Loading...
Minutes February 06, 1990CITY OF DENTON CITY COUNCIL MINUTES FEBBUABY 6. 1990 The Council convened into the Work Session at 5:15 p.m. in the Civil Defense Room. PRESENT: Mayor Stephens; Mayor Pro Tem Ayer; Council Members Alexander. Boyd. Gorton. Hopkins and McAdams. ABSENT: None 1. The Council convened into Executive Session to discuss legal matters (considered action in Denton County vs. City and In Re: Flow. considered a settlement proposal in Smithers vs. City and considered authorization to institute legal action regarding the Martin Luther King. Jr. Recreation Center). real estate and board/personnel appointments (considered appointments to the Building Code Advisory Board and the Cable T.V. Advisory Board.) The Council then convened into Open Session at 5:45 p.m. 359 1. The Council considered and discussed proposed changes to City Council Rules of Procedure. Council reviewed the document with City Attorney Drayovitch noting minor corrections to be made to the document. Consensus of the Council was to prepare the document for Council consideration at the next Council meeting. 2. The Council received a report from the Subcommittee for Hotel Occupancy Tax and discussed changes to contracts with the tax recipients. Debra Drayovitch, C~ty Attorney, stated that She along with the Subcommittee and John McGrane had visited with representatives of each organization that received Lalor funds. They had received up-to-date information regarding the usage of funds. The=e appeared to be no disagreement with any of the new statutory provisions along with the reco~mendation to dissolve the Cultural 'Confederation. There was a question of whether to split the Arts Council funding between historic preservation and the arts. It was recommended that each organization build up a reserve as well as a special project fund for the City. If a shortfall occurred, that reserve could then be used. The reserve process would be done by a budget process as opposed to a contract provision. The terms of the contracts would be for five years except for the Arts Council-Performing Hall which would be a two year contract. The Committee was recommending that the funding for the old steam plant renovation be decreased during that two year cont=act. It was also a 36O City of Denton city Council Minutes February 6, 1990 Page Z Committee recommendation that the hotels/motels begin remitting funds to the City on a monthly basis in order to deal with the problem of a hotel closing or declaring bankruptcy and the associated loss of funds. In return, the hotels/motels would be allowed to retain 1% as a collection fee. A "cap" or limit on funding was discussed with the different entities. Originally it was suggested that the "cap" be operational at 2-3 years into the five year term. An alternative suggestion was funding via allocations on designated percentages as provided in the contracts. council Member Alexander stated that the designated percent in the contract would be allocated based on the one cent originally received. For example, in the first year of the five year contract, an organization would receive the full amount of what one cent would generate. The second year, it would receive 98% of the amount of what one cent would generate and the third through fifth years, receive 95% of the amount of what one cent would generate. That would create a modest reserve fund for the City to use first to help off-set any reductions from the previous year's budget. If there were any reserve funds remaining, they could be used as increases to any agencies needing such. The percentages were proposed and could be altered as Council so desired. The Arts Council would not be able to use such a formula as legally it could not receive funds in excess of the one cent figure. The Committee was recommending that the Arts Council not be placed under that kind of a formula but rather receive the full 100% of one cent for all five years. Alexander also felt that a convention site was still needed either through a CXP project or some other alternative. Many groups would benefit from such a site and suggested a committee be formed to look at the issue. Council Member McAdams expressed concern for the two year contract for the renovation project. A tract of land needed to be sold which was slowing down the project. What would happen at the end of the two years. She felt that the funds should not be decreased.until the project was done and done well. Council Member Alexander replied that the City had had a commitment to the project for several years and that it probably had been extended longer than originally considered. A two year limit was set as a way to make a positive statement to get the project finished. Consensus of the Council was to have staff prepare the contract and send them out for a response from each group. If serious questions were raised, a public hearing may be considered. If no questions were raised, the contract would be ready for Council consideration. City of Denton City Council Minutes February 6, 1990 .Page 3 3. The Council held a discussion regarding a report from the Planning and Zoning Commission concerning the Sign Ordinance. Frank Robbins, Executive Director for Planning, presented the following issues and related suggestions: 1. Portable Signs - weakening' of existing portable sign provisions would be inconsistent with the community's values. No further study or ordinance amendment necessary. 