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.