Minutes March 19, 1991CITY OF DENTON CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
MARCH 19, 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 Ayero Gorton, Hopkins and Trent.
ABSENT:
Council Member Alexander
1. The Council convened into Executive Session to discuss
legal matters (considered settlement offer of claim against
Jimmy Brown and George Reaves, considered settlement offer of
claim against R. Havenhill, considered settlement in Kelsoe v.
City), real estate, and personnel/board appointments
(considered appointments to the Building Code Board, Community
Development Block Grant Committee, the Electrical Code Board,
the Historic Landmark Commission, the Human Services Committee,
the Blue Ribbon Committee for Storm Water Utility, the Downtown
Advisory Board and the Sign Board of Appeals.)
2. The Council received a
with the Park and Recreation
modifying the use of CIP funds.
report and held a
Board regarding a
discussion
resolution
Dalton Gregory, Chair-Park and Recreation Board, stated that
the Park Board was proposing that the City redirect the $2.7
million from the 1986 bond program in the recreation area.
$1.3 million was to be used for a recreation center in the
northeast part of the City and $1.4 million was to be used to
build a recreation center in the southern part of the City.
The building of these centers had been delayed due to the
downturn of the economy. The Board was recommending that
instead of building new recreation centers, it would like to
expand and renew the current recreation centers and/or use some
of the money to do major repairs to current facilities.
Reasons for this recommendation included the fact that the
current City budget was barely adequate to handle the current
facilities. This included the parks, median strips as well as
the recreation centers. The centers were not open as many
hours as they should be. It did not seem prudent to build new
facilities when the operational budget did not handle the
current facilities. The Board would like to concentrate on
improving the current facilities and on improving the services
provided at those facilities. There was another solution which
was to give more money to the park operational and maintenance
budget. To accomplish the change, the Park Board wanted to
have a series of pubic meetings to collect input from the
citizens regarding their reaction to the proposal and the kinds
of improvements/modifications they would like to see in the
current recreation centers. After those meetings and meetings
with possible architects to determine if the modifications were
possible, the Board would like the Council to place the issue
on the 1992 May election as a referendum item. The Board was
proposing a referendum to the citizens because in 1986, the
City promised that if the citizens voted for ~he bonds,'ee~taifl
01
02
City of Denton City Council Minutes
March 19, 1991
Page 2
facilities would be built. Gregory understood that legally the
City did not have to have voter approval to change the use of
the proposed bond money, but he felt that it would not be good
for public relations.
Council Member Ayer asked if this proposal had been discussed
with the '91 Committee.
Gregory replied no.
Council Member Ayer stated that that should be the first place
the Board go with the proposal. The '91 Committee was designed
to track the bond money so that it could not be charged that
the money was used for purposes other than what the citizens
voted for.
Gregory replied that the Board arrived at its recommendation
because it saw that there was no commitment on the part of the
City to devote money to the operational budgets of the current
centers.
Lloyd Harrell, City Manager. stated that Gregory had correctly
stated the financial position of the City. Unless there were
some major policy shifts to come up with additional funds, it
would be very difficult to open two new centers. He had a
concern regarding timing of the referendum. When the time came
to ask the citizens regarding the change in funding, the City
needed to be in a position to move forward with the plans. If
the City went to the voters in 1992 to ask for a referendum, it
needed to be sure that its financial house was in order to
proceed with the work. His concern was not with the direction
the Park Board was taking, but rather one of timing.
Council Member Trent questioned the operational hours of the
recreation facilities. The tennis courts could not be
self-sustaining if they were closed on Saturday and Sunday.
Steve Brinkman, Director of Parks and Recreation, stated that
the courts were mainly used on the weekends for tournaments.
If they were not being used for tournaments, they were
available for use but no one was there to charge for the use of
the courts.
Trent felt that the City might be missing out on possible
revenue. He felt there should be a better focus on the courts
such as having the center open, staffed and receive payment for
use of the courts. He also suggested equipment sales at the
center. He heard that there was a group of players who
dominated the use of the courts on the weekends.
City of Denton City Council Minutes
March 19, 1991
Page 3
Gregory replied that the tennis courts were not the main item
of discussion. The bond program, passed in 1986, was to build
two additional recreation centers. The City did not charge
individuals to use the centers. The Board's stance was that
there were gaps in the current services to citizens. Revenue
could not be generated if the services could not be provided.
Carl Anderson, Park and Recreation Board, stated that the
Martin Luther King, Jr. Recreation Center was the most used
center in the City. Yet, it closed at 3:30 p.m. on Saturday
and was not open on Sunday.
Consensus of the Council was to have the Park Board meet with
the '91 Committee, to meet with the north and south parts of
the City for citizen input and to consider the timing when to
hold the referendum.
3. The Council received a report and held a discussion on
the 1990 census and the redistricting process.
