Minutes December 17, 1991CITY OF DENTON CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
DECEMBER 17, 1991
The Council convened into the Work Session at 5:15 p.m. in Civil
Defense Room.
PRESENT: Mayor Castleberry; Mayor Pro Tem Hopkins; Council Members
Alexander, Chew, Perry, Smith and Trent.
ABSENT: None
1. The Council convened into the Executive Session to discuss
legal matters (considered action in City of Denton v. Washington
National Insurance Company, considered settlement offer in claim of
Alphonsus Ottih, considered settlement offer in claim of University
of North Texas, and considered action in re: Flow), real estate
(considered leases with Cooke County College and Morrison Milling
Company), and personnel/board appointments.
Mayor Pro Tem Hopkins left the meeting during the discussion of in
re: Flow.
2. The Council received a report and held a discussion on the
Adopt-A-Spot program and other projects of the Keep Denton
Beautiful Program.
John Cooper, Chair-Beautification Commission, stated that currently
29 groups had completed adoption agreements for Adopt-A-Spot with
additional inquiries. There would be a reception honoring those
who adopted a spot in the near future. The City had submitted an
application to become a Tree City USA. The Commission had been
notified that a designated Tree Board was needed prior to approval
of the City's application. It was recommended that the
Beautification Co~xsslon be appointed the Tree Board for the
program. A second annual Christmas Treecycle program would be held
on Saturday, January 4, 1992. A number of local businesses had
agreed to participate in the publicity of the program, and an
insert would be included in the December utility bills. The
benefit received from the City with this program was approximately
$3,150. For every $1.00 spent by the City on the program, $3.15
was returned.
3. The Council received a report and held a discussion regarding
an update on the Americans With Disabilities Act.
Max Blackburn, Risk Manager, stated that the Americans With
Disabilities Act was not much different than the Rehabilitation Act
of 1973. One difference was that the Americans with Disabilities
Act was rallying point for individuals who were impaired or
disabled. Always before the different groups were split. There
were five titles of the Act: (1) Title I - Employment -
prohibited discrimination in employment against a qualified
individual with a disability in the terms and conditions of
City of Denton City Council Minutes
December 17, 1991
Page 2
employment; (2) Title II - Public Service - prohibited
discrimination by a public entity in providing public services to
an individual with a disability. This title also required that
forms of public transportation be made accessible to individuals
with disabilities, (3) Title III - Public Accommodations and
Services Operated by Private Entities - prohibited private entities
from discriminating against a qualified individual in providing
public accommodations and services, (4) Title IV -
Telecommunications - required that common carriers of interstate
wire or radio communications provide technological accommodations
for individuals with hearing and speech impairments, (5) Title V -
Miscellaneous Provisions - contained various additional provisions
of the ADA. Titles I and II would have the most impact on the
City, especially in the area of employment and the accessibility of
all government facilities, services, and communications for people
with disabilities. Title I would be effective July 26, 1992 with
provisions for cities effective January 26, 1992. Title II would
be effective January 26, 1992 for city facilities open to the
public. Title I would be monitored by the EEOC. City job
descriptions, job announcements, application review, interviews,
conditional job offers, medical exams - job fitness evaluations,
reasonable accommodations were tasks and concerns which the City
needed to deal with in regards to Title I. Title II would be
monitored by the Department of Justice. Title II involved
identifying portions of all building which did not comply with ADA,
budget costs for those corrections and the development of a
transition plan for implementation of those corrections. The
approximate cost to comply with ADA was $60,000 over three years.
The Task Force recommendation was to spend $15,000 this current
year to comply with some obvious problems such as an assistive
hearing system in the Council Chambers.
Council Member Alexander stated that he was surprised at the
estimate of only $60,000.
Blackburn replied that the City had kept up with the 1973
provisions so that there was not a large amount of non-compliance
issues.
4. The Council was to receive a report and hold a discussion
regarding a tentative schedule for converting the Moore facility to
a law enforcement complex.
This item was considered during the Regular Session under
Miscellaneous Matters from the City Manager.
