Loading...
Minutes February 05, 199137'9 CITY OF DENTON CITY COUNCIL MINUTES FEBRUARY 5, 1991 The Council convened into the Work Session at 4:00 p.m. in the Civil Defense Room. PRESENT: Mayor Castleberry; Mayor Pro Tem Boyd; Council Members Ayer, Gorton, and Trent. ABSENT: Council Members Alexander and Hopkins. 1. Th~ Council continued a discussion regarding the potential sale of the City's commercial solid waste system, was to consider possible alternatives, and was to give staff direction. Bob Nelson, Executive Director for Utilities, stated that there had been some late discussions with Texas Waste Management in which Texas Waste Management expressed concern regarding the scenario where the City would sell the commercial system and direct the solid waste into the City's landfill until it was full. Texas Waste Management's concern was that the bid, as developed, did not include the mandate of putting the solid waste in the City's landfill. They w~nted to review the conditions with the City again. He then reviewed the options available with advantages and disadvantages of each (Exhibit A). Council Member Trent stated that there appeared to be a tremendous disadvantage with Option 2 in which the City would be in the landfill business until 1996. He was under the impression that the City was trying to get out of the landfill business as quickly as possible. Nelson replied that that was one of the objectives needed to be considered. At the same time, it was important to see what it did to the residential rates. The landfill rate was $3.45 per cubic yard which would keep the landfill on a break even basis. Staff felt there was enough money in the landfill to handle the regulations associated with Subtitle D until it was full. With a tipping station with a $6.00 fee, a year and a half from now it would escalate at 5% per year. An objective would be to close the landfill before a year from September when Subtitle D would come into effect. The problem was that there was a large pit to close. Another concern was that the City would have a five year responsibility for the landfill and with Subtitle D, the City would have a 30 year responsibility. As the City owned the property, the 5/30 year time frame might not matter as it would still be a responsibility. Mayor Pro Tem Boyd asked how the $6.00 figure was determined. 380 City of Denton City Council Minutes February 5, 1991 Page 2 Nelson replied that that was the figure Texas Waste Management felt was necessary in order to put a transfer station in Denton with seven trucks. City Manager Harrell stated that early in the discussion the most favorable economic advantage was a program in which the City sold the commercial system and substantially increased the level of haul into the landfill to fill it in the 18 month period. A $3.45 per cubic yard charge would be in effect. Economically, that worked well for the City. Although there was an agreement which stated that the City could direct Texas Waste Management's waste to any landfill, it was felt that there was a problem increasing the volume coming in at $3.45. That scenario, although most advantageous economically, was not considered. Council Member Ayer stated that reference had been made regarding recent contact with Texas Waste Management. He felt that perhaps they were having second thoughts which might have profound impact on one or more of the scenarios. He asked Nelson to be more specific regarding the events. Nelson stated that the $1.9 million bid was predicated on Texas Waste Management taking all the commercial solid waste which they were now hauling and that which the City was hauling and taking it to their DFW landfill. It did not include bringing it to the City's landfill. Council Member Ayer stated that that was not his understanding. His understanding was that the portion where the waste would be brought to the City's landfill was part of the bid. City Manager Harrell stated that that was the point that needed to be discussed with Texas Waste Management. From the City's standpoint, there was a license agreement which was signed by Texas Waste Management which gave the City the right to direct the waste wherever the City wanted it to go. That was part of the bid specifications. John Thompson, Chair-Public Utilities Board, stated that the Board had met in the morning and concluded that the City should either get out of the commercial solid waste business or be an exclusive provider. There was a need to protect the residential customers. Jerry Cott, Governmental Relations Committee-Chamber of Commerce, s~a~ed ~ha~ the Chamber felt the commercial as well as the residential customers needed to be protected. City of Denton City Council Minutes February 5, 1991 Page 3 381 2. The Council then convened into the Executive Session to discuss legal matters (considered action in County vs. City), real estate, and personnel/board appointments (considered appointments to the Building Code Board, Community Development Block Grant Committee, the Electrical Code Board, the Historic Landmark Commission, the Human Services Committee, the Animal Shelter Advisory Committee, the Blue Ribbon Committee for Storm Water Utility and the Sign Board of Appeals). 3. The Council Comprehensive Annual September 30, 1990. received a presentation of the Finance Report for the year ended George Scott, Deloitte & Touche, stated that they had performed an audit of the financial statements of the City for the year ending September 30, 1990. The audit was performed with generally accepted auditing standards. A variety of tests and procedures were performed with no limitations placed on any audit procedure or task. There were no disagreements with management as to the proper application of accounting principle. The audit also included an examination of the City's compliance with certain federal laws and regulations in relation to the federal programs. That part of the audit identified no situation which was a material instance of non-compliance with federal laws and regulations and found no instance with a material weakness in the control system over those programs. The Report to Management included the following suggestions: (1) sanitation operations - the sanitation operations had a net loss for the year and it was recommended to conduct a study to determine the rates necessary to cover operating and nonoperating expenses and transfers associated with the sanitation operations. (2) Accounting procedures manual - this would be available to all staff and would document internal accounting control procedures and assign responsibilities within the Accounting Department. (3) Notification of employee termination - currently the employee submits a letter of resignation to his supervisor who in turn submits it to the Personnel Department. It was recommended that in addition to notification to the supervisor, a termination form be submitted directly to the Personnel Department. (4) Federal and state grants - a federal grant was not reported to the Accounting Department in a timely manner. Incomplete documentation was maintained to support the in-kind services provided to match the grant funds received. A recommendation was made for monitoring the preparation and submission of grant applications as well as documentation requirements necessary to comply with grant conditions. (5) Fixed assets inventory - periodic physical inventories of fixed assets purchased with federal funds had been done but not a complete physical inventory for all the City's fixed assets. It was recommended that a complete City-wide fixed asset inventory be completed. (6) Consider establishing an internal audit position. 