Harry Persuad, Senior Planner, reviewed the growth of the
City's population over the last ten years. He presented the
ethnic breakdown of the various districts in the City. He
stated that some of the current City district lines split
current County precinct lines. According to the federal
guidelines, the ideal district population was equal to the
total population divided by the number of districts. Allowing
for 5% deviation from the mean, a district population should be
within the range of 15,739-17,395. District I and District II
both exceeded the equality of population range. District III
fell short of the minimum size while District IV had an
acceptable number representing 3.87% deviation from the ideal
district population. Persuad stated that he had met with the
County regarding their schedule of redistricting and possible
boundary changes. The County Clerk assured the City that the
county lines would not change within the City as their criteria
for redistricting was that the precincts should be
approximately 3,000 population. The precincts which were under
or way over were not within the City limits. Staff felt that
the City could proceed with its redistricting as the County's
precincts lines within the City would not change.
Council Member Gorton asked if the County used number of
registered voters instead of population the last time it
redistricted.
Persuad replied yes that it was his understanding that total
population or number of registered voters could be used for the
district figures.
¸0 3
04
City of Denton City Council Minutes
March 19, 1991
Page 4
Persuad suggested that the Council form a committee to work
along with staff to begin the process as soon as possible.
Mayor Pro Tem Boyd stated that the County districts were very
large. If the City were to draw its district lines so as to
not split County precincts and as a result deviated more than
5% from the totals, could that be done with the justification
of not wanting to split County precincts.
Persuad replied yes that it would have to be justified. If the
deviation were not much beyond 5%, justification would have to
be written. If it were way beyond the 5%, alternatives might
have to be looked at.
Council Member Gorton stated that last September he had
requested looking at a Charter Revision Committee. He felt
that the three-four make-up of the Council might be
challenged. He felt that any such Charter revisions would need
to be presented at the same time district lines were considered.
City Manager Harrell stated that the Council might want to wait
until the County set the precinct lines in July. The Council
might want to appoint one or two individuals to meet with the
County Commissioners and encourage the Commissioners to be more
realistic in drawing Denton's precinct lines.
Mayor Castleberry thought it might be too early to meet with
the Commissioners regarding this issue.
Persuad stated that staff would like to have the final
submission sent to the Justice Department by the end of
November so as to give them enough time to approve any changes
for the May 1992 election.
Mayor Pro Tem Boyd did not feel it was too early to talk with
the Commissioners regarding the City's precinct lines. He
suggested appointing one or more delegates to talk with the
Commissioners.
4. The Council received a report and held a discussion
regarding the concepts associated with amending the Subdivision
and Land Development Regulations.
Council Member Alexander joined the meeting.
Frank Robbins, Executive Director for Planning, stated that the
proposed amendments dealt primarily with the process of
Dlatting rather than the development standards a development
must meet when it was platted. Robbins presented a summary of
amendments for the process. (A detailed summary of the
amendments were located in the agenda back-up materials.)
City of Denton City Council Minutes
March 19, 1991
Page 5
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, Ayero Gorton, and Trent.
ABSENT:
Council Member Hopkins
Pledge of Allegiance
The Council and members of the audience recited the Pledge of
Allegiance.
David Pullan, Texas Society of Professional Engineers,
presented the City with the Government Professional Development
Award for 1991.
Council Member Hopkins joined the meeting.
Mayor Castleberry presented a proclamation for Desert Storm
Victory Rally Day.
2. The Council was to receive a citizen report from Carl
Williams regarding redistricting.
Mr. Williams was not present at the meeting.
3. The Council received a citizen report from Joyce Poole
regarding certain items in the proposed contract with Texas
Waste Management.
Ms. Poole stated that the original bid letting was limited to
the sale of commercial solid waste business including trucks
and equipment to handle the waste. The City had the right to
direct the disposal of the collected waste to the City landfill
at a charge of $3.45 per cubic yard which was in the bid
specifications. According to the Public Utilities Board
minutes of February 18, 1991, Texas Waste Management had "read
the contract and had no objections." There were three
representatives of Texas Waste Management present who took no
exceptions to the terms of the bids as it stood. Prior to the
Council meeting of February 5, 1991, Texas Waste Management
advised that they would not honor their bid if they were
required to dispose of their waste at the Denton landfill.
From that point on, negotiations evolved and changed the
contract so that it no longer impacted on the commercial
businesses only. The revisions required all haulers who were
picking up commercial waste to dispose of that waste in a Texas
Waste Management site, which effectively removed true and open
competition. Other points which came from the negotiated
contract began to evolve with a possible transfer site. After
the City's landfill was closed, the City would be required to
haul waste to the DFW landfill owned by Texas Waste
Management. That proposed cost would be approximately $14,000
a month over
05
City of Denton City Council Minutes
March 19. 1991
Page 6
what the City now paid to dispose of residential waste in the
City's landfill. She felt that citizens and businesses were
not made aware of changes in the contracts and how it would
impact on each of them. In less than a week she had collected
over 800 signatures in opposition to the sale of the system.
