Minutes March 05, 1991437
CITY OF DENTON CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
MARCH 5, 1991
The Council convened into the Work Session at 5:15 p.m. in the
Civil Defense Room.
PRESENT:
Mayor Castleberry; Mayor Pro Tem Boyd; Council
Members Alexander, Ayer, Gorton, Hopkins and
Trent.
ABSENT: None
1. The Council convened into the Executive Session to
discuss legal matters (considered action in County vs. City and
received legal advise regarding qualifications of Candidates
and Council Members), 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.)
2. The Council received a report and held a discussion
regarding library renovations.
Joella Orr, Librarian, stated that the final plans would come
back to Council on the Consent Agenda. There would be a
drawing of a plan for the future building. A model would be
made so that Friends of the Library could it take to
presentations for fund raising. The ramp in the main library
would need to be moved as it was pulling away from the
building. The area around the ramp would also be redone allow
for better flow of the work area. The .library. would also be
recarpeted.
Council Member Cotton asked that handicap accessibility be
included in the renovation plans.
Consensus of the Council was to proceed as presented.
3. The Council received a report and held a discussion
regarding proposed revisions to the sign ordinance.
Frank Robbins, Executive Director for Planning, presented the
most significant proposed amendments to the Council. (A
detailed description of those amendments are located in the
City Council Agenda back-up materials.) Robbins showed slides
of various signs located throughout the community dealing with
the proposed amendments.
Council Member Ayer asked who made the proposed amendments and
who approved the proposed amendments.
438
City of Denton City Council Minutes
March 5, 1991
Page 2
Robbins replied that they were proposals from the Planning and
Zoning Commission. Ninety-five percent of the proposals came
from a consensus of three members of the Beautification
Commission, 2 sign owners and Mr. Cott representing the Chamber
of Commerce-Governmental Affairs Committee.
Mayor Castleberry asked if it were correct that under the
current ordinance portable signs could not be moved for repair
or cleaning.
Robbins replied correct.
Mayor Castleberry thought it would be reasonable to allow those
signs to be moved for a few days for cleaning and repair.
Council discussed the pros and cons of that particular aspect
of the sign ordinance.
4. The Council received a report and held a discussion
regarding proposed revisions to the Electrical, Plumbing, and
Mechanical Chapters of the Code of Ordinances.
Debra Drayovitch, City Attorney, stated that the proposed
ordinance complied with the directive from Council. A
suggestion from one of the Boards which had the recommendation
of the City Manager, the City Attorney, the Building Inspector
and the Executive Director for Planning, would allow the
Building Code Board to hear the appeals from the Electrical
Code Board and the Plumbing and Mechanical Code Board.
Consensus of the Council was to proceed with the proposed
ordinance plus the recommendation that the Building Code Board
hear the appeals from the Electrical Code Board and the
Plumbing and Mechanical Code Board.
5. The Council received a report and held a discussion
regarding a legislative update.
Catherine Tuck, Administrative Assistant, stated that House
Bill 1110 would change the current law regarding collective
bargaining. Currently voters had the opportunity, through a
referendum election, to decide a collective bargaining
agreement. With the proposed amendment, the voters would not
have the option to approve the agreement, they would only be
able to repeal the agreement. Another negative aspect of the
Bill was in regard to wages and conditions of employment which
would be compared to the whole state and comparable cities
instead of the local market area.
City of Denton City Council Minutes
March 5, 1991
Page 3
439
Tom Klinck, Personnel Director, stated that the wage aspect of
the Bill was based on comparable cities as opposed to local
market conditions. This mandated on the citizens and tax
payers what many cities had already defeated. The right to
negotiate contracts would be no vote by the people but rather
by petition presented to the City Council which mandated the
Council to collectively bargain with them. The repeal
provisions had to be voted on by the voters. Klinck felt that
a poor relationship was developed when there was collective
bargaining. It created two classes of employees and often the
employees were heavily involved in local politics.
John Cook, Fire Chief, stated that there were three other bills
of interest to the Council. H.B.930 would allow the use of an
affirmative action program for selection process, H.B.1179
would provide for alternate promotional systems in the fire
department, and H.B.1264 would provide that the repeal
procedure would be adjusted to be the same as entering into
Civil Service.
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 Alexander, Ayer, Gorton, Hopkins and
Trent.
ABSENT: None
Pledge of Allegiance
The Council and members of the audience'recited the Pledge of
Allegiance.
2. The Council considered approval of the minutes of the
Regular Sessions of February 5 and February 19, 1991.
Trent motioned, Alexander seconded to approve the minutes.
Mayor Pro Tem Boyd indicated that the third paragraph on Page 6
of the February 5, 1991 minutes did not exactly reflect his
sentiments and requested the City Secretary to relisten to the
tape of the meeting and adjust the minutes.
Trent motioned, Alexander seconded to approve the minutes as
amended. On roll vote, Trent "aye," Alexander "aye," Hopkins
"aye," Gorton "aye," Ayer "aye," Boyd "aye," and Mayor
Castleberry "aye." Motion carried unanimously.
440
City of Denton City Council Minutes
March 5, 1991
Page 4
3. The Council received and opened bids regarding the
City of Denton $590,000, Series 1991, Certificates of
Obligation.
Lloyd Harrell, City Manager, stated that David Medanich, First
Southwest Company, was here to formally conduct the bid opening.
Council Member Hopkins left the meeting with a potential
conflict of interest.
Medanieh stated that there were three bids for the Certificates
of Obligation - Shearson Leman-American Express with a net
interest cost of 6.4647%; Bane One with a net interest cost of
6.61312%; and First Southwest Company with a net interest cost
of 6.392642%. Medanich stated that he would retire to verify
the bids.
Council Member Hopkins returned to the meeting.
4. The Council considered approval of
appreciation for Billy Carroll.
The following resolution was considered:
a resolution of
NO. R91-010
RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION FOR BILLY R. CARROLL
Gorton motioned, Boyd seconded to approve the resolution. On
roll vote, Trent "aye," Alexander "aye," Hopkins "aye," Gorton
"aye," Ayer "aye," Boyd "aye," and Mayor Castleberry "aye."
Motion carried unanimously.
5. The Council considered approval of a resolution of
appreciation for Albert Hampton.
The following resolution was considered:
NO. RPl-Oll
RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION FOR ALBERT HAMPTON
Gorton motioned, Trent seconded to approve the resolution. On
roll vote, Trent "aye," Alexander "aye," Hopkins "aye," Gorton
"aye," Ayer "aye," Boyd "aye," and Mayor Castleberry "aye."
Motion carried unanimously.
6. The Council ~onsi~ere4 approval of a resolution of
appreciation for Annette Watkins.
City of Denton City Council Minutes
March 5, 1991
Page 5
The following resolution was considered:
NO. R91-012
RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION FOR ANNETTE WATKINS
Gorton motioned, Hopkins seconded to approve the resolution.
On roll vote, Trent "aye," Alexander "aye," Hopkins "aye,"
Gorton "aye," Ayer "aye," Boyd "aye," and Mayor Castleberry
"aye." Motion carried unanimously.
Mayor Castleberry presented a proclamation for Professional
Social Work Week.
7. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance
authorizing the issuance, sale, and delivery of City of Denton
Certificates of Obligation, Series 1991, and approving and
authorizing instruments and procedures relating thereto.
Council Member Hopkins left the meeting.
David Medanich, First Southwest Company, stated all three bids
had been checked for accuracy and all three bids were correct.
The bid of First Southwest Company in conjunction with Paine
Weber was the winning bid at 6.392642%. Pursuant to the
official statement on page 19 regarding the financial advisor,
which stated that in the event of a competitive sale, that the
financial advisor may submit a bid so that all who bid on the
bonds were aware of the fact that First Southwest woul~ bid oo
the bonds. If the City was comfortable with that, he would
recommend awarding the bid to First Southwest-Paine Weber.
The following ordinance was considered:
NO. 91-032
ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE, SALE, AND DELIVERY
OF CITY OF DENTON CERTIFICATES OF OBLIGATION, SERIES
1991, AND APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING INSTRUMENTS AN
PROCEDURES RELATING THERETO.
Alexander motioned, Trent seconded to adopt the ordinance. On
roll vote, Trent "aye," Alexander "aye," Gorton "aye," Ayer
"aye," Boyd "aye," and Mayor Castleberry "aye." Motion carried
unanimously.
Paul Horton, McCall, Parkhurst and Horton, stated that as Bond
Counsel he had examined the bid of First Southwest Company and
recommended approval of the bid.
441
44'2
City of Denton City Council Minutes
March 5, 1991
Page 6
Mayor Pro Tem Boyd asked Horton if he felt there was no
conflict of interest in that First Southwest was serving as
financial advisor and also was the winning bidder of the bonds.
Horton replied that the notice of sale had stated that First
Southwest would be bidding on the bonds. This was acceptable
and was done frequently.
Council Member Hopkins returned to the meeting.
Item 9. was considered.
Public Hearings
A. The Council held a public hearing concerning the
proposed sale of the City's commercial solid waste system,
proposed closure of the City landfill within approximately 18
months, and proposed contract for construction and use of a
transfer station to be built and operated by Waste Management
of Texas, Inc.
Bob Nelson, Executive Director of Utilities, presented an
overview of the proposal. The process started over two years
ago due primarily to declining space available at the
landfill. There was a concern regarding the cost of operating
the landfill along with new regulations imposed at the
landfill. There was also increasing competition with the
commercial solid waste division from the private haulers in the
area. The Council, at that time, appointed a committee known
as the Solid Waste Advisory Committee. SWAC studied the system
and associated concepts. They looked at landfill issues, waste
to energy concepts, recycling and the effects of the
competition on the operation. SWAC's recommendations included
looking at landfill options, activating recycling programs,
operating the commercial solid waste system as a City exclusive
system or as a private hauler exclusive system. SWAC made the
recommendation that the City become the exclusive provider of
commercial solid waste collection. Upon that recommendation
and presentation, there was a great deal of public reaction
opposing that recommendation. As a result of that, the Council
recommended that the City take bids to look at selling the
commercial system to see what the alternative would provide.
In the meantime, a number of new state regulations were enacted
known as Subtitle D which had a number of substantial
additional regulations which would cost the City additional
money. Bids were taken in December for the sale of the
commercial system and Texas Waste Management made an offer of
$1.9 million. The City. at the same time. also inquired with
Texas Waste Management about the possibility of closing the
landfill and Texas Waste Management putting in a transfer
station for a long term disposal system. At that time. the
terms of the transfer station could not be worked. Staff
concluded that the sale of the commercial system
City of Denton City Council Minutes
March 5, 1991
Page 7
443
was financially most attractive and the Chamber of Commerce,
representing the business community, supported the sale. In
the recommendation, the City recommended that it continue to
bring all of the solid waste from the commercial system, even
though it was done by a private hauler, into the City's
landfill in order to continue the economies of scale and move
on with other additions to the landfill in about five years.