2. Sign size and height - no further study necessary. The existing standards were consistent with the region's. Amendment would slow the process of (a) eliminating sign clutter and (b) more effective, less costly signage. 3. Transition, or phasing in lower standards over time - no further study necessary. Many legal, administrative, and equity problems would arise. 4. Special Sign Board with broader authority - further consideration warranted. warranted. Measuring the height of a sign - further study 6. Changing the face - the degree to which changing the face of a sign. letters, or figures on the face. or supporting structure of a non-conforming sign would require compliance with all sign ordinance standards - further study warranted. 7. Non-substantive clarification - desirable. 8. SDHPT certification standards - should be added. 9. No amendment for analysis warranted. __ year(s) statement - further Mayor Stephens asked if Highway 380 might be treated in a different manner as it was more highway in nature than other streets in the city. Robbins replied that the Planning and Zoning Commission had looked at that issue and felt that it should stay the same and keep the height and size requirements currently listed. Mayor Stephens gave an example of the Chevron sign that was being requested on University. A six foot sign was too small ~o: a majo~ highway with pa£ked vehicles at times blocking such a sign. 361 362 City of Denton City Council Minutes February 6, 1990 Page 4 Council Member Boyd stated that there was a stop sign there and that the speed was slow enough so as to be able to see that size sign. Mayor Stephens stated that he had been asked about the possibility of changing the sign at the Denton High School. What would be the requirements if the sign were to be updated~ Robbins stated that they probably would need a six foot high sign and possibly put plastic/glass on the front so that the letters would not be accessible. Consensus of the Council was to proceed along the suggested lines of the Planning and Zoning Commission. Items #4 and #5 were not considered during the Work Session but were considered during the Regular Session. The Council then convened into the Regular Session at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers. PRESENT: Mayor Stephens; Mayor Pro Tem Ayer: Council Members Alexander, Boyd, Gorton, Hopkins and McAdams. ABSENT: None 1. Presentation of a proclamation "Broncos Against Drugs (B.A.D.) Week", February 12-16, 1990. Mayor Stephens presented the proclamation to representatives of the Student Council and Leadership Class at Denton High School. 2. The Council considered approval of a resolution of appreciation for John J. Marshall. The following resolution was considered: NO. R90-005 RESOLUTION IN APPRECIATION OF JOHN J. MARSHALL Gorton motioned, Alexander seconded to approve the resolution. On roll call vote, McAdams "aye," Alexander "aye," Hopkins "aye." Gocton "aye," Ayer "aye," Boyd "aye," and Mayor Stephens "aye." Motion carried unanimously. 3. The Council considered approval of the minutes of the Regular Sessions of December 5. 1989. December 19. 1989. January 2. 1990. and January 16. 1990 and the joint session of January 10. 1990. City of Denton City Council Minutes' February 6. 1990 Page 5 Mayor Pro Tem Ayer noted two typographical errors on page 4 of the December 19. 1990 minutes and asked for a correction. Council Member.Hopkins requested that a correction be made in the minutes of January 10. 1990 to reflect that she stated an over "65" exemption and a "historic exemption". Ayer Motioned. McAdams seconded to approve the minutes as amended. Motion carried unanimously. 4. The Council received a citizen's report from Mike Wiebe. Jim McDonald, Mark Hughes, Rich Slivocka. and Charlie Boston of the Denton' Area Little League regarding co-sponsorship of two baseball leagues. Mayor Stephens stated that only Mike Wiebe, Rich Slivocka and Jim McDonald would be speaking per the request of citizen's group. Jim McDonald. Director of the Denton Area Little League, stated that he would be speaking about the problem from the Board's perspective. Rich Slivocka would be making a general statement on behalf of the Little League. and Mike Wiebe would be presenting the benefits of Little League for Denton. He asked what had happened to cause Denton Area Little League to come before the City Council. Some were saying that it was because one or a small group of individuals mistakingly assumed that everyone in Denton wanted only one organization for youth baseball although no compelling reason had been put forth. Some were saying it was because the Parks Board made a premature decision without considering all the taxpayers and citizens of Denton. Regardless of the reason, the events beginning in January 1990 had caused the Denton Area Little League Board to discuss and debate its role in area youth baseball. After much discussion, the Board of Directors for the Denton Area Little League had come to agree that multiple baseball youth sports organizations were in the best interests of all the children and taxpayers in the City of Denton. The practical result of this conclusion was that all reputable youth sports organizations in the City should be given equal access to City facilities for both practices and games. He recommended multiple organizations for the following reasons: (1) historically, the existence of only one youth baseball program had created problems which led to the creation of both the YMCA programs and the Denton Area Little League; (2) he felt that the taxpayers of Denton and their children should have the right to choose which youth baseball program