She stated that should the City ignore what the citizens had
asked, individuals were willing to carry the issue to a
referendum.
4. The Council received a
Cochran regarding the proposed
Management.
citizen report from Mike
contract with Texas Waste
Mr. Cochran felt that everyone who spoke at the last public
hearing on this issue was in favor of open competition. He
presented Council with a rate survey of what other cities paid
for service from Waste Management. He felt that when 95% of
the business was in the hands of a powerful company such as
Waste Management. there was a de facto monopoly. And when they
controlled for the next 20 years, where that garbage would go,
there was an even stronger case for a monopoly. Waste
Management's reputation was not the best and needed to be
looked at carefully before the City went into a long term
contract with them. He was under the assumption that the
commercial solid waste division lost money but after
discussions with Bill Angelo. he learned that the division made
$100,000 last year. Everyone was concerned to keep the
residential rates low but the payments made by Waste Management
would keep the residential rates artificially low for the next
10 years.
5. The Council received a citizen
representative from Texas Waste Management
proposed contract with Texas Waste Management.
report from a
regarding the
John Gustafson, General Manager - Texas Waste Management,
stated that the company had grown from serving 3 municipalities
in 1981 to serving over 30 municipalities in 1991. The service
and reputation of the company had been outstanding over the
last ten years. Waste Management was the pioneer in pollution
control and was the first major waste service to address the
problem of ground water protection. Opposition to the contract
seemed concern that as a result of the proposed contract, they
would control the commercial business in Denton. Businesses
would have a choice of which company to do business with. A
competitor was asked by Council if they could compete in a
market where Texas Waste Management controlled the disposal
facility. The response was that they would not "stand a
snowball,s chance in hell of competing.,, Yet after the Council
passed the resolution, they began actively pursuing City
customers. Another concern was the proposed transfer station.
As proposed to the City, the transfer station rates were
controlled by contract. Texas Waste Management would not have
City of Denton City Council Minutes
March 19, 1991
Page 7
any special rates and no special considerations. Waste
Management was guaranteeing and bonding for 20 years of
disposal for the City of Denton. Opponents to the contract had
neglected the following facts: (1) Denton's residential rates
for comparable municipal services were the highest in North
Central Texas; (2) Staff projected that if the City stayed in
the landfill business, the rates would go from $9.95 to $13.85
in 1999; (3) if the City stayed in the landfill business, the
cost to expand the present landfill life would be $3-$4
million: (4) if the City stayed the the landfill business, the
development of a new site would be required; (5) if the City
stayed in the landfill business, the cost of a new site
development would be $7-$8 million in today's dollars; (6) if
the City stayed in the landfill business, the costs would be
paid by the customers and the taxpayers. These facts along
with the information presented by staff clearly showed that the
infusion of $6.1 million of hard cash and cost savings combined
with the elimination of $10 million in expenditures for
landfill development and associated liability was not only good
for the City and its citizens, it was a gift to the environment.
Mayor Pro Tem Boyd stated that one of the objections that had
been raised most often, was the requirement that all the
carriers use the Waste Management facilities. He could
understand the City's interest in having that provision while
it was receiving the surcharge and other compensation regarding
the transfer station. If after the City had been fully paid,
would it be possible to remove that provision. That there
would not be a requirement that others use Waste Management,s
transfer station.
Gustafson replied that the contracts were in the hands of the
attorneys. That could be addressed in negotiating those items.
6. The Council received a citizen report from Winn Walton
regarding the Fry Street Fair.
Walton stated Mr. Loveless, legal argument that he would sue
the City was a rather weak one. As he understood the
procedure, it took someone who voted against the measure, to
recall it back to the floor. He asked if anyone cared to do
that.
Council Member Gorton asked the City Attorney to address the
issue in that the time frame for reconsideration had passed.
Debra Drayovitch, City Attorney, stated that according to the
Council's rules of procedure, in order to reconsider an item
that had been voted on, one of the Council members who voted in
the majority must request reconsideration on the next
succeeding meeting, except for contracts.
07
08
City of Denton City Council Minutes
March 19, 1991
Page 8
Walton pointed out that this was the next succeeding meeting.
City Attorney Drayovitch replied that in accordance with the
Texas Open Meetings Law, that item had to be scheduled on the
agenda 72 hours before the meeting.
Walton did not wish to continue with his report and retired.
7. The Council received a citizen report from Bill Miller
regarding the Fry Street Fair.
Miller stated that the Student Association of the University of
North Texas voted to co-sponsor the Fry Street Fair. Part of
the arguments of the Fair in the past had been that the shops
were too close to the street, the street was too narrow, the
street was too short, it was too popular with too many people.
The proposal for a new location for the Fair would be on Avenue
A. All of the shop owners had been contacted along that area
and he had had discussions with Chancellor Hurley. Chancellor
Hurley had concerns regarding alcohol consumption and had been
assured that it was not sold at the Fair. They had an
agreement with an individual who owned a large parking lot in
the area to have the Fair in that location. Every year the
Student Association had a banquet and it was decided that the
banquet would be at the Fair this year. That area could be
fenced off and controlled and was not City property.