At that point, Waste Management did not feel comfortable with
their bid at the City's price of putting the waste into the
City's landfill and staff was requested to continue to
negotiate with Waste Management and analyze the possibility of
having Waste Management install a transfer station and then
receive firm prices for the future disposal costs of the
residential and commercial solid waste in the City. The ma)or
points reached with the bid and negotiations included (1)
Denton would sell the commercial system for $1.9 million, Waste
Management of Texas would offer to employ Denton's employees
who were in that division. In exchange for the sale, Waste
Management would receive all of the City's trucks, dumpsters,
customer lists and assistance converting the City's customers
over to Waste Management. (2) The City would not compete in
the commercial collection system for five years. (3) Any
private hauler, in open competition, could provide collection
services in the City of Denton. Those haulers would pay an 8%
license fee on their gross receipts to the City. (4) Denton
would close the landfill in approximately 18 months before the
Subtitle D regulations went into effect. (5) Waste Management
would install a disposal station, somewhere to the
north-northwest of the community. In exchange for assistance
with the transfer station, Waste Management would pay the City
$1,7 million - $1 million immediately upon commercial operation
of the transfer station and $175,000 per year for four years.
(6) Waste Management would pay Denton another $1.5 million by
charging a $.40 per yard surcharge on the first 3,750°000 yards
of waste disposed at that site. It would probably take
approximately 8 years to collect the $1.5 million. (7) Waste
Management would charge the City a flat fee of $5.20 per cubic
yard at the transfer station for the City's residential solid
waste that would be indexed based on the consumer price index
and any other ma)or environmental regulations which might be
imposed on them. It was anticipated that the transfer station
would be in place two years from the time the agreement was
made. That would mean approximately a six month period when
the landfill would be closed and before the transfer station
was opened. Waste Management had offered the City a "favored
nations" clause in which the City would be able to dispose of
the it's residential solid waste at their Lewisville landfill
at a rate of SZ.O0 per cubic yard. (8) Commercial customers
would be charged $6.00 per cubic yard at the transfer station
and would be indexed with a CPI and any other regulatory
escalations required. (9) Waste Management would become the
exclusive waste disposal system for the City of Denton. The
contract would be for 20 years with an opt out clause after
fifteen years.
444
city of Denton City Council Minutes
March 5, 1991
Page 8
The basic terms of the contract on the sale of the system
included (1) Waste Management would buy the commercial system
for $1.9 million with an approximate effective date of April 1,
1991. (2) Waste Management would not raise the rates to the
commercial customers immediately provided the City would agree
to the landfill contract and the City did not institute the
solid waste volume flow control. (3) The City would assist in
transferring its customers to Waste Management. (4) City
equipment would be delivered in good order. (5) The City
would not compete for five years. Terms regarding the transfer
station and long term disposal included (1) the landfill
currently had about 800,000 cubic yards of open pit space.
Normally the City disposed of around 350,000-400,000 cubic
yards per year. In order to close the landfill in 18 months,
it would be necessary to fill it with solid waste or dirt.
Waste Management would agree to haul approximately 650,000
cubic yards into the City's landfill over the next 18 months to
help fill the landfill so that it would not have to be filled
with dirt. (2) Waste Management would pay the City $1.25 per
cubic yard for this space. (3) Waste Management would
construct a transfer station in or near Denton. (4) Denton
would direct all solid waste generated in Denton to the Waste
Management transfer station when it was complete. All
commercial haulers in Denton were required by City ordinance to
have a license to operate within the City and within the'
jurisdiction of that license, the City could direct where the
solid waste went. That ordinance would allow the City to
direct the solid waste into the transfer station. (4) Waste
Management would pay the City $1.7 million in consideration of
the transfer station and also the difference between the $1.25
and the $3.45 per cubic yard on the 650,000 cubic yards of
fill. (5) The payment schedule would be $1 million on opening
of the transfer station and $175,000 over the next four years.
(6) The transfer station rate would be $5.20 per cubic yard
for residential volume with a CPI and a regulator escalator
from 1991 on. (7) The City's $5.20 residential rate would not
be transferable. (8) Waste Management would pay the City
another $1.5 million based on $.40 per yard over the first
3,750,000 cubic yards. (9) The transfer station contract
would be for 20 years with five year renewals thereafter with a
opt out clause after 15 years. (10) The City would support
Waste Management's effort to obtain a transfer station permit
through the Texas Health Department. The tipping fee in the
interim period would be $2.00 subject to the CPI and regulatory
escalators. If the transfer station were not built, the City
would lease Waste Management property near the existing
landfill location so that the station would be built within the
City. If the transfer ~tation were not built, there would be
liquidating damages of approximately $700,000 through a lower
charge on residential disposal costs at Waste Management's DFW
landfill for the first 1.2-1.3 million cubic yards. The total
amount of the
City of Denton City-Council Minutes
March 5, 1991
Page 9
proposal was $1.9 million for the commercial system, $1.7
million when the transfer station was constructed and $1.5
million as a surcharge over the next number of years at the
station. The difference between $5.20 and the $6.40 on volumes
of residential would be over $1 million savings to the City.
Nelson stated that the City needed to look at either being in
the business or be out of the business. Two resolutions were
before Council - one was for exclusive service by the City of
Denton which was needed to keep the economies of scale to
operate the system and the other was for selling the system.
With the proposal, the City would still have a disposal site in
the City and the funds received could be used to help hold the
rates down on residential customers for at least 15 years.
Council Member Alexander asked what the rates would be for
commercial haulers other than Waste Management to take their
waste to the transfer station. He had heard $6.00 per cubic
yard.
Nelson replied correct.
Council Member Alexander continued that that would be a price
which would be set in the contract that Waste Management would
agree to charge $6.00 on a CPI scale for a period of how long.
Nelson replied the $6.00 would be effective at the time the
contract were signed. It would be tied to a CPI as of that
date. On January 1 of each year, the CPI escalator would be
placed upon that. That price would be available, not only to
Waste Management's trucks at that site, but also to any
commercial hauler.
Council Member Alexander replied the trucks would be licensed
by the City of Denton.
Nelson replied correct.
Council Member Alexander stated that one of the phrases used in
the description of the contract, which seemed to him to need a
bit more clarification, was that the City would support Waste
Management in its effort to get a permit for the transfer
station. What was meant by that.
Nelson replied that the City would not have any financial
support for the transfer station. It just would not legally
oppose the transfer station. Whenever application was made,
the City would probably appear with them or include a letter
from the Council or a resolution of support.
445
446
City of Denton City Council MinUtes
March 5, 1991
Page 10
Council Member Alexander stated that City employees and staff
would not be involved in developing the permit request or
facilitating the permitting process.
Nelson replied no that it would have to go through the normal
zoning issues and would follow the normal process.
Council Member Trent asked for an approximate value for the
City equipment which would be transferred if the sale took
place.
Nelson replied an estimate would be $600,000-$700,000 for the
trucks and dumpsters.
Council Member Ayer stated that in Mr. Nelson's presentation,
he did not provide any information about the second
alternative. Nelson had outlined all of the pluses of entering
into the agreement with Waste Management but Ayer felt it was
necessary to know the pluses of the City providing exclusive
service.
Nelson replied that if Denton were to become the exclusive
commercial provider, all license agreements with other haulers
would be retracted. Several more trucks would have to be added
to the system. Economies of scale would exist for the
commercial system. The City presently had 60% of the of
commercial system. The private haulers had about 40% of the
system. There might not be any reduction in price but it would
be hoped that the prices would remain stable for the next year
or so. Volumes at the landfill would be slightly increased.
As there was a fixed cost of operation at the landfill, it
would not take any more personnel or dollars to operate the
landfill. The per cubic rate at the landfill would go down a
small amount and would help with the residential costs. If all
of the solid waste w~re brought into the City's la~4fill, the
existing permitted landfill would probably go until 1994 or
1995. At that point, there was approximately 3.5 million cubic
yards of space immediately around that site that could be
opened for approximately $3.5 million. The rates would, at
that point, go up to approximately $4.25 - 4.75 per cubic yard
from the current rate of $3.00.
Council Member Ayer stated'as compared to $5.20.
Nelson replied yes that that was the best estimate of staff.
After the year 2003, staff felt that the City would have to go
somewhere else to develop a landfill. At that point, staff
felt it would be very difficult due to the political
environment. Rates at that point would be $6.25 - $6.75 per
cubic yard. Residential rates would increase from $9.95 to
approximately $16-$17 per month in the years 2003 - 2005. With
a different scenario, usinq the same residential rates and
assuming a 3.5% increase in commercial rates, from now until
1997 and a 5% increase in commercial rates thereaf'~!~!"the City
would accumulate approximately $13 million.
City of Denton City Council Minutes
March 5, 1991
Page 11
Mayor Pro Tem Boyd left the meeting.
Council Member Ayer stated that on both the charts and
statistical tables, Nelson showed the same increases in the
residential rates. If the City retained exclusive provider of
the system, by the year 2005 the information showed a net gain
of $13 million as compared with $5 million if the system were
sold. Was it not true that it would not be necessary to raise
residential rates so high to the $17.65 level. Under the
second scenario, where the City kept the system, would it not
be possible to, instead of accumulating $13 million, to use
that money to keep the residential rates at a more reasonable
level.
Mayor Pro Tem Boyd returned to the meeting.
Nelson replied yes that it could be used to keep residential
rates down. Nelson stated that in the analysis, something had
to remain constant and residential rates were chosen to be held
constant. He stated that there were some uncertainties about
the rates and what it meant to the landfill.
Council Member Ayer replied that there were also some
uncertainties on the other side such as whether and when the
transfer station would be built. He felt that only the pluses
had been indicated with the selling of the system and only the
negatives had been presented with the exclusive provider of the
system. Pluses and minuses were needed for both options.
Nelson replied that the negative on the sale of the system was
whether the transfer station could be permitted and constructed
on time.
Council Member Hopkins stated that she felt it was improper to
be arguing points before the public hearing.
Council Member Gorton asked that if, in Scenario One, there was
a clause stating no competition for five years, who would pick
up and transport City of Denton waste.
Nelson replied Waste Management.
Lloyd Harrell, City Manager, asked Nelson to review the chart
of the scenario that pictured the statues quo with the City
losing commercial customers at the on-going rate.
Nelson stated that the chart illustrated what would happen if
the City would loose a small percentage of the commercial
customers each year. In that scenario, the City went negative
very fast.
447
448
City of Denton City Council Minutes
March 5, 1991
Page 12
Council Member Gorton left the meeting.
City Manager Harrell indicated that from staff's standpoint,
that alternative needed to be emphasized. That was the reason
why, not only SWAC, but the PUB as well felt, that either of
the two scenarios would work. Each had advantages and
disadvantages. The worst possible scenario was to do neither
and to continue in the current situation.
