Loading...
Minutes August 18, 1992402 CITY OF DENTON CITY COUNCIL MINUTES August 18, 1992 The Council convened into the Work Session at 5:15 p.m. Civil Defense Room. in the PRESENT: Mayor Castleberry; Mayor Pro Tem Hopkins; Council Members Brock, Chew, Perry, Smith and Miller. ABSENT: None 1. The Council convened into the Executive Session to discuss legal matters (considered settlement offer In Re: Flow), real estate (considered acquisition of land for runway improvements at the Denton Municipal Airport), and personnel/board appointments (considered appointments to the Downtown Advisory Board, the Electrical Code Board, the Library Board and the Planning and Zoning Commission.) Mayor Pro Tem Hopkins left the meeting during the dfscussion of I__n Re: Flo~. 2. The Council held a discussion and gave staff direction on prioritizing status of F.M. 2499, Loop 288 extension, F.M. 2181 and U.S. 377. This item was not discussed during the Work' Session and was considered under Miscellaneous Matters from the City Manager. 3. The Council held a discussion and gave staff direction regarding budget issues for the 1992-93 fiscal year. This item was not considered during the Work Session and was considered 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 Brock, Chew, Perry, Smith and Miller. ABSENT: None 1. Pledge-of Allegiance The Mayor and ~members of the audience recited the Pledge of Allegiance. 2. The Council considered approval of the minutes of the Regular Sessions of July 7 and July 21, 1992 and the Work Session of July 28, 1992. 403 City of Denton City Council Minutes August 18, 1992 Page 2 Smith motioned, Chew seconded to approve the minutes as presented. On roll vote, Brock "aye", Miller "aye", Hopkins "aye", Smith "aye", Chew "aye", Perry "aye", and Mayor Castleberry "aye". Motion carried unanimously. Mayor Castleberry presented a proclamation for United Way Month. 3. The Council considered approval of a resolution of appreciation for Robert E. Nelson for outstanding service to the City of Denton and the American Public Power Association. The following resolution was considered: No. RA92-010 A RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION FOR ROBERT E. NELSON 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. 4. Public Hearings A. The Council held a public hearing to consider a variance to the Subdivision Regulations (Section 34-114) pertaining to the requirement to construct sidewalks. The site was located in Denton's extraterritorial jurisdiction and fronted on Orchid Hill Road. (The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval, 5- 0, at its August 12, 1992 meeting.) Frank Robbins, Executive Director for Planning, stated that this was a variance to Section 34-114 of the Subdivision Regulations which required sidewalks along both sides of streets within the development and along one side of perimeter streets. As the development was over 8000 feet from a City of Denton water line, it was exempt from perimeter street paving and sidewalks along that perimeter street. It was not exempt from the interior sidewalk requirements. The Planning and zoning Commission recommended approval of the variance. If the variance were approved, the Council could consider and approve the replat listed under the Consent Agenda. If the variance were not approved, Item 5.C. on the Consen% Agenda would need to be pulled from consideration. The three criteria for granting a variance included (1) the variance would not violate any master plans as defined by Section 34-5 of the Subdivision and Land Development regulations; (2) the special or peculiar conditions upon which the request was based related to the topography, shape, or other unique physical features of the 404 City of Denton City Council Minutes August 18, 1992 Page 3 property which were not generally common to other properties; (3) the special or peculiar conditions upon which the request was based did not result from or was not created by the owner's or any prior owner's omission. There were a number of issues which the Commission took into account for which they felt there were enough conditions to approve the variance. Those included the fact that there would be a large number of relatively large trees which might be removed or damaged if the sidewalk were built which would decrease the character of the subdivision, the property was currently a long way from any existing sidewalks and a long way from being within the city limits of Denton. The Commission also noted that the sidewalks were not required along Orchid Hill and building the sidewalks for four lots would not add much to the public interest. There were only a few lots to be served. It was unlikely that the cul-de-sac would be extended or linked up by other streets and thus other sidewalks. The Mayor opened the public hearing. Jerry Campbell, developer and owner of the property, stated that this property was on the far southern end of Denton's ETJ. The shape of the property limited the design of the cul-de-sac. He asked the Council to approve the variance. No one spoke in opposition. The Mayor closed the public hearing. Brock motioned, Hopkins seconded to approve the variance. On roll vote, Brock "aye", Miller "aye", Hopkins "aye", Smith "aye", Chew "aye", Perry "aye", and Mayor Castleberry "aye". Motion carried unanimously. B. The Council held a public hearing to consider the final replat of the Minter Addition plus 18.52 acres of unplatted land into Lots 1, 2, 3 and 4, Block A of the Minter Addition. The 20.2 tract was located north of Morse Street and east of Newton Street. (The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval, 5-0, at its August 12, 1992 meeting.) Frank Robbins, Executive Director for Planning, stated that four lots would be created with this replat, the largest would be a lot for the DISD's new school. Lot one was a replat where there was an existing house. Part of that area now in lot one would be part of the school. Lot three was the existing ALICO warehouse and distribution building. Lot four was an access way and would be a utility easement. There was much infrastructure which was