they wished to affiliate with; (3) given the recent growth in all the youth baseball programs and given the projected growth over the next ten years for the City of Denton. the demand for multiple youth sports organizations would grow. It would 3 63 364 City of Denton City Council Minutes February 6, 1990 Page 6 require the efforts of all the organizations to meet this increased demand. He did not want the Denton Area Little League to be the only youth baseball organization in the City, just as he did not want Dixie Boys Baseball or the YMCA to be the only youth baseball program. He wanted the youth of Denton to have a choice. He hoped that the Council would go on record for the establishment of a policy which supported multiple youth sports organizations and the equal access to all the City's baseball facilities for all such reputable programs. Rich $1ivocka, stated that he was here due to a recent Park Board recommendation to co-sponsor only one baseball program in Denton - Denton Boys Baseball. It was felt as parents that the Little League program was the one they chose to follow. They were here because 350 of the Denton community youth wanted to play Little League baseball. He read a portion of the minutes ~rom the Park and Recreation Board meeting of January 5, 1987. He stated that the Denton Area Little League had grown from 12 teams to 27 in 1989. It provided a T-ball program in 1989 at the recommendation of the Park Board staff and attracted 112 ~ boys and girls. As the figures indicated, Little League was' the choice of approximately half of the total youth community and their families who participated in organized baseball programs played on City owned fields. He felt that the Parks Board recommendation to sponsor only one program in Denton had no merit. He asked what kind of investigation was done. Was the comparison sheet of the two programs the final factor in the decision - were the rules and regulations of Little League looked into by the Parks Board. How did the Parks Board determine that one program would be in the best interest of all involved, who was responsible, according to Park Board minutes of November 20, the first person to propose the forming of one league and why. As a concerned parent and past Board Member of the Denton Area Little League, he felt those questions needed to be addressed. He felt that there was one solution and that was to leave well enough alone. He was not asking the Council to make a decision as to which program should prevail in the City but was asking equal distribution of fields be given to both programs according to the number of members in each. There should remain a choice. Mike Wiebe presented the history of the Denton Area Little League and the basic philosophy of that organization. He stated that the program (1) was committed to safety, (2) offered a variety of support materials, (3) provided specific rules to protect and promote the emotional and physical development of all participants, and (4) offered a balanced system of play. He did not believe that the existence of more than one youth baseball program in Denton to be counterproductive. Both programs continued to grow. He stated that they were only asking for playing field availability in order to conduct one of the youth baseball programs in Denton. City of Denton City Council Minutes February 6, 1990 Page 7 Mayor Stephens thanked the speakers and stated the Council's practice was not to put an item on an agenda for action the first time it was heard. This would allow staff to research a particular problem after presentation by a citizen. He asked if Council would like to hear from Roy Appleton III representing the Park Board for background information. Roy Appleton III, member of the Park and Recreation Board, stated that the Board had met on several occasions with representatives of both groups. It was generally agreed upon that the two programs were very similar and the merits of each group had been compared. They had come to the Parks Board unable to resolve any sort of unified approach to the program. In several of the meetings, it was agreed mutually by both sides, that one program for the City would be best for the players. The problem was which program to choose. On several occasions, the Park Board suggested the two organizations meet and try to resolve the problem. The organizations met several times and were unable to resolve the problem. They had asked the Park Board for guidance and direction. He felt that the Park Board did not have any interest in which organization was selected. The Board's interest was that there should be one organization for the City of Denton. The Board's feeling was that perhaps that should go beyond baseball to all sports. One umbrella organization to oversee youth athletics. Council Member McAdams stated that she failed to understand why in a city as large as Denton, it was necessarily good to have one organization. The City was highly computerized and it should be easy to determine how many children were enrolled in the programs and then divide the playing fields based on the number of children. Appleton replied that the Council needed to hear the other side of the issue which needed to be presented by the Denton Boys Baseball. From the City standpoint, there was an efficiency issue with field maintenance, field scheduling, etc. Council Member McAdams replied that she still failed to see why the one umbrella operation was so necessary. Council Member Boyd asked why it would be in the City's interest to have only one organization. Appleton