8. The Council received a citizen ~report from Gary Rich
regarding the Fry Street Fair.
Mr. Rich was not present at the meeting.
9. The Council received a citizen report from Brian
Neubling regarding the Fry Street Fair.
Mr. Neubling was not present at the meeting.
10. The Council received a citizen report from Griggs
Bennett regarding the Fry Street Fair.
Mr. Bennett was not present at the meeting.
11. The Council received a citizen report from Gail
Wohlschlaeger regarding the Fry Street Fair.
Ms. Wohlschlaeger was not present at the meeting.
12. The Council received a citizen
Slusarski regarding the Fry Street Fair.
Ms. Slusarski was not present at the meeting.
report from Becky
City of Denton City Council Minutes
March 19, 1991
Page 9
13.
Consent Agenda
Hopkins motioned, Gorton seconded to approve the Consent Agenda
with the exception of Items 13.A.3. and 13.A.4. Motion carried
unanimously.
A. Bids and Purchase Orders:
Bid ~1224 - Fertilizer & Herbicide
Bid ~1227 - Police Sedans
B. Tax Refunds
Considered approval of a waiver of
Penalty/Interest for Mike Amador - Account
~297810.
Considered approval of a waiver of
Penalty/Interest for Kenneth L. Ford, Jr. -
Account ~283050
Item 13.A.3. was considered.
Council Member Gorton stated that he did not see any actuators
for emergency vehicles to be installed. He felt it would be an
ideal time to install the actuators as the University of North
Texas was paying for the hardware. Welch was a major street in
the area and would benefit from the actuators.
City Manager Harrell stated that staff had been working with
the University of North Texas for probably a year trying to
negotiate a cooperative venture to get the signals installed.
Rick Svehla. Deputy City Manager, stated that much of the
negotiations had evolved around the use generated by the
University. He was not sure that the opticom system for the
signals was the total responsibility of the University.
Gorton motioned, Hopkins seconded to approve Consent Agenda
Item 13.A.3. Motion carried unanimously.
A. Bids and Purchase Orders:
3. P.O. ~12447
Controls
- Traffic Engineering and
09
10
City of Denton City Council Minutes
March 19, 1991
Page 10
Item 13.A.4. was considered.
Council Member Gorton stated that this was an unbudgeted item
regarding the current landfill for approximately $34,000.
These were areas where the landfill continued to cost the
general fund money on an ongoing basis.
Gorton motioned, Hopkins seconded to approve Consent Agenda
Item 13.A.4. Motion carried unanimously.
Council Member Trent asked for a report on the amount of money
spent on this type of item.
A. Bids and Purchase Orders:
4. P.O. ~12446 - Rone Engineering
14. Ordinances
A. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance
accepting competitive bids and providing for the award of
contracts for the purchase of materials, equipment, supplies or
services. (13.A.1. - Bid ~1224; 13.A.2. - Bid ~1227)
The following ordinance was considered:
NO. 91-043
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.
Boyd 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.
B. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance
providing for the expenditure of funds for purchases of
materials or equipment which are available from one source in
accordance with the provisions of state law exempting such
purchases from requirements of competitive bids. (13.A.3. -
P.O. ~12447)
City of Denton City Council Minutes
March 19, 1991
Page 11
The following ordinance was considered:
NO. 91-044
AN ORDINANCE PROVIDING FOR THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS
FOR PURCHASES OF MATERIALS OR EQUIPMENT WHICH ARE
AVAILABLE FROM ONLY ONE SOURCE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE
PROVISIONS OF STATE LAW EXEMPTING SUCH PURCHASES FROM
REQUIREMENTS OF COMPETITIVE BIDS: AND PROVIDING AN
EFFECTIVE DATE.
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.
C. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance
for professional services - Rone Engineering. (12.A.4. - P.O.
~12446)
The following ordinance was considered:
NO. 91-045
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.
Hopkins 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
authorizing the Mayor to execute a contract between the City of
Denton and the North Texas Umpires Association for officiating
softball games for City leagues. (The Park and Recreation
Board recommended approval.)
The following ordinance was considered:
NO. 91-046
AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE A
CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY OF DENTON AND THE NORTH
TEXAS UMPIRES ASSOCIATION FOR OFFICIATING SOFTBALL
GAMES FOR CITY LEAGUES: AND DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE
DATE.
11
12
City of Denton City Council Minutes
March 19, 1991
Page 12
Steve Brinkman, Director of Parks and Recreation, stated that
this contract would allow the City to enter into a contract for
umpires for various adult sports leagues. It was an annual
contract for these services.
Hopkins 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.
E. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance
modifying certain fees and charges for recreation and park
facilities.