required. There were two fundamental issues - one was where the 405 City of Denton City Council Minutes August 18, 1992 Page 4 lots were located and the usage of the lots and the second was the infrastructure for the location. The Planning and Zoning Commission found the plat to be in compliance with Chapter 34 of the Code of Ordinances and recommended Council approval. The Mayor opened the public hearing. Bill Coleman, representing the DISD, spoke in favor of the request. The purpose of the plat was to bring the area into compliance. The configuration of the property represented five parcels of property. Some of the easements, which ran through the middle of the property, would be abandoned as soon as the new utilities were in place. Willie Hudspeth spoke in opposition. He stated that he gave the parcels of land to the DISD for what it had cost him and in fact, lost part of the money he had paid to acquire the property. He did not realize where the driveway was going to be and did not realize the driveway would endanger the trees in the area where he wanted to build his home. The DISD had not spoken to him regarding the issue. He wanted to save a pecan tree which would have to be removed with the proposed driveway. He had also discovered that four thirty foot post oak trees would also have to be removed and two other 35-40 foot post oak trees would have to be removed depending on where the street was turned. He asked the Council to help him save the trees which might possibly to be endangered. The Mayor closed the public hearing. Mayor Pro Tem Hopkins stated that as long as there was no legal reason, the Council did not have the right to deny the replat and the State defined the legal reasons for any type of denial. Robbins replied that that was correct. Council Member Miller asked if the plat dealt with the placement of buildings and driveways. Robbins replied that the intention of one of the lots, which went to ALICO, provided 30 feet of frontage on a public street. The idea of the shape of the lot was that it might be where the driveway was placed. A driveway could be placed there and it could be shared with others. The access did not have to go there but it gave the owner of lot three the opportunity to do so. No one else could say that access could or could not be allowed as they owned the lot. 406 City of Denton City Council Minutes August 18, 1992 Page 5 Miller motioned, Hopkins seconded to approve the replat. On roll vote, Brock "aye", Miller "aye", Hopkins "aye", Smith "aye", Chew "aye", Perry "aye", and Mayor Castleberry "aye". Motion carried unanimously. C. The Council held a public hearing and considered adoption of an ordinance amending Planned Development No. 26 by modifying the boundary measurements and the total area enclosed from 2.592 acres to 2.794 acres, rezoning approximately .278 acres from single-family (SF-7) district to Planned Development No. 26. The site fronted on Newton Street, north of Wilson Street and was north of Morse Street. (The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval, 5-0, at its July 22, 1992 meeting.) Z-92-017 Frank Robbins, Executive Director for Planning, stated that this reconfigured the boundaries of PD-26. It adopted the same conditions and same site plan as the existing PD-26 had. Approving the ordinance did not change or enable any more building. It merely changed the configuration of the area. He indicated the configuration of the area and where the trees in question were located. Lot 4 was an undevelopable lot and could be used for access and easements. Nothing could be built on it unless it were combined with other lots. If the required 24 foot driveway were built all on the northern portion of lot 4, then two protected trees and three non-protected trees would be lost. That was one alternative but was not the one proposed. The Planning and Zoning Commission did not recommend a specific driveway location. Where the driveway was placed could possibly be worked out with the interested parties at a later date. The Planning and Zoning Commission added a condition that for every protected tree which was removed, four other trees would have to be planted and placement of those trees would be approved by the Planning and Development Department. He had a number of alternative locations for the driveway. The location of the driveway was not part of the recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission. The Mayor opened the public hearing. Bill Coleman, representing the DISD, stated that the reason for the zoning change request was due to the change of the existing driveway. The existing driveway would be under the proposed school site. The site was very difficult for placement of the building as there was not enough frontage on Newton Street for an elementary school. When the DISD discovered that the driveway would have to be moved, it approached ALICO and asked permission to move the driveway. At that time, it was proposed to move the 24' driveway to the north 20' of the school district's property. During the course of development, it was discovered that 30' of frontage was 407 city of Denton City Council Minutes August 18, 1992 Page 6 needed on a cul-de-sac. As the access to the Hudspeth property became an issue, the DISD agreed to create lot 4 which was a 30' lot which could be used to combine with the Hudspeth property to provide that property with access to a public street. The architect indicated that the further south the driveway was moved, the more it infringed on the school site. It had been the goal to locate the driveway with a minimum of concern to all those involved. One of the issues was a drainage problem. By locating the driveway further to the north, there would be less grading coming off the school building as its pad and finished floor elevation was higher than the surrounding grade. The idea was to build the driveway so that it would exist at natural grade and water would flow over the driveway rather than having to install a culvert. It had been the plan all along to put in a driveway which would take out as few trees as possible. He asked that