replied from a simple standpoint of field maintenance and organization of scheduling of umpires as well as competing for players which would be detrimental to a unified approach to youth athletics. Both sides had met with the Park Board on two occasions and the general agreement was that it would be in the best interest to have one organization. That point o£ view might have changed from some people's perspective but that was agreed upon. The only stumbling block was which organization to affiliate with. 365 3'6 6 City of Denton City Council Minutes February 8, 1990 .Page 8 Council Member Hopkins did not think it was the Council nor the Park Board's place to tell citizens which organization to participate in. Scheduling needed to be done on a percentage basis by the number of boys. Little League was known not only city-wide but also state-wide, nationally and internationally. Youth/parents needed a choice. Appleton replied that the Parks Board was not trying to deny anyone the ability to play. Council Member Hopkins replied that they were being denied access to the fields. She stated that she was sympathetic to the Little League and felt that they did have a case. Steve Brinkman, Director of Parks and Recreation, stated that the co-sponsorship involved Parks and Recreation providing one group in the city - Denton Boys Baseball - practice and game fields as the first priority. They would not pay for the fields but would pay an administrative fee. Any fields left over after they had scheduled their practice and game times would then be made available for rent to the Little League'- program. Both organizations would play. it was just that one would have co-sponsorship and would not have to pay the rental fee. The other one would not have co-sponsorship and would have to pay a small rental fee in order to play. Each group would have essentially the same number' of people this year as they did last year. They would need the same amount of game times as they had last year. The biggest effect would be in the area of practices because there were very few fields for practice for the youth right now. Council Member Alexander asked Brinkman. to describe how the fields were scheduled last season. Brinkman replied that after each group had scheduled their particular registrations, they came to the Parks Department with a number of players and a number of teams that they had. The Parks Department then worked in the fields based on the number of players that they had. Council Member Alexander asked if both groups were given essentially an equal access and that neither of the groups was charged a fee for using the fields. Brinkman replied yes they both had equal access and that they did not pay a rental fee but did pay an administrative fee. Council Member Alexander asked Brinkman to describe the number of available playing fields for youth baseball for the present season and long-range plans for availability. He felt that a good part of the solution might be to create more fields. City of Denton City Council Minutes February 6. 1990 Page 9 B=inkman replied that all the groups in town shared six fields at Evers Park and three fields at Mack Park fo= a total of nine fields for all age groups. When the developments were made out of the last bond issue at Eve£s Park. four unlighted fields would be lighted for a total of six lighted fields there. Two additional fields would be const£ucted at Evers Park also. Council Member Alexander asked for the schedule relative to the construction of the extra fields. Brinkman stated they should be done by the summer of 1991. Mayor Pro Tem Aye= asked if currently at Evers Park. there were six fields but only two were lighted. Brinkman replied yes that there were four unlighted fields and two lighted. Mayor Pro Tem Aye= asked what percentage of the playing was done under lights. Brinkman replied that a very small percentage of playing was done under lights because there were only two fields at Evers with lights. The percentage of playing at Mack Park under the lights was a great deal higher because all three of the fields were lighted. Council Member Boyd asked what was the City's interest in having one league other than the fields. Brinkman replied that they were interested in trying to have a good quality program. At the present time. both programs that used the fields we£e st=etched for game time and for practice time. So that both programs, because of the limited number of fields, were £eally not doing the best job providing practice time. By identifying one organization that would be co-sponsored by the City. it would give that organization the ability to at least come up with a set schedule that would meet the demands of the practice fields and would allow that group to meet its national standards. Both of the groups now had to have waivers from their pa£ent organizations because they couldn't field enough teams to meet the standards that were requited by their national organizations. The area that -was really pronounced was in the older age groups. After age 13. there were very few teams because there were very few children in that age group which provided for very strong competition for the children between the two organizations. If there were three or four teams in one program and three or four in another, to try and put them together for a larger base would make sense. 