382 City of Denton City Council Minutes February 5, 1991 Page 4 Council Member Trent asked if other cities the size of Denton had an internal auditor position. Scott replied yes. Council Member Trent asked if this was the first time the lack of a fixed asset inventory had been noted. Scott replied no that it had been noted last year as well. City Manager Harrell stated that an inventory had been in the proposed budget but was not funded. John McGrane, Executive Director for Finance, stated that the City had a healthy balance in the general fund with a problem as noted in the sanitation fund. 4. The Council received a report and held a discussion regarding a proposed five year strategic plan. Lloyd Harrell, City Manager, ~stated that there were several items to discuss with Council: (1) a review of the strategic planning activities the Executives participated in, (2) a review of Council goals and the progress reports on committees for the goals, (3) a merge of the strategic planning items and Council goals where possible, and (4) feedback on the mission statements and success elements. At the work session of October 23, 1990, the Council decided that prior to implementation of the strategic planning effort, another study session was needed. The background information presented included the following sections: (1) background information which included City goals, work plans and the status of the goals; (2) summary of changes which noted changes in goals since the Council's last discussion; (3) 1991-1995 proposed strategic plan time frame to start programs; (4) miscellaneous work plans for goals which did not fit anywhere else in the plan. Council Member Gorton suggested a designation of who had the role for on-going projects in the miscellaneous category. Harrell continued that the mission statement of the City was "to be a leader among cities in delivering outstanding quality services and products through citizen involvement, innovation and efficient use of resources". Council Member Ayer felt that there was a combination of a mission and a goal statement. He felt the mission was to deliver services to the citizens. The rest of the statement seem to be a goal - how the mission was going to be accomplished. City of Denton City Council Minutes February 5, 1991 Page 5 383 Harrell continued that in order to achieve the mission statement the following success elements and strategies were suggested: (1) Involve citizens and businesses to help deliver services create neighborhood and business owner organizations implement a volunteer program implement an "Adopt-A- Program" implement a work release program implement training programs for citizens that would reduce City costs and /or improve service delivery (2) Aggressively involve citizens in mutual goal setting process of the election and delivery of services and products conduct citizen surveys initiate a comprehensive neighborhood planning program establish a 2000 Committee conduct periodic town meetings perform the function of a public information officer (3) Identify and implement new revenue sources implement a demand side energy and water program implement a drainage utility implement special and public improvement districts establish payments in lieu-of-taxes and other state aid (4) Become a unique and special city in the Metroplex promote unique architecture aggressively market University activities and opportunities emphasize cultural attractions promote entryway regulations and beautification programs implement greenbelt including water feature in Civic Center Park Make Jazz Fest and Festival of Lights regional events (5) Expand and diversify local economy by attracting and expanding desirable commercial, industrial and education enterprises develop partnerships with large developers locate a research center in the City limits establish an aggressive marketing program including the 1-35 corridor complete utility expansion program implement an aggressive business retention program complete Hwy 2499 and Loop 288 384 City of Denton City Council Minutes February 5, 1991 Page 6 Mayor Pro Tem Boyd stated that he had been introduced to the concept of comprehensive neighborhood planning at an NLC Conference. There were many advantages to the concept. He felt that a city could be working on a project which might be unimportant to the citizens and as a result the city would not receive credit for the work done. On the other hand, if there were money designated to use in a particular neighborhood, citizen input would be very useful on how to spend that money. A city could be much more efficient getting that kind of feedback from the citizens and the citizens were more willing to volunteer to help with projects. Council Member Trent felt that that was important but was concerned that such an idea could go too far and only the citizen's concerns would be considered and not the requirements of the city such as roads. Mayor Pro Tem Boyd felt that the citizen survey and the 2000 Committee were different kinds of citizen involvement. The citizen survey gathered "uninformed comment" on what the citizens would like in the community and the 2000 Committee gathered "informed comment". Council Member Trent felt that the~ people who were informed would be so whether on a committee or not and would speak out whether on a committee or not. The problem he saw happening was that there would be a study with no method to implement. No one to do the work. Mayor Pro Tem Boyd felt that that would happen if there were no follow up on the ideas. If this were a Council goal, then a commitment needed to be made to follow up on all of the ideas. Council Member Ayer felt that individuals the Council hears from, in many cases, were informed about a particular problem - one which would be affecting them. Very few of the citizens were really informe4 about all the problems and all of the opportunities and responsibilities in the community. Harrell continued that the next ~tep would be to have staff organize work committees to come back to Council with work plans to implement the success elements. Consensus of the Council was to proceed with staff recommendations. 5. The Council received a report and held a discussion regarding the placement of a historical site marker on the Quakertown Site (Civic Center Park). City of Denton City Council Minutes February 5, 1991 Page 7 385 Mike Cochran, Chair-Historic Landmark Commission, stated that the Historic Landmark Commission had approved a local historic site marker to be placed on the Quakertown site in order to commemorate the history of the Quakertown community as part of the development heritage of the City. Quakertown was an African-American community located on the site now used as the Civic Center Park. A city bond election was passed in 1921 to create the park on that site and the residents were required to relocate. Many of the residents moved to East Denton where they and their descendants now lived. The Council'convened into the Regular Session at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers. PRESENT: Mayor Castleberry; Mayor Pro Tem Boyd; Council Members Ayer, Gorton, and Trent. ABSENT: Council Members Alexander and Hopkins Pledge of Allegiance The Council and members of the audience recited the Pledge of Allegiance. Item #3 was considered. 3. The Council considered approval of a resolution of appreciation for Walter Keen. Mayor Castleberry presented the resolution of appreciation to Mr. Keen. The following resolution was considered: NO. R91-002 RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION FOR WALTER KEEN Gorton motioned, Ayer seconded to approve the resolution. On roll vote, Trent "aye," Gorton "aye," Ayer "aye," Boyd "aye," and Mayor Castleberry "aye." Motion carried unanimously. Council returned to the regular agenda order. 2. The Council considered approval of the minutes of the regular meeting of January 8 and January 22, 1991. Trent motioned, Gorton seconded to approve the minutes as presented. Motion carried unanimously. 