since the zoning change was to only reconfigure the outline of the existing PD-26 that the PD be left as it was and had no doubt that a driveway location could be worked out suitable to all parties at a later date. Council Member Perry asked how far it was to the street frOm the corner of the school where the sidewalk would be. Coleman replied that the distance from the corner of the school to the south line of lot 3 was approximately 15 feet. A fence would be built in the area along the property line. Council Member Smith asked if the DISD owned lot three and lot four. Coleman replied yes. Council Member Smith asked if the roadway was 20' wide into ALICO. Coleman replied'it would be 24' and the DISD did not own lot three, only lot four. Council Member iSmith asked Coleman to review the problems with locating the driveway on lot four. Coleman replied that there were several large trees which would probably be damaged. He detailed an option to the driveway location. Council Member Chew stated that there was an option to go around the large pecan tree. Coleman replied yes that there might be a way to go between the 408 City of Denton City Council Minutes August 18, 1992 Page 7 pecan tree, the oak trees and the fence. A number of different alignments had been looked at in an effort~o save as many trees as possible. Mayor Castleberry stated that any alternative would destroy several trees. Coleman replied yes that there was no way to put the driveway in without losing some trees. The DISD was more than willing to replace the lost trees. The driveway was ALICO's driveway and the DISD was replacing it in order to build the school. Willie Hudspeth spoke in opposition. He stated that a question had been asked if a way could be found to deny the first plat according to any State law. He asked if the Council did not have the opportunity to change a plat, why was the Council listening to the item. He felt that the DISD and the City Council were "big giants" and had many ways to not help. He had negotiated with Mrs. Minter to sell the property at a price the DISD could afford, he had negotiated with Mrs. Pitner to sell her property at a price the DISD could afford, he had negotiated with ALICO to allow the driveway to be moved, and he sold his property to the DISD at a price it could afford. He asked the Council to help him with his trees. He was filming the meeting as he felt the Council would do nothing to help him. The tape was documenting that the oak trees would not be harmed and the pecan tree would not be harmed. Someone was telling the Council that those trees would not be damaged. Very seldom did the Council do something to help southeast Denton. Every Tuesday he would be present at the Council meeting asking why didn't they do something to help him with his trees. Council Member Chew stated that he lived in southeast Denton and always had and did not have trees in his yard. He was not looking for a way to get out of helping Mr. Hudspeth. The Council was restrained in some instances by State law. Mr. Hudspeth had served on the School Board and he knew some of the legal restraints which the Council and the DISD both had to operate under. council Member Brock stated that in the 1960's she had helped to organize the group which went door to door in southeast Denton when the streets were all mud and dust and got an agreement worked out with the City to get the streets originally paved. It distressed her to hear Mr. Hudspeth say that the Council did not care about southeast Denton. She asked if the pecan tree was originally on Mr. Hudspeth's property which he sold to the School District. Hudspeth replied yes. 409, city of Denton City Council Minutes August 18, 1992 Page 8 Council Member Brock asked if the tree had been on the property which he sold to the School District. Hudspeth replied yes. Council Member Brock stated that Hudspeth originally stated that he had given the property to the School District and at his second appearance, he stated that he had sold the property. Hudspeth replied that he had sold the property for the same amount of money that he had paid for the property. He made no profit on the sale. Council Member Brock asked if Hudspeth was on the School Board at that time. Hudspeth replied yes. He asked why southeast Denton restrooms in the parks were the only ones which did not work in the City. Council Member Chew stated that there were working very recently. Mayor Castleberry stated that City crews were there working on the restrooms and the lights at the park. Council Member Brock stated that it was approPriate w~there were those types of problems to speak to the Council regarding those problems. Rather than allege that the Council did not do anything regarding those problems, he should make a presentation to Council regarding his concerns. Council Member Chew stated that after Mr. Young had made a presentation regarding the park, he and Council Member Perry made an inspection of the park and items were being corrected. The Mayor closed the public hearing. Council Member Miller asked where the pecan tree was located. Robbins indicated on an overhead where the tree was located. Council Member Miller stated that the tree was located on the property which the DISD bought. Robbins replied he did not have first hand knowledge of that and would have to rely on Mr. Hudspeth's comments. Coleman replied that it was part of the DISD property. 