Mayor Pro Tem Boyd asked if an assumption had been made
concerning the city's growth over the time period.
Nelson replied yes that the same growth pattern was used as
what the Planning Department used for population growth - 5%
inflation for supplies, labor, etc.
Council Member Gorton returned to the meeting.
The Mayor opened the public hearing.
Russell Trapp stated that he paid a great deal of taxes to the
City and was in favor if the City could obtain a contract which
would affect future tax paying. He also stated that he was
against any exclusive trash hauling situation.
Council Member Alexander asked Trapp if he was against any
exclusive trash hauling by the City or any exclusive trash
hauling by a single company.
Trapp replied that competition was great~
Mayor Castleberry asked Trapp if he .was in favor of no
exclusive service either way.
Trapp replied co=:ect.
Mayor Pro Tem Boyd stated that the recommendation was that
neither way, private or public, could exist in a competitive
environment. Was Trapp saying that neither of the proposals
should be adopted.
Trapp replied that competition should be allowed.
Mayor Pro Tem Boyd stated that, in effect, either proposal
adopted would exclude, for all practical purposes, competition.
Trapp stated he paid a high of amount of taxes to the City and
felt that he should have a choice of who hauled his trash.
City of Denton City Council Minutes
March 5, 1991
Page 13
City Manager Harrell stated that the p~oposal to sell the
system to Waste Management, on its face, was a non-exclusive
contract. If the proposal were accepted by the City, there
would be no legal reason why another transporter of commercial
trash could not come in and pick up business from any one in
town who might want to do so. On the corresponding side, the
agrument could be made that despite the fact that it was a
non-exclusive contract, because the City would be selling it's
system to someone who was one of the mayor carriers now, and
between them would have 90-95% of the business, that it would
be hard for others to come in and compete.
Council Member Ayer stated although the collection and hauling
was non-exclusive, the disposition was exclusive. The contract
provided that only Texas Waste Management landfill would be
used. Other people could collect solid waste from a commercial
customer in the City of Denton but they would have no choice
other than to haul it to Waste Management's landfill at their
prices.
council Member Trent asked Trapp if he felt that if the City
became the sole provider of commercial service, that he would
have a choice of who he did business with.
Trapp replied no. If the City were the sole provider, it would
have a monopoly and could raise the prices to what ever it
wanted.
Council Member Alexander stated that the City could not control
what the School District did but could control City taxes and
could have some important influence on what commercial solid
waste users would pay for disposal. If the City were the
exclusive provider, it could control the' prices for commercial
solid waste. If the City sold the commercial solid waste
system to Waste Management, it would no longer have control
over the cost of waste disposal. He felt the real question was
which of the two alternatives was better. If the system were
sold, there would be no place to go to for a public forum
regarding prices and service.
George Gilkeson, Chair-Solid Waste Advisory Committee, stated
that when he first joined the Committee, he felt that private
enterprise could do a better job of collecting solid waste than
could the City. After meeting with City staff for over a year,
he allowed himself to be convinced that the City could do the
job and the SWAC Committee recommended that to Council. He was
never comfortable with that recommendation. As a private
citizen and not as the Chair of the SWAC Committee, he.stated
that the SWAC Committee should not have recommended the City be
the exclusive collector. It was his recommendation that the
City should accept the bid of Waste Management and that it
would solve a number problems for the City.
449
450
City of Denton City Council Minutes
March 5, 1991
Page 14
Kevin Gorman, Browning-Ferris Industries, 'stated that he was
against the sale of the system to Waste Management.
Browning-Ferris was the largest competitor of Waste Management
and the sale of the assets and the transfer station would put
Waste Management at a tremendous competitive edge against BFI
and all haulers. His main concern was the process which took
place with the initial agreement with Waste Management.
Originally the City of Denton put out a bid package for the
sale of the assets. Browning-Ferris responded and bid around
$350,000-$360,000 for the sale of the assets and the right to
compete in Denton on a non-exclusive basis. Laidlaw Waste
Systems bid approximately $360,000. It appeared that everyone
else felt the assets were worth approximately $350,000. It
seemed odd that Waste Management would offer $1.9 million for
the sale of the assets and a right to deal non-exclusively in
Denton. From the face value of the bid, the bid dealt with the
sale of the assets and the right to compete in Denton on a
non-exclusive basis. The whole scope of the picture had seemed
to change. Waste Management was offering a transfer station
and to help the City close it's landfill. All these factors
were not discussed in the bid package and were all factors that
BFI and any other waste company would be interested and willing
to negotiate with the City of Denton. BFI would be more than
willing to build a transfer station in Denton similar to what
Waste Management was proposing but they were never given a
change to discuss the issue. The bid stated the sale of the
assets and a non-exclusive right. For the City to enter into a
twenty year contract with any vendor without soliciting bids
for specific information, such as a transfer station, was not
correct. The fact that Waste Management bid $1.6 million
higher and that the other items had been added, told him that
Waste Management would make it up on the back side. He
suggested the Council table the bid and let other people offer
the same proposal or vote the proposal down as it had not been
discussed with other vendors. Waste Management had been
allowed to dictate what the terms would be. He did not feel it
was good for the City to enter into a twenty year agreement
without obtaining competitive quotes.
Mayor Pro Tem Boyd stated that one of the previous speakers had
stated that he was interested in a competitive arrangement. If
the City were to accept the Wa~t~ Management p~opo~al, how
effectively would BFI be able to compete.
Gorman replied that they would have a "snowball's chance in
hell" to compete because Waste Management would have a profit
margin at the landfill that they would dictate and would have a
profit margin at the transfer station and could haul the' waste
for basically nothing. It was a bundling of services. They
could give away the transportation to get the transfer station
and the landfill business. It was a very common practice in
the business that the hauling companies would feed the landfill
business. If someone owned the landfill, they had the goldmine.
City of Denton City Council Minutes
March 5, 1991
Page 15
451
If they had the landfill and the transfer station, there were
two avenues to make a profit and could haul it at a loss.
Council Member Ayer asked if BFI were the largest hauler in the
area next to Waste Management.
Gorman replied that Waste Management and BFI were probably the
two largest companies in the United States.
Council Member Ayer asked Gorman if he felt BFI could not
compete with Waste Management under the proposed conditions,
then smaller operators would have even more difficulties.
Gorman replied yes.
David King stated that he was surprised that the integrity of
the process had been brought into question because he had
always found City staff to have an integrity above reproach.
He felt that was surprising as these were two major competitors
who compete world-wide and who understood the system of bidding ·
in City governments. He expressed concerns regarding the
future of the landfill. He was not sure the City wanted to
face the issues which were going to become prevalent in the
future such as liability and pollution. Did the City want to
accept the liability 10-30 years in the future for the
landfill. The liability could be laid off onto the private
sector. Another consideration was the cost of creating a new
landfill. There was a considerable cost in acquiring land plus
the problem of where to build the landfill. If prices were to
get out of hand, an individual could come back to other
providers. He asked the Council to make a decision in favor of
the sale of the system.
Larry McGee, Waste Management, stated that competitors had an
equal opportunity to offer the same price as Waste Management
had. Both companies had had exclusive contracts with various
entities. As a citizen of Denton, he strongly recommended that
the Council consider the Waste Management offer as it promoted
free enterprise and would allow competition.
Mayor Pro Tem Boyd stated that a number of elements of the
proposal were not put out for bid.
McGee replied yes but that the main part of the bid was bid by
Waste Management with an attractive bid for the City.
Mayor Pro Tem Boyd asked if it would be possible to bid the
other items such as the transfer station.
452
City of Denton City Council Minutes
March 5, 1991
Page 16
Barbara Russell, Government Relations Committee - Denton
Chamber of Commerce, stated that the Committee's position on
the issue was that there be no exclusive provider. That
individuals be allowed to make choices, however the Council
decided.
Mayor Pro Tem Boyd asked for a clarification of the Committee's
position.
Russell stated that the Committee would not recommend a
provider but wanted to be allowed to have a choice. In the
information provided, it was understood that competition could
exist in a non-exclusive arrangement.
Mayor Pro Tem Boyd stated that if the proposal were accepted,
Waste Management would begin with approximately 95% of the
business and control the disposal which meant that they would
have almost exclusive service. Theoretically, Waste Management
would have competition but not realistically. Was it the
Committee's position that even theoretical competition was what
should be sought.
Russell replied that based on the information provided, it was
not theoretical. There was competition now even with the City
being the major provider. She could not ascribe to his theory
that competition would not be present.
Council Member Trent asked Russell if the position of the
Committee was that it would be a sound business and management
step to sell to Waste Management.
Russell replied that the Committee had not made a decision
regarding that issue and she would not speak for them on that
issue. Personally, she felt it appeared to be a good idea but
for the Committee, she did not have any comment.
Mickey Flood, President - Waste Management of Texas, recapped
the history of the bid regarding solid waste. He stated that
approximately a year to a year and a half ago, the City
announced that it was losing money in the commercial business.
In order to avoid losing money, the City wanted to have
exclusive service. At that point in time, the City went out
for bid on the system. When it went out for bid, Waste
Management took into consideration the fact that it had a
landfill and that it valued the relationship it had with the
City. $1.9 million was bid for the hard assets and the good
will that was associated with that bid. The City, at that
point in time, became concerned that the landfill would' ~lo~e
after 800,00 yards of volume was used. The City saw a way to
get out of the landfill business and to do so without carrying
forward 25 additional years of contingent liabilities and
City of Denton City Council Minutes
March 5, 1991
Page 17
monitoring associated with its landfill. He felt that Waste
Management was part of the solution and not part of the problem
for the City. They were guaranteeing disposal as an asset to
the City for 20 years and were locking in a price. Waste
Management had guaranteed not to raise the rates. The City was
in a position to direct all of the waste to the transfer
station which would provide long term security for the City as
far as its ability to dispose of its trash. In contract ~2,
Waste Management enabled the City to close the landfill in a
shorter period of time. They were paying $1.25 but was offset
by $1.7 million. The difference between $1.25 and $3.45 was
the $1.4 million of which the $1.7 million was a part of.
Mayor Pro Tem Boyd stated that there seemed to be two reasons
why it would not be a good idea to bid the entire process at
this point in'time. One was attrition and the second was that
Waste Management had already laid out what their bid would be.
Flood replied that he was the only one in position of bidding
the landfill. He was the only player in the position to bid a
landfill and guarantee the City 20 years.
Council Member Trent indicated that there had been concern
regarding City employees losing their ]obs.
Flood stated that he believed Waste Management was a lot more
efficient than the City. They would take 14 employee jobs and
do the same job with five employees. They would take the
assets associated with the collection of commercial and would
do the same job with half of the assets. They would guarantee
jobs to those employees of the City of Denton who were
qualified which included passing a physical and a drug screen.