City of Denton City Council Minutes
December 17, 1991
Page 3
5. The Council was to receive a report and hold a discussion
regarding a review of correspondence with the Upper Trinity
Regional Water District and give staff direction.
This item was considered during the Regular Session under
Miscellaneous Matters from the City Manager.
The Council convened into the Regular SessiOn at 7:00 p.m. in the
Council Chambers.
PRESENT:
ABSENT:
Mayor Castleberry; Mayor Pro Tem Hopkins; Council Members
Alexander, Chew, Perry, and Smith.
Council Member Trent
1. Pledge of Allegiance
The Council and members of the audience recited the Pledge of
Allegiance.
2. Consent Agenda
Council Member Trent joined the meeting during the reading of the
Consent Agenda.
Hopkins motioned, Smith seconded to approve the Consent Agenda as
presented. On roll vote, Trent "aye", Alexander "aye", Hopkins
"aye", Smith "aye", Chew "aye", Perry "aye", and Mayor Castleberry
"aye". Motion carried unanimously.
A. Bids and Purchase Orders:
1. Bid $1295 - 1500 KVA PM Transformer
2. Bid #1301 - Chemical Storage Tanks
3. Bid #1306 - Trees-Container Grown
e
Bid #1303 - Pecan Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant
Phase I Improvement Equipment Preselection (Item #3
only) (The Public Utilities Board recommended
approval.)
5. P.C. #21291 - Computer Associate Services (The Data
i Processing Advisory Board recommended approval.)
City of Denton City Council Minutes
December 17, 1991
Page 4
So
P.O. #21290A - EIS Support Services (The Data
Processing Advisory Board recommended approval.)
P.O. #21292 - D. B. Microwave (The Data Processing
Advisory Board recommended approval.)
3. Ordinances
A. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance accepting
a competitive sealed proposal and awarding a contract for purchase
of materials, equipment, supplies or services. (2.A.1. - Bid
#1295, 2.A.2. - Bid #1301, 2.A.3. - Bid #1306)
The following ordinance was considered:
91-190
AN ORDINANCE ACCEPTING A COMPETITIVE SEALED PROPOSAL 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.
Smith motioned, Chew seconded to adopt the ordinance. On roll
vote, Trent "aye", Alexander "aye", Hopkins "aye", Smith "aye",
Chew "aye", Perry "aye", and Mayor Castleberry "aye". Motion
carried unanimously.
B. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance accepting
competitive bids and providing for the award of contracts for
public works or improvements. (2.A.4. - Bid #1303, 2.A.6 - P.O.
#21290A, 2.A.7. - P.O. 21292)
City Manager Harrell stated that 2.A.6. and 2.A.7. should have been
pulled from the Consent Agenda. He asked that the ordinance be
amended to delete those two purchase orders.
The following ordinance was considered:
91-191
AN ORDINANCE ACCEPTING COMPETITIVE BIDSAND PROVIDING FOR THE
AWARD OF CONTRACTS FOR PUBLIC WORKS OR IMPROVEMENTS; PROVIDING
FOR THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS THEREFOR; AND PROVIDING FOR AN
EFFECTIVE DATE.
City of Denton City Council Minutes
December 17, 1991
Page 5
Hopkins motioned, Alexander seconded to adopt the ordinance as
amended. On roll vote, Trent "aye", Alexander "aye", Hopkins
"aye", Smith "aye", Chew "aye", Perry "aye", and Mayor Castleberry
"aye". Motion carried unanimously.
C. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance providing
for the expenditure of funds for purchases of materials or
equipment which are available from only one source in accordance
with the provisions of state law exempting such purchases from
requirements of competitive bids. (2.A.5. - P.C.#21291)
The following ordinance was considered:
91-192
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 STATELAW
EXEMPTING SUCH PURCHASES FROM REQUIREMENTS OF COMPETITIVE.
BIDS; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Perry motioned, Smith seconded to adopt the ordinance. On roll
vote, Trent "aye", Alexander "aye", Hopkins "aye", Smith "aye",
Chew "aye", Perry "aye", and Mayor Castleberry "aye". Motion
carried unanimously.
D. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance declaring
a surplus of net revenues of the Electric Utility due to decreased
fuel costs; ordering a refund to certain utility customers;
prescribing conditions and procedures for making such rebates.
Bob Nelson, Executive Director of Utilities, stated that in the
1990-91 fiscal year, the average variable cost of purchased power
and natural gas was estimated to be 1.9 cents per KWH. Due to
lower than expected natural gas costs, excellent operations and
lower costs at TMPA and some improved efficiencies of plant
operations, the variable cost was less than budgeted, resulting in
average variable energy costs of approximately 1.6 cents per KWH.
The Public Utilities Board recommended that this amount be refunded
to all current customers on the Denton System in the amount of 0.3
cents per KWH.
Mayor Pro Tem Hopkins asked if all legal questions had been taken
care of.
Nelson replied yes.
The following ordinance was considered:
City of Denton City Council Minutes
December 17, 1991
Page 6
91-193
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, DECLARING A SURPLUS
OF NET REVENUES OF THE ELECTRIC UTILITY SYSTEM DUE TO A
DECREASE IN FUEL COSTS; ORDERING A REFUND TO CITY'S UTILITY
CUSTOMERS; PRESCRIBING CONDITIONS AND PROCEDURES TO BE
FOLLOWED IN SUCH REBATES; AND DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Chew motioned, Smith seconded to adopt the ordinance. On roll
vote, Trent "aye", Alexander "aye", Hopkins "aye", Smith "aye",
Chew "aye", Perry "aye", and Mayor Castleberry "aye". Motion
carried unanimously.
E. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance amending
Article II of Chapter 28 of the Code of Ordinances of the City of
Denton, Texas ("Building Code") to provide for amendments and
deletions to the Uniform Building Code, 1985 Edition, previously
adopted as the Building Code of the City of Denton, repealing all
ordinances in conflict herewith; and providing for a penalty in the.
amount of $2,000.00 for violations thereof.
Frank Robbins, Executive Director for Planning, stated that the
Council had reviewed this ordinance at an earlier meeting. There
appeared to be no problem with the re-roofing permit fee and the
Certificate of Occupancy issuance fee. The Council did have some
concern regarding the plan review fee for building permits.
Council had asked for additional information which staff had
provided. He felt there were three or four fundamental policy
issues associated with the ordinance. First was revenue which
began the process during the major budget issue discussions.
Second was cost for service for which an analysis had been done
comparing other cities. He presented a chart with examples of what
the fee was for three different kinds of building permits, what the
current fee was, what the proposed fee would be, what the amount of
increase was, what the average was and what the cost of service was
to do the plan review.
Council Member Trent stated that some people felt this was an
impact fee.
Robbins replied that technically it was not an impact fee as
defined by State law. The fee was not one. which would be paid at
the time of building permitting for some capital improvement. The
fee would be paid for the service.
Council Member Trent stated that he had heard that the plan review
fee was being charged due to the amount of time that it took a
person to review a plan.
City of Denton City Council Minutes
December 17, 1991
Page 7 '
Robbins replied that fundamentally the plan review fee was the cost
involved to pay the person to do the plan review.
City Manager Harrell stated that the planning and building fees
were put into effect in an attempt to collect~ the out-of-pocket
costs that it took to process a particular fee or undertake a
particular activity. The Council's policy was that those kinds of
efforts should pay for themselves. The City should do the work and
there was some public interest involved but the City should recover
enough money so that the City was not out-of-pocket and the general
taxpayer subsidize that effort. An impact fee was a charge placed
on a new home to help pay for water, sewer and transportation
services but not to cover City staff time in processing a
particular application.
Council Member Trent stated that during the budget process he had
indicated that these types of fees were sending the wrong signal to
the builders in Denton. Denton was not in a boom situation and any
kind of an increased fee was sending the wrong signal at a time.
when the housing industry in Denton was making a comeback. He felt
that there had been no opportunity to hear from the builders on
this issue. He felt a public hearing was in order.
Mayor Pro Tem Hopkins stated that the issue had been discussed
during the budget process. She had a concern with the one and two
family residential fee. Was the proposed rate in excess of the
average of the area fees. She felt that it would not encourage the
building of one and two family dwellings. Why was Denton so much
in excess of the area communities.
