Minutes July 28, 1992343
CITY OF DENTON CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
July 28, 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
Brock, Chew, Perry, Smith and Miller.
ABSENT: None
1. The Council received a report and held a discussion with the
Denton Area Solid Waste Technical Committee and gave staff
direction.
Bill Angelo, Director of Community Services, stated that in October
1991, recognizing the need for action in disposal in the Denton
area, an ad hoc committee was formed made up. of members of local
businesses, experts in the field and interested citizens. The
committee met on a regular basis and researched various issues
relative to solid waste.
Dr. KenDickson, University. of North Texas, presented the members
of the Committee which was known as the Denton Area Solid Waste
Technical Committee. The mission of the Committee was to foster
the establishment of a Denton Area Resource Recovery Cooperative.
The goal of the Cooperative was to use creative talents of area
governments, universities, businesses, and citizens to address
solid waste disposal problems in an environmentally sound manner
while fostering resource recovery and economic development. The
City of Denton solid waste management was the nucleus of the
Cooperative. The Committee first met in December and had met
regularly over the last seven months. It was felt that solid waste
was a regional problem throughout the County. Dickson detailed an
overview of solid wastes in 1992 in the. United States, in Texas and
in Denton as opposed to the amount recycled. The bulk of solid
waste in Denton was paper, followed by yard wastes and other
materials'. That waste was managed by landfill, incineration and
recovery. Sources of solid waste in Denton were commercial (74%)
and residentiall (26%). The opportunities/challenges faced by the
City included (1) the City of Denton landfill would be full by July
1996 and time was short to develop alternatives; (2) a unique
opportunity existed in Denton for creatively addressing solid waste
management; (3) i the Parker Bill set a goal of reducing the weight
of solid waste going to Texas landfills by 40% by 1994; and (4) the
Clean Texas 2000 set a goal of 50-60% reduction in weight of solid
wastes being landfilled by the year 2000. The recommendation of
the Committee was that an integrated approach was necessary with
the components of emphasis on source reduction, collection system
modifications which would include a materials recovery facility,
source reduction/waste minimization which was the design,
manufacture, and use of products so as to reduce the quantity and
toxicity of wastes produced when products reached the end of their
useful life. Committee recommendations included (1) the
344
City of Denton City Council Minutes
July 28, 1992
Page 2
development of financial incentives and disincentives to encourage
reduction of solid waste by linking economic benefit to reduction
activities; (2) the development of an active public education
program stressing product reuse, decreasing consumption and
substituting safer products; (3) the sponsorship and support of
state and federal legislation which encouraged product reuse,
decreased packaging, increased product lifetime, and decreased
product toxicity; (4) the development of a program to address
household hazardous wastes through education, collection and
disposal. The collection system would involve three basic systems
consisting of drop-off centers, source separation curbside
collection and commingled curbside collection. Dickson presented
the pros and cons of each of the three basic systems which were
included in a handout presented to Council. The Committee
recommendation was to implement a phased manner mandatory source
separation of residential and commercial solid wastes. Solid
wastes would be source separated into paper, recyclables (glass,
aluminum, ferrous metals, plastics) and non-recyclables. A three
colored bag or sticker and united collection system was
recommended. Composting was another issue which the Committee
studied. It was felt that materials could be economically and
effectively used after composting for landscaping, horticulture,
and agriculture. The Committee's recommendation was that (1) a
medium technology composting facility be developed at the Edwards
landfill site; (2) a collection system for yard wastes would be
provided and would use a volume based rate structure; (3)
ultimately ban yard wastes from the municipal solid waste stream;
and (4) encourage backyard composting and the "Don't Bag It
Program". A materials recovery facility received, baled, stored,
and shipped resources to end users. It allowed for efficient
processing of both residential and commercial solid wastes, and for
compaction and consolidation maximinizing economic return and
minimizing environmental effects of transportation. The Committee's
recommendation was to develop a 300 ton/day materials recovery
facility which could initially separate, process, store, and ship
paper, aluminum, ferrous metals, glass, and plastic. The facility
would be flexible in design so that it could be expanded to produce
paper fluff forl composting and refuse derived fuel at some later
date. The Committee looked at the Denton landfill. Based on
historical data and growth assumptions, the City of Denton would
need 48 acres of landfill to meet its needs to the year 2018 or 80
