Loading...
Minutes March 03, 1992II1 CITY OF DENTON CITY COUNCIL MINUTES MARCH 3, 1992 The Council convened into the Work Session at 5:15 p.m. in the Civil Defense Room. PRESENT: Mayor Castleberry; Mayor Pro Tem Hopkins; Council Members Chew, Perry, Smith and Trent. ABSENT: Council Member Alexander 1. The Council convened into the Executive Session to discuss legal matters, (considered action in Texas Waste Manaqement vs. City of Denton, and considered action in Nichols vs. City of Denton), real estate, (discussed acquisition of land for recreational purposes and gave staff direction), and personnel/board appointments. Council Member Alexander joined the meeting during the Executive Session discussion. 2. The Council received a report and held a discussion regarding a Storm Water Utility. Bob Coplen, Chair-Storm Water Utility Committee, presented an overview of the Committee's report. He stated that the mission statement given to the Committee was two-fold - to review and evaluate the necessity of establishing a Storm Water Management Utility for the City and to submit an evaluation to the Public Utilities Board with a recommendation on whether the City should pursue the establishment of such a Utility and second, if the Committee recommended the establishment of such a Utility, the Committee should provide recommendations to the Public Utilities Board regarding the most feasible method 'for establishing the Utility. He stated that the members of the Committee represented a good cross section of the community. Subjects discussed included regulatory issues, flood issues, legislation, financial impact, legal questions, and what other cities were doing. Coplen detailed related legislation which included House Bill #1567 and Senate Bill #1409, the Clean Water Act and Senate Bill #818. That legislation indicated that a drainage utility system could be established by completing a public hearing process and adopting two ordinances. A municipality had to establish a schedule of drainage charges against all real property and provide drainage for all property which was assessed a fee. The fund collected under that utility could not be transferred to the general fund. The occupant and not necessarily the owner of the property could be assessed the fee. The uncollected charges could be recovered by law. The governing body of the municipality could dissolve the drainage utility but only after a five year continuous period. Examples of possible exemptions included the state, a count~, a municipality, a school district, or a governmental entity. The legislation did not prohibit a municipality from using revenues other than drainage utility revenues to fund drainage systems. The Clean Water Act City of Denton City Council Minutes March 3, 1992 Page 2 required municipalities and certain industrial activities to develop and implement storm water management programs to control the adverse impact of storm water pollution. The United States Environmental Protection Agency currently required municipalities with populations over 100,000 to obtain a discharge permit for storm water runoff. The EPA had proposed that the permitting regulations be extended to cities with populations of 10,000 to 99,999 in the next couple of years. Senate Bill #818 required that a water quality assessment study be performed by the Trinity River Authority. The Committee concluded that the Public Utilities Board and the City Council should pursue the establishment of a storm water utility. The creation of the utility should be incorporated with the 1993 fiscal year budgeting process. The Committee was not in agreement on recommending a time frame for the implementation of the fee. The Committee vote was split between implementing the fee in 1993 or 1994 or at which time the EPA Storm Water regulations became applicable to the City. The Committee recommended that the fees for all properties be based on impervious acreage which was property improvements which prohibited storm water from penetrating into the soil. The occupant should be responsible for the fee whenever possible and when not possible, the owner would be responsible for the fee. Initially all single family residential units would be assessed the same fee. The fee would be based on the average impervious acreage of the entire residential classification. The Committee recommended that the fee structure for the residential classification be reconsidered utilizing the actual impervious acreage of each residence as soon as the tools became available to make the procedure economically feasible. The fee for each mobile home park would be determined by that park's total acreage and the number of lots, both occupied and unoccupied. The fee would be the responsibility of the occupant. The fee of the unoccupied lots would be the responsibility of the owner. The occupied lots would be assessed a higher fee as a result of increased storm water runoff. Apartment fees would be determined by the impervious acreage of the individual complex, divided by the number of units. The fee would be assessed to the occupant and the fee for vacant apartments would be the responsibility of the owner. Commercial, retail, office and industrial properties would be assessed a fee based on impervious acreage. Properties with multiple occupants would have the bill prorated to each occupant. City, county, state, and public schools would be assessed in the same manner as commercial, retail, office and industrial properties, with a 25% exemption. Churches would be assessed the same rate impervious acre as commercial, retail, office and industrial properties. Legal counsel advised the Committee that State law prevented the exemption of churches from the storm water City of Denton City Council Minutes March 3, 1992 Page 3 utility fee. The Committee strongly encouraged the Public Utilities Board and the City Council to pursue an avenue of relief to the churches. Unimproved and agricultural property would be exempt from a user fee. Coplen stated that an average single family residential rate would be between $1.52-$1.95 per month. The Committee expressed a number of concerns which they wanted the Public Utilities Board and the City Council to consider when formulating their final decision. (1) The Committee viewed the fee as equivalent to a tax but felt it would be the most equitable manner for the City to address regulatory compliance issues. (2) The fee for all properties should be based on the amount