Council Member Trent felt that some of the reason was because
Denton was being compared to cities in the Metroplex like Fort
Worth and Dallas. There were cities in the Metroplex which did not
have a plan review fee such as Garland, Richardson, and Grand
Prairie. For those cities which did have the review fee, they did
not have the problem getting the appraisals on the houses which was
evident in Denton.
Council Member Alexander stated that a discussion was needed
relative to the philosophy behind the fees. He wanted the total
fee to be close to a reasonable average within the Metroplex.
There were costs involved in doing those services and the City
should not subsidize through taxpayers revenues, the operation of
the building sector within the community. The question was who was
going to pay. It would either be the City of Denton through
taxpayers money or it would be the people who used that particular
service. That was discussed in some detail during the budget
process. A commitment was made when the budget was adopted that
City of Denton City Council Minutes
December 17, 1991
Page 8
the City was going to move ahead with these numbers in these areas.
He felt that the Council needed to follow through with that
commitment with those figures.
Council Member Perry felt that signals were being sent to taxpayers
other than home builders that the cost of doing business was one
figure and the City would ask the general taxpayers to subsidize to
a certain extend the cost of doing business. If the City were
trying to make a profit on the review, the situation would be
different. Other positive signals had been sent to the builders
such as the expediting of permits.
Mayor Castleberry felt that
Gainsville might be more in
Metroplex which Denton was.
perhaps McKinney, Sherman and
line with the distance from the
Council Member Alexander stated that he felt comfortable adding
McKinney but not Sherman and Gainsville as they were not in the
Metroplex. He wanted a review of the Metroplex market and Sherman
and Gainsville were not in that market.
Mayor Castleberry stated that he had received calls from the people
affected by these fees who would like to have a public hearing on
the issue. He felt it would be well to have such a public hearing.
Council Member Perry stated that the Council had had a public
hearing which included these figures during the budget process.
The Building Code Board had reviewed the figures. In the budget
process, the Council had directed staff to prepare the fees. There
had been discussion on these figures from since approximately May
to December. There had been plenty of opportunity, including
public hearings, for input from the various people who would be
directly affected. He felt there had been adequate time for people
to be heard.
Mayor Castleberry stated that his concern was that this area was
not "noticed" during the budget process.
Mayor Pro Tem Hopkins asked if the ordinance could be adopted
except for the residential portion.
Joe Morris, Assistant City Attorney, stated that the ordinance was
written so that it could be separated.
The following ordinance was considered:
City of Denton City Council Minutes
December 17, 1991
Page 9
91-194
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ARTICLE II OF CHAPTER 28 OF THE CODE OF
ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS ("BUILDING CODE") TO
PROVIDE FOR AMENDMENTS AND DELETIONS TO THE UNIFORM BUILDING
CODE, 1985 EDITION, PREVIOUSLY ADOPTED AS THE BUILDING CODE
FOR THE CITY OF DENTON, REPEALING ALL ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT
HEREWITH; PROVIDING FOR A PENALTY IN THE AMOUNT OF $2,000.00
FOR VIOLATIONS THEREOF; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Hopkins motioned, Trent seconded to adopt the ordinance except for
that portion referring to residential one and two family dwellings.
The fee would remain the same until further review for one and two
family dwellings.
Mayor Castleberry stated that Jerry Cott, GoVernment Relations
Committee-Chamber of Commerce, had asked to address the Council.
Council Member Perry questioned the consequences of the motion.
Robbins replied that there would be a non-residential building
permit fee adopted at 50%, a $10 certificate of occupancy fee and
a $20 reroofing fee. There would be no change in the fee for any
occupancy on any table that was one or two family.
Council Member Alexander asked if the budget were not adopted on
the schedule proposed by the ordinance.
City Manger Harrell stated that when the budget was adopted, the
major policy issue called for a 50% plan review fee across the
board. The Building Code Board felt that 50% was too much of an
increase for one and two family dwellings. It was felt that the
fee should be scaled back to 20% and the other fee at 50%.