acres to meet its needs to 2028. This assumed that all municipal
solid waste was and could be landfilled. With a municipal
composting facility and a materials recovery facility, the amount
of landfill needed could be reduced by a factor of 3X. This meant
that the 80 acre landfill would only be one-third full in the year
2028. Committee recommendations for the landfill included (1) the
City should immediately proceed to expand the Edwards landfill and
345
City of Denton City Council Minutes
July 28, 1992
Page 3
provide space for a materials recovery facility, municipal
composting facility, and for a resource recovery industrial park;
and (2) the Edwards site had the advantages of strategic location,
geotechnical properties were adequate, and waste treatment plant
location as opposed to a new facility. Summary of the Committee's
recommendations included (1) the City should move immediately to
expand its current .Edwards landfill; (2) a municipal composting
facility should be established to process yard wastes and yard
wastes should be banned from the landfill; (3) a municipal
materials recovery facility should be developed at the Edwards
landfill to recover recyclable resources; (4) mandatory source
separation of both residential and commercial solid wastes should
be implemented with a three colored bag or sticker and unified
collection system; (5) residential and commercial municipal solid
waste billing rates should be based on the volume of waste
generated; and (6) an aggressive public education program on waste
reduction/waste minimization should be implemented. Dickson
outlined the economic implications of the recommendations. The
Committee had conducted a preliminary economic analysis and
examined two alternatives. Two options examined were building a
landfill to hold all of the City's solid wastes or develop an
integrated approach which used source reduction, a municipal
composting facility, a materials recovery facility and a smaller
landfill. Both options were assessed for implementation in 1996
and examined for cost if built to meet the City's needs for 33
years. Option I, which was to continue to landfill all municipal
solid waste, would require an 80 acre landfill to meet the City's
needs to the year 2028. Development costs would be approximately
$5 million in 1992 dollars. Annual operating costs included debt
service of $2,890,865. Option II included development of a
materials recovery facility, a municipal composting facility, and
landfill which would cost approximately $11,700,000 in 1992 dollars
for a facility to handle wastes generated in 2028. Annual
operative costs which included debt service were estimated to be $5
million if no credit was allowed for income from the sale of
recovered recyclables. If recyclables could be sold for an average
of $25 per ton then the annual operating costs would be $2 million
which was comparable to the annual operating costs of Option I.
Other benefits of Option II were that (1) it allowed the City to
meet the legislative goals of a 40-60% reduction in the weight of
municipal solid waste being landfilled in Texas, (2) it extended
the life of the landfill by 3X to 5X, (3) it recovered valuable
resources from municipal solid waste and returned money back into
the local economy, (4) it had the potential to attract local
industries which specialized in processing recovered resources, (5)
it provided an opportunity for research and development in a growth
area, and (6) it would establish Denton as a leader in
environmental stewardship in the region and in Texas. Committee
346
City of Denton City Council Minutes
July 28, 1992
Page 4
conclusions included the City should implement an integrated solid
waste management program which included waste reduction
initiatives, municipal composting, a materials recovery facility,
and a landfill. The implementation should be phased with the goal
of full implementation in 1996. First steps recommended would be
to (1) proceed immediately with permitting an expansion of the
Edwards landfill with the permit as large as the landfill as could
be accommodated at the site; (2) begin a detailed engineering
design for a municipal composting facility and materials recovery
facility; (3) develop and implement an environmental education
program on waste minimization and resource recovery, (4) explore
for funding sources with state and federal government and with
industries; and (5) explore with other governmental agencies to
help serve on the Denton Area Resource Recovery Cooperative.
Consensus of the Council was to continue the study and return to
Council-with another report._
2. The Council received a report and held a discussion with the
Keep Denton Beautiful Board regarding the "Welcome To Denton" sign
and gave staff direction.
Cecile Carson, Keep Denton Beautiful Coordinator, stated that the
Council had asked the Board to research sites and lettering types
of the proposed sign. She showed a video tape of proposed
locations. The University location would be approximately 450 feet
east of the 1-35 and University Drive intersection. The site was
currently 35 feet wide and would be increased when the exit ramp
was relocated. Another site suggested by Council was the Dallas
Drive area. The Board reviewed possible locations at or near the
Dallas Drive and 1-35 intersection as the site for a second sign.