386 City of Denton City Council Minutes February 5, 1991 Page 8 The Mayor presented a proclamation for American Heart Month. The Mayor received a presentation from Texas' War on Drugs thanking him for his work in the Red Ribbon Campaign. Public Hearings A. The Council was to hold a public hearing and consider rezoning a 5.165 acre tract from Agricultural District to Neighborhood Service District on property located approximately 600 feet south of University Drive on the west side of Bonnie Brae. Z-015 (The Planning and Zoning Commission made no recommendation). Mayor Castleberry stated that a letter had been received from the applicant requesting a postponement of the public hearing until the next Council meeting. Council Member Ayer requested the reason for the postponement. Bob LeMond stated that the proposal required a three-fourths vote on the part of the Council which would be six affirmative votes. As two Council members were absent, this would not be possible. Ayer motioned, Trent seconded to postpone the public hearing to a date certain of February 19, 1991. On roll vote, Trent "aye," Gorton "aye," Ayer "aye," Boyd "aye," and Mayor Castleberry "aye." Motion carried unanimously. B. The Council held a public hearing and considered adoption of an ordinance amending Appendix B-Zoning of the Code of Ordinances to allow one-family dwelling within specified non-residential districts. (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. Harry Persuad, Senior Planner, stated that the current zoning ordinance prohibited residential uses in the non-residential districts expect for the Central Business District and the Planned Development Districts. Staff had received requests over the past few years from citizens who desired to live in the same buildings where their businesses were located. The proposed ordinance would allow a one-family dwelling to be located in a non-residential zone intended for use by the owner or an employee. City of Denton City Council Minutes February 5, 1991 Page 9 387 Mayor Pro Tem Boyd asked if the top floor of a building could be divided into several units. Persuad replied no that it needed to be a one-family dwelling unit. Council Member Trent asked how the ordinance would be enforced. Persuad replied that the City's Code Enforcement Officers would investigate violations. Council Member Gorton asked for a clarification regarding the number of Council Members required for certain kinds of votes. Debra Drayovitch, City Attorney, replied that in some zoning cases there was a requirement of a three-fourth vote. However, the issued before the Council at the current meeting would not require such a vote. The following ordinance was considered: NO. 91-015 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, AMENDING APPENDIX B - ZONING OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES TO ALLOW ONE-FAMILY DWELLINGS WITHIN SPECIFIED NON-RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS; PROVIDING FOR A PENALTY IN A MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF $2,000.00 FOR VIOLATIONS THEREOF: AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Ayer motioned, Boyd seconded to adopt the ordinance. On roll vote, Trent "aye," Gorton "aye," Ayer "aye," Bo.yd "aye," and Mayor Castleberry "aye." Motion carried unanimously. C. The Council considered a public hearing and considered adoption of an ordinance amending Appendix B, Zoning, Code of Ordinances concerning planned developments. (The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval). Frank Robbins, Executive Director for Planning, stated the Council's development process goals committee established an action item to streamline the PD process in their 1990 work plan. It was felt that the provision of very detail information years in advance of actual construction was very problematic; that many PD's were often amended several times because of minor site plan amendments: and that in many cases, requiring buildino footprint and llke data of such fine detail was not necessary during the first steps of the PD process. The Zoning Ordinance Task Force recommended adoption of an ordinance allowing three steps: not requiring "footprints" in the first two steps, and eliminating the development schedule. The Task Force also recommended that there be no minimum development si2e that could be reviewed with the three step process. Robbins then compared the existing PD system and the proposed system. (Exhibit B) 388 City of Denton City Council Minutes February 5, 1991 Page 10 Mayor Pro Tem Boyd stated that he had a concern that there would be no detailed site plan with "footprints" approved in steps 1 and 2. Later when step 3 was approved, what guarantees were there that staff had watched the PD and that it was still applicable 20 years from the time step 2 was approved. Would a public hearing be insightful at that time with that amount of time lapse. Council held a lengthy debate regarding a potential time lapse between stages 1 and 2 and when stage 3 would be approved. There was concern that the time lapse might be too long without additional public input. Concern was also expressed regarding old PD's which had been approved but which had had no development as of yet. The Mayor opened the public hearing. Ron White, Perot Group, stated that the proposed change would allow flexibility in the PD developments. The proposed ordinance would not put Denton at a development disadvantage. He was not in favor of holding public hearings at the detailed plan stage. Public hearing would be available at the concept plan stage and the development plan stage and that the detailed plan stage was merely a formality. All standards would be in place in the first phases and were controllable. He requested Council consider favoraDle approval of the ordinance. Fred Gossett, Denton Chamber of Commerce Governmenta~ Affairs Committee, stated that he hoped this would be another step towards~ a positive environment to compete. He urged the Council to vote in favor of the ordinance. Mike Reynolds, H.S. Miller, stated that the old PD's had no development standards. The proposed ordinance was a chance for future and old PD's to have standards. The current ordinance was too' detailed for large development. The proposed ordinance provided flexibility for zoning. He recommended approval of the ordinance. Mayor Pro Tem Boyd stated that there would be no problem with a PD if it moved quickly through the process. The problem would be with a PD which had years between steps. Reynolds suggested a time limitation possibility. Mayor Pro Tem Boyd suggested perhaps after six years, a public hearing would be required at the final step that could be waived by the Planning and Zoning Commission if necessary. City of Denton City Council Minutes February 5, 1991 Page 11 389 Mike Cochran spoke in opposition to the proposal. He stated that he agreed that the ordinance needed to be streamlined but he objected to the removal of the public hearing in the final process. He felt that the time factor might be too great and that citizens changed as well. Eliminating the public hearing in the final process did a disservice to the community and the Council as well. He felt that the Council should go the extra step to make sure the public was heard and that a public hearing at the final stage would surely not make/break the issue. Mayor Pro Tem Boyd stated that development standards were at the first stage. Would the public have sufficient information to make comments then. Cochran replied that there was not enough information to make an informed decision. Mayor Castleberry stated that the size, location, land use standards, preliminary roads, preliminary utilities, and existing conditions would be known. Was that not enough information to make a decision. Cochran replied that that was still not enough. Sites could be revealed in the detailed plan that were not shown in the earlier stages. Dennis Jerkey stated that this type of proposal was working in many cities. For a larger development, it was good~.to set standards up front with details to follow. There would be no fewer public hearings than the current ordinance had, they would just be in different stages. The Mayor closed the public hearing. The following ordinance was considered: NO. 91-016 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, AMENDING ARTICLE 11 OF APPENDIX B-ZONING OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES RELATING TO PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICTS; AMENDING THE TYPE OF PLANS REQUIRED AND THE INFORMATION REQUIRED FOR EACH; AMENDING THE APPROVAL PROCESS; AMENDING THE PROVISIONS FOR DEVELOPMENT SCHEDULES; PROVIDING FOR A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; PROVIDING FOR A PENALTY IN THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF ~2,000.00 FOR VIOLATIONS THEREOF; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. 