after notification to begin. In recent conversations with the firm, assurances were given that if given approval by the City and County, they would be prepared to begin work next Monday. Two weeks after starting, an oral presentation would be given regarding the short term situation of Flow as they saw it. Within 30 days after starting, a comprehensive report would be given. The cost of the study was $31,000. The ordinance presented authorized the City to enter the agreement, with the City paying up to one-half of the fees associated with the study. It had been noted that it was the sentiment of the County to work with the City in this study. The firm requested that liaison people be appointed form the City and County to brief them about the progress that they were making. The County appointed Judge Vic Burgess and Commissioner Ruth Tansey as its liaisons. Council Member Riddlesperger stated that he was very impressed with the experience of this firm in hospital examinations. He felt that if the County would go along with the study, it would be a very good idea to proceed in that direction. Council Member Alexander stated that this study would be good not for just the City and County but would be hopeful for the people working with the Hospital as well. It would be an initial effort to bring a sense of cooperation between the Hospital Board, the City and the County in an effort to resolve a very difficult problem. Council Member McAdams agreed that it was an absolute must. She felt that the Hospital was very important to the City of Denton and that this was a first step to seeing what could be done to salvage it. Mayor Stephens stated that a representative from Deloitte, Haskins and sells had some further information about the revenue bond item. He asked if the Council would like to hear his update. Mr. Charlie Christie, Deloitte, Haskins and Sells, stated that the Council Had asked about the Hospital issuing bonds to help with the hard times it was going through. As a 501 (C) (3), the Hospital could still access the tax exempt Dond market. One requirement would be that the history of the Hospital be one that was showing an operating profit and had the potential to continue at a profit. Without that, it would be very difficult to find a bond underwriter willing to underwrite the Donds. City of Denton City Counci~ March 10, 1987 Page 29 Minutes McAdams motion, Chew secohd to adopt the ordinance. On roll call vote, McAdams. "aye," Alexander "aye," Hopkins "aye," Gorton "aye," Ayer "aye," Boyd "aye," and Mayor Stephens "aye." Motion carried unanimously. I 8. Resolutions A. The Councili considered approval of a resolution postponing the regular Council meeting of April 7, 1987. The following resolution was considered: RESOLUTION NO. R87-020 A RESOLUTION POSTPONING THE REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING OF APRIL 7, 1987: ANQ PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. ~ ' , Lloy Harrell, city Manager, stated that the Council meeting needed to De postponed because t~e Council would be in Austin on April 7, 1987 taking part in Denton~County Day. McAdams motion, Alexander ~econd to approve the resolution. On roll call vote, McAdams "aye,'l Alexander "aye," Hopkins "aye," Gorton "aye," Ayer "aye," Boyd l'aye," and Mayor Stephens "aye." Motion carried unanimously. B. The Councili considered approval of a resolution temporarily closing Fry Street for the annual Fry Street Fair. The following resolution w~s considered: RESOLUTION NO. R87-021 A RESOLUTION TEMPORARILY CLOSING FRY STREET BETWEEN THE INTERSECTION OF QAK STREET AND HICKORY STREET ON SUNDAY, APRIL, 26, 1987, AND DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Hopkins motion, McAdams sgcond to approve the resolution. On roll call vote, McAdams "aye,"i Alexander "aye," Hopkins "aye," Gorton "aye," Ayer "aye," Boyd '!aye," and Mayor Stephens "aye." Motion carriea unanimously. C. The Council proposed air quality contrc The following resolution wa considered approval is for Denton County. s considered: of a resolution on 30 City of Denton City Council Minutes March 10, 1987 Page 30 RESOLUTION NO. R87-022 A RE~OLUTION OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS RELATING TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY'S PROPOSED AIR QUALITY CONTROLS FOR DENTON COUNTY. AND DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Hopkins motion, Alexander second to approve the resolution. call vote, McAdams "aye," Alexander "aye," Hopkins "aye," "aye," Ayer "aye," Boyd "aye," and Mayor Stephens "aye." carried unanimously. Miscellaneous matters from the City Manager. Lloyd Harrell. City Manager, reported the following items: On roll Gorton Motion A. The County Commissioners would be holding a county meeting on March 24, 1987 at 7:00 p.m. concerning the EPA situation. They had made a specific request for an elected official to be present at that meeting to represent the City. Representatives from the Planning Staff would attend. B. Bob Nelson received notice from the Corps of Engineers indicating that the official dedication and closing of the gates at Lake Ray Roberts would be June 30, 1987 at 10:00 a.m. 10. There was no official action taken on Executive Session items of legal matters, real estate, personnel or board appointments. 11. New Business The following items of new business were suggested by Council Members for future agendas: A. Council Member McAdams asked why the City of Denton had no emergency waring sirens. She asked that staff take another look at the cost, etc. of the warning sirens. B. Council Member Riddlesperger asked about the junk car ordinance. Jeff Meyer, Director of Planning and Zoning, stated that the draft ordinance was prepared and that staff was waiting for the Council's approval. 12. The Council reconvened into the Executive discuss legal matters, real estate, personnel appointments. The following action was taken: Session to and board A. City representatives for the Flow study being done by Deloitte, Haskins & Sells were nominated. City of Denton City Council Minutes March 10, 1987 Page 31 31 McAdams motion, Hopkins second that Mayor Stephens and Council Member Alexander represent the City as liaisons for Deloitte, Haskins & Sells. Motion carried unanimously. With no further business, the meeting was adjourned. CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS ACTIN~ CITY-SECRETARY CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS 0575k