According to the Department of Transportation, the brick sign could
not be installed between the Service Road and the Interstate. This
area was regulated not only by the Department of Transportation but
also by the Federal Government. The Board tentatively recommended
placing the sign in the median north of the left turn lane from
Dallas Drive into Wolfe's Nursery. The sign would be reduced in
size to fit between the existing concrete splash guard.
John Cooper, Chair - Keep Denton Beautiful Board, stated that the
recommended sign design was based on the TWU entrance sign on Bell
Avenue. The size of the sign would be approximately six feet high
and eight feet long with an overall square footage of forty-eight
square feet. The first sign would serve as a prototype for future
signs and the size would vary depending on the other entrance
locations.
347
City of Denton City Council Minutes
July 28, 1992
Page 5
Mayor Castleberry asked if the sign would'be on a berm.
Cooper replied yes and that it was hoped that the work on the berm
would be done in-house.
Mayor Castleberry asked if the sign would be illuminated at night.
Carson replied yes that the face of the sign and the landscaping
would have lighting at night.
Mayor Pro Tem Hopkins asked if the sign would be on State right-of-
way.
Carson replied yes.
Council Member Chew asked about maintenance costs.
Carson indicated that preliminary estimates for the initial
landscaping without any in-kind services or donations was $3,000.
The color bed change out would be approximately $500 each year and
it was hoped that donations could be received for that landscaping.
It was estimated that the sign might weather over a three year
period and some type of maintenance would be required after three
years.
Mayor Pro Tem Hopkins asked about watering and irrigation.
Carson replied that a proposal was being developed to include this
as an Adopt-A Spot watering location. The Water Division and the
Adopt-A-Spot Program had agreed to assist with the first four
thousand gallons of water. The cost per year was estimated at $25
for the meter charge and the meter reading.
Mayor Pro Tem Hopkins stated that only $25 per year would be the
cost for water.
Carson replied that 4000 gallons of water, per quarter were being
donated by the Water Department if the proposal were approved by
the Public Utilities Board and the City Council through the Adopt-
A-Spot program.~
Mayor Castleberry asked about donation of the brick.
Carson indicated that Acme Brick might be willing to donate the
brick. The estimate of the sign was $2200 for the sign and the
major portion of that was the brick.. If the brick would be
donated, the cost would be reduced. A mason had indicated that he
might possibly donate his time to do the brick laying for the sign.
348
City of Denton City Council Minutes
July 28, 1992
Page6
Perry asked about future signs and an estimate for overall cost of
the initial sign and for future signs.
Carson replied an estimate for the sign would be $6500 if there
were no donations of any kind for the sign such as for landscaping,
wiring, etc. The sign proposed on Dallas Drive would be
considerably less as the landscaping was already installed and the
sign would be smaller. Estimated cost for that sign would be $1500
with no donations.
City Manager Harrell stated that several years ago the
Beautification Committee had indicated major entranceways for the
community and the Council had agreed that those were important for
a good image for the City. Over time it was determined that
attractive signage was necessary at the major entrances. Those
entrances had been established but there had not been a commitment
for signing all of those entrances. The only way funds had been
found for the first sign was from the elimination of the U.S.
Conference of Mayor dues and if that had not been done, there would
not have been flexibility for the initial sign. There was no
obligation for future signs unless money was available.
Council Member Perry stated that he preferred to use the funds for
a human service as opposed to the sign. For example, one of the
park areas could be resurfaced for approximately the same amount of
money.
Mayor Castleberry asked for the amount of the sign if the
landscaping was reduced and if donations were received.
Cooper replied that the cost would be $2200 for the sign only.
Jeane Morrison, Chair-Keep Denton Beautiful Board, indicated the
Board was not going to ask the Council for funds for the
landscaping. That was part of the Beautification project and the
Board was proposing raising that money.
Cooper indicated that there were reserve funds available from the
recycling drop-off centers and the people who brought items to
those centers expected that money to be used for beautification
projects such as tress and landscaping. He added that the size of
the sign would be dependent on the location.
Council Member Chew indicated that he had problems with the sign
due to the current condition of the City especially as employees
would not be receiving any type of increase in the next budget. He
suggested the money be raised from outside funds.
349
City of Denton City Council Minutes
July 28, 1992
Page 7
Council Member Miller felt that in any year there would be this
problem. Denton had suffered many years on how it looked. He felt
it was a good project which was bringing the community together
through donations, etc.