367 368 City of Denton City Council Minutes February 6, 1990 Page 10 Council Member Boyd stated that he understood there were too few fields for the children. Now he was hearing that there wasn't enough children to fill out the leagues. He envisioned that with a co-sponsored league and assuming that the children still wanted to play baseball, that they would affiliate with the co-sponsored league. That being the case, there would still be the same number of children playing and the same number of fields in use. He was having trouble seeing how one league would help the situation. Brinkman replied that one league meeting the needs of the citizens which was co-sponsored should be an adequate amount of support and additional leagues would have to work on their own. The Board and the City would recognize one program as the City sponsored program and that any other programs would be permissible but not under the auspices of the City. Council Member Boyd stated that one argument that carried some weight was that the two organizations had different size fields so that it was difficult for the grounds keepers to prepare for both leagues. That had not been mentioned and the problems that had been mentioned were not persuasive. Brinkman replied that the field maintenance was an area that had to be dealt with on an on-going basis. That was an effect on the Department but not a major effect. Council Member McAdams stated that unless the City expected that some children would choose not to play because they did not like the rules of the organization that was established, it seemed to her that the same problem would exist. There were be "x" number of children playing and "x" number of fields available. She couldn't see any compelling reason to say to people there must be one organization. The City was not paying to have Little League and it was not costing the City anything to have them play. Unless there was a compelling reason not to have a choice, she did not see why it was being done. Council Member Hopkins stated if there were going to have more playing fields by next year and a couple more at Denia this year. what was the matter in following the same program that was followed this past year and let both teams play. If the only reason was the playing fields, the same number of children would be playing no matter if there were one. two or three leagues. Schedule as was done last year and next there would be more fields. Do not give an advantage of one over the other. Even though it might be a wonderful ideal to have an umbrella organization and no one competed anymore, that was not life and was not the way it would be. Let the teams play this year on exactly the same basis they had been playing. See if the additional fields doesn't solve the problem. City of Denton City Council Minutes February 6, 1990 Page 11 Mayor Stephens stated that additional information was needed concerning the effect if there were no change and the effect if there was a change. That information included the availability of fields, inquire if the schools would allow practice on their fields, the possible use of the park of Teasley, and more information on an all-sports umbrella advisory board to see how it would affect baseball programs in general and this particular interest. Council Member Gorton asked that a decision be made as soon as possible and not be sent back to the Parks Board as they had already heard all of the information. Public Hearings A. The Council held a public hearing and considered adoption of an ordinance extending the moratorium on the establishment of sexually oriented businesses. (The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval.) The Mayor opened the public hearing. No one spoke in favor. No one spoke in opposition. The Mayor closed the public hearing· Frank Robbins, Executive Director for Planning. stated that at the end of the 180 day process that the Planning and Zoning Commission had been in to draft an ordinance for the Council to consider, two court cases came to light which impacted that ordinance. The Planning and Zoning Commission was recommending that the moratorium be extended for ninety days in order for staff and the Planning and Zoning Commission to take into account the ramifications of those two court cases on the draft ordinance. Council Membe£ Hopkins expressed concern about the legal position the extension would create in regards to due process. City Attorney Drayovitch stated that a moratorium had been legally upheld for reasonable amounts of time to give the Council or governing bodies an opportunity to fully study an issue and make a thorough recommendation. It was her understanding that the first moratorium was imposed in August. When the request had been made to her office, she urged that it be expedited so as to be beneficial to all parties. With the question of extending the moratorium another ninety days, court 369 370 City of Denton City Council Minutes February 6, 1990 Page 12 cases had been upheld for a moratorium that long and other cases they had felt that that amount of time was not reasonable. Giving the circumstances, there was a recommendation from the Commission and staff in that regard that would go a long way towards convincing a court. She recommended that it not take ninety days and be done as soon as possible. Lloyd Harrell, City Manager, stated that the Planning and Zoning Commission had completed the drafting of an ordinance to be submitted to Council. That would have occurred at the present meeting or at the prior meeting to begin public hearings and consideration of action. UnfortunatelY, that was the same time that the Supreme Court issued an opinion regarding the Dallas ordinance which called into some unconstitutional