He did not agree that if the City took over the operation, they
would have to provide two more trucks. A transfer station
provided for economical disposal where expensive trucks were
not necessary as the trucks did not go into a landfill
anymore. For the City to transfer waste to Dallas, Waste
Management or one of the other landfills, it would pay
approximately $75/hour cost. With the transfer station in
Denton, that would be avoided.
Mayor Castleberry asked Flood that if Waste Management were
unable to locate a transfer station, how would the City be
guaranteed with a fall back provision.
453
454
City of Denton City Council Minutes
March 5, 1991
Page 18
Flood replied that Waste Management would agree to have a
permit to the State within four months of securing a site for
the transfer station. In the highly unlikely event that there
would be a problem obtaining the permit, Waste Management would
revert back to a City designated site, whether it be the
landfill or another site that had already established traffic
patterns and land use and would move forward totally with their
cost. Waste Management only wanted City support in the form of
verbal commitment.
Bob Powell spoke on the tax side of the issue. Government
monopolies were the worst kind of monopolies. There was no
regulation over a government monopoly and they were
inefficient. Private haulers paid fuel and road use taxes,
sales taxes, road taxes, etc. A private transfer station would
pay ad valorem taxes to the school district, to the County and
to the City of Denton. From a tax point of view, the last
thing wanted in the City of Denton was a government monopoly.
Mayor Pro Tem Boyd asked Powell what was the regulatory agency
over a private hauler.
Powell replied that he did not know.
Mayor Pro Tem Boyd stated that if the City were to grant a
monopoly here, there would not be a regulatory agency as there
was on other private monopolies.
Powell stated that he did not speak in favor of the City
granting a monopoly.
Mayor Pro Tem Boyd replied that the City should then turn down
both proposals.
Powell replied that he was not willing to say that as he did
not understand all of the details of the contract. He did not
know if it was a monopoly or not. He know the other way would
be a monopoly and he knew if they went the other way, it would
be the worst kind of monopoly. A private monopoly would at
least pay taxes.
The Council took a brief recess.
Joyce Poole spoke against the Waste Management proposal and
against the closing of the landfill. She felt that the City
would not eliminate its Subtitle D responsibilities by closing
the landfill and understood that the City would still have the
responsibility 25 years even if it were closed tomorrow. The
City would not face any prohibitive costs if it were to meet
EPA standards. The City was already meeting those standards.
Closing the landfill took away any options for the citizens of
Denton to go anywhere with trash except under a financially
City of Denton City Council Minutes
March 5, 1991
Page 19 ·
controlled outside entity. With the local option of the
landfill gone, the backroads would again become an EPA hazard
as people would dump on the roads. The City would loose a
large amount of money by not charging Texas Waste Management
the actual market value of $3.45 a cubic yard. According to
the City's figures, it would cost approximately $14,000 per
month for Denton to haul its residential waste into Lewisville
for however many months it took to complete a transfer station
in Denton. Other options were available to the City such as a
co-generation site with other cities in the area and a regional
landfill was in the process.
John Thompson, Chair-Public Utilities Board, stated that when
the Public Utilities Board first began considerations regarding
the issue, they asked staff to present a decision tree showing
all possible alternatives. Staff presented eight different
alternative solutions. The advantages and disadvantages of
each option were weighed by the Board. The Public Utility
Board voted to recommend to the Council Alternative 8 which was
that the City not sell the solid waste division and that Denton
become the exclusive provider of both commercial and
residential service. Denton would retain and continue to
operate its own landfill. Reasons for the recommendation were:
(1) it was to the City's financial advantage to follow that
course. It was the most profitable alternative as shown in the
staff's analysis. (2) The Board did not believe that the City
could escape from the legal liability for the landfill or from
its environmental and public health responsibilities by
privatizing the service. (3) The City ~hould stay in the
solid waste business in order to protect the public interest as
it would liable for the landfill for years to come. (4) There
was nothing to fear in the new regulations that would seriously
affect the City's vital interest. (5) Final control of
residential and commercial rates would be in the hands of the
elected City officials rathez than in private comma.ny dedicated
to earning a profit. It was hoped that the rates for
residential and commercial services would be kept down as low
as possible now and in the future. Because if this desire, the
Board believed that there was to be no financial windfall to
the City if the system were sold. The money received, should
the system be sold, first would have to be used to repay bonded
indebtedness and the remainder would have to be kept in trust
for the purpose of keeping rates at their lowest possible
level. Should the money be used for other purposes, the rates
for both commercial and residential services would soar. The
new company would have a monopoly over this business. If the
system were sold, it would be very difficult for the City to
get back into the business in the future. If the commercial
system were sold and the landfill closed, the Board recommended
the City also consider selling the residential service. If the
City were left with only residential service and no landfill,
the City would be left with the most labor intensive part of
the solid waste department without control of the pricing of
land service. Unless rates were subsidized with money received
from the sale, the City could not hold down the residential
rates from soaring.
455
456
City of Denton City Council Minutes
March 5, 1991
Page 20
Mayor Pro Tem Boyd asked if the Board considered the
possibility of Denton build a transfer station.
Thompson replied no that Alternative 8 assumed that a new
landfill would have to be bought several years down the line.
Even with buying a new landfill, it was still the most
profitable alternative.
Council Member Alexander asked if the vote from the Board was
unanimous.
Thompson replied no that it was 4-1.
Art Anderson, Sentry Environmental, stated that his company had
filed an application for a Type One sanitary landfill in
southwest Denton County. There had been two options discussed
with respect to the disposal of waste which included closing
the City's landfill or entering into a 20' year exclusive
contract with Waste Management. It was stated earlier that
Waste Management was entitled to the contract as they were the
only provider available. Anderson suggested another option for
the City which was to postpone the decision on the disposal
system. He stated that with a 20 year exclusive contract there
was no choice for the City and no ability to use competition.
Within 9-21 months, the Texas Department of Health would make a
determination with respect to their permit application and if
approved, there would be a landfill within 10 miles of the City
of Denton. He requested the City postpone consideration with
respect to the disposal component of the proposal.
Council Member Ayer asked if Anderson had a prognosis on how
the application permit would be received.
Anderson replied that it should be successful.
e~gineeri~g stan~lpoin~, the site was excellent.
From an
Mayor Castleberry stated that if the City went with a private
hauler with a 15 year contract, it could, at the end of the
contract, negotiate with both companies for services.
Anderson replied correct but that he could not see any
advantages in a long term contract. The initial bid was for
the assets and Waste Management bid $1.9 million for that. A
short term or a non-exclusive contract would be a preferable
alternative long term for the City.
Mayor Castleberry asked how much opposition was being received
for the proposed landfill.
City of Denton City Council Minutes
March 5, 1991
Page 21
Anderson replied that there had been opposition from the
landowners around the facility. The Texas Department of
Health's public hearing process would not start for a couple of
months. With respect for the permitting process, it was not as
much a political process as a technical/engineering process.
If the technical requirements were satisfied, the Texas
Department of Health would issue the permit.
Mayor Pro Tem Boyd asked if Anderson could pro)ect what tipping
fees would be for the landfill.
Anderson replied that they would be comparable but that the
transportation costs should be lower as the distance was less.
Council Member Alexander stated that Anderson had indicated
that the permitting process would be completed within 9-21
months. If the permit were granted, what was the lead time to
get the landfill in operation and ready to receive waste.
Anderson replied 60 days.
Council Member Alexander asked that if the permit were
approved, would the proposed landfill be in operation well
within the time to receive any waste the City might want to
dispose after the City's landfill were full.
Anderson replied yes and that they hoped the process would be
accelerated quicker than that time frame.
Council Member Alexander stated that in terms of the size of
the proposed landfill, how did it compare to Denton's landfill.
Anderson replied that they were requesting a permit for 363
acres. All of that would not be used because of berms and
landscaping, etc.
Brenda Fosemier stated that many organizations in the Denton
County area were planning to contest the proposed landfill and
permit. There was an organization already in place which was
opposing the landfill. The cities of Justin, Argyle, Hasler,
and Roanoke as well as the towns of North Lake and Trophy Club
and the Northwest Independent School District had already
passed resolutions opposing the proposed landfill.
Mark Chew urged the Council not to give the contract to Texas
Waste Management. He believed that Denton could do a' superb
lob in operating the landfill and also with the commercial
waste. As a private citizen, he was concerned about the CPI
index and escalator plus the t~pplng fees. All of those items
needed to be taken under deep consideration. He urged the
Council to have the City be the exclusive provider.
458
City of Denton City Council Minutes
March 5, 1991
Page 22
Council Member Trent stated for the record in the Public
Utilities Board minutes of February 18, 1991 that Chew did not
trust Texas Waste Management.
Chew replied yes and that he still did not trust them due to
the fact that at one of the PUB meetings, the Board asked Waste
Management if they agreed with the proposal made. Waste
Management replied, yes and approximately four hours later
rescinded the decision that they had made. He felt business
people needed to live by business decisions. He felt that if
Waste Management would do that this time, what would make them
do it a little later when they had a monopoly over the waste
pickup in the City of Denton.
Mike Cochran stated that he was opposed to the sale to Waste
Management for several reasons: (1) personal experience with
their work in the City dealing with what would happen when a
bill was not paid. There was a situation in the City where
Waste Management's solution to a nonpayment was to refuse to
pick up the trash. He had complained a number of times about
them on Austin Street where there would be piles and piles of
garbage because someone had not paid his bill. The City of
Denton did not deal with their commercial customers in that
manner. In the month of December, there were 75 complaints
about Waste Management. (2) Cochran had spoken with a Waste
Management representative who spoke about Waste Management's
efficiently rate and being able to cut down on the number of
actual pickups. Cochran did not feel that that was the correct
perspective to take on the issue. (3) Cochran felt the City
needed to know more about the company they were dealing with.
Waste Management had received over $31 million in fines for
pollution violations between 1982 and 1986. There was a $2
million fine for antitrust violations and other investigations
dealing with deceptive business practices. This had a direct
bearing on the issue of competition.
Virgil Lowrie, Denton Apartment Owners Association, felt that
there were two basic issues. One dealing with the landfill
site and one dealing with the collection. He felt that there
did not need to be an exclusive right on either one of those
issues. There could be competition on both. The issue may be
with the transfer station which Denton could build with tax
dollars. I£ a long term contract were entered into, it seemed
to him that the City of Denton and its taxpayers would be open
to liabilities in the future and which were not known at this
time. He asked the Council to be cautious when entering into
the contract or to selling the City's services.
Council Member Alexander asked Lowrie if he was saying that
Lowrie did not want to see an arrangement that was exclusive
for the City nor an arrangement which would be a strong
competitive edge for any one company~
City of Denton City Council Minutes
March 5, 1991
Page 23
459
Lowrie replied correct. He did not believe any of the
alternatives presented had to be followed.
Krisha Sanford stated that she had dealt with both an exclusive
and a free enterprise system and did not like an exclusive
franchise. She liked to be able to made a choice and was
against an exclusive franchise for Waste Management.