Steve Brinkman, Director for Parks and Recreation, stated that
staff had reviewed the existing charges and was recommending
modification in certain areas. The Park Board had approved all
of the fee modifications with the exception of the tennis
admission and season pass rates. These charges were being
recommended by staff to meet revenue requirements that the
facility generate 50% of the operation and maintenance costs
through fees and charges.
City Manager Harrell stated that several months ago Council had
discussed various recreation services offered by the City.
Council had asked staff to survey other cities in the metroplex
area to determine what they were charging for various
recreation programs, especially in fee areas where 50% of the
cost was paid by the general fund. As a result of the survey,
the Park Department determined that all of the fees met the
standard except for in the tennis area. Even with the general
fund paying 50% of the cost, the tennis program was in a
deficit.
Council Member Gorton stated that under the category of
"athletic fields", the rates were being decreased for unlighted
use per hour and lighted use per hour. However, the footnote
stated that it did not include field maintenance charged which
needed to be arranged separately.
Brinkman replied that limited maintenance was provided for the
fields. When a tournament was in progress, there may be the
need for daily maintenance which was a separate fee.
Council Member Ayer asked Brinkman if the proposed fees for
tennis would be sufficient to eliminate the deficit currently
seeR.
Brinkman replied yes that with the amount of anticipated use,
the new rates should eliminate the deficit.
City of Denton City Council Minutes
March 19, 1991
Page 13
Council Member Ayer stated that in the minutes of the Park
Board that they recommended the golf program be placed in the
same category at the tennis program. He assumed that that was
not a part of the recommendation.
Brinkman replied that that would be in the budget process for
next year.
Council Member Trent asked for the number of season passes per
family and individual.
Brinkman replied 10-20 per year.
Council Member Trent asked how the lighted courts were
controlled.
Brinkman replied that there was a fee for rental during times
when an attendant was present. If an attendant were not
present, an additional fee was charged for the attendant to
open and close.
Council Member Trent asked how many times that was done, for
example, on a Saturday evening.
Brinkman replied that was done every week.
Mayor Pro Tem Boyd questioned the fees for use of City meeting
rooms. He understood the need to be reimbursed for staff time
but the meeting rooms and activity rooms at the Martin Luther
King, Jr. Recreation Center were built for the purpose of
allowing citizens to meet and use those rooms. He felt that
use of the rooms was discouraged by charging fees.
Gorton motioned, Hopkins seconded to adopt the ordinance.
Boyd motioned, Alexander seconded to remove from Section D -
Recreation Centers, the charges for the meetings and activity
rooms.
City Manager Harrell asked if that were to be for all groups
including such groups as a commercial group.
Mayor Pro Tem Boyd replied no.
only to non-profit groups.
The fee removal would apply
Council questioned if this item might be better discussed in a
work session.
City Manager Harrell replied staff could prepare a report on
the monetary impact of such a decision to be discussed in a
work session. It would be a budget item to consider.
1¸4
City of Denton City Council Minutes
March 19, 1991
Page 14
Gorton withdrew his main motion and Trent withdrew his second.
Alexander motioned, Gorton seconded to table the item to the
next regular meeting. 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
approving a contract for the exchange of certain real property
owned by NCNB and the City; authorizing acceptance of an access
easement from NCNB: and repealing Ordinance 91-023.
Rick Svehla, Deputy City Manager, stated that the attorney for
NCNB had had a problem with some of the wording of the previous
ordinance. The proposed ordinance was agreeable to both
parties.
The following ordinance was considered:
NO. 91-047
AN ORDINANCE APPROVING A CONTRACT PROVIDING FOR THE
EXCHANGE OF CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY OWNED BY NCNB AND
THE CITY; AUTHORIZING THE ACCEPTANCE OF AN ACCESS
EASEMENT FROM NCNB; REPEALING ORDINANCE 91-023; AND
PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Gorton motioned, Ayer seconded to adopt the ordinance.
vote, Trent "aye," Alexander "aye," Hopkins "aye,"
"aye," Ayer "aye," Boyd "aye," and Mayor Castleberry
Motion carried unanimously.
On roll
Gorton
"aye."
15. Resolutions
A. The Council considered approval of a resolution
approving an interlocal ambulance agreement between the City of
Denton and Denton County for ambulance services.
The following resolution was considered:
NO. R91-019
A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN INTERLOCAL AMBULANCE
AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF DENTON AND DENTON COUNTY
FOR AMBULANCE SERVICES; AND DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE
DATE.
Hopkins 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.
City of Denton City Council Minutes
March 19, 1991
Page 15
B. The Council considered approval of a resolution
supporting legislation to create a municipal court of record
for the City of Denton.
City Attorney Drayovitch stated that adoption o~ the resolution
was necessary in the legislative process to create a special
court of record for the City of Denton.
The following resolution was considered:
NO. R91-020
A RESOLUTION SUPPORTING LEGISLATION TO CREATE A
MUNICIPAL COURT OF RECORD FOR THE CITY OF DENTON; AND
PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Ayer 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.