questions, some of the items in the Dallas ordinance. Some of those same provisions were in the proposed ordinance from the Planning and Zoning Commission. It was the Planning and Zoning Commission and staff that felt that time was needed to work through those issues and redraft the ordinance. If the moratorium were not extended, there would be no guidelines for those types of establishments. Council Member Hopkins replied that it should be taken into account what the Supreme Court said and perhaps some type of due process clause should be added. Council Member McAdams asked if the Supreme Court would allow a moratorium that did not take into consideration due process even though the ordinance drafted included it, 'City Attorney Drayovitch replied that when a moratorium was adopted, the effect was to deny a person/business that use for the period of the moratorium. Council Member McAdams asked that if it were a moratorium, did due process have to be provided for. City Attorney Drayovitch replied that if Council Member McAdams were referring to the Dallas Supreme Court case, that it was a different issue and did not apply to a moratorium. Some of the legal principles might apply. There had to be a very good reason to suspend that kind of development. Mayor Pro Tem Ayer asked if any development of a sexually oriented business had been held up due to the moratorium. Robbins replied that it was difficult to answer in that staff had received calls regarding the moratorium but no one had actually asked questions in regards to opening such a business. City of Denton City Council Minutes February 6, 1990 · Page 13 The following ordinance was considered: NO. 90-016 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON. TEXAS. PROVIDING FOR THE EXTENSION OF A MORATORIUM ON THE ESTABLISHMENT OF SEXUALLY ORIENTED BUSINESSES. BY PROHIBITING THEIR LOCATION WITHIN A RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT OR WITHIN 1.000 FEET OF A CHURCH. A PUBLIC OR PRIVATE ELEMENTARY OR SECONDARY SCHOOL, A DAY NURSERY OR KINDERGARTEN SCHOOL, THE BOUNDARY OF A RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT, A PUBLIC PARK ADJACENT TO A RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT. OR THE PROPERTY LINE OF A LOT DEVOTED TO A RESIDENTIAL USE, PENDING THE STUDY, REVIEW, AND DISCUSSION OF A PROPOSED ORDINANCE REGULATING SEXUALLY ORIENTED BUSINESSES; PROVIDING FOR A PENALTY IN THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF $2.000.00 FOR VIOLATIONS THEREOF; PROVIDING THAT THIS ORDINANCE SHALL BE EFFECTIVE FOR NINETY DAYS; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Council Member Gorton added that further ~upport of extending the moratorium was the fact that no one spoke in opposition to the extension even though it was a published public hearing. Gorton motioned, McAdams seconded to adopt the ordinance. On roll vote, McAdams "aye." Alexander "aye," HoPkins "aye," Gorton "aye." Ayer "aye." Boyd "aye," and Mayor Stephens "aye." Motion carried unanimously. Consent Agenda McAdams motioned, Ayer seconded to approve the Consent Agenda as presented. Motion carried unanimously. A. Bids and Purchase Orders: 1. Bid 91049 - Cold Drinks Bid #1051 - Tree Trimming for Miscellaneous Electrical Lines Bid #1053 - Padmount Transformer 500 KVA 4. Bid #1054 - IBM Eguipment Maintenance 5. Bid #1059 - Police Sedans 6. P.O. 994870 - Motorola 7. P.O. #94871 - Motorola 371 372' City of Denton City Council Minutes February 6. 1990 Page 14 B. Tax Refunds Considered approval of a tax refund for James L. Penton, Jr. C. Plats Considered the preliminary plat of the Lissberger Addition; Lot 1, Block A. The plat was located northeast of Interstate 35-E and west of MK&T Railroad between Pockrus Page Road and Shady Shores Road. (The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended app:oval by a vote of 6-0.) Considered the preliminary plat of the East Oaks Addition: Lots 1-18, Block A; Lots 1-26, Block B; Lots 1-20, Block C; Lots 1-18, Block D; and Lots 1-12, Block E. The plat was located north of McKinney Avenue, east of Audra Lane and accessed via Oak Tree Road. (The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval by a vote of 5-0 at its meeting of January 24, 1990.) 7. Ordinances 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. (Bid #1049, Bid #1051, Bid #1053, Bid #1054, Bid #1059) The following ordinance was considered: NO. 90-017 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 motioned, Gorton seconded to adopt the ordinance. On roll vote, McAdams "aye," Alexander "aye," Hopkins "aye," Gorton "aye," Aye: "aye," Boyd "aye," and Mayor Stephens "aye." Motion carried unanimously. B. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance providing ~or the expenditure of funds for purchases of materials or equipment which are available from one source in accordance with the provisions of state law exempting such purchases from requirements of competitive bids. (P.O. #94870, P.O. #94871) City of Denton City Council Minutes February 6, 1990 Page 17 Mayor Pro Tem Ayer asked how many customers Texas Utilities had within the City of Denton. James Loveday, Local Manager for Texas Utilities, stated that there were about 830 customers. Council Member McAdams asked Loveday if the 90 day suspension was a problem for Texas Utilities. Loveday replied that typically the cities they served were taking three forms of action - approve the request, deny the request or suspend any action waiting for action from the Public Utility Commission. A fourth option was to approve the rates the