of impervious surface. (3) When and if the utility was implemented, the Committee strongly urged the City Council to reduce the property tax rate for that year in direct proportion to the amount budgeted in the general government fund for the drainage system. (4) The Committee charged the Public Utilities Board and the Council to continue to examine and challenge the accuracy of the data collected on which the Committee based their recommendations, and to ensure that the fee assessed would be spread equitably across all constituent groups, without unduly burdening any one constituent group. (5) The Committee felt that the fee should be associated with each property's contribution to the drainage system and that broadening the base of the fee was more equitable. Thus a fee should be assessed to governmental entities, schools and universities. The Committee had some special considerations which it urged the Public Utilities Board and the Council to consider. Those included (1) the Council must reduce the property tax rate at the time the storm water utility was implemented. Council Member Perry stated that that was a recommendation from the Committee. Coplen replied that it was a strong recommendation. Council Member Perry felt it was very important that the Committee understood that the Council recognized its strong urging and recommendations which the Council would give every consideration. However, he felt no compulsion to agree to that particular recommendation. Council Member Alexander stated that there was a difference between a regressive and a progressive fee structure and the difference between a regressive and a progressive tax structure. It was unacceptable to him to not take into account the difference between those and take into account who would end up paying. Mayor Pro Tem Hopkins felt it was inappropriate to argue the pros 114 City of Denton City Council Minutes March 3, 1992 Page 4 and cons of the report. The Council was to receive the report from the Committee and the Council could discuss it at a later date. Coplen continued with the Committee's special concerns. (2) The utility should be equitable and the Council and Public Utilities Board should consider the impact on all constituent groups of Denton. (3) The Committee was concerned with the inability to put a price tag on storm water quality issues. (4) The Committee encouraged the Public Utilities Board and the Council to perform an in-depth analysis of both the impact of a storm water utility on all constituent groups of Denton and the rate structures using comprehensive and reliable date to validate the Committee actions. Don Smith, Member of the Committee, stated that the Committee was not confused with the difference between fees and taxes. A homeowner could not deduct fees from income tax. A business could deduct fees from income tax. In the Committee's opinion, there was no reason to implement the utility if the cost would remain where it was now as it was being cared for adequately under the tax structure. The Committee felt that the costs were going to go up. He felt it was not fair to implement the utility and not reduce the property tax. The fee needed to be low enough not to give the homeowners at large increase. The Mayor thanked the Committee for the report. 3. The Council was to receive a report and hold a discussion regarding the results of the Council Budget Questionnaire. This item was discussed during the Regular Session under Miscellaneous Matters from the City Manager. The Council convened into the Regular Session at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers. PRESENT: Mayor Castleberry; Mayor Pro Tem Hopkins; Council Members Alexander, Chew, Perry, Smith and Trent. ABSENT: None 1. Pledge of Allegiance The Council and members of the audience recited the Pledge of Allegiance. 2. The Council considered approval of the minutes of the Work Session of February 11, 1992. City of Denton City Council Minutes March 3, 1992 Page 5 115 Smith motioned, Hopkins seconded to approve the minutes. On roll vote, Trent "aye", Alexander "aye", Hopkins "aye", Smith "aye", Chew "aye", Perry "aye", and Mayor Castleberry "aye". Motion carried unanimously. 3. The Council received a citizen report from Adam Silber regarding utility rates. Mr. Silber requested that the Council consider a new rate system in Denton. The current system was based on rate one and rate two. Between the months of May and October, if no more than 700 kwh were used per month, the classification was rate one. Any other category was in rate two which was a more expensive rate. He proposed that there should be no fee for basic service such as $5.50 for rate one basic service and $6.50 for rate two. That price should be included in the basic rate. There should not be a special fee as it was not fair to pay a fee to be a customer for the month. He suggested standardizing the overall fee for the kwh by establishing a basic amount and any amount over a set amount would be charged. He suggested a 5% penalty if the bill were not paid by the due date. Cut off dates should be changed from two months to three months. This would increase compliance and reduce cost of sending out cancellation notices. Mayor Castleberry thanked Mr. Silber and stated that staff and the Public Utilities Board would study the matter and inform him of their findings. 4. The Council received and opened bids regarding the City of Denton Utility System Revenue Bonds, Series 1992, $4,500,000. Mayor Pro Tem Hopkins left the meeting with a potential conflict of interest. David Medanich, First Southwest Company, stated that he had bids for the bonds and certificates of obligations. He stated that the current ratings for the general obligation bonds were A1 and AA-, the revenue bonds were A and A+. Medanich opened the bids and read the net effective interest rate for the revenue bonds: Kemper Securities - 6.621; Merrill Lynch - 6.648; Paine Webber - 6.614; Prudential - 6.678; First Southwest Company - 6.5854; and NationsBank - 6.680. 5. The Council received and opened bids regarding the City of Denton General Obligation Bonds, Series 1992, $2,630,000. 116 City of Denton City Council Minutes March 3, 1992 Page 6 David Medanich, First Southwest Company, opened the bids and read the net effective interest rate for the general obligation bonds: Merrill Lynch - 6.4925; Bank One - 6.4174; First Southwest - 6.47311; Paine Webber - 6.3898; Prudential - 6.400; NationsBank - 6.504; Kemper - 6.525. 