390 City of Denton City Council Minutes February 5, 1991 Page 12 Trent motioned to adopt the ordinance. Council Member Gorton stated that if the ordinance were changed to include public hearings at all stages, then notice would be given for concept, development and detailed stages. Public hearings for the Planning and Zoning Commission at all three stages. Public hearings for the Council at all three stages. Robbins replied that that was public hearings and three 200' current ordinance required. correct. There would be six notices which was more than the Council Member Trent asked how many public hearings were needed. Council Member Ayer replied that it was not a matter of how many were needed. It was a question of at what point and under what circumstances they were needed. He felt that the time lapse was a problem. He questioned the ability to see too far ahead to be able to draw plans for a distant future. He did feel there should be some degree of flexibility. He felt that perhaps if ten years had elapsed since the approval of the development plan, then the notices and public hearing would be required. City Manager Harrell suggested a new section entitled "Expiration of Development Plan" which would state any development plan approved after February 5, 1991, shall be valid for 10 years from the date of the approval. If no detailed plan had been approved within the 10 years, the development plan would automatically expire and no longer be valid. The Council may, prior to expiration of the development plan, for good cause, extend for up to (time) for which the development plan was valid. Boyd seconded the motion to adopt the ordinance. Boyd motioned to amend the main motion adding the language suggested by the City Manager with the additional provision that within the ten year period, the Commission may prior to the expiration of the development plan, for good cause shown, extend up to 24 months the time for which the dev~lopm~n~ plan was valid. This could be done more than once. He felt that by allowing the 24 month extension, a purpose would be served to still notify citizens about what was happening with the property. Council Member Ayer felt that if the 10 years had elapsed or were about to elapse, conditions may have changed to a point where the plan would no longer be in the best interest of the City. At that point, he was unwilling to keep the plan alive indefinitely by two year extensions. City of Denton City Council Minutes February 5, 1991 Page 13 391 City Attorney Drayovitch stated that Robbins felt there would be a problem with the automatic expiration of the development plan. Was there an objection to the triggering of the notice and hearing requirements if more than 10 years lapsed between approval of the development plan and approval of the detailed plan. Mayor Pro Tem Boyd replied that it seemed reasonable to not have the public hearing at the detailed plan stage if the development plan was current. His problem with not having the public hearing on the detailed plan stage was when there had been a lot of time elapsed between the development plan and when final construction began. Council discussed alternatives to the notices and public hearings. A suggestion was to have notices sent out to affected property owners informing them that the item was going to be on the agenda. Mayor Castleberry asked the Manager to repeat his suggested wording. City Manager Harrell stated any development plan approved after February 5, 1991, should be valid for 10 years from the date of its approval. If no detailed plan had been approved within the 10 years, the development plan should automatically expire and no longer be valid. The Council, may prior to the expiration of the development plan, for good cause shown, extend for no more than 24 month periods, the time for which the development plan was valid. Council Member Ayer stated that he was in favor of the 10 year period. He was reluctant for the extension but might consider one 24 month extension. He would not be in favor of an endless series of extensions. After a brief recess, City Manager Harrell stated that staff had wording for the Council which might be acceptable. The change would come under section 4 on page 3 which would add "approved by the City Council, unless no detailed plan has been approved for the property within 10 years of the date of approval of a development plan, in which case the detailed plan must be approved by the City Council, after notice and hearing" Mayor Pro Tem Boyd stated that the process would include that after 10 years had expired since the approval of the development plan, the approval of the detailed plan would r~qu£re no,ice o~ h~in9 before the Council but the development plan would still be in existence and the Council would have hearings on the detailed plan if and only if 10 years had expired between the development and the detailed plan. 392 City of Denton City Council Minutes February 5, 1991 Page 14 Mayor Pro Tem Boyd stated that his interpretation of the amendment was that at the concept plan and development plan, the various standards would be approved. If development occurred relatively rapidly after that, the detailed plan would be approved without public hearing at the Council and not before Council at all. If the development was not rapid, after a 10 year period, there would be a public hearing on whether or not the PD still complied with all standards. Robbins stated that if a detailed plan were done on any part of the development plan, then the 10 year time frame would not apply. City Attorney Drayovitch stated that it might be, for example, a 1000 acre PD with a detailed plan on 5 acres which would arrest the 10 year triggering mechanism. Mayor Pro Tem Boyd withdrew his original amendment. Boyd motioned, Ayer seconded to amend page 3, paragraph 4 to read "has been approved by the City Council, unless no detailed plan has been approved for the property within ten years of the date of approval of the development plan, in which case the detailed plan must be approved by the City Council, after notice and hearing". Boyd motioned, Ayer seconded a second amendment to read "The Commission or City Council may impose conditions concerning the location, use, arrangement, construction or development of the District in order to ensure the appropriate use of the District and to protect surrounding properties. Council voted on the second amendment. On roll vote, Trent "aye," Gorton "aye," Ayer "aye," Boyd "aye," and Mayor Castleberry "aye." Motion carried unanimously. Council voted on the first amendment. On roll vote, Trent "aye," Gorton "aye," Ayer "aye," Boyd "aye," and Mayor Castleberry "aye." Motion carried unanimously. Council voted on the main motion as amended. On roll vote, Trent "aye," Gorton "aye," Ayer "aye," Boyd "aye," and Mayor Castleberry "aye." Motion carried unanimously. D. The Council held a public hearing and considered approval of a resolution amending the concept map of the Denton Development Plan to provide for the expansion of the Special Purpose Activity Center and amending the boundaries of Intensity Areas #1, 9, 10, 95, 105, 107, 109, 110 and 111 of Appendix A. (The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval.) City of