16.
Other Business
A. The Council received a report and held a
discussion regarding the City of Denton's involvement in solid
waste collection and disposal.
Bob Nelson, Executive Director for Utilities, presented the
chronological history of the landfill. (Exhibit A)
City Manager Harrell stated that when the current landfill was
selected by the City and opened in 1982, staff report indicated
that prior to that decision being made, some 67 potential sites
were located. Some of those sites were rejected due to soil
conditions but many others were rejected due to political
opposition. He felt that when a decision needed to be made
regarding another landfill, it would be a very difficult
decision. An important date in the history of the City's solid
waste issue was February 1986. That was the date that the
major commercial hauler, Texas Waste Management, moved into the
community. It bought out a local individual who was providing
commercial trash services and started operating in the
community. As the SWAC Committee and the Public Utilities
Board reviewed this item, they identified that as a major risk
for the community as far as the City's ability to keep
residential trash rates low. The City could compete with a
local hauler with limited resources but not with a large
corporation.
15
16
City of Denton City Council Minutes
March 19, 1991
Page 16
Council Member Alexander asked Nelson for his assessment of the
operation costs/overages which existed over the last year and
where Nelson felt that number would be in the next two years
relative to commercial solid waste collection. Was the City
losing money, making money or was the City having to subsidize
the operation.
Nelson replied that the commercial system was generally making
some money. It was not a lot of money, approximately $1.7
million of gross revenues. Commercial made some money while
residential lost money.
Council Member Gorton asked if commercial was paying into the
motor pool for replenishment of trucks.
Nelson replied that those items had been financed over the last
few years with the issuance of certificates of obligation.
Council Member Trent asked that if the City stayed in the
commercial business and the present landfill were closed in
1994, what expenses would be involved in choosing another
landfill site.
Nelson replied that 1996 would be the closing of the landfill
if the volume and population of the City stayed the same with
the City being the sole contributor to the landfill. Within
the next year's budget, the landfill would need to be
developed. It would take approximately 2-3 years to permit the
landfill with time to open the pit area. Approximate cost to
open 3.5 million cubic yards of space in and round the current
landfill, would be $3.5 million. That would last approximately
7 years.
Council Member Trent stated that Texas Waste's proposal was
paying the City approximately $6-6.5 million which would be
money the City would not be receiving if the commercial system
was not sold. There was an additional $4 million to continue
the current landfill. Totally there was an approximate $10
million difference.
Nelson replied that all of those numbers wer~ included in
pro3ection of the alternatives.
Mayor Pro Tem Boyd stated that it was a very difficult decision
to choose the original site for the landfill. Was there any
reason to believe the process would be easier the next time.
Nelson replied that it would be more difficult next time. It
would be very difficult to do in the ETJ or beyond. It was
easier for private companies to permit a landfill.
City of Denton City Council Minutes
March 19, 1991
Page 17
17
Council Member Ayer stated that the assumption was that if
Denton stayed in the solid waste business, that it had no
alternative but to open another landfill. He felt that was not
the case and that there were a variety of options available.
It was not good business for the City of Denton to tie its
hands and cut off all options for the next 15-20 years.
Mayor Castleberry stated that a previous speaker had indicated
that if a commercial customer of Waste Management did not pay
his account, the service would be discontinued. Was that not
true also for the City of Denton.
Nelson replied yes but that the City tried to avoid having a
health hazard before it would totally discontinue service.
Council Member Alexander stated that when a commercial customer
did not pay an account and sufficient notice had been given
regarding payment with subsequent cut-off of service, who would
pick up the trash if it continued to accumulate.
Bill Angelo, Director of Community Services, stated that the
City would pick up the trash. The City would pull the
dumpster. Waste Management had a tendency not to pull its
dumpster and let the trash pile up.
Mayor Pro Tem Boyd stated that the SWAC Committee and the
Public Utilities Board indicated that this was an area which
was a natural monopoly. If that was the case, should the City
regulate the monopoly and regulate non-paying customers and
other appropriate regulations.
Nelson replied that regulations could be built into a franchise
for solid waste collection.
Council Member Alexander asked if the operation could be
regulated, as to price, under a franchise arrangement.
City Attorney Drayovitch replied that it was not a bid item.
Lloyd Harrell, City Manager, stated that the sale was bid both
as an exclusive and a non-exclusive arrangement. The bids
received for a non-exclusive arrangements were better than for
the bids for an exclusive system. The feeling was that if a
contract were awarded for an exclusive service basis, there
would be a rate regulation concerning what that contractor
could charge. The thought for the non-exclusive was that the
rates would be regulated by the market assuming that there were
several solid waste collectors competing for the customer.
18
City of Denton City Council Minutes
March 19, 1991
Page 18
17.
Miscellaneous matters from the City Manager.