Council Member Chew indicated that the Beautification Committee had
done a great job but that the area was still undetermined due to
expansion of the highway. He was concerned with the timing of the
project.
Mayor Pro Tem Hopkins was concerned that the taxpayers and
ratepayers would ultimately be paying for the sign even though in--
house work would be dohe on the project. The expenses would still
be present in maintenance of the sign and departments would need to
budget for those maintenance costs.
Cooper indicated that the Parks Department had designed the cost of
the maintenance for water estimates.
Mayor Castleberry summarized that the $2200 from the membership
dues plus the donations of money and brick, the cost would be
evened out.
Carson indicated that there should be a reserve from the money for
the first sign.
Morrison indicated that the Committee would like to put in the
second sign and had not asked the Council for any money for that
sign.
Council Member Brock indicated that another purpose of the sign
would be in the area of economic development which would help
market the City.~ Itwas partly a beautification project and partly
a promote Denton project.
Council Member Perry stated that Denton had done great things with
beautification.~ It was a question of spending money in one place
when there was a need in a dozen of other areas.
Consensus of the Council was to proceed with the project.
3. The Council received a report and held a discussion regarding
a proposed ordinance dealing with repeat violators of the grass and
weed standards and gave staff direction.
city Manager Harrell indicated that the item had been discussed in
a prior meeting. The ordinance had been redrafted so that it
followed the Council's direction which was to give two notices
350
City of Denton City Council Minutes
July 28, 1992
Page 8
before a notification that no other formal notices would be sent.
Staff would like to schedule the ordinance for formal consideration
at an upcoming meeting.
Consensus of the Council was to proceed with the formal ordinance.
4. Delivery of the 1992-93 proposed budget.
John McGrane, Executive Director of Finance, stated that the
certified roll had been received from the Appraisal District but
that it might not be the final number based on the amount of
appeals that had come in. The preliminary roll number was
$1,965,000,000 which was the number received in May. Some appeals
had been heard by the District and the number had been reduced to
$1,891,000,000 which was approximately three tenths of a percent
drop. Overall, the final roll number for 1991 Which was the number
plus the number of supplements that came in based on appeals had
dropped 4.1%. The final roll number with the supplement was the
number the budget was based on. With the new number, the effective
tax rate would be .7180.
City Manager Harrell indicated that this was a little bit better
news than what was expected. It would not take quite as much to
get to the effective tax rate as was expected.
Council Member Miller asked if the Council would have the final tax
roll figures before the adoption of the budget or would this
certified roll figure be used.
McGrane replied that the certified roll figure would be used.
City Manager Harrell stated that the budget would use this latest
figure plus the City's estimate of how much the City would receive
on supplements. Most of the decrease was in the
commercial/business area and not in residential.
5. The Council adjourned to the Visual Arts Center at 7:00 p.m.
The Council convened into a special called meeting at 8:00 p.m. at
the Visual Arts Center, corner of Bell and Hickory, Denton, Texas.
1. The Council considered approval of a resolution of
appreciation for retiring Board/Commission Members.
The following resolution was considered:
351
City of Denton City Council Minutes
July 28, 1992
Page 9
NO. RA92-008
A RESOLUTION IN APPRECIATION OF RETIRING BOARD/COMMISSION
MEMBERS.
Perry motioned, Hopkins seconded to approve the resolution. On
roll vote, Brock "aye", Miller "aye", Hopkins "aye", Smith "aye",
Chew "aye", Perry "aye", and Mayor Castleberry "aye". Motion
carried unanimously.
2. The Council considered approval of a resolution of
appreciation for retiring Council Members.
The following resolution was considered:
NO. RA92-009
A RESOLUTION IN APPRECIATION OF RETIRING COUNCIL MEMBERS JIM
ALEXANDER AND JOHN TRENT.
Perry motioned, Chew seconded to approve the resolution. On roll
vote, Brock "aye", Miller "aye", Hopkins "aye", Smith "aye", Chew
"aye", Perry "aye", and Mayor Castleberry "aye". Motion carried
unanimously.
With no further business, the meeting was adjourned.
iN'~FE~WALTERS
Y S~CRETARY
Y OF DENTON,. TEXAS
CITY OF DENTON, T7 ~
ACC00OA8