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