410 City of Denton City Council Minutes August 18, 1992 Page 9 Council Member Miller asked where the existing driveway was located. Robbins indicated the driveway location on an overhead. Mayor Castleberry stated that the pecan tree was owned by the DISD. Robbins stated that it was on lot three which was owned by ALICO. Coleman indicated on an overhead where the tree was located and how the DISD had exchanged the property with ALICO for the driveway relocation. The pecan tree was on lot three which was ALICO property. Council Member Miller asked about Alternative B. Robbins showed an alternative which would save the pecan tree but take out other oak trees. Council Member Miller asked if there would be problems with Alternative B. Robbins replied that it would take out too many trees close to Hudspeth's property. It would reduce the screening on the property. A driveway further south would,,.save the pecan tree and would provide proper screening. Council Member Miller stated that the Planning and Zoning Commission had approved the plan with the condition that the driveway would be worked out with all the involved parties. Robbins stated correct as there were too many issues to sort out. Debra Drayovitch, City Attorney, asked if the site plan went back to the Planning. and Zoning Commission for ultimate approval of the site plan. Robbins stated that the Council was approving the site plan with no driveway location. There were no conditions for the driveway other than the tree removal condition. Mayor Pro Tem Hopkins stated that the Council was in no position to make a decision regarding the location of the driveway. All the Council could do was to expect the DISD, ALICO and Mr. Hudspeth to workout a solution to the placement of the driveway. There would have to be some give and take on which trees would be removed and which trees would stay. She felt that the Planning and Zoning Commission made a wise decision and the property owners needed to 411 City of Denton City Council Minutes August 18, 1992 Page 10 work out a solution. Council Member Perry felt that there was enough basis to believe that the parties concerned could would out the best possible solution. Council Member Smith agreed with Mayor Pro Tem Hopkins and Council Member Perry that the Council could not make the decision on where the driveway would be placed. She hoped that all parties involved would work together to solve the problem. The following ordinance was considered: 92-132 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, 'CHANGING THE ZONING DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION FOR 0. 278 ACRES OF LAND LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF NEWTON STREET AND APPROXIMATELY 580 FEET NORTH OF MORSE STREET FROM SINGLE FAMILY 7 ( SF-7 ) TO PLANNED DEVELOPMENT (PD) WITH CONDITIONS; ADDING THE REZONED PROPERTY TO PLANNED DEVELOPMENT NO. 26; PROVIDING FOR A PENALTY IN THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF $2,000 FOR VIOLATIONS THEREOF; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Perry motioned, Hopkins seconded to approve the ordinance. On roll vote, Brock "aye", Miller "aye", Hopkins "aye", Smith "aye", Chew "aye", Perry "aye", and Mayor Castleberry "aye". Motion carried unanimously. D. The Council held a public hearing and consider6d adoption of an ordinance rezoning .396 acres (two tracts of .150 and .246 acres) from Planned Development No. 26 to single-family (SF-7) district. The tracts were located east of Newton Street and north of Morse Street. (The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval, 5-0, at its July 22f 1992 meeting.) Z-92-018 Frank Robb~ns, Executive Director for Planning, stated that this was a rezoning from PD to SF7. The Planning and Zoning Commission had unanimously recommended approval as it was in accordance with the Denton Deve~lopment Plan. The Mayor opened the public hearing. No one spoke in favor. Willie Hudspeth spoke in opposition. He felt that the Council was saying to him that it was not their problem and h~ should go away. As a political office holder, he had covered his seat. The Council 412 City of Denton City Council Minutes August 18, 1992 Page 11 could not hold him accountable for what he had done. He had found a way to vote in such a way that he had removed the blame for whatever happened from this point on. He felt this would happen from the beginning. He thanked the Council for allowing him to speak to them on the issue. The decision had been made to split the property so that the school building process would not be slowed. Some of the trees were small and they were not in question. The larger trees were in question. He stated what he thought was true, he had gained more information and he would be back on the southeast Denton park. Council Member Brock asked where Hudspeth would like the driveway to be located. Hudspeth indicated on an overhead where he would like the driveway to be located. He would lose the pecan tree with that location but he would accept that compromise. Council Member Brock stated that before he was willing to compromise, where would he like the road to be. Hudspeth stated where it was proposed and move south of the pecan tree. There was enough room to turn the driveway and save the pecan. Council Member Brock asked what that would do the school. Would it have to be moved. Hudspeth stated that the school would not have to be moved. He knew that the parking lot could be moved to the south and move the footprint of the school. His compromise was to give up the pecan tree if more trees were given to make up for that tree. The Mayor closed the public hearing. Council Member Smith asked that if the pecan was taken out, then how many trees did the DISD have to plant. Robbins replied four trees to replace that pecan. Any removal of a protected tree would require four new trees. The following ordinance was considered: City of Denton City Council Minutes August 18, 1992 Page 12 92-133 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, PROVIDING FOR A CHANGE FROM PLANNED DEVELOPMENT NO. 26 (PD-26) TO SINGLE FAMILY 7 (SF-7) ZONING DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION AND USE DESIGNATION FOR 0.396 ACRES OF LAND LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF NEWTON STREET AND THE NORTH SIDE OF MORSE STREET; PROVIDING FOR A PENALTY IN THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF $2,000 FOR VIOLATIONS THEREOF; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Miller motioned, Perry seconded to adopt the ordinance. On roll vote, Brock "aye", Miller "aye", Hopkins "aye", Smith "aye", Chew "aye", Perry "aye", and Mayor Castleberry "aye". Motion carried unanimously. E. The Council held a public hearing and considered adoption of an ordinance amending Chapter 26 of the Code of Ordinances to establish