6. The Council received and opened bids regarding the City of Denton Certificates of Obligation, Series 1992, $1,325,000. David Medanich, First Southwest Company, opened the bids and read the net effective interest rate for the certificates of obligation: Prudential - 5.6778; NationsBank - 5.83; Paine Webber - 5.59; Coastal Securities - 5.708; First Southwest - 5.658; Bank One - 5.76; Merrill Lynch - 5.99; Kemper - 6.09. Medanich stated that he would check the figures for accuracy and would return later with a recommendation. 7. The Council held a public hearing and considered adoption of an ordinance rezoning a 19.67 acre tract of land from the multifamily-one district to the light industrial district (conditioned) on property located on the south side of East McKinney, approximately 635 feet west of Woodrow Lane. Z-92-005 (The Planning and Zoning Commission at their February 12, 1992 recommended approval with conditions 3-2.) Mayor Pro Tem Hopkins returned to the meeting. Frank Robbins, Executive Director for Planning, stated that this was a petition by the County of Denton to begin the process of constructing additional County facilities. Governmental building/properties were treated slightly differently than most land uses. The Courts had stated that cities must look at "reasonable" use of the land in analyzing this type of petition. Because this was in a low intensity area, the applicant was requesting conditioned Light Industrial district in order to keep the zoning consistent with the adjacent tract and to allow the flexibility of expanding the correctional facilities, by way of a specific use Permit, at a later date. Staff and the Planning and Zoning Commission had indicated that the use proposed was reasonable. There was a long list of permitted uses in the Light Industrial district but the applicant requested that the list be narrowed to allow only the following uses; correctional facilities with approved Specific Use Permit , public building, or offices. The infrastructure was in place or would be planned for later during the platting process. Staff was suggesting that there be no additional access on McKinney, substantial drainage improvements 117 City of Denton City Council Minutes March 3, 1992 Page 7 would be required on the property to insure that there would not be any additional drainage problems on or off site and the landscape ordinance would apply when construction began. The Mayor opened the public hearing. Dennis Burn, Director of Public Works for Denton County, stated that in December of 1991 the Commissioners Court signed an earnest money contract for the purchase of the property. As part of that contract, there was a 90 day feasibility period during which the property would be rezoned for a use to be developed in the future and perform geotechnical work on the site to determine if the site was suitable for future use. If the zoning were approved and the geotechnical work was suitable, the Commissioners would probably purchase the property. The Commissioners had limited the future use of the property. There were no definite plans for the property at this time. In the future there might be a correctional facility on the site, administrative offices, or future courts building. He wanted to assure the Council that the Commissioners currently had no plans to abandoning the Carroll Courts building in favor of this site. The Planning and Zoning Commission had approved the request and he asked that the Council do the same. No one spoke in opposition. The Mayor closed the public hearing. The following ordinance was considered: 92-033 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, PROVIDING FOR A CHANGE FROM MULTI-FAMILY (MF-1) TO LIGHT INDUSTRIAL (LI-C) ZONING DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION AND USE DESIGNATION WITH CONDITIONS FOR 19.67 ACRES OF LAND LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF EAST MCKINNEY WITH CONDITION, APPROXIMATELY 635 FEET WEST OF WOODROW; PROVIDING FOR A PENALTY IN THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF $2,000 FOR VIOLATIONS THEREOF; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Hopkins motioned, Perry seconded to adopt the ordinance. On roll vote, Trent "aye", Alexander "aye", Hopkins "aye", Smith "aye", Chew "aye", Perry "aye", and Mayor Castleberry "aye". Motion carried unanimously. B. The Council held a public hearing and considered adoption of an ordinance amending Specific Use Permit No. 198 on Lot 1, Block A, Putt-Putt Golf and Games Addition for the purpose of 118 City of Denton City Council Minutes March 3, 1992 Page 8 adding batting cages. Z-92-001 (The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval 5-0 at their meeting of February 12, 1992.) Frank Robbins, Executive Director of Planning, stated that this was a specific use permit request to amend an existing specific use permit. Batting cages would be added at the site. The Planning and Zoning Commission had determined that all of the conditions and criteria associated with the specific use permit had been met and had recommended approval. The Mayor opened the public hearing. No one spoke in favor. No one spoke in opposition. The Mayor closed the public hearing. The following ordinance was considered: No. 92-034 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, AMENDING A SPECIFIC USE PERMIT FOR A MINIATURE GOLF COURSE ON TWO ACRES OF LAND LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF EAST MCKINNEY, NEAR ITS INTERSECTION WITH CARDINAL LANE; PROVIDING FOR A PENALTY IN THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF $2000 FOR VIOLATION THEREOF; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Trent motioned, Smith seconded to adopt the ordinance. On roll vote, Trent "aye" Alexander "aye" Hopkins "aye", Smith "aye" Chew "aye", Perry "aye", and Mayor Castleberry "aye". Motion carried unanimously. 8. Consent Agenda Council Member Alexander requested that Item $.C.1. be removed for special consideration. Chew motioned, Smith seconded to approve the Consent Agenda with the exception of 8.C.1. On roll vote, Trent "aye", Alexander "aye", Hopkins "aye", Smith "aye", Chew "aye", Perry "aye", and Mayor Castleberry "aye". Motion carried unanimously. A. Bids and Purchase Orders: 1. Bid #1324 - Padmounted Transformers 119 City of Denton City Council Minutes March 3, 1992 Page 9 3. 4. 5. 