Trent motioned to suspend the Council rules to allow a citizen to
speak to Council. Motion died for lack of a second.
On roll vote of the main motion, Trent "aye", Alexander "aye",
Hopkins "aye", Smith "nay", Chew "aye", Perry "aye", and Mayor
Castleberry "nay". Motion carried with a 5-2 vote.
Perry motioned, Smith seconded to suspend the Council rules to
allow a citizen to address Council. On roll vote, Trent "aye",
Alexander "aye", Hopkins "aye", Smith "aye", Chew "aye", Perry
"aye", and Mayor Cas~leberry "aye". Motion carried unanimously.
Jerry Cott, Government Relations Committee-Chamber of Commerce,
stated that the public did not come to the budget meetings. There
City of Denton City Council Minutes
December 17, 1991
Page 10
was a perception that the fees went beyond the department that
they would be used for. That they were going to supply the funds
for government other than the Planning Department. He felt there
needed to be more public input regarding items such as this. It
would provide for better public relations.
F. The Council considered adoption of adoption of an
ordinance amending Section 2-81 of the Code of Ordinances of the
City of Denton relating to the duties and functions of the
Beautification Advisory Commission; providing for the adoption of
powers and duties of the Commission; and providing for a repealing
clause.
The following ordinance was considered:
91-195
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 2-81 OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES
OF THE CITY OF DENTON RELATING TO THE DUTIES AND FUNCTIONS OF
THE BEAUTIFICATION ADVISORY COMMISSION; PROVIDING FOR THE
ADOPTION OF POWERS AND DUTIES OF THE COMMISSION; PROVIDING FOR
A REPEALING CLAUSE, AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Alexander motioned, Smith seconded to adopt the ordinance. On roll
vote, Trent "aye", Alexander "aye", Hopkins "aye", Smith "aye",
Chew "aye", Perry "aye", and Mayor Castleberry "aye". Motion
carried unanimously.
G. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance approving
a release and settlement agreement for pending litigation between
the City of Denton and Michael L. Gorder.
Smith motioned, Hopkins to adopt the ordinance.
Council MemBer Trent asked if Mr. Gorder owed the City any money
before he was given the settlement check.
City Attorney Drayovitch stated that she would check into that for
the Council.
Smith withdrew her motion and Hopkins withdrew her second.
The ordinance was pulled from consideration,
H. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance adopting
the recommendations of William M. Mercer, In~QrpQrat~d for
implementing a salary structure and salary management program for
the City of Denton; prescribing the number of positions in each
11
city of Denton City Council Minutes
December 17, 1991
Page 11
classification of fire fighter and police officer; approving
revisions to written City policies designed to implement this
program; and authorizing and directing the City Manager to expend
monies approved in the budget for fiscal year 1991/92 to fund the
Mercer Salary Management Program.
Tom Klinck, Director of Personnel, stated that in the 1988-89 and
1989-90 budgets, the Council approved funding for a comprehensive
compensation and classification program study. The recommendation
included a salary range comprised of 13 grades; a salary structure
for positions governed by Chapter 143 of the Texas Local Government
Cod~;.and salary structuresf~r Seasonal, Temporary, and Executive
positions. Personnel policies had been revised to reflect the
Mercer recommendations. The recommendations include bringing all
employees to at least the new minimum salary of the assigned
position and grade, and granting all others a 3% group increase, as
approved in the 1991-92 budget.
Council Member Trent stated that he did not vote for this during.
the budget process as he had the perception that the city of Denton
would soon be in a similar position as Pontiac, Michigan. He felt
the pay raises were too high. He felt it was better to have a good
paying job and not be paid what the worker was worth than to have
the pay for what the worker was worth but next year not have a job.