A. The City has received notice from the Texas Air
Control Board recommending to the EPA that Denton and Collin
County be placed with Tarrent and Dallas County in a moderate
control arrangement for air quality purposes and the remaining
counties in the metroplex area would not be in any compliance
category. That meant that an industry which generated any kind
of air pollution, even in a moderate amount, would have to go
elsewhere in the area and get an offset to reduce the level of
pollution before they could build. Denton would be at a
disadvantage to attract industries.
B. A tentative work session had been scheduled for
April 9, 1991.
C. Due to the City's tight budget, the Police
Department was downsizing its cars which would save the City
$1500 per car and provide better gas mileage.
D. A suggestion had been made that the Council
appoint one or two people to meet with the County Commissioners
regarding City/County precinct lines. Consensus of the Council
was to have Council Members Alexander and Gorton and Mayor Pro
Tem Boyd meet with the Commissioners.
Items not completed during the Work Session were considered.
5. The Council received a briefing and held a discussion
regarding a proposed Joint Development Contract for the Denton
North Water Plant between the City of Denton and the Upper
Trinity Regional Water District.
Bob Nelson, Executive Director for Utilities, reviewed the
history of the Ray Roberts Water Plant. He stated that the
proposed contract was a straight forward contract and reviewed
the provisions of the contract. (Synopsis of the contract
provisions was included in the agenda back-up materials.) He
felt that the City needed to be cautious and not move into a
difficult position with the proposal.
Council debated the pros and cons of the contract and
participation in the Upper Trinity Regional Water District.
5. The Council received a report and distribution of the
Budget Priorities Questionnaire for input regarding the 1991-92
Budget.
City Manager Harrell stated that the questionnaire was a
listing of the services provided by the City and asked the
Council to give its opinion on how much effort should be spent
in each area. A change in the questionnaire included a portion
on budget policy issues. Council needed to indicate.specific
budget directions in this area.
City of Denton City Council Minutes
March 19, 1991
Page 19
6. The Council held a discussion regarding a possible
date for the annual City Council Planning Seminar.
City Manager Harrell suggested possible dates for the seminar
of June 7-8 or May 31-June 1.
Consensus of the Council was May 31-June 1.
The Council returned to the regular agenda order.
18. Council took the following action from the Work
Session Executive Session:
A. Debra Drayovitch, City Attorney, stated that one
of the Council Members wished to make a motion to authorize the
City Attorney to initiate litigation against Mr. Brown and Mr.
Reeves in the event that payment of the claim together with
$1,000 interest was not remitted by Friday afternoon.
Boyd motioned, Gorton seconded as above. On roll vote, Trent
"aye," Hopkins "aye," Gorton "aye," Ayer "aye," Boyd "aye," and
Mayor Castleberry "aye." Motion carried unanimously with
Council Member Alexander abstaining as he was not present for
the Work Session Executive Session.
19. New Business
Council Members presented the following items for future
consideration:
A. Council Member Alexander requested a progress
report on the new safety regulations for swimming pools.
B. Council Member Gorton requested an update on how
Charter revisions were done.
C. Council Member Hopkins stated that it seemed to
be a growing problem that individuals were proceeding through
an intersection after a red light. She would like to see that
better enforced.
D. Council Member Hopkins questioned the vendors in
the medians selling flowers. Was that not against the
solicitor's ordinance.
20. The Council did not meet in Executive Session during
the Regular Session.
City of Denton City Council Minutes
March 19, 1991
Page 20
With no
p.m.
further business,
the meeting was
adjourned at 10:40
j~m/~rFg WALTERS
Ct~¥ S~ETA~Y
CITY OFDENTON, TEXAS
CITY OF DENTON, TE?
3370C
EXHIBIT A
2 1
HISTORY OF THE CITY'S
LANDFILL AND CO~RCIAL SYSTI~M
A quick review of historical records indicates that the City of Denton has been
engaged in the full range of solid waste services since the early 1900's.
While there may have been some alternative service providers from time to time,
our records do not mention any such providers until 1977 when MSM Sanitation
Services entered the commerciai collection business in Denton. Until that timm
it would appear that the City was the exclusive provider for residential,
commercial, and disposal services.
The City utilized numerous small dump sites over the years including a site off
Woodrow Lane which was used during the 1940's and $0's. Sometime during the
mid 1950's the City opened the Mosely Road Landfill which was the lSth landfill
formally permitted by the Texas Department of Health in 1974. In 1977 the City
recognized the limited life expectancy of the Mosely Road site and began a
search for a new site. To that end, the City Council created a landfill site
selection committee which conducted its search and analysis of prospective
sites until 1980. Over the years the C~m,ittee reviewed approximately 67 sites
in the area which would facilitate a landfill operation. While most sites were
discounted due to geological considerations, all of the other sites were
eliminated due to political opposition.
In 1981, the City stumbled across the Edwards Lane Landfill site as a result of
lawsuits filed against the City's Wastewater Treatment Plant. In settlement of
the lawsuit, the City purchased the property currently utilized for the land-
fill along with adjacent property which is used by the Wastewater Treatment
Plant. While this property was not the best in terms of geological conditions,
proper design and operation of the site allowed us to overcome these defi-
ciencies. Additionally, there was no political opposition to this particular
site.