6. Bid #1325 - Dump and Utility Bodies Bid #1327 - Dump Truck 12 yd. Bid #1330 - Fertilizer and Herbicides Bid #1332 - Distribution Transformers P.C. #23075 - F.M.C. Corps B. Tax Refunds 1. Considered approval of a tax refund to First Gibralter Bank for $801.14. Considered approval of a tax refund to Teresa Hayes for $1,708.21. C. Plats and Replats Considered approval of the preliminary plat of the Kern Personal Care Center; Lots 1 and 2, Block 1. The 19.8 acre site was on the east side of Hinkle Drive, approximately 950 feet north of University Drive. (The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval 3-1 at their February 26, 1992 meeting.) Considered approval of the preliminary plat of the Estates of Forrestridge Addition. The 67.928 acre tract was located immediately south of Section III of the Forrestridge Addition and was accessed by Forrestridge Drive. (The Planning and Zoning Commission conditionally recommended approval 3-1 at their February 26, 1992 meeting.) Mayor Pro Tem Hopkins left the meeting with a potential conflict of interest as she lived within 200 feet of the site of 8.C.1. Frank Robbins, Executive Director of Planning, stated that this was a preliminary plat of currently unplatted land in an "A" zoning district for the purpose of creating two lots. One of the standards in the agricultural zoning district was that there be at least one acre minimum lots. In this case there would be one lot which was a little more than an acre and another lot which was over 5 acres· There was an existing cottage in the corner of the lot which was an existing dwelling unit. There was a proposed home to be built on lot one. The infrastructure was in place to support the development and it met all the standards in the City's ~ubdivi~ion regulations. 120 City of Denton City Council Minutes March 3, 1992 Page 10 Council Member Alexander stated that his concerns were primarily procedural. He had had contact with some citizens who first saw a similar plan come before the Planning and Zoning Commission as a proposed rezoning and then later that was withdrawn and a similar plan presented in the form of a replat. He felt it was important to understand what a replat was and what powers the Council had to approve or disapprove this replat as presented. Robbins stated that originally the proposal was to have a private street where the cul-de-sac was and then gate the cul-de-sac where the property began. A private street was allowed in a Planned Development so the zoning had to be amended from "A" to "PD" to build a private street. That Planned Development request was withdrawn. This was not a replat as the property had never been platted. If the Council approved the preliminary plat, the Planning and Zoning Commission would then approve the final plat. Council Member Alexander stated that the final plat would go before the Planning and Zoning Commission and they would have final authority. The preliminary plat came before Council. Robbins replied correct. In terms of the regulations to follow for approval, State law stated that if the rules were followed as stated in the subdivision regulations, the plat had to be approved. The Development Review Committee and the Planning and Zoning Commission were recommending that that was the case and that the plat be approved. If the plat did not follow the rules of the subdivision regulations, the plat should not be approved. Staff,s analysis was that all of the standards which applied within the "A" district had been met. During the final plat process, there would be some public improvements made such as the development of the cul-de-sac, a water line extended and a fire hydrant installed. There would be no drainage improvements required as there was a great deal of impervious surfaces in the area. Council Member Alexander stated that there was some opposition by the neighbors who were very close to the property. What opportunity would they have under this process, to express their opposition to the preliminary plat. Robbins replied that preliminary plats were not required to have public hearings but the Council could establish some mechanism for a public hearing associated with a particular case. There were no requirements in the City's regulations or the State law. He felt that the issues had been fairly well defined in the three previous public hearings and discussions with the Planning and Zoning Commission. When the Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed the preliminary plat and the detailed plan, there were two previous City of Denton City Council Minutes March 3, 1992 Page 11 121 public hearings and discussion of the PD plan. There was also a neighborhood meeting which the staff sponsored. One consistent problem with the neighbors seemed to be what would happen with the tract - how would the property be developed. Mayor Castleberry stated that changes could not be made without returning for approval. Robbins replied correct. Council Member Alexander asked if the number of votes needed by Council was affected due to the fact that the Planning and Zoning Commission had not unanimously approved the plat. Robbins replied no. Council Member Alexander stated that the 20% rule would not apply. Robbins replied that the 20% rule would not apply with this kind of plat. Lloyd Harrell, City Manager, stated that on very rare occasions there had been public opposition expressed regarding preliminary plats. There were no public hearings on preliminary plats as it was an administerial task to determine that the preliminary plat met the subdivision requirements of the City. Once that determination had been made that the subdivision regulations of the City had been followed, then the authority to disapprove the development went away. There was no discretionary authority which people could influence with a public hearing on whether or not to approve a particular development. This was dealing with a plat and not a zoning case and all which was determined was whether the subdivision regulations had been followed. In this case, staff had determined and was supported by the Planning and Zoning Commission that all provisions of the subdivision regulations had been followed. Council Member Alexander felt that this issue pointed out the value of having zoning and being very careful on what zoning was approved for a given area at any given time. He agreed with some of the neighbors that this was not necessarily a plan which was totally desirable. Certainly not from the standpoint of some of the neighbors. It did not appear to