The following ordinance was considered:
91-196
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS ADOPTING THE
RECOMMENDATIONS OF WILLIAM M. MERCER, INCORPORATED FOR
IMPLEMENTING A SALARY STRUCTURE AND SALARY MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
FOR THE CITY OF DENTON; PRESCRIBING THENUMBEROF POSITIONS IN
EACH CLASSIFICATION OF FIRE FIGHTERS AND POLICE OFFICER;
APPROVING REVISIONS TO WRITTEN CITY POLICIES DESIGNED TO
IMPLEMENT THIS PROGRAM; AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY
MANAGER TO EXPEND MONIES APPROVED IN THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL
YEAR1991/92 TO FUND THE MERCER SALARYMANAGEMENT PROGRAM; AND
DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Alexander motioned, Chew seconded to adopt the ordinance. On roll
vote, Trent "nay", Alexander "aye", Hopkins "aye", Smith "aye",
Chew "aye", Perry "aye", and Mayor Castleberry "aye". Motion
carried with a 6-1 vote.
12
City of Denton City Council Minutes
December 17, 1991
Page 12
4. Resolutions
A. The Council considered approval of a resolution
requesting the Governor of the State of Texas to designate the
North Central Texas Council of Governments to be the Metropolitan
Planning Organization of the City of Denton pursuant to the Urban
Mass Transportation Act of 1964, as amended.
Council Member Chew left the meeting with a potential conflict of
interest.
Mayor Castleberry stated that Council Member Chew was a member of
the Board of Directors for SPAN and had left the meeting with a
potential conflict of interest.
Lloyd Harrell, City Manager, stated that Items 4.A. and 4.B. dealt
with the transition from different sources of transportation
funding. Council had asked staff to obtain additional information
from Lewisville regarding the steps they would take in deciding who
would become the grantee - either the Texas Department of
Transportation or the City of. Lewisville. Lewisville City Council
decided to have the City become the grantee. Item 4.B.
specifically named the grantee and the Council would have to
complete the resolution by naming that grantee.
The following resolution was considered:
R91-074
A RESOLUTION REQUESTING THE GOVERNOR OF THE STATE OF TEXAS TO
DESIGNATE THE NORTH CENTRAL TEXAS COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS TO BE
THE METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION OF THE CITY OF DENTON
PURSUANT TO THE URBAN MASS TRANSPORTATION ACT OF 1964, AS
AMENDED; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Alexander motioned, Hopkins seconded to approve the resolution. On
roll vote, Trent "aye", Alexander "aye", Hopkins "aye", Smith
"aye", Perry "aye", and Mayor Castleberry "aye". Motion carried
unanimously.
B. The Council considered approval of a resolution
requesting that the Texas Department of Transportation designate a
recipient and grantee of Urban Mass Transportation Administration
(UMTA) program funds for the Denton Urbanized Area.
The following resolution was considered:
City of Denton City Council Minutes
December 17, 1991 ~ ~
Page 13
13
R91-075
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS REQUESTING THAT THE
TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DESIGNATE A RECIPIENT AND
GRANTEE OF URBAN MASS TRANSPORTATION ADMINISTRATION (UMTA)
PROGRAM FUNDS FOR THE DENTON URBANIZEDAREA; AND PROVIDING FOR
AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Trent otloned, Alexander seconded to approve the resolution
designating the City of Denton as the recipient and grantee.
Mayor Pro Tem Hopkins felt that there would be problems with the
City being the designee and the City should respect SPAN's request.
She felt it would involve a great deal of staff time and in the
future, would require an additional person to deal with the grants.
She was not in favor of the City being involved.
Mayor Castleberry felt that it would be to the benefit of both
Lewisville and Denton if Denton were the designee.
Council Member Perry felt it would formalize the relationship
already in existence.
Council Member Trent asked if the City of Denton were the designee
now, could it be changed in the future.
city Manager Harrell replied that it could be changed at a later
date.
Council Member Trent felt that if the City of Denton and the City
of Lewisville were both the recipients, it would enable better
coordination as opposed to a split with the State and a city being
designated.
City Manger Harrell replied that such a situation would not affect
the City but it might affect SPAN.
Council Member Alexander stated that it was important for the City
to make a statement regarding its interest in urban transportation
in the City of Denton. He felt the City needed to look at the
overall transportation needs of Denton.
On roll
Hopkins
"aye".
vote of the main motion, Trent "aye" Alexander "aye"
"nay", Smith "aye", Perry "aye", and Mayor Castleberry
Motion carried with a 5-1 vote.