Doris Wallmack stated that she had used all three of the major
companies. She would like a choice of which company to use and
did not think the City, with an exclusive provision, would
allow her to have a choice.
The Mayor closed the public hearing.
City Manager Harrell stated that he would like to clarify the
bidding process so that there was no mistake on how it was put
together. Bids were solicited for the sale of the commercial
solid waste system - the equipment and the customer list of the
City's commercial program. The bids received indicated that,
by far, the best bid was Texas Waste Management at the bid of
$1.9 million. Staff then went about looking at various
scenarios of what made the most financial sense for the
citizens of Denton and for the residential solid waste
customers. There were eight different scenarios ranging from
selling the system and only allowing the residential trash to
be dumped in the City's landfill to a system of retaining the
system to a system to receive the same volume into the City's
landfill as was currently received to one which would increase
the volume in the landfill. All of those scenarios were
studied very carefully. Staff determined that the best bidder
for selling the commercial system as well as the customer list
was Texas Waste Management at the bid of $1.9 million and for
the City to exercise under its license agreement with all
commercial haulers, that the same level of refuse that
currently was going into the Denton landfill continue into the
Denton landfill at the City's current tipping rate projected as
of October first at $3.45 until the landfill was filled. That
was estimated to be in 5-6 years. That was the financial
alternative discussed with the Utility Board. At that point in
time, two things happened. Waste Management stated that
although there was a service agreement which allowed the City
to direct where the waste would be disposed of which was part
of the bid specs, they indicated that their understanding was
that the City really did not want the waste and part of their
$1.9 million package had assumed that the waste would go the
Waste Management's landfill. At the same time, Waste
Management had a problem with the $3.45 tipping fee which' would
not make the $1.9 million work. Some Council Members indicated
a problem extending the landfill life 5-6 years and felt it was
important to close the landfill within 18 months before
Subtitle D went into effect. Staff discussed those issues with
460'
City of Denton City Council'Minutes
March 5, 1991
Page 24
Waste Management to try and arrive at both alternative. The
first alternative being could the City strike a deal that would
give the City the same financial payoff as a $1.9 million
payment plus a $3.45 tipping fee for the 5-6 years that the
landfill had to go. The second alternative was could the City
arrive at a deal where Waste Management could utilize their own
landfill and not be tied into going with the City's landfill.
That was how Waste Management derived the transfer station
option which got the City out of the landfill business and the
City receive a $1.7 million payment and a $1.5 million
payment. Put together, the $1.5 million, the $1.7 million, and
the $1.9 million, financially, it barely exceeded the financial
program of a $1.9 million payment plus filling the City's
landfill at the current rate for the next 5-6 years.
Council Member Ayer stated that when the SWAC Committee made
its report and recommended that the City become the exclusive
provider for commercial solid waste, he accepted that
recommendation and believed it was the right decision. As time
passed, he changed his mind. Council received some persuasive
agruments from staff and citizens. Specifically, Council was
told that the threat of the Subtitle D regulations was
massive. That it might cost the City many millions of
dollars. Council was told and received some evidence from
citizens that the political consideration was very important
and that the entire business community was opposed to the City
becoming the exclusive provider. Council was told that the
offer from Waste Management was a very good one and, initially
compared to the other two bids, looked that way. It seemed
that there was a lack of alternatives and no where else to
turn. Upon a more careful examination, it seemed to him that
there were some additional facts that needed to be considered
and that some of the things that had been thought to be true,
originally, might not be as true as thought. The SWAC
Committee recommended the City keep the system although since
that time, the Chairman of the Committee had changed his mind.
To the best of his knowledge, no other member of the Committee
had changed his/her mind. Council had had the carefully
considered recommendation of the Public Utilities Board that
the City not accept the contract for a number of specific
reasons. At the same time, staff told Council that Subtitle D
was not an important issue. Ayer quoted from a staff report
"the effects of the regulations of Title D on Denton landfill
will be minimal". Above that sentence was a statement that
there was a question of whether the Subtitle D regulations
would be approved. Ayer again quoted a staff report, "the
City's landfill currently meets the vast majority of the
proposed Subtitle D regulations" and "In conclusion, staff does
not feel that the effects of Subtitle D will be nearly as
devastating as we have been led to believe. To a large extent,
consulting firms and private haulers have used the new
regulations as a basis to drum up additional business and
perhaps have generated more concern than was warranted.
City of Denton City Counci~ Minutes
March 5, 1991
Page 25
There is probably no doubt that on landfills with only a few
thousand cubic yards of volume per year activity, they cannot
afford the high cost of permitting and developing a safely
lined landfill, plus the cost of operational personnel, to meet
the daily cover, compaction and monitoring required, but, with
Denton's system of 360,000 cubic yards per year, it is believed
that that the Subtitle D regulations will not substantially
increase Denton's costs". That was one of the major agruments
for putting the system out for bid in the first place. In
addition, Council had been led to believe that the vast
majority of the City's business community and the Chamber of
Commerce believed the City should sell the system. He felt the
report from the Chamber this evening belied that feeling. It
did not indicate that and in addition, Ayer had talked to a
number of businessmen who indicated that they did not want the
Council to sell the service. There was also the matter of
Waste Management's reputation which posed some potential
problems. With regard to the matter of alternatives, there
were other alternatives. The assumption seemed to be that if
the City did not sell the system, the City would stay
permanently in the landfill business. That was not necessarily
the truth. There were other landfills that were being
developed. It had not been mentioned but the Upper Trinity
River Water District was legislatively permitted to get into
the solid waste business and may very likely do so. The City
did not necessarily have to stay in the landfill business if
the City retained the business. If the City sold the system,
it would loose control of the pricing. If the City sold to
Waste Management, there would be very likely be a monopoly and
if not a monopoly, a near monopoly of collection services
within a short time. He did not think the competition was
going to be there and even in the proposed contract, Waste
Management would be given an exclusive, a monopoly, on the
landfill aspect. It was his judgment that it would be very
unwise for the City to divest itsel~ of the commercial solid
waste at this time. To do so without further and more careful
investigation of several factors would be even more unwise. He
believed that the Council should (1) reject the Texas Waste
Management contract and (2) adopt the ordinance providing the
City exclusive service. He believed that the City could not do
one without doing the other. He agreed with the City Manager
that the City could not continue as it presently was. He
believed that the best solution for the City of Denton was to
become the exclusive operator for solid waste collection and
disbursement.
Council Member Trent stated that there were two alternatives
before the Council which needed to be considered. Trent 'quoted
Bob Nelson, Executive Director for Utilities, as saying "this
is going to be a very hard thing to pass up". There was a lot
of money involved and a lot of advantages to be gained. If the
City maintained the services as was done currently, there would
continue to be escalation in the cost of rates. He felt that
if the proposal were passed up, the City would make a mistake.
461
462
city of Denton City Council Minutes
March 5, 1991
Page 26
The following resolution was considered:
NO:R91-013
A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING THE INTENT OF THE CITY
COUNCIL TO SELL THE CITY'S SOLID WASTE COMMERCIAL
SERVICE SYSTEM; TO EXECUTE A CONTRACT WITH WASTE
MANAGEMENT OF TEXAS, INC. TO PROVIDE FOR DISPOSAL
SERVICE AND CONTRACT AND OPERATE A TRANSFER STATION:
AND DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Trent motioned to approve the resolution.
Hearing no second, Mayor Castleberry seconded the motion. On
roll vote, Trent "aye," Alexander "nay," Hopkins "nay," Gorton
"aye," Ayer "nay," Boyd "aye," and Mayor Castleberry "aye."
Motion carried with a 4-3 vote.
Agenda Item 9.A.2., consideration of a resolution finding and
determining that the City of Denton shall be the exclusive
provider of solid waste service in the City of Denton effective
October, 1991, was not considered.
Council considered Agenda Item 8.
8. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance with
regards to the annexation of 1367.12 acres of land located
north of Crawford Road at the intersection of Allred Road and
1-35W (A-59 - Second Reading). (The Planning and Zoning
Commission recommended approval.)
Frank Robbins, Executive Director for Planning, stated this was
the last step in the voluntary annexation. There was a very
detailed zoning plan in conjunction with this annexation. The
proposed annexation had been initiated by the owners of the
tracts in order to facilitate zoning for Planned Development to
allow for light industrial, offices, commercial and
institutional uses. Future detailed planning would include a
more detailed phasing of the utility system in the area,
include discussions with the railroad in the area for potential
spurs in the area, and include discussions with the Airport
Board for possible expansion when dealing with forty story
buildings.
The following ordinance was considered:
City of Denton City Council Minutes
March 5, 1991
Page 27
NO. 9~-033
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, ANNEXING
1,367 ACRES OF LAND LOCATED NORTH OF CRAWFORD ROAD AT
THE INTERSECTION OF ALLRED ROAD AND 1-35W; APPROVING A
SERVICE PLAN FOR THE ANNEXED PROPERTY; TEMPORARILY
PLACING THE PROPERTY IN AN AGRICULTURAL ZONING
DISTRICT; AND DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Hopkins motioned, Alexander seconded to adopt the ordinance.
Council Member Trent stated that based on information that he
had recently been given, there was a planned expansion of the
airport to the south. He was concerned about Robbins statement
regarding a forty story building. If the possibility existed
that a forty story building would exist off the south end of
the runway, there might be a major impact on approaches, etc.
on the airport.
Robbins replied that that issued had been analyzed and would
not constrain the expansion of the airport. A number of other
decisions would be made in the future regarding details of
development on the tract. Zoning regulations would be in
effect and airport zoning regulations would be in effect along
with federal regulations.
On roll vote. Trent "aye," Alexander "aye," Hopkins "aye,"
Gorton "aye," Ayer "aye," Boyd "aye," and Mayor Castleberry
"aye." Motion carried unanimously.
The Council returned to the regular agenda order.
Public Hearings
B. The Council held a public heazing and considered
adoption of an ordinance approving the rezoning and general
concept plan of a 450.2 acre tract from Agricultural District
to Planned Development District on property located on the east
side of 1-35W, bounded by Bonnie Brae, Roark Branch, and
Hickory Creek for a mixed-use development. (The Planning and
Zoning Commission recommended approval.) Z-90-014
Frank Robbins, Executive Director for Planning, stated that
this was a petition for planned development zoning using the
new system. The property was in a special purpose activity
center designed for an economic base for Denton. The standards
were at least equal to or more restrictive than the standards
of comparable straight zoning districts. The City's height
standards would apply as would the federal height standards.
463
464
City of Denton City Council Minutes
March 5, 1991
Page 28
Hopkins motioned, Ayer.. seconded to adopt the ordinance. On
roll vote, Trent "aye," Alexander "aye," Hopkins "aye," Cotton
"aye," Ayer "aye," Boyd "aye," and Mayor Castleberry "aye."