him that there was any reasonable way that the Council could, even if it wished to, say no to this particular process. He knew these were the rules and the Council had to follow the rules. He wam ~uggesting that the Council needed to be very conscious of the need for buffers in neighborhoods and to think about where one zoning ends and one begins. He felt it 122 City of Denton City Council Minutes March 3, 1992 Page 12 showed the need for very careful planning and the public's need to have good zoning and good planning in Denton. Council Member Trent stated that he had attended one of the Planning and Zoning Commission,s public hearings. He had a hard time determining what the objections were to the issue. He heard possible objections to the fencing on the property, the gate, and even a concern regarding what would happen if the house caught on fire. There were six or eight houses in Southmont built on a piece of property that was not even as big as the proposed site. He felt the Goldfield's had the right to build the three houses on their property. He hoped the Council would approve the proposal. Council Member Smith asked Robbins that if the original zoning change proposal had proceeded, would there have been more public hearings. Robbins replied yes. Council Member Smith stated that to have changed it to a platting situation, the same goal would have been accomplished but without the public hearings. Robbins replied correct. He felt that the only issue was whether the cul-de-sac would be gated and a private street as a "PD" or whether it would be a public street and developed in "A" zoning. The "PD" and the private street was no longer an option. Most of the surrounding property was SF-16. The standards in the "A" district were substantially stricter than in SF-16. For example, the minimum lot size was an acre as opposed to 16,000 square feet. Council Member Trent asked about the zoning around the proposed site. Robbins replied there was SF-16 and PD for single family development and an agricultural district. Trent motioned to approve the preliminary site. Motion died for a lack of a second. Debra Drayovitch, City Attorney, stated that after having consulted with the Executive Director for Planning and based on his knowledge of the statutes and ordinances regarding replats and plats, the Director of Planning would proceed with the processing of the application for a final plat noting that there was no affirmative action on the part of the Council and no disapproval by the Council. Therefore, he would proceed to follow the statute and the requirements of the ordinance with respect to the final plat. City of Denton City Council Minutes March 3, 1992 Page 13 123 Council Member Trent asked what that would do for the Goldfield,s. Robbins read the statute: "Approval procedure - the municipal authority responsible for approving plats shall act on the ...,, Mayor Castleberry asked Robbins to wait a moment. City Attorney Drayovitch stated that Robbins could read the statute but indicated that Robbins realized that it had to work with respect to the replats. Robbins indicated that this was not a replat, it was a plat. There was another set of rules which applied to replats. He continued with the statute: "the municipal authority responsible for approving plats shall act on a plat within 30 days after the date the plat is filed. A plat is considered approved by the municipal authority unless it is disapproved within that period. If an ordinance requires that a plat be approved by the governing body (the City's did) of the municipality in addition to the Planning Commission, the governing body shall act on the plat within 30 days after the day approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission or is considered approved by inaction of the Commission. A plat is considered approved by the governing body unless it is disapproved within that period." City Attorney Drayovitch stated with respect to the final plat. The statute was not specifically addressing the preliminary plat. The same procedures would be applied to the final plat. City Manager Harrell asked for clarification. He wanted to make sure that staff was not doing something which Council was not comfortable with. Robbins had described a process which the Council had not approved but had not formally disapproved. Therefore, staff would continue to process the plat. That would be in accord with other actions which the Council had taken regarding preliminary plats in the past where there had been some kind of controversy. It had been an administerial determination which had been made regarding meeting the conditions of the subdivision regulations. Staff would continue on with the processing unless the Council felt that that was not what they wanted staff to do. City Attorney Drayovitch stated unless the statute was speaking to final plat. If there were an ordinance requirement which she should examine which would require that the item be brought back to Council for consideration, she would have no alternative but to recommend to Robbin~ to do ~o. Mayor Castleberry asked if that were the Attorney's recommendation. 124 City of Denton City Council Minutes March 3, 1992 Page 14 City Attorney Drayovitch replied that her recommendation was that she not bring it back to Council unless there were a legal requirement that she had to bring it back. Council Member Trent asked for a clarification of the Attorney's recommendation. City Attorney Drayovitch replied that Robbins had read the Council a statute which addressed plat approval. It did not specifically address preliminary plat approval. She did not have the ordinances before her which the City's Code of Ordinances required the Council to consider and take action on preliminary plats. If there were no requirement in those ordinances that the Council must affirmatively vote one way or the other, Robbins would process the plat in accordance with that statute. It would not come back before Council. If, upon a review of the particular ordinances, there were some reason why it would have to be brought back, in her judgement, she would recommend that to Robbins. Council Member Trent stated that since Council Member Alexander was the only one who raised objections, he wanted to hear from the rest of the Council why they objected. City Attorney Drayovitch stated that there was no legal requirement for giving objections. Council Member Trent stated that there might not be a legal reason, but