Council Member Chew returned to the meeting.
14
City of Denton City Council Minutes
December 17, 1991
Page 14
C. The Council considered approval of a resolution offering
conditional support of the proposed extension at the Fort Worth
Alliance Airport.
Debra Drayovitch, City Attorney, stated that there had been a
change in the resolution Council had received in their packet. The
new resolution indicated that the Perot Group had requested that
the City adopt a resolution in support of the amendment.
City Manager Harrell stated that the resolution was conditional
upon receipt of written documentation from the FAA that all of
Denton's airport airspace, including any expansions, would not be
adversely affected now and in the future.
The following resolution was considered:
R91-076
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS OFFERING CONDITIONAL
SUPPORT OF THE PROPOSED EXTENSION AT THE FORT WORTH ALLIANCE
AIRPORT; AND DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Hopkins motioned, Trent seconded to approve the resolution. On
roll vote, Trent "aye", Alexander "aye", Hopkins "aye", Smith
"aye", Chew "aye", Perry "aye", and Mayor Castleberry "aye".
Motion carried unanimously.
D. The Council considered approval of a resolution
authorizing the Mayor to execute an interlocal agreement with the
County of Denton for the construction of improvements to Jim
Christal Road from Masch Branch Road to Interstate Highway 35E.
Rick Svehla, Deputy City Manager, stated that all of the details of
the agreement had been worked out and incorporated in the document.
He suggested an addition to the document in the first "whereas"
using the wording "a two lane asphalt road built to City of Denton
specifications".
The following resolution was considered:
R91-077
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE AN INTERLOCAL
AGREEMENT WITH THE COUNTY OF DENTON FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF
IMPROVEMENTS TO JIM CHRISTAL ROAD FROM MASCH BRANCH ROAD TO
INTERSTATE HIGHWAY 35E; PROVIDING FOR REINBURSEMENT TO THE
CITY; AND DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
City of Denton City Council Minutes
December 17, 1991
Page 15
15
Perry motioned, Smith seconded to approve the resolution. On roll
vote, Trent "aye", Alexander "aye", Hopkins "aye", Smith "aye",
Chew "aye", Perry "aye",~ and Mayor Castleberry "aye". Motion
carriedunanimously.
E. The Council considered approval of a resolution
authorizing the Mayor to execute an interlocal agreement with the
County of Denton for the construction of improvements to Ryan Road
from Farm to Market Road 1830 to Far~ to Market Road 2181 and
providing for reimbursement to the City.
Rick Svehla, Deputy City Manager, suggested the same type of
wording be added to the agreement "a two lane asphalt road built to
City of Denton specifications".
The following resolution was considered:
R91-078
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE AN INTERLOCAL
AGREEMENT WITH THE COUNTY OF DENTON FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF
IMPROVEMENTS TO RYAN ROAD FROM FARM TO MARKET ROAD 1830 TO
FARM TO MARKET ROAD 2181; PROVIDING FOR REIMBURSEMENT TO THE
CITY; AND DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Hopkins motioned, smith seconded to approve the resolution. On
roll vote, Trent "aye", Alexander "aye", Hopkins "aye", Smith
"aye", Chew "aye", Perry "aye", and Mayor Castleberry "aye".
Motion carried unanimously.
5. Miscellaneous matters from the City Manager.
Lloyd Harrell, City Manager, presented the following item:
A. The AnnualEmployee christmas Luncheon was Friday and the
Council was invited to attend.
The Council considered the Work Session items not discussed
previously.
4. The Council received a report and held a discussion regarding
a tentative schedule for converting the Moore facility to a law
enforcement complex.
Bruce Hennington, Superintendent of Facility Management,' stated
that staff would like to begin developing detail plans for the Law
Enforcement/Court Complex which was the first step of Phase I in
the overall space program. It had become very important to proceed
16
City of Denton City Council Minutes
December 17, 1991
Page 16
with the Moore Building Phase I as the City had some urgent
interest in leasing some of the leftover space. In order to
proceed with the detail plan, an architect was needed to continue
with design development, document preparation, bidding, and
contract administration. It was felt that that could be
accomplished by amending the existing architect's contract. A
program analysis would provide a detailed plan of walls, furniture
needed, location of departments and would fine tune the phasing.
