Minutes January 21, 1992CITY OF DENTON CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
JANUARY 21, 1992
The Council convened into the Work Session at 5:15 p.m. in the
Civil Defense Room.
PRESENT:
ABSENT:
Mayor Castleberry; Council
Perry, Smith and Trent.
Mayor Pro Tem Hopkins
Members Alexander, Chew,
1. Presentation and discussion of the Comprehensive Annual
Financial Report, the Single Audit, and the Management Letter for
the year ended September 30, 1991.
Kathy DeBois, Director of Accounting and Budget Operations, stated
that the annual audit had been completed as was the comprehensive
annual financial statement for the fiscal year 1990-91. The report
had been presented to the Audit Committee on January 14, 1992 at
which time the Committee recommended that the report be forwarded
to Council.
George Scott, Deloitte and Touche, stated that three documents had
been discussed with the Audit Committee. One was the Comprehensive
Annual Financial Report. The Financial Report had been prepared by
staff and audited by Deloitte and Touche. Their audit was to
determine reasonable assurance that the financial statements were
free of material misstatements. In order to reach that opinion,
they looked at a variety of documents, perform numerous types of
tests,~and interviewed staff and management throughout the City.
Throughout the process, they received all copies and records
requested and received the cooperation of both staff and
management. During the course of the audit, there were no
disagreements with management as to the proper application of
accounting principals and methodologies. An opinion was reached
that the financial statements were presented fairly in all material
respects. The second document was the Single Audit. It was a
series of reports concerning compliance with federal laws and
regulations and internal controls both with the City as a whole and
those controls over the federal programs. Each one addressed a
different area as required by various federal laws and regulations.
The majority of those addressed complied with federal laws and
regulations. There were no instances identified that were
significant violations of federal laws and regulations. There were
no situations identified which were thought to be material
weaknesses in the internal control structure. There were some
areas in which controls could be enhanced which were presented in
the third document, the Report to Management.
Lloyd Harrell, City Manager, stated that the audit report was
City of Denton City Council Minutes
January 21¥ 1992
Page 2
3,9
favorable and that only minor adjustments were recommended.
2. The Council received a report and held a discussion on
recommended building renovations and gave approval of a priority
list.
Lloyd Harrell, City Manager, stated that this program was discussed
during the budget process. There was a concern that major problems
were developing in City facilities and were not being addressed.
The Council made a commitment during the last budget process to
increase the tax rate a minor amount to service a debt which the
City could issue to try and attack the backlog of maintenance
needs. The tax increase would allow the City to complete
approximately $696,000 worth of renovation projects to City
buildings.
Bruce Hennington, Superintendent of Facility Management, stated
that the proposed ranking of projects consisted first of emergency
requests which dealt with safety and the requests which dealt with
areas where the building was deteriorating such as a leaking roof.
Council Member Perry asked what "drops out" meant on the ranking.
Hennington replied that those were items which required minor
maintenance which could be done in the current year's budget.
Council Member Perry asked if there were plans to work on the
Campus Theater roof.
City Manager Harrell replied that that was the responsibility of
the Arts Council.
Council Member Alexander asked at what level of management
structure the decision was made on which project would be included
and which project would have to wait.
Hennington replied that each request submitted by staff was ranked
first by safety, then those requests which dealt with a
deteriorating asset, those which affected citizens, and those which
could be held to the following year. He then ranked those requests
based on staff input and presented them to the Executive Staff.
Council Member Trent asked about the #5 ranking - Security Fire
System.
Hennington replied that portions b., c., and d. were being
recommended which consisted of fire/smoke detectors, door handicap
push bars and an automatic door. Portion a., security card system,
40
City of Denton City Council Minutes
January 21¥ 1992
Page 3
was too expensive to include in the project.
Council Member Trent asked about #16 - renovate parking lot at Fire
Station #4.
Hennington replied that the first bid was for $23,000. A later
estimate was for $22,700.
Council Member Trent asked about #29 - library drapes. Where would
those be placed.
Hennington replied that they would go in the Children's Area, the
Non-fiction Area and the Video Area.
City Manger Harrell pointed out that #34 on the list would be to
hire an individual to assist Bruce in monitoring the projects.
3. The Council received a report and held a discussion on
proposed "Smoke Free Workplace', and proposed "Use of Smokeless
Tobacco Products" policies and gave staff direction.
Felisha Cochran, Personnel Generalist, stated that the Surgeon
General had called smoking "the single most preventable cause of
death" in the United States. It had been reported that "smoking
was responsible for more than 1 in every 6 deaths in the United
States each year." Research had also determined that involuntary
smoking was a cause of disease, including lung cancer, in healthy
non-smokers. The current smoking policy was presented to Council
in January, 1987 and approved with a condition that a report be
made on its effectiveness. If the results were unfavorable, the
City was to rescind the policy and proceed with a policy to totally
ban smoking. From 1987 through 1990 a number of complaints, due to
health problems, were received in the Personnel Department. As a
result, a survey question was placed in the March/April 1990
Employee Newsletter. Of the 74 respondents, 58% felt that the
policy was not working. In January 1991, the Executive Committee
requested that an alternative policy be prepared. The alternative
policy went to Legal for review and was presented to the Wellness
Committee for feedback. An overwhelming majority of the Wellness
Committee agreed with the need for a stronger policy; however, a
number of concerns were voiced in the Police Department. As a
result, the City Manager requested the Policy Committee review the
proposed policy and make a recommendation. The Policy Committee
recommended to move forward with the proposed policy. Directors
and Division Managers received copies of the proposed policy and
were asked to brief their employees and encourage them to provide
feedback. A survey had been done to determine what approach other
cities were using in this area. It was recommended that the City
City of Denton City Council Minutes
January 21, 1992
Page 4
revise the existing policy and adopt~two policies to address the
smoking and tobacco products issues. The "Smoke-Free Workplace"
policy would prohibit the use of smoking tobacco products within
any municipal facility with the exceptions of suspects and
witnesses in designated areas of the Police Department during
interviews and interrogations and smoking would be permitted in a
designated area of the jail for inmates only. Smoking would be
prohibited in City of Denton vehicles with the exceptions of
employees who were assigned a take-home vehicle could smoke in that
vehicle if permission was obtained in advance from all other
passengers, smoking would be allowed in department "pool vehicles"
provided that non-smoking "pool vehicles" were designated and
available, and provided that permission was expressly obtained in
advance from all other passengers and smoking would be allowed in
open air vehicles such as heavy equipment.
Council Member Alexander asked if a non-smoking vehicle would be
available.
Cochran replied that a non-smoking vehicle would be available at
all times. The use of smokeless tobacco products would be
prohibited in all office environments, enclosed work facilities,
and areas where sanitation was a problem or concern, as designated
by the area supervisor. Employees who violated the policies would
be subject to disciplinary action. City employees who experienced
performance or personal difficulties while breaking the nicotine
addiction could seek help through the Employee Assistance Program.
The implementation date of June l, 1992 was suggested in an effort
to put into place a program that ,w~ut4 help those interested
employees with smoke cessation.