a stormwater drainage utility system; adopting Subchapter C of Chapter 402 of the Local Government Code (Municipal Utility Drainage); and declaring drainage to be a public utility. (The Public Utility Board recommended approval.) Lloyd Harrell, City Manager, stated that the Council had studied this issue in a work session and this was the first step in carrying out the recommendation of the Committee which was to formally create the storm water utility~ The Council would decide at a later date whether to implement the fee which would first require a public hearing and a detailed study regarding the structure of the rates. Bob Nelson, Executive Director for Utilities, stated that this ordinance was a continuation.of a process started two years ago. The process was. ~tarted as a result of the EPA's Clean Water Act which required municipalities of over 100,000 population or more to comply with new water quality standards, more specifically storm water quality. As a result of the increasing state and federal legislation andregulations, municipalities were having to address water quality issues. Due to the budgetary constraints being placed upon municipalities to comply with the regulation, the Legislature passed legislation enabling municipalities to establish drainage utilities. The Public Utilities Board recommended.setting up the utility but not to implement the fees. This was the first step of formally setting up the storm water utility. The Mayor opened the public hearing. Bob Coplen spoke in favor of the ordinance. He stated that the committee was organized in December of 1990. Phase one was to make 414 City of Denton City Council Minutes August 18, 1992 Page 13 a decision of whether or not to form a utility. Phase two dealt with the fee structure. The reason for the study of the issue was the Clean Water Act. It was felt that the EPA, within the next two years, would require cities the size of Denton to comply with the new regulations. The Committee could not agree on a fee recommendation. The Committee looked at federal environmental regulations, storm water regulations, current state legislation and- what other cities were doing regarding this issue. The conclusion was that the Public Utilities Board and City Council should pursue the establishment of a storm water utility. There was much debate regarding the time frame for the implementation of the fee. The Committee was split for implementation in 1993, 1994 or until it became mandatory. This was due to the fact that it was difficult to determine how much the utility would cost. Concerns of the Committee were that the fee was equal to a tax and the fee for the property would be based on impervious surfaces which would be the only fair way to assess the fee. The Committee recommended that the property tax be reduced in an equal amount to the fee. Council Member Brock asked why the Committee concluded that the forming of a separate drainage utility would be the only way to deal with the new requirements of the EPA. Coplen replied potential cost. competitive. that it was the only way to accommodate the The EPA requirements might be costly and could be Council Member Brock asked what was the advantage of forming a utility ahead of time. Why not wait until the fee was needed. Coplen stated that it was a way to form the organization and prepare for the operation of the utility. Council Member Brock replied that it was assumed that the utility would involve some type of special fee. Coplen replied that it did not have to be but offered the opportunity. council Member Brock stated that if the fee was based only on impervious surface and there was a reduction in property tax, would that not mean that a small homeowner would pay an increase in some instances whereas a large landowner would receive a windfall in property tax reduction without paying the new fee. Coplen replied that it only affected by pennies a person who owned a home of $15,0000 or less. It would not be a large savings to a landowner. The only common thread to treat everyone fairly in the 41'5 City of Denton City Council Minutes August 18, 1992 Page 14 city was impervious surface. The Committee was trying tO make the fee 100% fair. Council Member Brock replied that single family residences would have an additional $18.00 per year. Coplen replied that if the fee would be implemented today, an overall average number would have to be used. Council Member Brock asked if the data were being processed now. Lee Allison, Director of Water Engineering and Operation, replied that the data was not being gathered as of yet. The GIS data was being collected. There were many variables to deal with to refine the data. Council Member Brock asked if a good deal of the data would come from GIS. Coplen replied yes. Council Member Smith asked about the large landowner who had no imperious surface. Would his taxes be reduced if the ad valorem taxes were reduced. Coplen stated that the Committee recommended that ad valorem taxes be reduced by 4 cents for everyone. Council Member Smith stated that under this system, their taxes would go down. City Manager Harrell stated that currently for operation and maintenance purposes and to pay off past drainage bonds voted by the citizens, to replace those funds which were now paid from property taxes would be the equivalent of 4 cents on the tax rate. If the Council~changed the methodology for funding the current drainage effort~ and shifted that to a fee basis as opposed to a property tax, it would translate for a residential unit into approximately $1.50 per month in storm sewer charges and a reduction of 4 cents on the tax rate to make that switch. When the City reached a point where it had to deal with EPA regulations and if the funding source were not broadened, there would be a large increase in property tax in order to fund those requirements. In Denton there was a problem with the amount of property which could be taxed. The theory was to be able to spread the cost to more people who contributed to the storm water situation. Much future discussion would have to take place regarding the fee