Loading...
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