Denton City Council Minutes February 5, 1991 Page 15 393 Harry Persuad, Senior Planner, stated that there were two amendments in the resolution. One was to expand the special purpose center and the second was to amend the intensity area boundaries. The proposed expansion of the Special Purpose Activity Center would facilitate the zoning and marketing of the site. The proposed amendments to the intensity area boundaries would promote the planning and development of lands in that area in accordance with the policies in the Denton Development Plan. The Mayor opened the pubic hearing. No one spoke in favor. No one spoke in opposition. The Mayor closed the public hearing. The following resolution was considered: NO. R91-003 A RESOLUTION AMENDING THE CONCEPT MAP OF THE DENTON DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO PROVIDE FOR THE EXPANSION OF THE SPECIAL PURPOSE MAJOR ACTIVITY CENTER; AMENDING THE BOUNDARIES OF INTENSITY AREAS 1, 9, 10, 95, 105, 107, 109, 110 AND 111 OF APPENDIX A OF THE DENTON DEVELOPMENT PLAN; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Boyd motioned, Gorton seconded to approve the resolution. On roll vote, Trent "aye," Gorton "aye," Ayer "aye," Boyd "aye," and Mayor Castleberry "aye." Motion carried unanimously. e Consent Agenda Council Member Ayer requested Item 5.A.7. be pulled from the Consent Agenda for separate consideration. Gorton motioned, Trent seconded to approve the Consent Agenda with the exception of Item 5.A.7. Motion carried unanimously. A. Bids and Purchase Orders: Bid #1187 - Synthetic Floor North Lakes (Repair) Bid #1206 - Propane Conversion (For Trial Use) 3. Bid #1205 - Street light Heads 394 City of Denton City Council Minutes February 5, 1991 Page 16 4. Bid #1212 - Fiberglass Tanks 5. Bid #1214 - #2 Diesel Electric Production 6. Bid #1143 - Airport Infield Drainage 8. Bid #1201 - McKinney At Bell Intersection Improvements 9. P.O. #11956 - Traffic Eng & Controls 10. P.O. #11970 - DACO, Inc. B. Tax Refunds Considered approval of a tax refund for Commodore Financial for ~575.72. Considered approval of a tax refund for Banc One Mortgage for $2,286.15. Considered approval of a tax refund for New Start P/S for $754.68. Item 5.A.7. was considered. Council Member Ayer stated that the bid sheet showed JN Construction Co. was not the low bidder. Was that in error. City Manager Harrell stated that the bid sheet had not been added properly and that JN Construction was the low bidder. Ayer motioned, Trent seconded to approve Consent Agenda Item 5.A.7. Motion carried unanimously. A. Bids and Purchase Orders: 7. Bid #1185 - Willowspring Drainage 6. 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. (5.A.1. - Bid #1187, 5.A.2. - Bid #1206, 5.A.3. - Bid #1205, 5.A.4. - Bid #1212, 5.A.5. - Bid #1214) City of Denton City Council Minutes February 5, 1991 Page 17 395 The following ordinance was considered: NO. 91-017 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. Gorton motioned, Ayer seconded to adopt the ordinance. On roll # vote, Trent "aye," Gorton "aye," Ayer "aye," Boyd "aye, and Mayor Castleberry "aye." Motion carried unanimously. B. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance accepting competitive bids and providing for the award of contracts for public works or improvements. (5.A.6. - Bid #1143, 5.A.7. - Bid #1185, 5.A.8. - Bid #1201) The following ordinance was considered: NO. 91-018 AN ORDINANCE ACCEPTING COMPETITIVE- BIDS AND PROVIDING FOR THE AWARD OF CONTRACTS FOR PUBLIC WORKS OR IMPROVEMENTS; PROVIDING FOR THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS THEREFOR; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Gorton motioned, Trent seconded to adopt the ordinance. On roll vote, Trent "aye," Gorton "aye," Ayer "aye," Boyd "aye," and Mayor Castleberry "aye." Motion carried unanimously. C. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance providing for 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. (5.A.9. - P.O. #11956, 5.A.10 - P.O. #11970) The following ordinance was considered: NO. 91-019 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 ~FFECTIV~ DATE. 396 City of Denton City Council Minutes February 5, 1991 Page 18 Trent motioned, Ayer seconded to adopt the ordinance. On roll vote, Trent "aye," Gorton "aye," Ayer "aye," Boyd "aye," and Mayor Castleberry "aye." Motion carried unanimously. D. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance of the City of Denton, Texas, prohibiting the parking of vehicles on the east side of South Bonnie Brae Street, from its intersection with FM1515 to its intersection with Willowwood Street. (Citizen's Traffic . Safety Support Commission recommended approval.) Jerry Clark, City Engineer, stated that the no parking request was on the east side of Bonnie Brae from FM 1515 to Willowwood. It was requested by citizens in the area concerned about the ability to travel on the street when football games were in progress at Liberty Christian School. The following ordinance was considered: NO. 91-020 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTONt TEXAS, PROHIBITING THE PARKING OF VEHICLES ON THE EAST SIDE OF SOUTH BONNIE BRAE STREETt FROM ITS INTERSECTION WITH FM1515 TO ITS INTERSECTION WITH WILLOWWOOD STREET; PROVIDING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; PROVIDING A PENALTY NOT TO EXCEED TWO HUNDRED DOLLARS; AND DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Ayer motioned, Boyd seconded to adopt the ordinance. On roll vote, Trent "aye," Gorton "aye," Ayer "aye," Boyd "aye," and Mayor Castleberry "aye." Motion carried unanimously. E. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance of the City Council of the City of Denton amending Chapter 2 of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Denton by adding Article VI; providing for the creation of a Downtown Development Advisory Board; and providing for the adoption of powers and duties of the Advisory Board. The following ordinance was considered: NO. 91-021 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON; AMENDING CHAPTER 2 OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF DENTON BY ADDING ARTICLE VI; PROVIDING FOR THE CREATION OF A DOWNTOWN DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY BOARD; PROVIDING FOR THE ADOPTION OF POWERS AND DUTIES OF THE ADVISORY BOARD; PROVIDING A REPEALING CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. City of Denton City Council Minutes February 5, 1991 Page 19 397 Boyd motioned, Gorton seconded to adopt the ordinance. On roll vote, Trent "aye," Gorton "aye," Ayer "aye," Boyd "aye," and Mayor Castleberry "aye." Motion carried unanimously. F. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance authorizing an exchange of land between the City of Denton and Rayzor Investments, Ltd. (The Park and Recreation Board and Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval.) Bob Tickner, Superintendent of Parks, stated that the ordinance would enable better use of the park land for expansion of the recreation facilities. When the original boundary line was established, a gore was created along the west line of the City tract. This property was now used as part of the North Lakes Park. This boundary realignment would allow for additional park facilities to be constructed with further development of the park. The adjacent property owner (Rayor Investments) was agreeable to exchange the land as proposed. The following ordinance was considered: NO. 91-022 AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING AN EXCHANGE OF LAND BETWEEN THE CITY OF DENTON AND RAYZOR INVESTMENTS, LTD. AS MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED HEREIN; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Trent motioned, Ayer seconded to adopt the ordinance. On roll vote, Trent "aye," Gorton "aye," Ayer "aye," Boyd "aye," and Mayor Castleberry "aye." Motion carried unanimously. G. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance approving a contract providing for the exchange of certain real property owned by NCNB and the City of Denton and authorizing the acceptance of an access easement from NCNB. (The Library Board and '91 Committee recommended approval.) Rick Svehla, Deputy City Manager, reviewed the expenditures from the various bond accounts associated with the project. He stated the development costs would be equal. Library funds would be used to construct the public sidewalk, 8" sewer line, a portion of the 6" water line for both of the buildings. The fire bond fund would build the screening fence, the drainage facilities, and the remaining portion of the 6" water line. 398' City of Denton City Council Minutes February 5, 1991 Page 20 The following ordinance was considered: NO. 91-023 AN ORDINANCE APPROVING A CONTRACT PROVIDING FOR THE EXCHANGE OF CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY OWNED BY NCNB AND THE CITY; AUTHORIZING THE ACCEPTANCE OF AN ACCESS EASEMENT FROM NCNB; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Ayer motioned, Gorton seconded to adopt the ordinance. On roll vote, Trent "aye," Gorton "aye," Ayer "aye," Boyd "aye," and Mayor Castleberry "aye." Motion carried unanimously. 7. Resolutions A. The Council was to considered a resolution adopting an infrastructure financing policy for economic development. This item was pulled from the agenda. Miscellaneous matters from the City Manager. A. The Council received the Upper Trinity Regional Water District Application for Texas Water Development Board funds for Denton Water Plant Project and associated water transmission pipelines. Bob Nelson, Executive Director for Utilities, stated that the Upper Trinity Regional Water District had approved sending an application to the Texas Water Development Board for bond funds for the Denton Water Plant project and associated water transmission pipelines. The application would go before the Texas Water Development Board for approval at their February board meeting. NO obligations would, be incurred by the District, and thus, by the participating cities, until the District requested funds from the Texas Water Development Board for payment of project costs. Upon approval of this application, Denton would be reimbursed by the Upper Trinity Regional Water District for approximately 46% of costs incurred to date on the water plant project. No action was needed at this time. 9. There was no official action taken on Executive Session items during the Work Session Executive Session. City of Denton City Council Minutes February 5 , 1991 Page 21 399 10. New Business There were no items of New Business suggested by Council Members for future agendas. 11. The Council did not meet in Executive Session during the Regular Session. With no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 10:20 p.m. c~NIF~R WALTERS Y S~SCRETARY CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS 3350C 4OO Exhibit A FRCM: DATE: SUBJECT: THE MAYOR AND N~MBF~RS OF THE CITY COUNCIL Lloyd Harrell, City Manager January $1, 1991 BID #1181 - SALE OF THE CC~NERC~ SOLID WASTE COLLECTION SYSTE~ RECCMMENDAT ION: Should the decision be made to sell the commercial system, then Scenario 2 in which the City maintains constant landfill volumes through closure in 1996 and then hauls its waste to the DFW landfill appears to be the most appropriate course of action. ShoUld the decision be made to retain the cu,~iercial system then it is recommended that Scenario 8, which will give Denton the exclusive franchise of the commercial and residential services in Denton, be strongly considered since it results in either the highest cumulative revenues and net present value or in the lowest residential rates. SU~v~RY/BACK~ROUND After the presentation to Council on January 22, -1991, staff continued to refine the numbers contained in the various scenarios included in Solid Waste Alternatives Reference ~aterials Report. The refinements are basically limited to the selection of one residential rate for all scenarios (except Scenario 5} so that the financial comparisons could be made on the basis of Net Present .Value (NPV) or cumulative revenues. Also, the analysis time frame was extended from the year 2000 to 200S so that the effect of developing a new landfill in 2003 could be shown. Once the refinements were completed, staff conducted an analysis of the alternatives on a comparative basis. Based upon our analysis we were able to eliminate Scenario #4 (CS-LD-DH/LE} and Scenario #7 (CR-LC-DH} from serious consideration as neither of these options produced desirable results. Staff also developed a Scenario #IA which is derived from the origi- nal Scenario 2 (CS-LC-TS) and incorporates additional provisions offered by Texas Waste Management (TWM}. In essence, Scenario IA (CS-LC-TS} involves the sale of the commercial system, accelerating the filling of the landfill and disposing of waste through a ThlW transfer station. Additionally, the City would fill only the currently ex- cavated pits at the landfill leaving other available space unused. This action would allow for the premature closing of the landfill in October, 1992. T~ has offered the City $1.2 million in exchange for the premature closure of the landfill and the execution of a fifteen year contract with TWM for use of the TWM transfer station at a fee not to exceed $6.00 per yard with the standard CIP escalation clause. A comparative analysis of this alternative and the other scenarios is 'included in the following tables and graphs. 1A2/IA1/O10991028/43 40.1 /'he basic scenarios are as follows: SCENARIO 1 (CS-LA-DH) Sell the Commercial System, accelerate filling of the landfill and close the landfill and direct haul residential waste. 2. SCENARIO lA (CS-LC-TS) Sell the Co, m,ercial System, continue present volume in the landfill until the end of FY 1992 and then haul to transfer station. SCENARIO 2 (CS-LC-DH) Sell the Commercial System, continue present volume in the landfill until closure in 1996 and t-h~h~[i-~ect haul to the D~/ landfill in Lewisville. 4. SCENARIO 5 (CS-LC-tM) Sell the CoJ~u,~ercial System, continue present volume in the landfill until closure in 1996 and then expand the landfill. $. ScIq. NARIO S (CRD-LC-tM) Retain the Cmai~rcial System. clS~fi~-ase Customer Base by 2% per year. Continue present volume in the landfill until closure in 1996 and then expand the landfill. 6. SC]~IO 6 (CR-LC-tM) Continue on our present course and retain the co, u~ercial system and continue present voluane in the landfill, expand the landfill when necessary, probably 1996. 7. S~IO 8 (CI~-LI-tM) Retain the cm~,ercial system as exclusive. s-l~ly increase landfill volumes with additional co~i~mrcial and expand the landfill when necessary, probably in 1996. LA2/lA1/010gg1028/44 2 402 SCENARIO 1 is where Denton sells the system, gets out of the landfill operations as soon as possible, 'hauls residential waste to the DFW landfill, and retains the residential collection system. The result is as follows: <YEAR) 1991 1992 ,~, RATES 9.95 9.95 9.95 10.15 10.80 11.35 12.00 12.95 13.85 14.85 ANN. REV. 622 1087 1284 (529) (260) (280) (260) (212) (112) 12 LIC. FEE 227 255 (YEAR) 2005 RATES 15.85 16.25 16.75 17.25 17.65 ANN. P.5%r. 21 32 63 93 99 LIC. FEE Net present value of annual revenue funds is: $1,546,000 Net present value is the amount of money you would need today, which, if you invested at 7.5% interest, would provide cash revenues equal to the. Annual Revenue amounts. The main advantages of Scenario 1 are: a. The City of Denton would receive $1.9. million for the Commercial system. b. Denton can relieve itself of the very uncertain liabilities of being in the landfill business. c. The c~,,mrcial customers would have the option to choose among the various private haulers operating in Denton. d. The City would receive license fees equal to 8% of gross coim,~rcial revenues after 1997 which in Z005 equals $279,000. e. Denton's residential rates would hold steady at $9.95 until 1994 and then would increase an average 4.9% per year by 2005 and stabilize there at $17.65 per year with estimated 5.5 to 4% CPI increases thereafter. 