structure. This ordinance allowed the utility to be in place when the Council City of Denton City Council Minutes August 18, 1992 Page 15 was ready to proceed with the fee. Council Member Perry stated that he could decide on the utility if he had all of the facts together including the fees and how it would effect everyone. He did not want to proceed in steps but rather proceed as a whole. Mayor Pro Tem Hopkins stated that the fee structure would not be acted on now. It would be at least a year before the data would be gathered. When the EPA told the City to proceed with the requirements, what the Council voted on might have changed. It was not practicable to establish the utility at the same time the fee structure was initiated. The Council would be voting on whether to establish the fee in the future. With the mandates coming down from the EPA it was the only fair way to manage the requirements. Mike Cochran spoke in opposition to the utility. He stated that he had done some research on the issue and another fairness issue was the way the fee structure would place an unfair burden on the smaller homeowner. Dallas and Fort Worth had the program outlined and was monitoring sites in dry weather and in wet weather. It was probable that the EPA regulations would be required, but there was no definite time frame. He felt that there would be a number of people who would profit from the fee structure as it was proposed. Owners of large rental units would have the burden taken off and it would be put on the renters. The Mayor closed the public hearing. Council Member Miller stated that one of the issues seemed to be the appropriateness of the timing of establishing the drainage utility system. This hearing was not to establish the rates. That would be a long involved process. Now was the time to begin establishing data for the process of determining the fee structure. A high priority of the Council was long range planning. This was the kind of instrument which did not cost to implement and would be vital in the future. The Council was continually concerned with the ad valorem tax being the major source of income to provide for the kinds of services needed for the City. This would provide another avenue. Council Member Brock asked how much activity would be required in the Utility Department to gather the needed information. Nelson replied that if the Council established the utility, the staff would proceed with the gathering of the data. Without the utility, staff might not need to gather that data. 417 City of Denton City Council Minutes August 18, 1992 Page 16 Council Member Brock stated that if the Council decided to establish the utility, it could not change that decision for five years. Nelson replied correct. Once established there was a five year time frame before it could be dissolved. The time limit would begin when the fee was established. Council Member Perry asked if there was adequate data on hand to decide on how fair the formulas would be for the citizens of Denton. Nelson replied that there was not enough data to establish the fees at this immediate time. There was enough generic data to decide the principles of how to develop the equity of the fees. Council. Member Perry asked ~f such data would be available a year from now. Nelson replied yes. The GIS system would be in place by the first part of 1993 and the computer would be formatted after that. Allison stated that there was sufficient data from the Appraisal District but was not interpretable to the impervious formula. It would take three to six months to interpret that information. Council Member Smith asked if the utility were approved, would there be additional administrative expenses in the implementation of the utility. Nelson replied no that it would not be operated any differently than the Division was currently operated. Council MemberlSmith stated that there would be no increase in personnel and~ administration. If implemented and the fee instituted, the money would be used to replace the money the City was currently using for drainage. Nelson replied yes. Mayor Castleberry stated that the City would be looking ahead as other cities had. This was a way of proceeding in a step process and would not be rushed when the regulations became required. Miller motioned, Hopkins seconded to adopt the ordinance. On roll vote, Brock "nay", Miller "aye", Hopkins "aye", Smith "nay", Chew "nay", Perry "aye", and Mayor Castleberry "aye". Motion carried with a 4-3 vote. 4i8 City of Denton City Council Minutes August 18, 1992 Page 17 The Council took a brief recess. After the recess, the Mayor indicated that there had been an error on the last vote regarding the storm water utility. He read the requirements needed to reconsider an item which included a motion, second and vote to reconsider and a new motion, second and vote on the item. Perry motioned, Chew seconded to reconsider the establishment of the storm water utility. On roll vote, Brock "aye", Miller "nay", Hopkins "nay", Smith "aye", Chew "aye", Perry "nay", and Mayor Castleberry "aye". Motion carried with a 4-3 vote. Council Member Perry indicated that the vote was not correct. City Attorney Drayovitch asked if there was a problem with the voting machine. council Member Perry replied not that he was aware. He had wanted to vote for the motion to reconsider. City Attorney Drayovitch stated that the Mayor could call for another vote. A question arose as to whether the voting machine was working properly and the Council held three test votes for aye, nay and abstain. All tests found the machine to be working properly. It was determined that the motion to reconsider the drainage ordinance was in order and the Council could now consider the ordinance for the storm water drainage. Hopkins motioned, Miller seconded to approve the establishment of the storm water utility as set forth in Agenda Item 4E. Council Member Miller stated that he was appalled as this item had been considered at a work session and all felt that it would be passed. He motioned to table the item. Mayor Pro Tem Hopkins withdrew her motion and suggested returning the item to a work session after the budget had been completed. Miller withdrew his second. City Attorney Drayovitch stated that a motion to table would be in order and would not be debatable once it had been seconded. When the item was tabled, it would not appear on subsequent agendas until staff or council placed it on a future agenda. 