Council Member Alexander asked for conditions when smokeless
tobacco could be used.
Tom Klinck, Director of Personnel, replied field areas would be
areas where it could be used.
Council Member Trent asked if there would be designated smoking
areas in City buildings.
Klinck replied that there would be no smoking in any City
buildings.
Council Member Trent asked about the jail. The prisoners could
smoke but the employees could not.
Klinck replied that the employees would have to go outside to
smoke.
41
City of Denton City Council Minutes
January 21~, 1992
Page 5
Consensus of the Council was to proceed with the policies.
4. The Council received a report and held a discussion regarding
bridge conditions in the City of Denton and possible funding
alternatives and gave staff direction.
Rick Svehla, Deputy City Manager, stated that three structures were
of concern - Mayhill Road at Cooper Creek, Mayhill at Pecan Creek,
and Hobson Lane at Fletcher Branch.
The bridge at Cooper Creek and Mayhill Road had been barricaded
since the last part of November. The whole southern abutment for
the bridge had shifted, and it was felt that traffic could no
longer to use it. The bridge was jointly owned by the City and the
County and the City had been attempting to discuss solutions with
them for the last month or so. An interim solution with the County
would involve removing the old structure. The County would buy
large culverts, install them, and rebuild the crossing. In a very
heavy rain situation, the road would have to be barricaded. The
long term solution involved the total replacement of the bridge.
The total replacement would be funded on a 50/50 basis at a cost of
approximately $60,000.
The second structure at Mayhill Road and Pecan Creek had two
culverts at this location. One of them was beginning to settle due
to erosion underneath the pipe. New head walls and tow walls were
required for this structure. An estimated cost of repair was
$12,000 with City forces doing a large amount of the excavation and
fill activities.
The third structure at Hobson Lane and Fletcher Branch was
estimated to be 20-25 years old. It was possible to repair this
structure, however, due to the age of the structure, it was
recommended to build a new structure. Precast "crown spans" would
be used for an estimated cost of $115,000. Funding for the three
projects would be with street and drainage bonds. There was no
recommendation from the '91 Committee due to the short time factor.
Consensus of the Council was to proceed.
5. The Council convened into the Executive Session to discuss
legal matters (considered action in City of Denton v. Tri-Stee]
Structures. Inc.), real estate, and personnel/board appointments.
The Council then convened into the Regular Session at 7:00 p.m. in
the Council Chambers.
PRESENT: Mayor Castleberry; Council Members Alexander, Chew,
City of Denton City Council Minutes
January 21~ 1992
Page 6
4,3
Perry, Smith and Trent.
ABSENT: Mayor Pro Tem Hopkins
1. Pledge of Allegiance
The Council and members of the audience recited the Pledge of
Allegiance.
2. Resolutions of Appreciation
A. The Council considered approval
appreciation for Murl Calvert.
The following resolution was considered:
of a resolution of
RA92-002
RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION FOR MURL CALVERT
Alexander motioned, Chew seconded to approve the resolution. On
roll vote, Trent "aye", Alexander "aye", Smith "aye", Chew "aye",
Perry "aye", and Mayor Castleberry "aye". Motion carried
unanimously.
B. The Council considered approval of a resolution of
appreciation for Ike Splawn.
The following resolution was considered:
RA92-003
RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION FOR IKE SPLAWN
Perry motioned, Trent seconded to approve the resolution. On roll
vote, Trent "aye", Alexander "aye", Smith "aye", Chew "aye", Perry
"aye", and Mayor Castleberry "aye". Motion carried unanimously.
3. Citizen Reports
A. The Council received a citizen report from a
representative of the Youth In Government Program.
Roja Dilmore presented background information on the Youth in
Government Program. Youth in Government was an organization of
high school students who learned how State and lo¢al governments
worked. She ~tated that the students had held a mock council
meeting in the afternoon. Topics discussed included redistricting,
'44
City of Denton City Council Minutes
January 21, 1992
Page 7
curbside recycling, the planning and zoning of the Food Lion store,
commercial solid waste and the sign ordinance. Results of their
discussions indicated that they were in favor of the redistricting
plan recently adopted; curbside recycling would be doubled to
determine if it were cost effective, a $.50 per month charge would
be added to cover the cost with a time limit to build a RDF plant
in 1994; the Food Lion store was approved but delivery times would
be changed to accommodate school times; and the commercial solid
waste issue was approved as was the sign ordinance.
4. Public Hearings
A. The Council held a public hearing and considered adoption
of an ordinance approving a detailed plan fo~ a portion of Planned
Development No. 72 for the purpose of a retail grocery store on a
4.116 acre tract of land located at the southeast corner of N.
Locust Street and Windsor, adjacent to Strickland Junior High
School. Z-91-021 (The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended
approval 5-1 at their meeting of January 8, 1992.)
Frank Robbins, Executive Director for Planning, stated that the
infrastructure at the site was in place. The site plan showed that
a right turn would be built by the developer off Locust. Five feet
of right-of-way would be dedicated in order to make the right-of-
way 50 feet from centerline. Sidewalks would be installed on
Locust. Drainage was of particular concern, especially at the
neighborhood meeting. City regulations require that the site not
create a flooding hazard for anyone off-site or on-site. The
applicant chose to build a detention pond as opposed to major off-
site improvements. Water from the detention pond would slowly
filter out into an existing drainage channel. Landscaping far
exceeded the standards. The applicant was proposing that three
foot high berms supplemented with trees and shrubs be planted to
partially screen the neighbors west of Locust and north of Windsor.
A bufferyard with a six foot high screening wall was proposed along
the southern and western portions of the tract and would terminate
inside the property near the northeast portion of the site. The
Denton Independent School District had requested that a permanent
fence be built around the detention pond, that a temporary fence be
built around the construction ~ite and ha4 requested that no
deliveries be allowed between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 9:00 a.m.
and 2:30 p.m. and 4:00 p.m. Staff recommended that the permanent
fence around the detention pond be deleted from the ordinance
conditions. It was felt that the fence was not necessary as the
water in the pond would not be any deeper than 3 feet and would be
there for only a short period of time. It could detract from the
aesthetic character of the open space by having a fence around it.
It might also add to maintenance problems for Food Lion.
City of Denton City Council Minutes
January 21', 1992
Page 8
4¸5
The Mayor opened the public hearing.
Jerry Cott spoke in favor. He stated that Food Lion had always
been a good neighbor in the areas where he had built and operated
his factories. He stated that Food Lion reduced the price of
groceries 5-8% in one year when they entered a market. The
citizens of Denton needed money back from reduced groceries. If
there were too many restrictions placed on the proposal, then it
would be cost prohibitive to Food Lion.
T. R. Hays stated that he was in favor of the project but was
opposed to the staff recommendation of removing the permanent fence
around the detention pond. He felt it could place Food Lion in a
liability situation if a child fell into the pond. He recommended
that Council not remove that restriction.
Arlene Morrison stated her concerns about the proposal. She felt
that there were enough supermarkets in the area without adding
another store. She felt it was a poor location. The store would
have large trucks making deliveries and they would not want to have
to wait until the school rush'was over. She felt that the zoning
was spot zoning.
Barbara Fisher was against the staff recommendation to remove the
fence around the detention pond. Many elementary school children
passed by the area and a pond with no fence was a potentially
dangerous situation. The most inviting thing for a young child
could be a pool of water whether it be two feet deep, three feet
deep or six feet deep. A child could easily drown in those amounts
of water. One child's death was not worth the looks of any grocery
store.
The Mayor closed the public hearing.
Robbins indicated that there was a condition in the ordinance which
dealt with the delivery times as recommended by the School District
to avoid trucks being there during the peak hours of the school.
It was felt that this was not spot zoning as the property was zoned
Planned Development in 1984 for neighborhood service. The Planning
and Zoning Commission felt this was an appropriate use.
Mayor Castleberry noted that he had not given the petitioner a
chance for rebuttal and offered the petitioner time to speak.
Phil Able, Project Manager for Food Lion, stated that they had no
problems with any of the three conditions. He felt the fence
around the detention pond was not a problem. It would be a small
maintenance problem and may not be aesthetically pleasing. It
City of Denton City Council Minutes
January 21, 1992
Page 9
might also act as a barrier in the'event that a child went in
during a full pond.
Council Member Smith asked why staff was recommending that the
fence around the detention pond be removed.
Robbins stated that one of the reasons was for aesthetic reasons.
It could detract from the open space and it was not necessary for
safety reasons as the pond was relatively shallow even when
completely full. There would also be maintenance problems
associated with the fence.
Council Member Smith stated that it only took one time to have a
terrible accident. She asked if Traffic Safety and others had
looked at the entrances and exits and felt that two were adequate
for this size facility.
Robbins replied yes that they were adequate and within City
specifications.
Council Member Perry suggested that the permanent fence be made of
materials which could be seen through and as there was no major
objection from the petitioner, that the fence be built.
Council Member Alexander asked about the size of the detention
pond.
Robbins replied that it was approximately 10,000 square feet.
Council Member Alexander stated that it would not be filled with
water except during times of serious rain. It would then drain
down to no water at all and would drain within a matter of hours
after a rain had stopped.
Robbins replied correct.
Council Member Trent stated that if the pond were fenced, it might
attract children to see what was behind the fence. He asked if the
restrictions on deliveries meant ingress and egress or just
ingress.
Robbins replied deliveries only.
Council Member Trent stated that trucks could leave during that
time.
Robbins replied correct.
City of Denton City Council Minutes
January 21~, 1992
Page 10
47
Council Member Trent asked about the'size of curb cuts as in the
past there had been problems with large trucks not being able to
negotiate the size of the entrance.
Able replied that all of the large trucks would
Windsor and would not come in the other entrance.
radius' on all of the returns.
enter through
There were 30'
Council Member Trent asked about vehicles moving southbound on
Locust to enter into the southern entry. Would that stack traffic
if a car were trying to make a left turn southbound or would there
be a way to keep traffic going around.
Robbins replied that ultimately there would be a way for traffic to
go around. The traffic impact analysis indicated that there would
not be many cars stacking up and certainly not up to the
intersection.
Council Member Trent asked for an approximately cost of
construction of the facility..
Able replied about $2 million including the land. The building
would be approximately $1.2 million.
The following ordinance was considered:
No. 92-010
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, PROVIDING FOR THE
APPROVAL OF A DETAILED PLAN FOR 4.116 ACRES OF LAND LOCATED AT
THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION OF WINDSOR DRIVE AND
LOCUST STREET (F.M. 2164), BEING PART OF PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
DISTRICT NO. 72; PROVIDING FOR A PENALTY IN THE MAXIMUMAMOUNT
OF $2000.00 FOR VIOLATIONS THEREOF; AND PROVIDING FOR AN
EFFECTIVE DATE.
Trent motioned, Chew seconded to adopt the ordinance with the
listed restrictions. On roll vote, Trent "aye", Alexander "aye",
Smith "aye", Chew "aye", Perry "aye", and Mayor Castleberry "aye".
Motion carried unanimously.
B. The Council held a public hearing and considered adoption
of an ordinance rezoning a 19.8 acre tract of land from the Planned
Development District (PD 95) to the Single Family Residential (SF-
16) district on property located on the east side of Hinkle Drive
between the Denton Center Shopping Facility and the Good Samaritan
Village. Z-91-019 (The Planning and ~oning Commission recommended
approval 6-0 at their meeting of December 11, 1991.)
City of Denton City Council Minutes
January 21, 1992
Page 11
Frank Robbins, Executive Director for Planning, stated that this
was a substantial downzoning from a Planned Development to single
family-16 residential lots. The infrastructure was in place to
support the development and all policies of the Denton Development
plan had been met.
The Mayor opened the public hearing.
John Zimmerman spoke in favor of the proposal. He stated that this
was a downzoning. It would fit the needs of Denton more than the
present zoning.
No one.spoke in opposition.
The Mayor closed the public hearing.
Council Member Perry questioned the drainage in the area. Who
would be responsible for maintaining the drainage.
Robbins replied that the drainage details would be considered
during the platting process.
The following ordinance was considered:
NO. 92-011
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, PROVIDING FOR A
CHANGE IN ZONING FROM PLANNED DEVELOPMENT NO. 95 (PD-95) TO
ONE-FAMILY DWELLING (SF-16) ZONING DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION AND
USE DESIGNATION FOR 19.8 ACRES OF LAND LOCATED ON THE EAST
SIDE OF HINKLE DRIVE; PROVIDING FOR A PENALTY IN THE MAXIMUM
AMOUNT OF $2,000.00 FOR VIOLATIONS THEREOF; AND PROVIDING FOR
AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Alexander motioned, Smith seconded to adopt the ordinance. On roll
vote, Trent "aye", Alexander "aye", Smith "aye", Chew "aye", Perry
"aye", and Mayor Castleberry "aye". Motion carried unanimously.
C. The Council held a public hearing and considered adoption
of an ordinance approving a Specific Use Permit on a 4.S2 acre
tract of land located on the east side of Hinkle, directly behind
the Denton Center Shopping Facility, for the purpose of a personal
health facility. Z-91-020 (The Planning and Zoning Commission
recommended approval 6-0 at their meeting of December 11, 1991.)
Frank Robbins, Executive Director for Planning, ~tated that this
was a traditional nursing care building. There would be much
landscaping on the Hinkle side of the development and the elevation
City of Denton City Council Minutes
January 21-, 1992
Page 12
for the project would be adopted. Ail conditions for the Specific
Use Permit had been met.
The Mayor opened the public hearing.
John Zimmerman stated that raising the elevation would not affect
the area. The estimated cost of construction was $2-3 million.
No one spoke in opposition.
The Mayor closed the public hearing.
The following ordinance was considered:
NO. 92-012
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, GRANTING A SPECIFIC
USE PERMIT FOR A PERSONAL HEALTH CARE FACILITY, ON 4.82 ACRES
OF LAND LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF HINKLE DRIVE; PROVIDING
FOR A PENALTY IN THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF $2000 FOR VIOLATIONS
THEREOF; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Trent motioned, Perry seconded to adopt the ordinance. On roll
vote, Trent "aye", Alexander "aye", Smith "aye", Chew "aye", Perry
"aye", and Mayor Castleberry "aye". Motion carried unanimously.
D. The Council held a public hearing and considered adoption
of an .ordinance rezoning a .7675 acre tract of land from the
Planned Development (PD40) and Single Family Residential (SF-7)
Districts to the Multifamily-1 (MF-1) District on property located
at the southeast corner of Bell Avenue and Withers Street. Z-91-018
(The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval 7-0 at
their meeting of December 11, 1991.)
Frank Robbins, Executive Director for Planning, stated that all
infrastructure was in place. There would be sidewalks on
Bell/Withers. The property was in a moderate activity center and
the Planning and Zoning Commission had found that all the policies
of the Denton Development Guide had been met.
The Mayor opened the public hearing.
Marvin Morgan stated he would like to construct an apartment
complex consisting of 24 one bedroom, one and one-half bathroom
studio apartments. The architecture design and the landscaping
around the apartment would enhance the area. It would also help
with the overcrowding conditions Denton was currently experiencing
with apartments.
¸5 0
City of Denton City Council Minutes
January 21', 1992
Page 13
No one spoke in opposition.
The Mayor closed the public hearing.
The following ordinance was considered:
NO. 92-013
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, PROVIDING FOR A
CHANGE IN ZONING FROM PLANNED DEVELOPMENT NO. 40 (PD-40) ~-ND
ONE-FAMILY DWELLING (SF-7) TO MULTIFAMILY DWELLING-1 (MF-1)
ZONING DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION AND USE DESIGNATION FOR 0.7675
ACRES OF LAND LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF BELL AVENUE
AND WITHERS STREET; PROVIDING FOR A PENALTY IN THE MAXIMUM
AMOUNT OF $2,000.00 FOR VIOLATIONS THEREOF; AND PROVIDING FOR
AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Perry motioned, Trent seconded to adopt the ordinance. On roll
vote, Trent "aye", Alexander "aye", Smith "aye", Chew "aye", Perry
"aye", and Mayor Castleberry "aye". Motion carried unanimously.
E. The Council held a public hearing and considered adoption
of an ordinance approving the rezoning of a 1.63 acre tract of land
from the Single Family Residential (SF-10) District to the Planned
Development District and approve a detailed plan for medical
offices and accessory uses on property located on the east side of
Bonnie Brae, approximately 800 feet south of University Drive. Z-
91-017 (The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval 4-
2 at their meeting of December 11, 1991.)
Frank Robbins, Executive Director for Planning, stated that the
infrastructure was in place for the proposal. Storm water would be
detained on site and would run directly into the storm sewer. The
site was in a low intensity area. Staff and the Planning and
Zoning Commission had completed a disproportionate share analysis
of intensity. The Landscaping and Tree Preservation ordinance
required a minimum of 20% landscaping in the street yard. The
proposed landscaping plan showed 56%, which was more than twice of
what was required.
The Mayor opened the public hearing.
Fred Gossett spoke in favor, representing Dr. Yanke, the
petitioner. He stated that Dr. Yanke had been very sensitive in
her efforts to preserve the integrity of the neighborhood and be a
good neighbor. Th~ d~sign of the buildings would not detract from
the neighborhood and would not negatively impact the quality of
life of the surrounding residents.
City of Denton City Council Minutes
January 21; 1992
Page 14
51
Council Member Perry asked for more details on the drainage.
Gossett replied that there would be no depth of water of any
consequence. There was a small parking area which would catch the
water and slowly drain it to the storm sewer on Bonnie Brae. The
Engineering Department of the City felt that there would not be a
problem with such a design and would handle the runoff adequately
without impacting any of the neighborhood.
Council Member Trent asked about the size of the buildings.
Gossett replied that one building would be 3500 square feet and two
would be 3000 square feet, as proposed.
Council Member Smith asked what was between the Church and the
proposed development.
Gosset~ replied that the Church property went up to the proposed
development property.
Dr. Marilyn Yanke stated that two of the buildings would be 3500
square feet and one would be 3000 square feet. She enjoyed a lot
of landscaping and that was reflected in her proposal.
G. R. Rawley spoke in opposition. His property was located
directly behind the proposal. He was concerned with a number of
items on the proposed plan. As the plan was now designed, the
easement behind the proposal was 16'. There was 8' between the
easement and the bottom part of a terrace. The terrace ran right
behind his house 16' which was 24'. The top of the terrace would
be under two of the buildings. A lot of dirt would be required if
it were built that way or there would have to be very tall piers.
The bottom of the terrace was 8' over the easement which meant that
all of the holly and other landscaping shown as screening was down
in the 8' area. It would be lower than the lot which would be
about 4' higher. The screening was not adequate. The plans called
for Burford Holly which would not grow very tall and it would not
screen the terrace much less the parking lot. He was glad to see
that residents could now build on the City's easement. From the
proposed plans, building would take place on the easement. Someone
had not surveyed correctly when they indicated that there would not
be any drainage to the back of the property. When he bought the
property, he thought the neighborhood would be residential. He
felt that all the water would drain to the back of the property and
into his property.
There was no rebuttal from the petitioner.
City of Denton City Council Minutes
January 21, 1992
Page 15
The Mayor closed the public hearing.
Robbins stated that the existing topography and what would be
required to be done to execute the landscape plan which included a
good deal of berming and planting in the back was correctly stated
by Mr. Rawley. Rawley was also correct about the details of
surveying. That would occur in the platting process. It was felt
that it could be executed and that it would not be in the way of an
easement. It would not be a drainage problem and would require
more site work than what was currently there.
Council Member Alexander stated that berming might occur over the
easement but no construction would occur over the easement.
Robbins replied correct.
Council Member Perry stated that the project would not have a
negative impact on the drainage in the area.
Robbins replied correct.
The following ordinance was considered:
NO. 92-014
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, PROVIDING FOR A
CHANGE FROM ONE FAMILY DWELLING (SF-10) TO PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
(PD) ZONING DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION AND USE DESIGNATION FOR
1.63 ACRES OF LAND LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF BONNIE BRAE,
APPROXIMATELY 800 FEET SOUTH OF WEST UNIVERSITY DRIVE;
PROVIDING FOR APPROVAL OF A DETAILED PLAN FOR THE DISTRICT;
PROVIDING FOR A PENALTY IN THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF $2,000 FOR
VIOLATIONS THEREOF; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Perry motioned, Chew seconded to adopt the ordinance. On roll
vote, Trent "aye", Alexander "aye", Smith "aye", Chew "aye", Perry
"aye", and Mayor Castleberry "aye". Motion carried unanimously.
F. The Council held a public hearing and considered the
preliminary and final replat of Lots 15 and 16, Block 4, Hillside
Addition; into Lots 15A and 16A. The .312 acre site was located at
the southwest corner of Fannin and Bernard Streets. P-91-028 (The
Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval 6-0 at their
meeting of January 8, 1992.)
Frank Robbins, Executive Director for Planning, stated that this
was a residential plat requiring a public hearing. The
City of Denton City Council Minutes
January 21~, 1992
Page 16
53
infrastructure was in place to support the development. Curb cuts
would only be on Fannin Street which would improve the traffic flow
on Bernard Street.
The Mayor opened the public hearing.
John Johnson, owner of the property, spoke in favor. He felt it was
a housekeeping matter. The lots were originally platted on an
east/west axis in the late 1890's. In 1947 the property was
divided on a north/south axis. By turning the lots around 90
degrees, the lots could be made into lots that were 60' by 100'.
That met current requirements. He thanked staff, particularly Owen
Yost, for his assistance on the project.
No one spoke in opposition.
The Mayor closed the public hearing.
Smith motioned, Alexander seconded to approve the preliminary and
final replat. On roll vote, Trent "aye", Alexander "aye", Smith
"aye", Chew "aye", Perry "aye", and Mayor Castleberry "aye".
Motion carried unanimously.
G. The Council was to have held a public hearing and
considered an ordinance amending ordinance number 91-101 concerning
sign review criteria and process for PD 142, Hillcrest. PD 142,
Hillcrest, was 245 acres in size and was located east of IH-35N and
along IH 35 from Highway 77, Loop 288. Z-91-022 (The Planning and
Zoning Commission recommended approval 6-0 at their January 8 1992
meeting.) '
Mayor Castleberry stated that the item had been pulled at the
request of the developer.
Lloyd Harrell, City Manager, stated that a number of months ago, as
the project was announced for the community and discussion began
with the developers, it was recognized that because of the size of
the project, there needed to.be some flexibility into the signage
of the property .so that it could be incorporated into the
architectural design of the project. Since that time, work had
been done on trying to allow that type of flexibility to occur.
Initially it was felt that that flexibility Could be gained by
having the applicant follow the special sign district provisions
within the sign ordinance with the exception of the 600' threshold.
This procedure would work for everyone involved. That
recommendation was taken to the Planning and Zoning Commission and
it voted 6--0 in support of that particular proposed ordinance.
Because of all of the hard work done by the Legal Department, the
City of Denton City Council Minutes
January 21., 1992
Page 17
City received subsequent legal input that because the project was
located in a planned development and not in straight zoning by the
City, the amendment was no longer necessary to allow the
development to have the flexibility needed. The flexibility would
occur when a site plan, which was required in a planned
development, was submitted to the Planning and Zoning Commission on
which all signage in the project would be specified irrespective of
the 600' threshold. Any development which would occur within the
planned development, a final site plan would have to be filed and
reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Commission. Comments had been
heard, including some in a recent newspaper article, that the sign
ordinance on this project was not being adhered to so that the
project could occur in Denton. He assured the Council that that
was not the case. In the planned development process, it was very
clearly specified that the criteria which the Planning and Zoning
Commission must use in approving any kind of signage that was
proposed for the project. A detailed site plan would be filed and
the Planning and Zoning Commission, before they could authorize any
deviations from the current sign ordinance, must find that the plan
submitted was clearly superior and provided corresponding aesthetic
benefits which merited deviations from the sign regulation and
arose from the design of the project. The spirit of the sign
ordinance must be followed with any kind of filing with the
Planning and Zoning Commission. The developer and the City staff
would have to make a case to the Planning and Zoning Commission why
the signage proposed would be superior to the signage required
under the sign ordinance. The Planning and Zoning Commission must
find that that would be the case and must put those findings in
writing.
Item 6.I. was considered.
6. Ordinances
I. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance directing
the publication of notice of intentio~ to issue City of Denton
Utility System Revenue Bonds, and directing the issuance and
publication of notice of sale of said bonds.
John McGrane, Executive Director for Finance, stated that the City
Charter required that prior to the notice of intent to sell bonds,
that an advertisement be placed 30 days in advance of the sale.
The proposed ordinance provided for that publication. It would be
published in a national financial publication and a local
publication. Item 6.I. was for $4.5 million in r~¥~nue bonds which
were primarily for the use in the sewer plant expansion.
City of Denton City Council Minutes
January 21, 1992
Page 18
55
The following ordinance was considered:
No. 92-022
AN ORDINANCE DIRECTING THE PUBLICATION OF NOTICE OF INTENTION
TO ISSUE CITY OF DENTON UTILITY SYSTEM REVENUE BONDS, AND
DIRECTING THE ISSUANCE AND PUBLICATION OF NOTICE OF SALE OF
SAID BONDS.
Trent motioned, Chew seconded to adopt the ordinance. On roll
vote, Trent "aye", Alexander "aye", Smith "aye", Chew "aye", Perry
"aye", and Mayor Castleberry "aye". Motion carried unanimously.
J. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance directing
the issuance and publication of notice of sale of City of Denton
General Obligation Bonds.
John McGrane, Executive Director for Finance, stated that the same
requirement for publication applied to the City's general
obligation bonds. These bonds were issued in accordance with the
1986 election for the capital improvements. $1.5 million would be
used for street repairs, $940,000 for drainage improvements and
$190,000 for bridge reconstruction/repair.
The following ordinance was considered:
No. 92-023
AN ORDINANCE DIRECTING THE ISSUANCEAND PUBLICATION OF NOTICE
OF SALE OF CITY OF DENTON GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS
Perry motioned, Trent seconded to adopt the ordinance. On roll
vote, Trent "aye", Alexander "aye", Smith "aye", Chew "aye", Perry
"aye", and Mayor Castleberry "aye". Motion carried unanimously.
The Council returned to the regular agenda order.
5. Consent Agenda
Council Member Trent asked that Item 5.A.7. be pulled for special
consideration.
Perry motioned, Smith seconded to approve the Consent Agenda with
the exception of 5.A.7. On roll vote, Trent "aye", Alexander
"aye", Smith "aye", Chew "aye", Perry "aye", and Mayor Castleberry
"aye". Motion carried unanimously.
A. Bids and Purchase Orders:
City of Denton City Council Minutes
January 21., 1992
Page 19
1
2
3
4
5
6
8.
Bid #1308 - Two Man Aerial Device
Bid #1313 - Truck Cab and Chassis
Bid #1322 - Container Grown Trees
Bid #1303 - Belt Filter Presses
Bid #1316 - Single Stage Centrifugal Blowers
Bid #1321 - Arco Concrete Foundation
P.O. #21938 - Traffic Engineering and Controls,
Inc.
P.O. #21468 - J & S Equipment
B. Plats and Replats
Considered approval of the preliminary plat of the
Food Lion T-2 Addition; Lot 1, Block 1. The 4.116
acre site was located at the southeast corner of
Locust Street and Windsor Drive. P-91-029 (The
Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval
6-0 at their meeting of January 8, 1992.)
Item 5.A.7. was considered.