1A2/1A1/O10991028/45 3 403 The disadvantages are: The rate to be charged to landfill contract customers was set at $5.45 per cubic yard. Texas ~aste Management has expressed reluc- tance to pay this rate for use of the City landfill. The staff does not feel that enough waste can be directed to the City land- fill to fill it up by 1995 because of the reluctance of ~/aste Management. The City Council could exercise its option to require all private haulers licensed in Denton to take all waste collected in Denton to the City landfill, this would only generate approxi- mately 448,000 cubic yards of waste per year and would not be adequate to fill up the City landfill by the end of 1993. Denton would no longer serve as the co~i~oetitive benchmark price for commercial collection systems or as a standard of service. The private free enterprise market would set the prices. Denton would no longer serve as a benchmark for competitive land- fill prices in the area. The private free enterprise market and the City of Farmers Branch landfill would set the prices. However, if landfill prices get too far out of what is determined a fair price, the Upper Trinity Regional P/ater District could install ~ landfill and provide that competitive benchmark price. Denton's residential fees are estimated to be more with this scenario than with the landfill expansion scenarios. However, substantial uncertainty exists on costs and liabilities of future landfill expansions. Because of the City's inability to generate enough waste to fill up the landfill by 1993, this is not a viable scenario. SCENARIO IA is where con~ercial is sold, the landfill is closed at the end of ~f--f~J~feaving approximately four acres unexcavated and unused to allow closure prior to implementation of Subtitle D. ~aste Management pays the City $1.2 million to enter into a 1S-year agreement for the City to bring its residential waste to a transfer station to be constructed in or near Denton. The result is as follows: IA2/ZA.1./O10991028/46 4 4O4 (YF_AR) 1995 RATES 9.95 9.95 9.95 10.15 10.55 ANN. REV. 658 LIC. FEE 0 0 0 0 68 1996 11.35 446 102 1997 12.00 204 159 1998 12.95 28 219 1999 13.85 (72} 227 2000 14.85 (60) 235 (YEAR) 2005 RATES 15.85 16.25 16.75 17.25 17.65 ANN. RS'W. (51) (46) (26) 5 Zl LIC. FEE Net present value of annual revenue funds is: ($1000.00) The advantages are: a. Denton gets out of the landfill business prior to the implementa~ tion of Subtitle D. The City receives $1.2 million in addition to funds for the sale of Commercial. The co,mercial customers would have the option to choose among any of the private haulers operating in Denton. The City would receive license fees equal to 8% of gross co,mercial revenues which equals $279,000 in 2005. The disadvantages are: The $1.2 million which would be paid to the City would be re- captured by Waste Management in the tipping fee to be charged to the City which begins at $6.00 per cubic yard. The City would also have to agree.to a 15-year contract with Waste Management for use of the transfer station. b. Waste Management is reluctant to pay $3.45 per cubic yard for disposal at the City l~nd~ill. Initial acctmmlated net gains are depleted as the residential system loses money from 1996 through 1999. 1A2/ZA1/010991028/47 5 405 SCENARIO 2 is where Denton sells the commercial system, continues to fill the landfill at present rates, and begins hauling residential waste to the DFW landfill when the landfill is full. Residential expenses have been escalated to reflect additional staff and equipment needed for hauling to DFW landfill. Effects are as follows: (YEAR) .~ 1999 2000 RATES 9.95 9.95 9.95 10.1S 10.55 11.35 12.00 12.95 13.85 14.85 ANN. REV. 351 (115) (243) (146) 6 LIC. FEE 227 235 (YFJLR) 2005 RATES 15.85 16.25 16.75 17.25 17.65 ANN. REV. 14 25 55 84 88 LIC. FEE Net present value of annual revenues is: $1,135,000 The advantages are: a. The City of Denton would receive $1.9 million for the Comercial system. b. The accumulative revenue reaches $3.36 million by 2005, $1,135,000 present value. c. License fees for general gove~imient total $279,000 per year by 2005. The comercial customers would have the option to choose among the various private haulers operating in Denton. e. The City goes out of the landfill business in 1996. The disadvantages are: Denton would no longer serve as the competitive benchmark price for coim,,ercial collection systems or as a standard of service. The private free enterprise market would set the prices. b. Denton continues in the landfill business until 1996, thus' extend- ing its landfill liability for several more years. iA2/1A1/010991028/48 6 406 SCSNARIO 3 is where the commercial system is sold, the volumes received at the landfill remain at status quo levels and future disposal of waste is handled by expanding the landfill. The expanded landfill fills up in 2003 and is replaced by a new landfill. Effects are as follows: (YEAR) 199S 2000 RATES 9.95 9.95 9.95 10.15 10.55 11.35 12.00 12.95 13.85 14.85 AN~. R55;. LIC. FE~ 227 235 (YEAR) 2005 RAT~S 15.85 16.2S 16.75 17.25 17.65 ANN. REV. LIC. FEE Net present value of annual revenue funds is: $3,296,000 The advantages are: The City of Denton would receive $1.9 million for the Commercial system. b. The acctmulative net gain reaches $9.7 million by 2005 with a -present value of $3.2 million. c. General government receives license fees of $279,000 per year by 200S. '~ne disadvantages are: a. The City continues in the landfill business until approximately 2035, with all of the attendant liabilities. The City would be exposed to criticism if residential rates must increase more than projected due to factors we are presently not aware. 1A2/1A1/010991028/49 7 4O7 SCENARIO 5 is where Denton continues in the comnercial business with a 2% per year decrease in the customer base. The landfill continues as-is and is expanded in 1996. In 2003, a replacement landfill is developed. Effects are as follows: (YF--..auR) 1995 1996 1997 RES. RATE 9.95 9.95 9.95 10.1S 10.SS 11.35 12.00 COM. RATE 115.55 119.59 123.78 132.59 137.23 142.04 149.14 ANN. REV. 12 (73) (99) (68) (135) (97) (320) (YEAR) RES. RATE 12.95 13.85 14.85 15.85 16.25 16.75 17.25 17.65 COM. RATE 149.14 156.59 164.42, 172.65 181.28 190.34 199.86 209.85 ANN. REv'. (255) (204) (133) (68) (134) (191) (142) (523) Net present value of annual revenue funds is: ($1,236,000) ?he advantages are: a. Denton continues with commercial operations. b. Denton provides a co,,~etitive factor in setting of landfill rates. The disadvantages are: a. Substantial losses occur whichwould result in ~he need to signifi- cantly increase rates. The probable net effect of which would be that residential customers subsidize the c~m,mrcial operation. b. Denton continues in the landfill business until 2035 with all the attendant liabilities. c. There would be no funds from selling cu,,,ercial. d. As the commercial customer base erodes, the less the system is worth in terms of selling it in the future. 1A2/1A1/010991028/50 8 408 SCENARIO 6 is where Denton continues in our present mode, competing with private haulers in the con~nercial collection system, continuing to provide residential collection service, and continuing to operate the landfill. The landfill is expanded in 1996 and a new landfill is developed in 2003. Effects are as follows: (YF_AR) 1995 1996 1997 RES. RAT~ 9.95 9.95 9.95 10.15 10.55 11.55 12.00 CC~M. RAT~ 115.55 119.59 123.78 128.11 132.S9 137.25 142.04 ANN. REV'. 