Public Utility Commission adopted when they completed their study of the proposed increase. The following resolution was considered: NO. R90-00¢ A RESOLUTION SUSPENDING THE PROPOSED EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE PROPOSED RATE SCHEDULES AND SERVICE REGULATIONS OF OF TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC COMPANY; PROVIDING THAT THE RATE SCHEDULES AND SERVICE REGULATIONS OF SAID COMPANY SHALL REMAIN UNCHANGED DURING THE PERIOD OF SUSPENSION; DECLARING THE PRESENT INTENT OF THE GOVERNING BODY OF THIS MUNICIPALITY WITH RESPECT TO SAID PROPOSED RATE SCHEDULES AND SERVICE REGULATIONS: PROVIDING FOR NOTICE HEREOF TO SAID COMPANY; FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT THE MEETING AT WHICH THIS RESOLUTION IS PASSED IS OPEN TO THE PUBLIC AS REQUIRED BY LAW: AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Alexander On roll Gorton "aye." motioned, Boyd seconded to approve the resolution. vote, McAdams "aye," Alexander "aye," Hopkins "aye," "aye." Ayer "aye," Boyd "aye," and Mayor Stephens Motion carried unanimously. Miscellaneous matters from the City Manager. Lloyd Harrell, City Manager, presented the following items: A. A follow-up meeting was held with the Denton Independent School District. Denton County and the City regarding the tax abatement proposal. The Committee recommendation was that the three agencies hold a joint public hearing prior to taking o~ficial action on the policy. A suggested date was March 29th to be held at the School Administration Building. A~ter discussion, it was decided that that date was not a suitable date and City Manager Harrell stated he would secure an alternate date. 375 376 City of Denton City Council Minutes February 6, 1990 .Page 18 B. A quarterly sales tax report was presented to Council (Exhibit A). The January check ~or the City was down but staff was waiting for the February check before making any conclusions regarding a trend. C. With several Council Members being out-of-town, it was suggested to reschedule the March 6th Council meeting. A suggestion had been made to hold the meeting on the 27th of February as opposed to March 13th. Consensus of the Council was to reschedule the meeting to March 13th. Work Session Item #5 was considered. 5. The Council held a discussion regarding the sale of excess electric capacity to Farmersville and College Station. Bob Nelson, Executive Director for Utilities, stated that the College Station contract was a total requirements contract as was the Farmersville contract. That meant that the City of Denton had to provide service 24 hours a day every day of the year whatever the load might be. That was in contrast from the sale of excess capacity in which the City provided capacity during the peak summer months. The College Station contract had an obligation at 110 megawatts and would be effective January 1. 1992. The contract would go through the end of 1995 with an option for College Station to participate with the four cities and other TMPA or other joint action agency generation. The rate was $11.78 per kw per month. Net profits (total revenue less variable costs) would be approximately $8-10 million with Denton's share approximately 13% or $1-1.3 million. There were two transmission lines coming now from Gibbons Creek to Bryan. Council Member Alexander asked if College Station had the option to join with TMPA in the consideration of a new production facility, would that make College Station a co-equal partner with the other original cities of TMPA or did it make them a co-equal partner on a percentage basis only on the new production facility. Nelson replied only in the new production facility. The existing Gibbons Creek unit was a project which was the domain of the four original cities. Council Member Alexander asked about the structure of the TMPA Board. There would be eight members of that Board, two from each of the four participating cities. Would there be a new board or would there be two separate boards. Nelson replied that it had not been firmly established but it was anticipated that there would be two separate boards. City of Denton City Council Minutes February 6, 1990 Page 15 The following ordinance was considered: NO. 90-018 AN ORDINANCE PROVIDING FOR THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS FOR PURCHASES OF MATERIALS OR EQUIPMENT WHICH ARE AVAILABLE FROM ONLY ONE SOURCE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF STATE LAW EXEMPTING SUCH PURCHASES FROM REQUIREMENTS OF COMPETITIVE BIDS; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Ayer motioned, Gorton seconded to adopt the ordinance. On roll vote, McAdams "aye," Alexander "aye," Hopkins "aye," Gorton "aye," Ayer "aye," Boyd "aye," and Mayor Stephens "aye." Motion carried unanimously. C. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance authorizing the execution of an agreement between the City of Denton and Brazos Electric Power Cooperative, Inc. to provide for the interchange of electricity produced at the Lewisville Hydroelectric Project; and providing for the expenditure of funds therefore. (The Public Utilities Board recommended approval). Bob Nelson, Executive Director for Utilities, stated that this was an interchange agreement with the Brazos Electric Cooperative. They had a substation near the site of the hydroelectric plant and the City would be building a distribution line up to that substation. The agreement allowed the City to pay for the equipment and also allowed for an interchange agreement. The following ordinance was considered: NO. 90-O19 AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF DENTON AND BRAZOS ELECTRIC POWER COOPERATIVE. INC. TO PROVIDE FOR THE INTERCHANGE OF ELECTRICITY PRODUCED AT THE LEWISVILLE PHYROELECTRIC PROJECT; PROVIDING FOR THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS THEREFORE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Ayer motioned, McAdams seconded to adopt the ordinance. On roll vote, Mcadams "aye," Alexander "aye," Hopkins "aye," Gorton "aye," Ayer "aye," Boyd "aye," and Mayor Stephens "aye." Motion carried unanimously. 