Bob Nelson, Executive Director for Utilities, stated that the Rone
Engineering contract was an annual requirement from the Texas
Health Department which required a test around the landfill to
determine if there were any leach coming from the landfill.
Council Member Trent asked if there was a request for more than one
bid.
Nelson replied no that Rone Engineering had been the consulting
engineering firm which had done that before and the ones which the
City had entered into contract with to be the City's representative
before the Health Department.
Council Member Trent felt that on items of this size that it was
customary to get at least two bids for the project.
Nelson replied that it was a case of professional services in which
the firm was analyzed and the price was looked at for similar
services. State law prohibited competitive bidding on professional
services of that sort.
Debra Drayovitch, City Attorney, stated that the engineers were
prohibited by their code of professional ethics from bidding on the
basis of the cost.
Council Member Trent stated that the entering arguments on this
type of bid were the sounding points and profile points. He asked
City of Denton City Council Minutes
January 21~, 1992
Page 20
57
how many of each the project involved'.
Nelson replied that he did not have that information at this point.
Council Member Trent stated that he called Rone Engineering and
asked how many points there were. He also did some comparisons on
his own and found out that the City was paying more money than
should be for this project. That was why he was questioning not
getting a second bid.
City Attorney Drayovitch stated that the laW provided that a City
may negotiate with more than one firm but must choose the firm and
then discuss the price. If a satisfactory agreement could not be
reached with the firm, another firm could be chosen.
City Manager Harrell replied that that was the process the staff
had gone through to bring the recommendation to Council.
Council Member Trent suggested that in the future more time be
spent on such projects. He had been quoted a price of $7100 from
a firm instead of $12,500 as quoted from Rone.
Smith motioned, Alexander seconded to approve Consent Agenda Item
5.A.7. On roll vote, Trent "nay", Alexander "aye", Smith "aye",
Chew "aye", Perry "aye", and Mayor Castleberry "aye". Motion
carried with a 5-1 vote.
6. 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. (5.A.1. - Bid #1308,
5.A.2. - Bid #1313, 5.A.3. - Bid #1322, §.A.4. - Bid #1303, 5.A.5.
- Bid #1316)
The following ordinance was considered:
No. 92-015
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.
Chew motioned, Smith seconded to adopt the ordinance. On roll
vote, Trent "aye", Alexander "aye", Smith "aye", Chew "aye", Perry
"aye", and Mayor Castleberry "aye". Motion carried unanimously.
58
City of Denton City Council Minutes
January 21-, 1992
Page 21
B. The Council considered adopt'ion of an ordinance accepting
competitive bids and providing for the award of contracts for
public works or improvements. (5.A.6. - #1321)
The following ordinance was considered:
No. 92-016
AN ORDINANCE ACCEPTING COMPETITIVE BIDS AND PROVIDING FOR THE
AWARD OF CONTRACTS FOR PUBLIC WORKS OR IMPROVEMENTS; PROVIDING
FOR THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS THEREFOR; AND PROVIDING FOR AN
EFFECTIVE DATE.
Smith motioned, Alexander seconded to adopt ~he ordinance. On roll
vote, Trent "aye", Alexander "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 emergency purchases of materials,
equipment, supplies or services in accordance with the provisions
of state law exempting such purchases from requirements of
competitive bids. (5.A.9 - P.O. #21468)
The following ordinance was considered:
No. 92-017
AN ORDINANCE PROVIDING FOR THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS FOR
EMERGENCY PURCHASES OF MATERIALS, EQUIPMENT, SUPPLIES OR
SERVICES IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SATE LAW
EXEMPTING SUCH PURCHASES FROM REQUIREMENTS OF COMPETITIVE
BIDS; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Perry motioned, Chew seconded to adopt the ordinance. On roll
vote, Trent "aye", Alexander "aye", Smith "aye", Chew "aye", Perry
"aye", and Mayor Castleberry "aye". Motion carried unanimously.
D. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance providing
for the expenditure of funds for purchases of materials or
eq~/ipment which are available from one source in accordance with
the provisions of state law exempting such purchases from
requirements of competitive bids. (5.A.8. - P.O. #21938)
The following ordinance was considered:
City of Denton City Council Minutes
January 21, 1992
Page 22
No. 92-018
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.
Trent motioned, Perry seconded to adopt the ordinance. On roll
vote, Trent "aye", Alexander "aye", Smith "aye", Chew "aye", Perry
"aye", and Mayor Castleberry "aye". Motion carried unanimously.
E. The Council considered adopti6n of an ordinance
authorizing the Mayor to execute an agreement with Rone Engineers,
Inc. for professional engineering services relating to an earth
electrical resistivity survey at the Denton Sanitary Landfill; and
authorizing the expenditure of funds therefor. (5.A.7. - P.O.
#21937)
The following ordinance was considered:
No. 92-019
AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT
WITH' RONE ENGINEERS, INC. FOR PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING
SERVICES RELATING TO EARTH ELECTRICAL RESISTIVITY SURVEY AT
THE DENTON SANITARY LANDFILL; AUTHORIZING THE EXPENDITURE OF
FUNDS THEREFOR; AND PROVIDING THE EFFECTIVE DATE.
Alexander motioned, Perry seconded to adopt the ordinance. On roll
vote, Trent "nay", Alexander "aye", Smith "aye", Chew "aye", Perry
"aye", and Mayor Castleberry "aye". Motion carried with a 5-1
vote.
F. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance
authorizing the Mayor to execute an easement from the City of
Denton to GTE Southwest Incorporated.
Rick Svehla, Deputy City Manager, stated that GTE was converting
their facility from overhead to underground and requested an
easement for this conversion.
The following ordinance was considered:
City of Denton City Council Minutes
January 21, 1992
Page 23
No. 92-020
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, AUTHORIZING THE
MAYOR TO EXECUTE AN EASEMENT FROM THE CITY OF DENTON TO GTE
SOUTHWEST INCORPORATED; AND DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Perry motioned, Chew seconded to adopt the ordinance. On roll
vote, Trent "aye", Alexander "aye", Smith "aye", Chew "aye", Perry
"aye", and Mayor Castleberry "aye". Motion carried unanimously.
Joe Dodd, a citizen in the audience, called for a point of order
from the Council. He stated that the Council had the authority to
open a public hearing on consideration of an ordinance and
requested that the Council do so for the next item.
G. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance amending
Article II of Division II of Chapter 25 ("Streets, Sidewalks and
Public Places") of the Code of Ordinances to require abutting
owners to repair defective sidewalks; making abutting property
owners liable for injuries caused by defective sidewalks; providing
for the fixing of a lien for the cost of repair; and providing for
a penalty in the maximum amount of $500.00.
Lloyd Harrell, City Manager, stated that staff was present to
answer any Council questions.
Debra Drayovitch, City Attorney, stated that only a member of the
governing body could raise a point of order.
Council Member Alexander stated that he realized that there were a
number of people who would like to speak to the issue at the
meeting but felt that the Council needed to be careful when an
issue was not advertised as a public hearing and then opened as
such as there might be an equal number of people speaking against
an issue. He suggested hearing the staff presentation and then
have the Council consider on how to proceed.