The schematic design would work with staff for details on design
plus floor plans of old City Hall and the current City Hall.
Spacing and time was needed to do all the moves for staff and
citizens.
City Manager Harrell stated there was one critical item which was
the amendment of the current architect contract. The Council could
start the selection process again for an architect or amend the
current contract for Corgan Associates. Staff was recommending to
amend the current contract.
Consensus of the Council was to proceed with the staff
recommendations.
CounCil Member Perry asked if there would be a designated person to
work with the architect.
Hennington replied that the Construction Review Committee would
review the progress of the architect and there would be a building
superintendent working on the project.
5. The Council received a report and held a discussion regarding
a review of correspondence with the Upper Trinity Regional Water
District and gave staff direction.
Bob Nelson, Executive Director for Utilities, stated that a letter
had been received from the Upper Trinity Regional Water District
for Council review and consideration.
Mayor Pro Tem Hopkins asked if Nelson was referring to the letter
included in the Council packet.
Nelson replied that the letter did not address the contract which
the City of Denton had sent to the District. The letter indicated
that the District had appointed a three member negotiating task
force to work with Denton on a contract. It was asked that the
City likewise appoint a negotiating task force to work On this
contract. The District included a list of eleven items as a basis
for an agreement.
City of Denton City Council Minutes
December 17, 1991
Page 17
Mayor Pro Tem Hopkins asked if there had been any response
regarding the wholesale contract.
Nelson replied not from the treatment services contract.
Mayor Pro Tem Hopkins indicated there were pros and cons regarding
such a committee. She was concerned that it might be an attempt to
divide the Council. She also questioned whether the City should be
negotiating the contract. She would have a problem with a non-
majority group of the Council agreeing to any items already
discussed. She felt an offer had been made and the City should
standby it. She felt the City Manager, City Attorney and Utility
Director should represent the City and work with the Upper Trinity
Regional Water District. No Council should be involved.
Council Member Chew agreed.
Council Member Smith felt that the letter indicated that the
District had never seen the contract which the City just sent them.
Had the District seen that contract.
Nelson replied yes they had seen it and had expressed to him that
they would rather not acknowledge the contract.
Mayor Castleberry felt that the consensus of the Council was to
have the staff continue to negotiate the wholesale contract and the
Council was not interested in a Council com-[ttee to work with the
District.
Hopkins motioned, Perry seconded that a letter be drafted under the
Mayor's signature indicating that the City Manager, City Attorney
and Utility Director would be the City's negotiating team and any
response to the earlier contract should be made through them to the
Council. On roll vote, Trent "aye", Alexander "aye", Hopkins
"aye", Smith "aye", Chew "aye", Perry "aye", and Mayor Castleberry
"aye". Motion carried unanimously.
6. There was no official action on Executive Session items
discussed during the Work Session.
7. New Business
The following items of New Business were suggested by Council
Members for future agendas:
A. Council Member Trent asked about the status of televising
the Council meetings.
17
18
City of Denton City Council Minutes
December 17, 1991
Page 18
City Manager Harrell replied that it was on hold until after the
results of the Citizen Survey, which had a question regarding that
issue, had been received.
B. Council Member Perry asked about improving the lighting
in the Council Chambers.
C. Mayor Castleberry asked about the signs which the Denton
County Historical Commission had inquired about.
Rick Svehla, Deputy City Manager, stated that according to the
Highway Department, which had jurisdiction over the signs, the
signs were no longer in existence and were not of the age which the
Historical Commission thought.
8. The Council convened into the Executive Session to discuss
legal matters (considered action in City of Denton v. Washington
National Insurance Company, considered settlement offer in claim of
Alphonsus Ottih, considered settlement offer in claim of University
of North Texas, and considered action in r~), real estate
(considered leases with Cooke County College and Morrison Milling
Company), and personnel/board appointments.
No official action was taken.
With no further business, the meeting was adjourned.
CITY OF DENTON, TE~S
ACC00025
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS