Loading...
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