Council Member Trent suggested postponing the entire subject so
that everyone who came to the meeting would know what to expect.
Trent motioned to table consideration of the item to the next
Council meeting in order to hold a public hearing on the issue.
Council Members Smith, Chew and Perry agreed with Council Member
Alexander that perhaps staff should present a report and then
decide on how to handle the item.
Rick Svehla, Deputy City Manager, stated the City did not have an I
City of Denton City Council Minutes
January 21, 1992
Page 24
61
ordinance which clearly spoke to the question of who should
maintain sidewalks in front of property. The current ordinance was
different from other cities in the area. The proposed ordinance
clearly made the maintenance responsibility the responsibility of
the landowner. It set up procedures whereby the City could step in
and remedy particularly dangerous situations and then bill or
attach liens to the property. The current ordinance applied only
to residential areas and not to businesses. The proposed ordinance
would clarify wording and made the procedure easier.
City Manager Harrell stated that there were liability
considerations for everyone involved. It was felt that the
current provision adopted in 1966 intended to put the primary
responsibility of maintaining the sidewalks on the property owners.
There were four alternatives to consider. The first alternative
was to continue business as usual. The City could continue to
spend about $5000 per year trying to make a priority list of
defective sidewalks and have the City pay all of the costs for
doing that kind of work. A realization had to be known that there
was an unknown liability exposure. There was no way that spending
$5000 a year would adequately take care of the sidewalks. The
second alternative was to continue business as usual but to make
sure that every sidewalk in the community was in good shape to
avoid a liability claim. That would require a very substantial
increase in yearly expenditures that was necessary for sidewalk
repairs - over and above $5000 a year. It would also require
inspection time for inspection, on a regular basis, every sidewalk
in the community to determine whether or not it was defective.
There was no cost estimate for this alternative but in staff's
opinion it was substantial and would be a cost that everyone as
taxpayers would have to agree to pay as an additional charge. The
third alternative spoke to the ordinance. The ordinance clearly
stated that the maintenance of a sidewalk in front of a person's
home or business was the responsibility of the abutting property
owner. That would mean that liability would be transferred to the
homeowners. Maintenance of the sidewalk would be the
responsibility of the abutting property owner. There would not be
a massive investigation of all sidewalks in the City and started
orders issued to repair sidewalks. It would be the intention of
the City that if there were a complaint on a condition of a
sidewalk or an obviously dangerous situation, the City would have
the authority to order the abutting property owner to repair the
sidewalk. The fourth alternative would be to follow the procedure
spelled out in the current ordinance. There was some concern as
the current ordinance had a cumbersome process to follow. The
issue was being portrayed in the newspaper that this was an attempt
by the City to pass off all the charges on to the property owner.
That was not the intention. The intention was to clarify what the
6¸2
City of Denton City Council Minutes
January 21, 1992
Page 25
ordinance stated. It allowed the council to go through a rational
discussion about what the risk was that all of the taxpayers bore
as opposed to what responsibility should be the abutting property
owner and business. If a lawsuit were filed or if a substantial
amount of money were increased to maintain the sidewalks everyone
as taxpayers paid for that. '
Deputy City Manager Svehla stated that he had received 6 calls in
opposition to the ordinance.
Council Member Perry asked if the proposed ordinance would include
all property, not only residential.
Svehla replied that it applied to all property both residential and
commercial.
Council Member Smith stated that the current ordinance did not
apply to business.
City Manager Harrell stated that Section 25-60 stated that Section
25-58 and Section 25-59 would be limited to replacement and repair
of existing sidewalks abutting residential areas. Section 25-58
gave the City the authority to bear all of the cost for sidewalk
replacement except for the cost of the materials which the abutting
property would have to bear. Section 25-59 and Section 25-60
stated that that exception did not apply to non-residential
property. The proposed ordinance would make the responsibility
equal for all.
Council Member Trent stated that the citizens did not like the idea
of Council proceeding without input from them. In regards to the
City Manager's alternative #1 which was to go on with business as
usual and let the City suffer the exposure, he asked the number of
law suits filed within the last five years.
City Attorney Drayovitch replied one claim and one lawsuit.
Council Member Trent stated that one of the other alternatives was
to proceed with business as usual but to go out and improve the
sidewalk situation as it currently was. He was in favor of tha~:
alternative even if it cost a half of a million dollars. If that
was what needed to be done, then it needed to be done. He did not
want to raise taxes but could eprlorltlze some of the tax money
already collected. The City was in the business of public works,
public health and public safety. Everything else was gravy. If
money had to be taken from some other program to make sidewalks
safe, then it had to be done. In passing the proposed ordinance,
he saw a potential of extending fixed income residents to the
City of Denton City Council Minutes
January 2!, 1992
Page 26
limit. If money were paid for ad valorem taxes, then that money
should be used to repair the sidewalks. Those were public
sidewalks and if the City required the sidewalks then it should
maintain them. '
Council Member Alexander stated that he would like Council Member
Trent to remember at the next budget session that he was in favor
of spending a half of a million dollars on sidewalks.
Council Member Trent replied that he stated also that a
reprioritization of funds would be necessary. He knew a good place
for them to come from.
Counci~ Member Alexander asked if Council Member Trent would like
to specify that.
Council Member Trent replied that salaries were raised this year
for City employees at a figure of $750,000. That was one place to
get the money from.
Council Member Smith asked how an abutting property owner's
liability insurance affected the sidewalk.
Deputy City Manager Svehla replied that it covered any kind of walk
that was on the property but did not know what it addressed in
terms of what was in the right-of-way.
Counci% Member Alexander asked for the difference between the
street, curb and sidewalk on the same span of property. The City
took assumption of a street in front of all property and the City
repaired curbs along that same City street. A sidewalk became a
point of difference not only in Denton but also in other cities in
the area which tried to limit the amount of risk associated with a
liability claim. One liability claim would very quickly use up a
half of .a million.dollars. Was he correct in assuming that a
distinction was being made between a sidewalk, a curb and a city
street.
Deputy City Manager Svehla replied that there would be no question
that the new ordinance would make that distinction. The old
ordinance was more confusing.
Council Member Trent asked who owned the sidewalks.
Deputy City Manager Svehla replied the public.
Council Memhe~ T~ent asked if it were in an easement.
City of Denton City Council Minutes
January 2t, 1992
Page 27
Deputy City Manager Svehla replied that generally it was in a
street right-of-way.
Council Member Trent stated that that meant that he did not own the
sidewalk.
Deputy City Manager Svehla replied that the Legal Department
advised him that the streets were publicly owned and the City did
not own them.
Council Member Trent stated that he did not have a deed to it.
City Attorney Drayovitch stated that as a general rule in Texas,
property owners owned to the middle of the street so the deed would
often describe to the middle of'the street. The City would have an
easement or a right-of-way. When the State and Federal government
acquired real estate to build highways, they would purchase from
the property owners what was called fee simple. The city typically
did not. Typically it was an easement so that the property owner
owned to the middle of the street.