Motion carried unanimously.
It was noted that the public hearing had not been held prior to
voting on the ordinance.
Boyd motioned, Cotton seconded to reconsider the vote~ On roll
vote, Trent "aye," Alexander "aye," Hopkins "aye," Cotton
"aye," Ayer "aye," Boyd "aye," and Mayor Castleberry "aye."
Motion carried unanimously.
The Mayor opened the public hearing.
John Wier, Wier and Associates, stated that over the past
several months they had worked with staff to develop the plan
which had been approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission.
It was a planned development of 450 acres with proximity to the
Airport. In addition to the highway assets to the tract, it
was within the expanded boundary of the special purpose
center. Fifteen percent of the property would be designated as
open space which equaled 69 acres.
Council Member Trent asked Wier regarding the proximity of the
proposal to the Airport.
Wier replied that they did not see any negative impact on the
airport. A twenty story maximum had been set in the
development.
George Gilkeson read a statement to Council from Rick Woolfolk,
Chair-Airport Advisory Board. The statement indicated that
Woolfolk was in favor of growth in the area but was surprised
th&t no plans had been routed through the Airport Advisory
Board or the Airport Manager as the plans were formulated. The
Board,s concern dealt with ensuring that the necessary
regulations were followed as detailed by the Federal Aviation
Administration with regard to air space and safety items.
Woolfolk stated that the Board had not been included in the
process by either the petitioner nor the Planning Department.
He asked the Council to consider the Board's need to be
involved in the evaluation before any further action was
taken. The Board would handle the matter as quickly as
possible and report back to Council immediately. As a member
of the Board, Gilkeson stated that he agreed fully with
Woolfolk's statement. He strongly recommended that the Council
take no action until ~he Airport Board had a chance to review
the proposal.
City of Denton City Council Minutes
March 5, 1991
Page 29
Council Member Trent stated that he had not spoken with the
Airport Board but had the same concern as to why, with the
possibility of the impact that the proposal could have on the
Airport, was the Airport Advisory Board not involved in the
planning process.
City Manager Harrell stated that it was felt that the airport
height zoning restrictions would apply to the development and
that any FAA restrictions would also apply. No place in
Council direction or any other action, had staff or the
Planning and Zoning Commission been asked to route particular
zoning requests through the Airport Board for their review.
What should be done was to take note of the airport height
restrictions and other pertinent FAA information.
Council Member Trent felt that the Board should be included in
the planning process in the future. He asked for assurances
from the City Manager that the Airport Advisory Board would be
included in any future proposals involving the Airport.
City Manager Harrell stated that two decisions needed to be
made. One concerned this case as to whether to proceed and
have the Board briefed on the proposal. The second was a policy
matter such that any zoning case within 3 miles of the Airport
would be refer~ed to the Board before it went to Council. That
had not been the policy in the past and if the Council wished
that to be a new policy, staff needed to be so instructed.
Council Member Trent felt it was a good idea.
Council Member Hopkins felt that it was not necessary to argue
the point that this meeting but should be taken up in a work
session on the best way to route such issues. The Planning and
Zoning Commission did not have a problem with the proposal and
she did not feel the proposal should be delayed.
Council Member Trent stated that there might be a problem with
the proposal that had not been discovered at this time.
Council Member Hopkins stated that this was a concept and the
Planning and Zoning Commission had dealt with the concept.
There were other checkpoints to go through during the
development stages with opportunities to do a more thorough
study in the future.
Council Member Ayer stated that the
specifically stated that it would not
Airport and FAA regulations. He felt
manner of handling the situation.
concept plans each
violate any of the
that was an adequate
465
466
City of Denton City Council Minutes
March 5, 1991
Page 30
M.C. Butch stated that 5-6 years ago, the FAA had concerns
regarding the lighting on a nearby road which might redirect
pilots to land on the road as opposed to the runway. He
wondered if any consideration had been given to that issue.
The Mayor closed the public hearing.
The following ordinance was considered:
NO. 91-034
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, APPROVING A
CHANGE FROM AGRICULTURE (A) TO PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
(PD) ZONING DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION AND USE
DESIGNATION FOR 450.6 ACRES OF LAND LOCATED ALONG U.S.
INTERSTATE 35W AND BOUNDED BY BONNIE BRAE, ROARK
BRANCH, AND HICKORY CREEK; APPROVING A GENERAL CONCEPT
PLAN FOR THE DISTRICT; PROVIDING FOR A PENALTY IN THE
AMOUNT OF $2,000 FOR VIOLATIONS THEREOF; AND PROVIDING
FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Hopkins motioned, Ayer seconded to adopt the ordinance. On
roll vote, Trent "aye," Alexander "aye," Hopkins "aye," Gorton
"aye," Ayer "aye," Boyd "aye," and Mayor Castleberry "aye."
Motion carried unanimously.
C. The Council held a public hearing and considered
adoption of an ordinance approving the rezoning and a general
concept map of a 920.4 acre tract from Agricultural District to
Planned Development District on property located on the east
side of 1-35W, bounded by Roark Branch,. Allred Road, Highway
377 and 1-35W for a mixed use development. (Planning and
Zoning Commission recommended approval.) Z-90-013
The Mayor opened the public hearing.
George Gilkeson stated that the comments and statement from
Rick Woolfolk applied to this proposal as well as to the last
proposal.
Rick Freeman, ~tated that he was in favor of bringing industry
to that area but was concerned with the possibility of forty
story buildings.
Dennis Jerke, Carter and Burgess, stated that they had worked
very diligently with staff regarding the proposal. The
development standards were more restrictive than the Denton
Development Standards. They were in compliance with the
special purpose major activity center and the Master Plan. He
noted that page 5 of the ordinance - section (h) indicated that
City of Denton City Council Minutes
March 5, 1991
Page 31
"all buildings and structures within the district shall also be
subject to the height limitation of the Municipal Airport
Zoning Regulations and federal regulations". There was a
fallback provision for additional height on buildings in case
something were to happen to the airport 25 years from now.
Ron White, Perot Group, stated that they had not talked to the
Airport Advisory Board as they felt the controls were in the
ordinance and the proposal was a general concept plan. At some
point in time, when building and structures were being planned,
the air space requirements would have to be adhered to. He
wanted to go on record indicating that they realized there were
height restrictions existing because of the airport and their
position was one of what could happen down the road.
Bill Miller stated that he had concerns dealing with the north
slope of the Pilot Knob area. He did not want any building to
overshadow Pilot Knob.
The Mayor closed the public hearing.
Frank Robbins, Executive Director for Planning, stated that
this was a special purpose center with intensities within the
policies for that type of development. The standards were
equal to or greater than, in terms of strictness, with
comparable straight zoning districts. The proposal was
following a greenbelt concept. City and federal height
standards would be applicable.
The following ordinance was considered:
NO. 91-035
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, APPROVING A
CHANGE FRO~ AGRICULTURAL (A) TO PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
(PD) ZONING DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION AND USE
DESIGNATION FOR 920.4 ACRES OF LAND LOCATED ON THE
EAST SIDE OF U.S. INTERSTATE HIGHWAY 35W AND BOUNDED
GENERALLY BY ROARK BRANCH ON THE NORTH, ALLRED ROAD ON
THE SOUTH, AND HIGHWAY 377 ON THE EAST; APPROVING A
GENERAL CONCEPT PLAN FOR THE DISTRICT; PROVIDING FOR A
PENALTY IN THE AMOUNT OF $2,000 FOR VIOLATIONS
THEREOF; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Hopkins motioned, Trent seconded to adopt the ordinance. On
roll vote, Trent "aye," Alexander "aye," Hopkins "aye," Gorton
"aye," Ayer "aye," Boyd "aye," and Mayor Castleberry "aye."
Motion carried unanimously.
467
468
City of Denton City Council Minutes
March 5, 1991
Page 32
The Council took a brief recess.
Council Members Ayer, Alexander and Trent were not present
after the recess.
10. The Council received a citizen report from Brian
Nuebling regarding the Fry Street Fair.
Nuebling stated that a package had been included in Council
back-up materials regarding the Fry Street Fair. He reviewed
the purposes and goals of the Fair. For the Fairgoer, it was a
chance to celebrate Spring in unique manner. The Fair provided
a forum for local musicians and allowed the organization to
donate funds to worthwhile causes such as the United Way and
the City of Denton. It also provided local arts, craftsmen,
merchants and food vendors an opportunity to sell their wares
to a large group of interested customers. Another benefit was
that the Fair was a tremendous economical advantage for local
businesses. Although in the past there were some minor
problems, there had never been a major incident in connection
with the Fry Street Fair. The Delta Lodge had met with the Fry
Street Merchants Association, the West Denton Residents and
Business Association and various other individuals.
Council Member Ayer returned to the meeting.
Nuebling continued that the master plan for the Fair took into
account many of the concerns of the Council and of businesses
and residents in the area. One of the groups who had interest
in the Fair was the Grace Temple Baptist Church. When
representatives of the Lodge spoke to the Church several weeks
ago, they did not indicate a serious opposition to the Fair.
It was his understanding that the Church had recently sent a
letter indicating that they had serious concerns regarding the
way the event was conducted.
Council Member Trent returned to the meeting.
Nuebling continued that the master plan included a security map
which showed a police officer stationed from 10:00 a.m. - 8:00
p.m. in the Church parking lot. A second officer would be
stationed there from 12:OO noon - 6:00 p.m. It was felt that
this would eliminate any parking problems or other problems
which might occur in the area.
Council Member Alexander returned to the meeting.
Nuebling stated that the Church services would not be disturbed
as the outdoor music would not begin until 12:30 p.m. and would
end at 5:45 p.m. which was prior to the Church's evening
services. A question regarding access to various businesses
had been mentioned. The business in question was fronted by a
20' fire lane which would be kept unobstructed and access would
be available to that property.
City of Denton City Council Minutes
March 5, 1991
Page 33
The Student Association had unanimously passed a resolution of
support. Nuebling had spoken to Captain Amador of the
University Police Department who indicated that parking would
not be a problem as Fairgoers could park in the campus parking
lots. The Fry Street Fair was a large event which was a
benefit to business and charities.
Mayor Pro Tem Boyd stated that last year the Fair was not held
on Fry Street. How was the attendance and income from the Fair
last year.
Nuebling replied that the attendance and income had increased
due, in part, to the controversy and publicity surrounding it.
The hours o~ the event were also longer at the Fairgrounds. It
was believed that the benefits for holding the Fair at the
Fairgrounds were not the same as the businesses surrounding the
Fairgrounds did not need the additional income as did the
businesses on Fry Street.
Council Member Trent asked what charities received donations
from the proceeds of the Fair.
Nuebling replied past donations were made to the United Way,
$1000 to the D.A.R.E. program, $500 to the Friends of the
Willis Library, $500 to the Denton Christian Preschool. This
year contributions would be made to the Denton Christian
Preschool, the World Wildlife Fund and the USO.