373 374 City of Denton City Council Minutes February 6. 1990 Page 16 8. Resolutions A. The Council considered approval of a resolution suspending the proposed effective date of the proposed rate schedules and service regulations of Texas Utilities Electric Company: providing that the rate schedules and service regulations of said company shall remain unchanged during the period of suspension: and declaring the present intent of the governing body of this municipality with respect to said proposed rate schedules and service regulations: providing for notice hereof to said company; and finding and determining that the meeting at which this resolution is passed is open to the public as required by law. John McGrane. Executive Director for Finance. presented his Work Session Item #4 material. He stated that TU Electric was seeking a 10.2% rate increase to its customers. The City of Denton had original jurisdiction over TU Electric rates for all the customers that reside within the city limits. There were four alternatives for dealing with the request: (1) the City could exercise its right of original jurisdiction and hear the rate case. (2) the City could give up its original ~urisdiction to the Public Utility Commission of Texas. (3) the City could go ahead and allow the increase and refer it to the Public Utilities Commission of Texas and if the Public Utilities Commission of Texas did not increase the rate, then the Utility Company would have to refund the increase back to the customers. (4) the City could suspend the rate schedules and service regulations for ninety days and keep the same rates that were currently in effect during the period of suspension and then it would be the City's intent to refer the matter to the Public Utilities Commission of Texas and accept the same rate schedules and service regulations that they do. Staff was recommending a suspension of the rates for ninety days which would allow the City sufficient time to review the matter. Council Member Hopkins stated that she did not see the benefit to hold the rates for ninety days. She did not want to give up the City's rights to control rates in the future but the City was not going to argue with Texas Utilities over the rate. She was in favor of retaining the ]urisdiction and allow the rate to go into effect. Debts Drayovitch, City Attorney, stated that the original staff recommendation was to allow the rate and abide by any decision the PUC had. Staff was concerned with language in the resolution that was provided as it had some contradictory language. She had met with attorneys from several different cities, The rate was scheduled to go into effect February 20. 1990 and Council would not meet again before that date. City of Denton City Council Minutes February 6, 1990 Page 19 Council Member Alexander stated that he would be concerned if the original board were changed to include representatives from College Station. The existing four cities were diverse and separated geographically which was an advantage for making good policy as a TMPA Board. He would be concerned about a TMPA Board with ten board members, two which would be from Bryan and two from College Station. Nelson continued that the Farmersville contract was almost identical to the College Station contract except that it was a smaller amount. They also had the option to buy in. The contract would be effective September 25, 1990 through 1998 or until they bought in. Denton's share would be 13% of approximately 5 megawatts. The Council returned to the regular agenda order. 10. There was no official action taken during the Work Session Executive Session. 11. New Business The following items of New Business were suggested by Council Members for future agendas: A. Council Member Gorton requested that the Little League issue be placed on agenda in the near future. City Manager Harrell stated that he was going to suggest the report from Steve Brinkman requested by the Mayor be placed on the next Work Session. Mayor Stephens stated that Bill Holt had suggested that Boys Baseball, Inc. be on the agenda for the next meeting. The Mayor had informed him that he needed to contact the City Secretary to be placed on the agenda. B. Council Member McAdams asked for a report on what it was exactly the Park Board was looking at and why in regards to other sports ventures. 12. The Council convened into Executive Session to discuss legal matters (considered action in Denton County vs. City and ~, considered a settlement proposal in Smithers vs. City and considered authorization to institute legal action regarding the Martin Luther King, Jr. Recreation Center),' real estate and board/personnel appointments (considered appointments to the Building Code Advisory Board and the'Cable T.V. Advisory Board.) 377 378 City of Denton City Council Minutes February 6. 1990 Page 20 No official action was taken. With no further business, the meeting was adjourned at p.m. 10:02 ~TY $]~CRETARY CITY OF DENTON ciTY O~DE~TON. TEX~S 3232C 379 380