he felt it was a question which could be asked. A member of the audience asked to speak on the issue. Consensus of the Council was to allow him to speak. Cyril Kasmir, attorney representing the Goldfield's, stated that he had provisions of the Local Government Code before him. He asked the Council if it decided not to approve the request for approval of the preliminary plat, that it follow the procedures in Section 212.009 of that Code. In the event that the Council did not approve the preliminary plat, he asked that the Council instruct the City Secretary to issue a certificate stating the date that the plat was filed and that the authority failed to act on the plat within that period. In the event that the Council decided to disapprove the preliminary plat request, he asked that the Council instruct the City Secretary to comply with Section E of that section of the Code and provide a certificate as to the reason for th~ action taken on the application. City Attorney Drayovitch stated that if Mr. Kasmir was contending that those provisions were applicable to the approval of the City of Denton City Council Minutes March 3, 1992 Page 15 125 preliminary plat, then she would requested that the item be continued until the next meeting. Kasmir replied that he had tried to call the City Attorney three times that day to discuss the issue and never received a return call. He believed the statue was very clear. There was no distinction between a preliminary plat or a final plat. He felt the City Attorney was making a distinction, which in his opinion, had no merit. City Attorney Drayovitch replied that she would not get into a debate at the meeting with Mr. Kasmir. That was why she asked, if his position was that, that staff be given some time to look at the relevant laws. She stated that she had been in depositions for the last two days and had been unable to return many calls. Her recommendation was that if that was the legal position of Mr. Kasmir that staff be given time to examine that issue. Alexander motioned, Chew seconded to postpone the item to a date certain being the next regular Council meeting. Council Member Trent stated that it was very obvious to him the reason the Council was afraid to give their opinions why they would not vote on the issue. On roll vote, Trent "nay", Alexander "aye", Smith "aye", Chew "aye", Perry "aye", and Mayor Castleberry "aye". Motion carried with a 5-1 vote. Kasmir asked again that the Council instruct the City Secretary to provide a certificate that was required by the Municipal Code. Mayor Pro Tem Hopkins returned to the Council meeting. 9. 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. ($.A.1. - Bid #1324, 8.A.2. - Bid #1325, 8.A.3. - Bid #1327, 8.A.4. - Bid #1330, 8.A.5. - Bid #1332) The following ordinance was considered: 126 City of Denton City Council Minutes March 3, 1992 Page 16 NO. 92-035 AN ORDINANCE ACCEPTING COMPETITIVE BIDS AND AWARDING A CONTRACT FOR THE PURCHASE OF MATERIALS, EQUIPMENT, SUPPLIES OR SERVICES; PROVIDING FOR THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS THEREFORE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Perry motioned, Chew seconded to adopt the ordinance. On roll vote, Trent "aye", Alexander "aye", Hopkins "aye", Smith "aye", Chew "aye", Perry "aye", and Mayor Castleberry "aye". Motion carried unanimously. B. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance providing for the expenditure of funds for purchases of materials or equipment which are available from one source in accordance with the provisions of state law exempting such purchases from requirements of competitive bids. (8.A.6. - P.O. #23075) The following ordinance was considered: NO. 92-036 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. Chew motioned, Hopkins seconded to adopt the ordinance. On roll vote, Trent "aye" Alexander "aye", Hopkins "aye", Smith "aye" Chew "aye", Perry "aye", and Mayor Castleberry "aye". Motion carried unanimously. Mayor Pro Tem Hopkins left the meeting with a potential conflict of interest. C. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance authorizing the issuance, sale, and delivery of City of Denton Utility System Revenue Bonds, Series 1992, and approving and authorizing instruments and procedures relating thereto. The following ordinance was considered: 127 City of Denton City Council Minutes March 3, 1992 Page 17 No. 92-037 AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE, SALE AND DELIVERY OF CITY OF DENTON UTILITY SYSTEM REVENUE BONDS, SERIES 1992, AND APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING INSTRUMENTS AND PROCEDURES RELATING THERETO. David Medanich, First Southwest Company, stated that he had checked all the bids for accuracy and the bid of First Southwest Company of 6.5854 was correct and recommended approval. Paul Horton, McCall .Parkhurst & Horton, stated that the City's Charter required that bond counsel advise the Council with respect to verification of the bids and approval of the proposed ordinance. He had examined the bid, found it to be correct, to be the lowest bid and recommended passage of the ordinance. 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. D. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance authorizing the issuance, sale, and delivery of City of Denton General Obligation Bonds, Series 1992, levying the tax to pay same, and approving and authorizing instruments and procedures relating thereto. David Medanich, First Southwest Company, stated that all bids had been checked for accuracy and found the bid from Paine Webber of 6.3893 to be correct. Paul Horton, McCall Parkhurst & Horton, stated bond counsel had examined the bid and found it to be correct and the lowest bid. He recommended passage of the ordinance. The following ordinance was considered: NO. 92-038 AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE, SALE AND DELIVERY OF CITY OF DENTON GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS, SERIES 1992, LEVYING THE TAX TO PAY SAME, AND APPROVINGAND AUTHORIZING INSTRUMENTS AND PROCEDURES RELATING THERETO. Trent motioned, Smith seconded to ad6pt the ordinance. On roll vote, Trent llayell, Alexander "aye", Smith "aye", Chew "aye", Perry "aye", and Mayor Castleberry "aye". Motion carried unanimously. 128 City of Denton City Council Minutes March 3, 1992 Page 18 E. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance authorizing the issuance, sale, and delivery of City of Denton Certificates of Obligation, Series 1992, and approving and authorizing instruments and procedures relating thereto. David Medanich, First Southwest Company, stated that all bids had been checked and the bid of Paine Webber of 5.59 was correct and recommended approval. Paul Horton, McCall Parkhurst & Horton, stated that bond counsel had examined the bid and found it to be correct and the lowest bid and recommended passage of the ordinance. The following ordinance was considered: NO. 92-039 AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE, SALE, AND DELIVERY OF CITY OF DENTON CERTIFICATES OF OBLIGATION, SERIES 1992, AND APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING INSTRUMENTS AND PROCEDURES RELATING THERETO. 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. Mayor Pro Tem Hopkins returned to the meeting. F. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance authorizing the City Manager to execute an agreement between the City of Denton and Coopers and Lybrand relating to professional consulting services for the City's Employee Health Insurance Program; and authorizing the expenditure of funds therefore. Ike Obi, Personnel Specialist, stated that the request was for the implementation phase of the contract with Coopers & Lybrand to monitor the provider network and financial services for the new health insurance program. Staff was recommending that the contract be awarded to Coopers & Lybrand as they had been working with the Ci%y for the past three years. The advantages of the program were that the contract would help manage the utilization activities and help monitor the financial aspect of the program. Council had already approved the budgeting of the program which was $4 from the City's portion of the health insurance premium. Council Member Perry had made a recommendation to insure that providers did merely include physicians but also providers other than physicians such as psychologists and licensed professional counselors. City of Denton City Council Minutes March 3, 1992 Page 19 1.2 9 The following ordinance was considered: NO. 92-040 AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF DENTON AND COOPERS & LYBRAND RELATING TO PROFESSIONAL CONSULTING SERVICES FOR THE CITY'S EMPLOYEE HEALTH INSURANCE PROGRAM; AUTHORIZING THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS THEREFORE; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Perry motioned, Chew seconded to adopt the ordinance. On roll vote, Trent "aye", Alexander "aye", Hopkins "aye", Smith "aye", Chew "aye", Perry "aye", and Mayor Castleberry "aye". Motion carried unanimously. G. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance vacating a drainage easement in Lots 4 and 19, Block D, Northwood Estates Addition to the City of Denton, Texas, Lots 4 and 16, Block E, Northwood Estates Addition to the City of Denton, Texas, and a portion of Lot 13, Block F, Northwood Estates Addition to the City of Denton, Texas. (The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval.) Rick Svehla, Deputy City Manager, stated that this was a request of some of the landowners in the Northwood Addition. Currently there was an easement across the back of their properties for drainage. That system was never built there but was built in the street right-of-way. The property owners were seeking abandonment of that easement. Both the Development Review Committee and Planning and Zoning had recommended approval. The following ordinance was considered: NO. 92-041 AN ORDINANCE VACATING A DRAINAGE EASEMENT IN LOTS 4 AND 19, BLOCK D, NORTHWOOD ESTATES ADDITION TO THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, LOTS 4 AND 16, BLOCK E, NORTHWOOD ESTATES ADDITION TO THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, AND A PORTION OF LOT 13, BLOCK F, NORTHWOOD ESTATES ADDITION TO THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS; AND DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Trent motioned, Hopkins seconded to adopt the ordinance. On roll vote, Trent "aye", Alexander "aye", Hopkins "aye", Smith "aye", Chew "aye", Perry "aye", and Mayor Castleberry "aye". Motion carried unanimously. 130 City of Denton City Council Minutes March 3, 1992 Page 20 H. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance approving an agreement between the City of Denton and the State of Texas providing for the payment of the costs of highway modifications for Interstate Highway 35. Rick Svehla, Deputy City Manager, stated that this ordinance relocated the exit ramp for northbound I35 to the new Loop 288. The original plans called for the ramp to come off fairly close to Loop 288. The City had a concern that it was so close to the Loop and might possibly result in traffic congestion and stacking problems for traffic on Loop 288. The change in location allowed Rancho Vista, the developer, to put more property on the frontage road with easier access. It had been confirmed by the City's bank that it had received the $450,000 from Rancho Vista. The following ordinance was considered: NO. 92-042 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, APPROVING AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF DENTON AND THE STATE OF TEXAS PROVIDING FOR THE PAYMENT OF THE COSTS OF HIGHWAY MODIFICATIONS FOR INTERSTATE HIGHWAY 35; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Hopkins motioned, Perry seconded to adopt the ordinance. On roll vote, Trent "aye", Alexander "aye", Hopkins "aye", Smith "aye", Chew "aye", Perry "aye", and Mayor Castleberry "aye". Motion carried unanimously. The Council took a short recess. Mayor Pro Tem Hopkins was not present after the recess. 