Council Member Hopkins expressed concern regarding the fire
width of the proposed fire lanes. The proposed fire lanes were
to be 20' wide. How wide was the street.
Nuebling replied Fry Street was approximately 40' wide.
council Member Hopkins requests4 a clarification of how two 20'
fire lanes would apply to a 40' street.
Nuebling replied that one fire lane went through a~ parking lot
adjacent to Fry Street. The Fire Marshall had approved the
plan.
Mayor Pro Tem Boyd stated that one of the parking lots was a
lot behind Fry Street and asked who owned the lot.
Nuebling replied that Curtis Loveless owned the lot and was
rented by the owner of Otays.
469
11. The Council received a citizen report from the Fry
Street Merchant's Association regarding the Fry Street Fair.
470'
City of Denton City Council Minutes
March 5, 1991
Page 34
Becky Slusarski, President of the Area Merchants Association,
stated that the Fry Street Fair meant a lot to the businesses
in the area. Construction on Oak Street last year had hurt a
lot of the businesses as did not having the Fair on Fry Street
last year. This year it was hoped that the Fair would help
local businesses recover. She requested the Council approve
the street closing to help the businesses in the area.
Council Member Trent asked for a dollar amount of the impact of
the Fair on the local businesses.
Slusarski replied that the Fair tripled business during the day
plus exposure to individuals to the businesses in the area.
Another speaker from the audience requested to speak to the
Council on the issue.
Council Member Hopkins stated that if another speaker were
allowed to address the issue, then Item 14A. should be moved
ahead in the order so that a decision could be made and any
opposition could be heard at the same time.
Council concurred with Council Member Hopkins' suggestion.
Gary Rich stated that he owned a business on Avenue C. He
stated that the Fry Street Fair gave exposure to Denton from
many parts of the country. The Fair started as a cultural
event and expanded to benefit businesses. He felt that the
complaints from the Church and Mr. Loveless came about due to
the fact that the Fair grew at such a rapid rate. The
originators were not prepared for such a rapid growth of the
Fair but now that aspect had been dealt with.
Item 14.A. was moved ahead in the agenda order.
14. Resolutions
A. The Council considered approval of a resolution
temporarily closing Fry Street between the intersection of Oak
Street and Hickory Street on Sunday, April 14, 1991 for the Fry
Street Fair.
Catherine Tuck, Administrative Assistant, stated that the Delta
Lodge had requested closing a portion of Fry Street on April 14
between Oak and Hickory from 6:00 a.m. - 8:00 p.m. for the
purpose of the lZth annual Fry Street Fair. The Lodge asked
that they be allowed to clean the area and block off the street
beginning at 6:00 a.m. to prepare the booths etc. for the
beginning of the Fair. The Fair would stop at 6:00 p.m. in
order to not interfere with evening Church services and to
clean the area before the street was reopened. A letter of
opposition had been received from the Grace Temple Baptist
Church and opposition was also expressed by Curtis Loveless.
City of Denton City Council Minutes
March 5, 1991
Page 35
The Fry Street Merchants had expressed to Council what the Fair
meant to them and the Council had heard from the Lodge how they
intend to rectify problems which had occurred in the past. No
alcohol was sold at the event, however, ice chests were allowed
to come into the area which was similar to many events in the
City. An issue had been raised concerning denial of right of
access. If the Council were to approve the request, the
question of access would be addressed.
Council Member Alexander asked Tuck how the proposed access to
the property in question would work.
Tuck replied that she had been informed of the problem late in
the afternoon and that the plans were preliminary at this
point. The property in question was a vacant structure.
Vehicle access would be allowed for individuals going to that
property and well as pedestrian access. The area would not be
roped off or guarded off as the rest of the street would be.
Council Member Hopkins stated that she would like, at some
point in time, to have the City Attorney address the issue.
She did not see how access could be guaranteed if thousands of
people were in the area and how the area would be kept open.
Curtis Loveless stated that he was not in opposition to the
Fair. He was in opposition to the location of the Fair. The
Fair at the proposed location would overwhelm the area with too
many people in the area. The local clubs would be open for
business and with a large number of people, the situation would
be terrible. Most of the businesses mentioned were over on
Avenue C or on Hickory. The Fair people wanted to use
Loveless' property for their function. The idea of fences,
portable restrooms, fire lanes, etc. on his properties was not
acceptable. None of those people had the authority to do any
of the proposals. It was not in any of their leases. He
suggested they move the Fair to Fouts Field or to the
Fairgrounds. There was a loud noise problem associated with
the Fair. Fry Street was not the location for the Fair.
Council Member Gorton asked if the parking lot designated for
the restrooms and some booths was Loveless' property.
Loveless replied that he had not seen the map but was told that
it was his property. He suggested the Fair use some of the
University lots which would be in walking distance to the local
businesses.
Winn Walton stated that the Fairgrounds was not an option at
this point in time for the Fair. The intersection of
Bell/Dallas Drive was closed for a couple of weeks against the
wishes of many of the merchants. The proposal was for a one
day permit for a much smaller street.
47'2
City of Denton City Council Minutes
March 5, 1991
Page 36
Debra Drayovitch, City Attorney, stated that on Friday
afternoon, Mr. Loveless informed her that he would be objecting
to the closing of Fry Street. Loveless informed her that he
had at least one property in the area which was vacant which
abutted Fry Street. Research by staff revealed that an
abutting property owner had the right of access to his process
via the street. To deprive him of that right, without his
consent, could entitle the owner to damages. If the property
were leased, research indicated that that right of access was
passed on to the tenant. Therefore, it would not be applicable
to leased property. It was her recommendation that if there
were an objection of an abutting owner, that the street not be
closed over the objection unless his access could be assured.
Mayor Pro Tem Boyd stated that the Fire Marshall had approved
the fire plan which included fire lanes across Loveless'
property. Loveless indicated that he had not given approval to
that plan and had stated that no one else had the right to give
such approval. Could the Fire Marshall approve a fire lane
over Loveless' objection.
City Attorney Drayovitch stated that it was her understanding
that the parking lot was leased to the owner of Otays and that
as such, if it were under his use and control, he had would
have the authority to make those decisions and representations.
Council Member Ayer asked the City Attorney that if Loveless
owned property fronting on/abutting Fry Street which was not
leased to another tenant and under his control, that if
Loveless objected to the street closing, the Council would be
violating a law by voting to close the street.
City Attorney Drayovitch stated that the Council would not be
violating a law, however, case law indicated that if an owner
w~re deprived right of access, then he was entitled' to receive
compensation for any damages he would suffer.
Council Member Ayer stated that then the City would be
incurring a liability.
City Attorney Drayovitch stated that that was a possibility.
With the ease of the earlier street closing, there were no
abutting owners who were denied access. The property owners
who were in opposition to the closing still had access to the
property.
Council Member Trent asked that if the closure were approved,
could Loveless ~ile suit for damages.
City of Denton City Council Minutes
March 5, 1991
Page 37
City Attorney Drayovitch replied yes.
Council Member Ayer felt that a crucial question was whether or
not the access that the Lodge had stated it could provide for
Loveless was indeed a viable solution.
Council Member Alexander asked if the question of access be a
matter to be determined by a court later after the fact. The
City might intend to provide access but if it could not be
guaranteed, then the City would not have met its legal
obligation.
City Attorney Drayovitch stated that Loveless would have to
show that he was indeed denied access.
The following resolution was considered:
A RESOLUTION TEMPORARILY CLOSING FRY STREET BETWEEN
THE INTERSECTION OF OAK STREET AND HICKORY STREET ON
SUNDAY, APRIL 14, 1991 FOR THE FRY STREET FAIR.
Trent motioned, Ayer seconded to approve the resolution. On
roll vote, Trent "aye," Alexander "nay," Hopkins "nay," Gorton
"nay," Ayer "aye," Boyd "aye," and Mayor Castleberry "nay."
Motion failed with a 4-3 vote.
The Council returned to the regular agenda order.
12.
Consent Agenda
Ayer motioned, Hopkins seconded to approve the Consent Agenda.
Motion carried unanimously.
A. Bids and Purchase Orders:
1. Bid ~1162 - Retool City Municipal Building
Bid #1163 - Retool Central Fire Station
P.O. #11982 - J & S Equipment
4. P.O. #12204 - T & R Electric
B. Tax Refunds
1. Considered approval of a tax refund to
Sunbelt Savings Association of Texas for
$4,419.48.
Considered approval of a tax refund to Dale
E. Yeatts for $1,107.64.
473
474
City of Denton City Council Minutes
March 5, 1991
Page 38
13. Ordinances
A. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance
accepting competitive bids and providing for the award of
contracts for public works or improvements. (12.A.1. - Bid
~1162, 12.A.2. - Bid ~1163)
The following ordinance was considered:
NO. 91-036
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, Ayer seconded to adopt the ordinance. On roll
vote, Trent "aye," Alexander "aye," Hopkins "aye," Gorton
"aye," Ayer "aye," Boyd "aye," and Mayor Castleberry "aye."
Motion carried unanimously.
B. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance
providing for the expenditure of funds for emergency purchases
of materials, equipment, supplies or services in accordance
with the provisions of state law exempting such purchases from
requirements of competitive bids. (12.A.3. - P.O. ~11982,
12.A.4. - P.O. ~12204)
The following ordinance was considered:
NO. 91-037
AN ORDINANCE PROVIDING FOR THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS
FOR EMERGENCY PURCHASES OF MATERIALS, EQUIPMENT,
SUPPLIES OR SERVICES IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS
OF STATE LAW EXEMPTING SUCH PURCHASES FROM
REQUIREMENTS OF COMPETITIVE BIDS; AND PROVIDING FOR AN
EFFECTIVE DATE.
Gorton motioned, Hopkins seconded to adopt the ordinance. On
roll vote, Trent "aye," Alexander "aye." Hopkins "aye," Gorton
"aye," Ayer "aye." Boyd "aye," and Mayor Castleberry "aye."
Motion carried unanimously.
C. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance
accepting competitive bids and providing for the award of
contracts for the purchase of materials, equipment, supplies or
services. (Bid ~iZZ0 - Z refuse trucks)
City of Denton City Council Minutes
March 5, 1991
Page 39
The following ordinance was considered:
NO. 91-038
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.
Ayer motioned, Alexander seconded to adopt the ordinance. On
roll vote, Trent "aye," Alexander "aye," Hopkins "aye," Gorton
"aye," Ayer "aye," Boyd "aye," and Mayor Castleberry "aye."
Motion carried unanimously.
D. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance
approving amended fees and charges for overdue books and
materials for the Emily Fowler Library. (The Library Board
recommended approval.)
