Loading...
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