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