The following ordinance was considered:
NO. 91-039
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS APPROVING
AMENDED FEES AND CHARGES FOR OVERDUE BOOKS AND
MATERIALS FOR THE EMILY FOWLER PUBLIC LIBRARY; AND
PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Alexander motioned, Gorton seconded to adopt the ordinance. On
roll vote, Trent "aye," Alexander "aye," Hopkins "aye," Gorton
"aye," Ayer "aye," Boyd "aye." and Mayor Castleberry "aye."
Motion carried unanimously.
E. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance
establishing cost for street lighting services pursuant to
Section 25-21 of Chapter 25 of the Code of Ordinances and
repealing ordinances in conflict therewith. (The Public
Utilities Board recommended approval.)
Bob Nelson, Executive Director for Utilities, stated that
approximately every other year, the prices charged developers
for street lights were updated.
The following ordinance was considered:
NO. 91-040
AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING COST FOR STREET LIGHTING
SERVICES PURSUANT TO SECTION 25-Zl OF CHAPTER Z5 OF
THE CODE OF ORDINANCES; REPEALING ORDINANCES IN
CONFLICT THEREWITH: AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE
DATE.
475
476
City of Denton City Council Minutes
March 5, 1991
Page 40
Boyd motioned, Gorton seconded to adopt the ordinance. On roll
vote, Trent "aye," Alexander "aye," Hopkins "aye," Gorton
"aye," Ayer "aye." Boyd "aye." and Mayor Castleberry "aye."
Motion carried unanimously.
F. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance
providing for a change from Agricultural "A" to Office "O"
zoning district classification and use designation for 225,000
square feet of land located on Bonnie Brae Street; and
providing for a penalty in the maximum amount of $2,000 for
violations thereof. Z-90-015
The following ordinance was considered:
NO. 91-041
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, PROVIDING
FOR A CHANGE FROM AGRICULTURAL "A" TO OFFICE "O"
ZONING DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION AND USE DESIGNATION FOR
225,000 SQUARE FEET OF LAND LOCATED ON BONNIE BRAE
STREET; PROVIDING FOR A PENALTY IN THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT
OF $2,000 FOR VIOLATIONS THEREOF; AND PROVIDING FOR AN
EFFECTIVE DATE.
Boyd motioned, Ayer seconded to adopt the ordinance. On roll
vote, Trent "aye," Alexander "aye." Hopkins "aye," Gorton
"aye," Ayer "aye," Boyd "aye," and Mayor Castleberry "aye."
Motion carried unanimously.
G. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance
approving a settlement agreement in Dyson v. City of Denton.
The following ordinance was considered:
NO. 91-042
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, APPROVING A
COMPROMISE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF
DENTON AND ROBIN DYSON; AND DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE
DATE.
Hopkins motioned, Gorton seconded to adopt the ordinance. On
roll vote, Trent "aye," Alexander "aye," Hopkins "aye," Gorton
"aye," Ayer "aye," Boyd "aye," and Mayor Castleberry "aye."
Motion carried unanimously.
City of Denton City Council Minutes
March 5, 1991
Page 41
14. Resolutions
A. This item was considered earlier in the meeting.
B. The Council considered approval of a resolution
authorizing the submission of an application to the Texas
Criminal Justice Division requesting continued funding for a
drug abuse resistance education officer. (D.A.R.E. Program)
Rick Svehla, Deputy City Manager, stated that the grant was
requesting two officers for the D.A.R.E. program. The funding
for the second officer would come from the School District.
The following resolution was considered:
NO. R91-014
A RESOLUTION BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON,
TEXAS. AUTHORIZING THE SUBMISSION OF AN APPLICATION TO
THE TEXAS CRIMINAL JUSTICE DIVISION REQUESTING
CONTINUED FUNDING FOR A DRUG ABUSE RESISTANCE
EDUCATION OFFICER AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Boyd motioned, Ayer seconded to approve the resolution. On
roll vote, Trent "aye," Alexander "aye," Hopkins "aye," Gorton
"aye," Ayer "aye," Boyd "aye," and Mayor Castleberry "aye."
Motion carried unanimously.
C. The Council considered approval of a resolution
accepting Minute Order 91218 adopted by the Texas Highway
Commission regarding improvements to U.S. 377 from Interstate
Highway 35-E to U. S. Highway 77 (Collins.Street).
Rick Svehla, Deputy City Manager, stated that the Minute Order
followed the Council's request recommended by the '91 Committee
that the City use uncommitted street bond money for
improvements to U.S. 377 from I35 to Highway 77.
The following resolution was considered:
NO.R91-O15
A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE MINUTES ORDER NUMBER 91218
ADOPTED BY THE TEXAS HIGHWAY COMMISSION REGARDING
IMPROVEMENTS TO U.S. 377, FROM INTERSTATE HIGHWAY 35-E
TO U.S. HIGHWAY 77 (COLLINS STREET); AND PROVIDING AN
EFFECTIVE DATE.
Boyd motioned, Gorton seconded to approve the resolution. On
roll vote, Trent "aye," Alexander "aye," Hopkins "aye," Gorton
"aye," Ayer "aye," Boyd "aye," and Mayor Castleberry "aye."
Motion carried unanimously.
477
478
City of Denton City Council Minutes
March 5, 1991
Page 42
D. The Council considered approval of a resolution
supporting the proposed extension of Loop 288 from the existing
Loop 288 to FM 2181 and encouraging the State Highway and
Public Transportation Commission to designate the proposed
extension of Loop 288 as a State Highway.
Rick Svehla, Deputy City'Manager, stated that the resolution
not only included Loop 288 but also Hwy. 2499. The resolution
would be added to resolutions from other cities when staff
appeared before the Highway Commission.
The following resolution was considered:
NO. R91-016
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON
SUPPORTING THE PROPOSED EXTENSION OF LOOP 288 FROM
EXISTING LOOP 288 TO FM 2181 AND ENCOURAGING THE STATE
HIGHWAY AN PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION TO
DESIGNATE THE PROPOSED EXTENSION OF LOOP 288 AS A
STATE HIGHWAY AND GRANT THE PROJECT LEVEL II
AUTHORIZATION $O THAT LOCAL GOVERNMENTS MAY PROCEED
WITH NEEDED ALIGNMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES: AND
PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Boyd motioned, Trent seconded to approve the resolution. On
roll vote, Trent "aye," Alexander "aye," Hopkins "aye," Gorton
"aye." Ayer "aye," Boyd "aye," and Mayor Castleberry "aye."
Motion carried unanimously.
E. The Council considered approval of a resolution
authorizing the City Manager to execute a lease between the
City of Denton and the Federal Aviation Administration for land
at the Denton Municipal Airport for the localizer, glide slope,
middle marker, and medium intensity approach lighting system
with runway alignment (MALSR).
Rick Svehla, Deputy City Manager, stated that this was a
request from the FAA. Their policy was to renew the lease
agreements every year, however, due to vacancies in the FAA, it
had been at least three years since the Council had had to act
on this type of lease.
Council Member Gorton asked if the Airport Advisory Board had
made a recommendation.
Svehla replied that all of the members had been called and each
had indicated that he did not have a problem with the
resolution.
City of Denton City Council Minutes
March 5, 1991
Page 43
479
The following resolution was considered:
NO. R91-017
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A
LEASE BETWEEN THE CITY OF DENTON AND THE FEDERAL
AVIATION ADMINISTRATION FOR LAND AT THE DENTON
MUNICIPAL AIRPORT FOR THE LOCALIZER, GLIDE SLOPE,
MIDDLE MARKER, AND MEDIUM INTENSITY APPROACH LIGHTING
SYSTEM WITH RUNWAY ALIGNMENT (MALSR); AND PROVIDING
FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Hopkins motioned, Trent seconded to approve the resolution. On
roll vote, Trent "aye," Alexander "aye," Hopkins "aye," Gorton
"aye." Ayer "aye," Boyd "aye," and Mayor Castleberry "aye."
Motion carried unanimously.
F. The Council considered approval of a resolution
of the City Council of the City of Denton, Texas recognizing
the petition of Flow Regional Medical Center, Inc. to be
designated as the recipient non-profit organization to continue
existence and administer assets in lieu of dissolution of the
former Flow Memorial Hospital.
The following resolution was considered:
NO. R91-018
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
DENTON, TEXAS RECOGNIZING THE PETITION OF FLOW
REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER, INC. TO BE DESIGNATED AS THE
RECIPIENT NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATION TO CONTINUE
EXISTENCE AND ADMINISTER ASSETS IN LIEU OF DISSOLUTION
OF THE FORMER FLOW MEMORIAL HOSPITAL; AND PROVIDING AN
EFFECTIVE DATE.
Gorton motioned, Alexander seconded to approve the resolution.
On roll vote, Trent "aye," Alexander "aye," Hopkins "aye,"
Gorton "aye," Ayer "aye," Boyd "aye," and Mayor Castleberry
"aye." Motion carried unanimously.
15.
Miscellaneous matters from the City Manager.
Lloyd Harrell, City Manager, presented the following items:
A. Staff had been forced to close the tennis courts
at the Nette Schultz Park as they had become very hazardous.
The Park Board had been advised of the situation and concurred
with the decision to close the courts.
482
City of Denton City Council Minutes
March 5, 1991
Page 44
B. The latest sales tax numbers had been received.
For the first four months of the fiscal year, the City was down
about $48,000 over budget pro)ections. The last month came up
more than $20,000 over.
C. Staff was recommending that the Council encourage
the passage of H.B. 943 which allowed cities a 1/2~ sales tax
increase by a vote of the people the proceeds to be used to
reduce property taxes. Under current state law, Denton was
prohibited from putting that to a vote of the people because a
part of Denton County was in the DART Regional Transportation
System. This bill would take out the provision that prohibited
cities in similar circumstances from voting on this type of tax.
16. There was no official action taken on Executive
Session items during the Work Session.
17. New Business
There were no items of New Business suggested by
Council Members for future agendas.
Mayor Castleberry stated that he had been working on a project
which involved coordinating the efforts of the various drug
groups such as D.A.R.E. and the high school groups. If Council
had no objection, he would move ahead in locating a coordinator
to combine efforts of the different groups.
Consensus of the Council was to proceed with the pro~ect.
18. The Council convened into Executive Session into the
Executive Session to discuss legal matters (considered action
in County vs. City and received legal advise regarding
qualifications of Candidates and Council Members), 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.)
The Council reconvened into open session and took the following
action:
A. Boyd motioned, Alexander seconded to reappoint
the following members to the Animal Shelter Advisory Board:
Nonie Kull, Jesus Navao <~etty Johnson, Steven Meyerdick and
Mike Widmer. Motion carried unanimously.
City of Denton City Council Minutes
March 5, 1991
Page 45
With no further businesS, the meeting was adjourned.
483
CI~% SECR~ARY
CITY~ OF DENTON, TEXAS
BOB CASTLEBERRY, MAYO~
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS/
/
3359C