1Z (61) [20) 58 55 172 41 LIC. FEE 0 0 0 0 13 26 41 (YEAR) RES. RATE 12.95 13.85 14.85 15.85 16.25 16.75 17.25 17.65 CC~4. RATE 149.14 156.59 164.42 172.65 181.28 190.34 199.86 209.85 ANN. REV. 973 842 1023 LIC. FEE 69 Net present value of annual revenue funds is: $2,495,000 The advantages are: a. Denton keeps on status quo. b. Denton provides a competitive factor in the setting of landfill rates and commercial rates in the area. c.. Cumulative gains reach $7.4 million by 2005 which could be used to reduce residential rates. The disadvantages are: a. Residential rates could increase if competition continues to erode Denton's co~nercial customer base. b. The City will continue to be liable for the landfill. c. The City will not receive the funds from the sale of the comercial system. 1A2/1.A1/010991028/51 4 0'9 The City would only receive $58,000 per year in license fees in 2000 vs $235,000 if the commercial system is sold. The City would be exposed to substantial criticism if residential or commercial rates must increase more than projected due to factors of which we are presently not aware. f. The City remains in the landfill business until approximately 2033 with all the attendant liabilities. There is also substantial uncertainty as to whether Denton's share of the cu,m~rcial customers will remain constant or will continue to decline. A basic premise of the SWAC Committee report was that Denton may continue to lose customers, and this would drive the cost up to the remaining con~aercial and residential customers. Denton has the least control over whether additional commercial customers are lost unless the City would choose to subsidize commer- cial rates with general tax revenues. SCENARIO 8 is essentially the SWAC recommendation, wherein Denton would become the exclusive provider of commercial solid waste collection in Denton. Denton would continue to collect the residential solid waste and Denton would expand the landfill in approximately 1996 and would develop a new landfill site with 30+ years life expectancy in 2003. The results are as follows: (YEAR) 1999 2000 RATES 9.95 9.95 9.95 10.15 10.55 11.35 12.00 12.95 13.85 14.85 ANN. REV'. 12 (12) (29) 674 912 LIC. FEE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LIC. FEE w/7% INT) lZ I (28) 1838 2650 3761 (YEAR) zoo1 2002 ~003 2004 ZOOS RATES 15.85 16.25 16.75 17.25 17.65 Ab~. REV. 1509 LIC. FF~ 0 0 0 0 0 ~TIVE (W/O LIC. FEE W/7% INT) §207 6807 8878 10~41 13163 Net present value of annual revenue funds is: $4,447 1A2/1A1/010991028/SZ 10 410 The main advantages are: a. The system generates $15.16 million in c~mmlative revenue through the year 200S with the residential rates chosen from Scenario lA. These funds could be utilized by the City for any purpose desired. b. The residential rates can be kept significantly lower than for any of the other scenarios if the City desired less net return. c. The City's disposal needs are provided through a City-owned land- fill for the next 50+ years. Dent~n may serve as a benchmark price for landfill rates in the area and maintains control of residential and commercial rates in the City. The disadvantages are: a. The City prolongs its liability with the landfill. b. Denton would have to develop another landfill option by 2005. c. Comnercial customers would not have the option to choose any other hauler than the City. d. Denton would forego the $1.9 million of funds available from the sale of the system. e. This approach would be very unpopular with private collection firms, the Chamber of Commerce, and some local businesses. f. There is potential for litigation against the City from the private collection firms. Based upon the comparison of the most viable scenarios outlined in this report, staff has concluded the following: Scenario 1 (CS-LA-DH) - Given the uncertainty and our lack of control of the volume of waste needed at the landfill to make this scenario work, staff does not feel that this option is viable. Scenario lA (CS-LC-TS) - Although the additional $1.2 million offered by appears very attractive, the increase in disposal costs due to the transfer station tipping fee of $6.00 per cubic yard vs our own landfill rate of $3.45 per cubic yard will rapidly deplete those funds and result in the most signifi- cant increases in residential rates. Therefore, staff does not view this alternative as viable. 1A2/1A1/O10991028/$~ 411 Scenario 2 (CS-LC-DH) - This scenario appears to be the most advantageous when considering residential rates, net gain, and the reduction of landfill liabil- ity. It also leaves open the option to expand the landfill in 199S-96 if competitive tipping fees appear excessive. Scenario Z (CS-LC-LE) - ~nile this scenario appears to be advantageous relative to residential rates and net gain, it still includes potential for extending the City's liability in terms of the landfill. Since this Scenario ~ is the same as Scenario 2 except for the 199S-96 landfill expansion, the decision to expand can be delayed for three or four more years. Scenario $ (CRD-LC-LE} - This scenario assumes that the City will lose Z% of its co~m~ercial customers per year and, therefore, reflects the worst possible circumstances the City could suffer under the retain co..,ercial scenarios and is included for reference purposes only. Scenario 6 (CR-LC-L~} - This scenario appears to be the most advantageous among the retain commercial scenarios in terms of residential rates, net gain, and providing a long term disposal option. However, this scenario carries with it the risks reflected in scenario S and the prolonging of landfill liabilities. Scenario 8 (CRE-LI-LE) - This scenario gives the total solid waste franchise to the City and, while this scenario is by far and away the most advantageous of all the scenarios in terms of financial performance and long term disposal options, it has numerous negative political ramifications which may eliminate the viability of this option. Prepared by: Should you have any coii,~ents or questions on this matter, please let us know. 'RespectfulJ~submitted, City ~{anager Approved by: /f/% z . E. Nelson Executive Director of Utilities Attachments: Appendix A - S~,mmry, Tables Appendix B - Graphs, Proformas 1A2/1A1/010991028/54 12 412 Exhibit B ATTACHMENT 1 PLANNED DEVELOPMENT SUMMARY EXISTING SYSTEM Concept Plan tfor tracts greater than 10 acres in size) a. Statement of Intent b. Relation to Comprehensive Plan c. Acreage d. Land uses e. Off site information f. Traffic and Transportation g. Buildings (location, height, setback) h. Residential Subdivision. (location of lots, minimum size, width and depth, yard requirement) i. Water and Drainage j. Utilities k. Trees 1. Open Space m. Screening n. Development Schedule *Heard by Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council. Public Hearings, 200 foot notice. 2. Detailed Plan a. All information required for Concept Plan except exacts, not approximations. b. Detailed Landscaped Plan c. Signs location, type, and size visible from any public street. d. Sidewalks or other pedestrian paths e. All information required for preliminary plats. fi. Development Schedule May be heard by Planning and and Zoning Commission only if concept plan is approved. Tracts less than 10 acres must submit detailed plan. PROPOSED SYSTEM 1. General Concept Plan a. Existing conditions of site b. Proposed land uses c. Development Standards (i.e. height, setback, FAR . . .) *Considered b~ Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council. Two Public hearings, one 200 foot notice. DeveloPment Plan May be combined with a General Concept Plan. a. Specific land use locations on a map. b.-Detailed table of permitted uses. *Considered by Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council. Two public hearings, one 200 foot notice. 3. Detailed Plan a. Same as current regula- tions, except that pre- liminary plat would be processed separately. b. Criteria for approval. c, Approval expires in 24 months. *May be approved by Planning and Zoning Commission only if development plan is approved. No public hearing or 200 foot notice. Appeal by applicant of P~Z denial. Notes: There would be no detailed site plan with "foot- prints" approved in steps 1 and 2. No development schedule. No limit on size. Any steps may be combined.