Additional historical information on the history of the landfill and commercial
operations is as follows:
June, 1982
October, 1982
January 31, 1984
February, 1984 -
March, 198S
March, 1984
March, 1984
Property purchased from Earl Edwards.
Permit and design work commenced.
Mosely Road Landfill closed.
Direct haul of refuse to Lewisville Landfills.
Final permit application submitted to TDH.
Land clearing and grubbing commenced.
1A2/031491039/1
22
HISTORY OF THE CITY'S LANDFILL
AND COM~RCIAL SYST~4
Page 2
June 12, 1984
June 13, 1984
March 13, 1985
August, 1985
February, 1986
March, 1986
January, 1987
June, 1987
October, 1987
February, 1988
July, 1988
August, 1988
Permit issued by TDH.
Initial development con~nenced.
Landfill opens.
Deposition rate calculated at double forecasted
rate. Staff begins to monitor and analyze
deposition rates to determine whether or not
increased volumes are anomalies resulting from
construction boom.
Texas Waste Management purchases MSM Sanitation
Service, Inc. and begins providing commercial
service in Denton.
Staff determines that deposition rates are
factual trends and begins to take steps to extend
landfill life.
Discovered less clay than estimated by geological
tests.
New closure date established for October, 1994.
Landfill rates increased to reduce deposition
rate. Commercial and residential rates increased
to establish early debt retirement fund.
Staff presents Solid Waste Alternative
Report to City Council expressing concern rela-
tive to disposal options and the City's ability
to compete with Texas Waste Management.
Council creates Solid Waste Alternative Committee
(SWAC) which is given responsibility for recom-
mending an appropriate disposal option and
assessing the role the City should assume in the
delivery of solid waste services.
SWAC begins its study, meeting on an average of
once every two weeks. Initial meetings were
aimed at educating the committee on the issues
and the solid waste industry. Subsequent meet-
ings involved examination of disposal options
including: landfilling, cogeneration, recycling,
1A2/031491039/2
HISTORY OF THE CITY'S LANDFILL
AND COM~ERCIAL SYSTM~
Page 3
23
August, 1988
August, 1989
October, 1989
November, 1989
December, 1989
January, 1990
RFD, baling, transfer station, direct haul, etc.
Additional meetings involved the examination of
the City's role in solid waste service through
financial projections, interviews with private
haulers, industry experts, etc.
EPA publishes Subtitle D Regulations for review
and comment.
After a year of intensive study, SWAC presents
its recommendation to the City Council. The
recommendation included:
The SWAC recognized that some type of action
was necessary in order to maintain residen-
tial rates at a reasonable level and opted
to recommend that the City become the
exclusive solid waste service provider and
' that the City imnediately take steps to
locate and acquire new land for a landfill.
The Denton City Council held a public hearing on
October 17, 1989, concerning the recommendation
of the Solid Waste Alternatives Committee that
the City of Denton Solid Waste Division become
the exclusive commercial and industrial solid
waste collection service provider.
Hr. George Gilkeson delivered the Solid Waste
Alternatives Committee recommendation.
Twenty people spoke in opposition to the City
becoming the exclusive service provider. Two
people spoke in favor.
Chairman of SWAC and staff members begin a series
of meetings with the Chamber of Commerce Local
Government Affairs Co~ittee.
City Council holds special work sessions on solid
waste and directs staff to solicit bids for the
City Commercial system.
City adopts 8% license fee for private solid
waste haulers and adopts cmmnercial rate in-
creases.
1AZ/03149103g/3
24
HISTORY OF THE CITY'S LANDFILL
AND COMMERCIAL SYSTEM
Page 4
October, 1990 -
October 17, 1990 ~
November 14, 1990
December 19, 1990
Decembers 1990 -
January 5, 1991 -
January 14, 1991
February S, 1991
February 18, 1991 -
March, 1991
Landfill life expectancy revised to July, 1996.
Public Utility Board received briefly from staff
on Disposal options and Commercial sell.
Public Utility Board continues discussion on
Solid Waste issue.
Staff provides formal presentation on Solid Waste
options to the Public Utility Board.
Bids for Commercial system received.
Public Utility Board continues discussion on
Solid Waste options.
Public Utility Board conducts review of financial
scenarios involved in Commercial sale.
Public Utility Board continues discussions and
receives a report from Waste Management of Texas.
Public Utility Board continues discussion on
Commercial Sell 'and votes 4 to 1 to recommend
that the City become the exclusive provider of
Commercial Solid Waste service.
After holding several work sessions on solid
waste issues, the City Council holds a public
hearing and adopts a resolution to sell the
Commercial system, close the landfill early, and
contract with WMT for use of a transfer station
to be built in or near Denton.
1A2/051491039/4