1. Miscellaneous matters from the City Manager. A. The Council received the 1992 Utility Department Forecast. Bob Nelson, Executive Director for Utilities, stated that the forecast was used for the planning for utility system expansions, upgrades, and improvements. Mayor Pro Tem Hopkins returned to the meeting. N~l~on presented the population forecast. I% was predicated that Denton would only grow about 3/4 to 1% over the next several years and within three years would start with a 1/2-2% growth rate. 131 City of Denton City Council Minutes March 3, 1992 Page 21 Denton's growth rate was slightly below the growth rate of the other TMPA cities. Peak demand was expected to continue to increase due to the success of the load management program. Denton was projected to require additional generation capacity by the year 2001 for the 15% spinning reserve with no firm contract sales. Denton would need additional generation capacity by the year 1996 for the 15% spinning reserve with firm contract sales. Denton would have to decide whether to participate in the next TMPA generation unit, construct its own generation, participate with another utility, or purchase firm power to assure that generation capacity was provided in a timely manner. Denton's water demands varied substantially depending on rainfall. Denton's raw water supply was sufficient until the year 2016. Denton should be receptive to any opportunity to obtain additional supplies. Denton was designing a 10 MGD plant at Lake Ray Roberts. Construction was currently scheduled for completion in May of 1996. However, the forecast indicated that the completion of construction may be scheduled as late as 1999 without the risk of water rationing. The proposed water treatment plant should provide for Denton's normal demands until after 2015. The Lake Ray Roberts plant could then be expanded in increments up to an ultimate capacity of 100 MGD. Denton was planning for a three million gallon ground storage tank at the booster station on Hartlee Field Road which was scheduled for completion in May of 1993. This forecast indicated that completion of construction could be delayed until 1997, two years ahead of the water treatment plant. Another three million gallon storage tank would be needed by 2005. According to the Texas Water Commission criteria, Denton should have already begun construction of a treatment plant expansion. Design was underway and near completion for expansion to 13 MGD capacity. The projection of the remaining landfill capacity had not changed from the 1991 forecast. The landfill capacity was projected to suffice until 1996. The effects of recycling might extend its life several months. Denton may expand the landfill into the adjacent area to the east. However, this expansion as well as any proposed expansions required permit issue by the TDH and this process could take from three to five years. It should be started immediately. With decreased growth rate substantially impacted the amount of new capacity needed. City Manger Harrell stated that the reason the City was behind the curve on the expansion of the wastewater plant was due to the regulation changes for the plants implemented by the State. One of the advantages of a slower growth rate was that the City could delay the building of new facilities. B. Work Session Item ~3 was considered. 132 City of Denton City Council Minutes March 3, 1992 Page 22 3. The Council received a report and held a discussion regarding the results of the Council Budget Questionnaire. City Manager Harrell stated that results of the questionnaire from the Council had been complied. They had been ranked from highest to lowest based on the Council's recommendation. Staff would shape the budget proposal to reflect the ranking. There was no clear City service indicated for drastic cutback and no initiatives for new efforts. Comments had been added which the Council had been made. These would not be used as guidelines unless a majority of the Council favored the effort. C. There had been a school bus accident earlier in the day near Hickory Creek and Teasley. Eighteen had been injured and transported to the hospital. None of the injured appeared to be serious. D. The Mayor and he had been briefed earlier in the day regarding the closing of Texas Instruments. Texas Instruments assured the City that the plant and the site were owned by them and that they would be going through a review process to determine if the facility could be used within the Texas Instruments structure and some unit transferred in. There were no plans at this time to put the facility on the market and the decision would only be made after a thorough review. Council Member Trent asked about the economic impact on Denton's economy. City Manger Harrell replied that a preliminary review indicated that there would be a minimal effect on the property tax as the property would continue to be assessed at the current value. The inventory within the plant was minimal. From a sales tax standpoint, most of the families who moved here came from throughout the Metroplex. Many people were transferred here from a job standpoint but who did not relocate here. Those who did move here would probably commute to Lewisville. A large outmigration was not seen. The biggest concern for City revenue was the effect on the utility revenues from the plant. An initial review was approximately $70,000 per month in revenue. John McGrane, Executive Director for Finance, stated that of the $44 million of assessed valuation, $38 million was for land and improvements which would remain on the tax rolls. $16 million was equipment and inventory. The assessment for the current year had already been done and the taxes had been paid for this fiscal year. The impact would be for the next fiscal year. City of Denton City Council Minutes March 3, 1992 Page 23 133 Mayor Pro Tem Hopkins observed that the City had never had any existing buildings for future companies which might be a plus for Denton if Texas Instruments decided to sell the facility. 11. There was no official action taken on Executive Session items discussed during the Work Session. 12. New Business The following items of New Business were suggested by Council Members for future agendas: A. Council Member Trent asked about the Interstate right-of- way clean-up. City Manager Harrell indicated that the City had contacted the Highway Department and they indicated that they would sweep the area. The State right-of-way could not be mowed at this time due to the wild flower season. The State had given the City permission to install litter barrels in the area and staff was working on that project. Harrell stated that it was a Council policy regarding clean-up along the Interstate. He indicated that the State would not object to the City having City employees cleaning up the area. Traditionally, the City had not done that as the City had a two man litter crew which was kept very busy cleaning up the City. If the Council as a group felt that it wanted to take on that responsibility, the City could do that. 13. There was no Executive Session held during the Regular Session. With no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 9:10 p.m. JENniFER W~LTERS CIT 3 .cR . Y CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS ACC0004F