Council Member Trent asked why when he had his lots surveyed to
show the property lines, the stakes indicated the lot and another
ten feet was necessary to get to the curb and that was where the
sidewalk was.
City Manger Harrell replied that City ordinances clearly stated
that the property owner was responsible for the right-of-way which
was adjacent to his property for maintenance and upkeep of the
property. A case could be made that the City owned the ten feet
from the property line to the edge of the street and therefor the
City was responsible for mowing and maintaining that area.
Trent motioned again to table the item until the next Council so
that it could be considered in conjunction with a public hearing.
Smith seconded the motion.
council questioned whether the motion was to table or postpone to
a date certain.
city Attorney Drayovitch stated that she thought the motion was one
to postpone to a date certain. If the motion were to table it
would be tabled until a Council Member removed it from the table.
Council Member Trent withdrew his motion and Council MemBer Smith
withdrew her second.
City of Denton City Council Minutes
January 21, 1992
Page 28
Trent motioned, Smith seconded to postpone consideration of the
item until the February 18th Council meeting. On roll vote, Trent
"aye", Alexander "aye", Smith "aye", Chew "aye", Perry "aye", and
Mayor Castleberry "aye". Motion carried unanimously.
H. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance amending
Chapter 10 of the Code of Ordinances to prohibit certain contracts
with former council members for a certain period.
City Manger Harrell stated that the Council had reviewed this
ordinance at a previous meeting and brought forward at the
Council's request. There was a blank in the ordinance which
specified a period of time after a council member left office that
he would not be eligible for City contracts.
Mayor Castleberry recalled from the Council minutes that the
ordinance was to have a time frame of one year.
Council Member Alexander stated that he had stated at that time
that he would motion for a 90 day time period and would vote for
the ordinance if it were for 90 days.
Council Member Smith stated that she was not very pleased with the
ordinance on the basis of the number of prohibitions. She asked
the City Attorney to detail all of the prohibitions.
City Attorney Drayovitch stated that there was a legal basis for
items ~1, 2, and 4 because of the provisions of Chapter 252 of the
Texas Local Government Code. Those could be omitted because the
State law would apply even without listing those exceptions. The
third exception recognized that Council Members could have utility
accounts with the City, could participate with the releaf program
of the Parks Program or could swim at the City pool. All of those
items were contracts with the City and where a contract treated
everyone the same and no former council member would benefit from
that contract, it would be permissible. Exception #5 was for the
City's benefit because a former council member may own some
property that the City needed to purchase to complete a street
project or to construct a new facility. That could be left out but
it was included to afford some flexibility.
Council Member Trent pointed out that a council member might have
been instrumental in getting such a street headed in his direction.
Council Member Smith agreed and felt that a 90 day delay would not
be too detrimental to the City and would clear up any appearance of
indiscretion.
City of Denton City Council Minutes
January 21, 1992
Page 29
Council Member Alexander stated that that was why he felt a shorter
term was better than a longer term if that provision were left in
the ordinance.
City Attorney Drayovitch stated that that provision could be
deleted and #4 could be deleted as well.
Mayor Castleberry felt that 90 days was not long enough and wanted
to see a year time period.
Council Member Trent asked what was Council Member Alexander,s
objection to a year.
councii Member Alexander replied that his objection was to the
ordinance in general. The net effect of the ordinance in total
context, when looked at the applicable state law, was that the only
ones affected by it were professional people within the City.
Businessmen, generally, were not in the least affected by the
application of the ordinance. It was not a meaningful effort. It
struck an imbalance between the ability of professional people
within the City to serve on the Council as compared to business
people. It was not in the best interest of the public. If the
time frame were pushed to a year, he would vote against it.
Council Member Smith stated that she was very much in favor of an
ethics ordinance. But she was in favor of one with some teeth in
it and would not vote for the proposed ordinance.
The following ordinance was considered:
No. 92-021
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, AMENDING CHAPTER 10
OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCE TO PROHIBIT CERTAIN CONTRACTS WITH
FORMER COUNCILMEMBERS FOR A CERTAIN PERIOD; AND PROVIDING FOR
AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Alexander motioned, Chew seconded to adopt the ordinance with a 180
day time frame. On roll vote, Trent "aye", Alexander "aye", Smith
"nay", Chew "aye", Perry "aye", and Mayor Castleberry "aye".
Motion carried with a 5-1 vote.
7. Resolutions
A. The Council considered approval of a resolution adopting
a new Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Program fQr the Denton
Municipal Airport. (The Airport Advisory Board recommended
approval.)
City of Denton City Council Minutes
January 21, 1992
Page 30
Rick Svehla, Deputy City Manager, stated that the City had received
notice that it would be offered two grants, one for~the Master Plan
at the Airport and the other to proceed with acquiring property for
the expansion.
The following resolution was considered:
R92-007
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, ADOPTING A NEW
DISADVANTAGED BUSINESS ENTERPRISE PROGRAM FOR THE DENTON
MUNICIPAL AIRPORT; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Perry motioned, Trent seconded to approve the resolution. On roll
vote, Trent "aye", Alexander "aye", Smith "aye", Chew "aye", Perry
"aye", and Mayor Castleberry "aye". Motion carried unanimously.
8. The Council considered approval of an extension of a sanitary
sewer line adjacent to the Municipal Airport.
Bob Nelson, Executive Director for Utilities, stated that the
existing hangers on the north side of Airport Drive were served by
a septic system. Some of these systems were showing signs of
failure. Plans to expand facilities and add hangers would
incorporate land that was necessary for constructing additional
septic facilities. Without a gravity sanitary sewer line, further
development was essentially at a stalemate. The businesses did not
meet ~he criteria for Economic Development funding assistance.
Monies were available in the budget for miscellaneous sewer line
construction and for sewer line infill. The fiscal impact could be
minimized by constructing the line with in-house resources.
Council Member Alexander asked if all parties at the Airport were
required to hook onto the system.
Nelson replied that was optional.
Trent motioned, Smith seconded to approve the extension for a
sanitary sewer line adjacent to the Municipal Airport. On roll
vote, Trent "aye", Alexander "aye", Smith "aye", Chew "aye", Perry
"aye", and Mayor Castleberry "aye". Motion carried unanimously.
9. Miscellaneous matters from the City Manager~
Lloyd Harrell, City Manager, presented the following items:
A. He requested canceling the study session of January 28
and moving it to February 11. Consensus of the Council was to
City of Denton City Council Minutes
January 21, 1992
Page 31
reschedule the meetings as noted.
B. Jim Harder, the new Director for Electric Utilities had
been at the meeting but had since left. He had wanted to introduce
him to the Council. ~"'~".~
10. There was no official action taken on Executive Session items
discussed during the Work.Session.
11. New Business
No Council Member had an item of new business for future Council
agendas.
12. The Council did not meet in Executive Session during the
Regular Session.
With no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 10:25 p.m.
JEN~ER 'WAL~ERS
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS
BOB CASTLEBERRY, MAYOR
CITY OF DENTON, TEXA~
ACC00036