4I:9 City of Denton City Council Minutes August 18, 1992 Page 18 Mayor Pro Tem Hopkins seconded the motion to table. On roll vote, Brock "aye", Miller "aye", Hopkins "aye", Smith "nay", Chew "nay", Perry "nay", and Mayor Castleberry "aye". Motion carried with a 4-3 vote. 5. Consent Agenda Hopkins motioned, Chew seconded to approve the Consent Agenda as presented. On roll vote, Brock "aye", Miller "aye", Hopkins "aye", Smith "aye", Chew "aye", Perry "aye", and Mayor Castleberry "aye". Motion carried unanimously. A. Bids and Purchase Orders: 1. Bid ~1406 - Secondary Enclosures and Capacitor B. Tax Refund 1. Considered approval of a tax refund to Moore Business Inc. for $6,864.25. Considered approval of a tax refund to Stephen Irving/CTX Mortgage Company for $689.58. c. Plats and Replats Considered the preliminary replat of Lot 3, Block A into Lots 3A, 3B, 3C and 3D, Block A, of the Canyon Bluffs Subdivision. The 14.5 acre tract was located in Denton's extraterritorial jurisdiction fronting on Orchid Hill Road. (The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval, 5-0, at its August 12, 1992 meeting.) 6. Ordinances A. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance accepting a competitive sealed proposal and awarding a contract for purchase of materials, equipment, supplies or services. (5.A.1. - Bid #1406) The following ordinance was considered: City of Denton City Council Minutes August 18, 1992 Page 19 92-134 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. Chew motioned, Brock seconded to adopt the ordinance. On roll vote, Brock "aye", Miller "aye", Hopkins "aye", Smith "aye", Chew "aye", Perry "aye", and Mayor Castleberry "aye". Motion carried unanimously. B. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance approving a settlement and release in R. C. Small & Associates, Inc. v. City of Denton, Texas. The following ordinance was considered: 92-135 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A RELEASE IN THE MATTER OF R. C. SMALL & ASSOCIATES, INC. V. THE CITY OF DENTON TEXAS; AND DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Brock motioned, Smith seconded to adopt the ordinance. On roll vote, Brock "aye", Miller "aye", Hopkins "Bye", Smith "aye", Chew "aye", Perry "aye", and Mayor Castleberry "aye". Motion carried unanimously. C. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance approving the 1992 certified appraisal roll. John McGrane, Executive Director for Finance, stated that the ordinance would officially accept the appraisal rolls from the Denton Central Appraisal District. The following ordinance was considered: 92-136 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, APPROVING THE 1992 APPRAISAL ROLL AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Hopkins motioned, Chew seconded to adopt the ordinance. On roll vote, Brock "aye", Miller "aye", Hopkins "aye", ~mith "aye", Chew "aye", Perry "aye", and Mayor Castleberry "aye". Motion carried unanimously. 421 City of Denton City Council Minutes August 18, 1992 Page 20 D. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance authorizing the Mayor to execute an agreement with Carter & Burgess, Inc. for professional engineering/architectural services related to the renovation of the Civic Center Pool. Janet Simpson, Park Planner, stated that the ordinance would provide professional services for the Civic Center Pool renovation for Phases iA and lB. Local businesses would be involved in the renovation. The following ordinance was considered: 92-137 AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF DENTONAND CARTER & BURGESS, INC. RELATING TO THE RENOVATION OF THE DENTON CIVIC CENTER SWIMMING POOL; AUTHORIZING THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS THEREFORE; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Brock motioned, Smith seconded to adopt the ordinance. On roll vote, Brock "aye", Miller "aye", Hopkins "aye", Smith "aye", Chew "aye", Perry "aye", and Mayor Castleberry "aye". Motion carried unanimously. E. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance amending Section 20-72 of the Code of Ordinance to provide for alternate methods of giving notice of grass and weed violations and providing that the City may correct repeated weed and grass violations in one growing season by mowing without further notice. Lloyd Harrell, City Manager, stated discussed at an earlier work session. the Council's direction at that time. that....this item had been This ordinance implemented The following ordinance was considered: 92-138 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, AMENDING SECTION 20-72 OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCE TO PROVIDE FOR ALTERNATE METHODS OF GIVING NOTICE OF GRASS AND WEED .VIOLATIONS; PROVIDING THAT THE CITY MAY CORRECT REPEATED WEED AND GRASS VIOLATIONS IN ONE GROWING SEASON BY MOWING WITHOUT FURTHER NOTICE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. 42'2 City of Denton City Council Minutes August 18, 1992 Page 21 Hopkins motioned, Chew seconded to adopt the ordinance. On roll vote, Brock "aye", Miller "aye", Hopkins "aye", Smith "aye", Chew "aye", Perry "aye", and Mayor Castleberry "aye". Motion carried unanimously. 7. Resolutions A. The Council considered approval of a resolution adopting a paratransit plan to comply with the Americans With Disabilities Act. Council Member Chew left the meeting as he was a member of the SPAN Board of Directors. Catherine Tuck, Administrative Assistant, stated that this resolution would adopt an ADA Paratransit Plan which would bring the City's transit system in compliance with ADA requirements. SPAN was the transit provider and would be required to abide by the plan. A1 Murdock, Director of SPAN, had the foresight on how ADA would affect Denton before it became necessary to implement the regulations. An ADA Advisory Committee was formed to review the requirements of the plan and conducted public hearings on the plan. SPAN already exceeded the requirements of ADA. Beginning September 1 an hour extension of the demand response (HANDIHOP) would be available, half price trolley rides would be available for the handicapped and senior citizens, and reservations for rides could be made over the weekend. The following resolution was considered: R92-043 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS ADOPTING AN ADA PARATRANSIT PLAN; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Perry motioned, Hopkins seconded to approve the resolution. On roll vote, Brock "aye", Miller "aye", Hopkins "aye", Smith "aye", Perry "aye", and Mayor Castleberry "aye". Motion carried unanimously. B. The Council considered approval of a resolution temporarily closing Charlotte Street from Bonnie Brae Street to Avenue H on August 28, 1992 from 4:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. for a neighborhood block party. Council Member Chew returned to the meeting. 42'3 City of Denton City Council Minutes August 18, 1992 Page 22 Catherine Tuck, Administrative Assistant, stated that the resolution was before Council several months before for a similar event. The DISD, Denton Police Department, LULAC and the United Way had been instrumental in bringing these services to the citizens in the area. Mayor Castleberry asked if this was a totally residential area. Tuck replied yes and that police officers would be at the barricades to allow residents access. The following resolution was considered: R92-044 A RESOLUTION TEMPORARILY CLOSING CHARLOTTE STREET BETWEEN BONNIE BRAE STREET AND AVENUE H ON FRIDAY, AUGUST 28, 1992; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Perry motioned, Smith 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. C. The Council considered approval of a resolution temporarily closing Avenue A from Mulberry Street to Hickory Street on October 24, 1992, from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. for a Muscular Dystrophy basketball tournament. Catherine Tuck, Administrative Assistant, stated that this request was from the Muscular Dystrophy Association and the State Club. A three-on-three basketball tournament would be held with proceeds to go for muscular dystrophy research. There would be no bands playing outdoors. The tenants and property owners were indicated on the petition. The property owners signatures were not on the petition. A letter from Todd Kerr indicated that he had contacted the property owners and had not received any opposition. Mayor Pro Tem Hopkins felt that this was different from a residential request. She had had several calls from area homeowners against this request. This was the area where the police department had problems in the past. She wondered how much money would be going to the Muscular Dystrophy Association. The charity probably was getting very little money from this. She wanted to know that the police department would be able to handle the situation. There was nothing indicated about clean up a£ter the event. 424 City of Denton City Council Minutes August 18, 1992 Page 23 Mayor Castleberry indicated that speaker cards had been received on this item. Todd Kerr indicated that he was a business owner in the area. He felt there was a positive change occurring in the area. He asked for permission for closure of Avenue A to erect basketball goals in the area for the three-on-three basketball tournament. There would be groups from age 10 to an over 40 league. The event had been designed after Hoop It Up leagues. Businesses in the area were receptive to the idea. Strong support have been received from everyone including the police department and the police bike patrol. First State Bank was supportive. The goal was to raise over $100,000 through corporate sponsorship. He did not handle any of the funds but rather Muscular Dystrophy took care of all of the money. Some of the sponsors included WFAA Channel 8, 94.5 Radio Station, the Denton Record-Chronicle, and Merrill Lynch. Council Member Miller asked how much money the event hoped to raise. Kerr replied $100,000 through corporate sponsorships. One hundred percent of the money would go to MDA. An account had been opened at the First State Bank. Council Member Smith asked how many people would participate. Kerr replied that a minimum would be about 100 teams with 4 players per team with a maximum of approximately 500 teams. This would be a small event in first year. Mayor Castleberry indicated that he did not know he was on the Committee for this event. Kerr replied that he had agreed to be an advisor to the Committee. Holly Kerr indicated that she had spoken with the Mayor about being an advisor to the Board. Mayor Castleberry asked the City Attorney if he would have to abstain ~rom voting. City Attorney Drayovitch replied that if he was only in an advisory role and as he was not aware of actually being on the Board, the Mayor would not have to abstain. Matthew Feldman pointed out that the purpose of the event was to raise money for MD. They had support from WFAA Channel 8 and the Denton Record-Chronicle. This was a legitimate purpose and had a 425 City of Denton City Council Minutes August 18, 1992 Page 24 legitimate goal. The purpose of the event was to bring the area together. There may be problems in the area at night but not from this event. Seventy six cents of every dollar would go to MD. Mayor asked if written permission had been received from property owners in the block. Tuck replied that there was a written letter from Todd Kerr indicating he had verbal permission from the property owners in the area. There were no actual signatures. Mayor Castleberry expressed concerned regarding the closure due to the lack of signatures of the property owners and the problems associated with the area in the past. He felt it left the City open to possible problems. He asked about UNT access. Tuck replied that UNT had access on Hickory Street. Mayor Pro Tem Hopkins asked if the list of people noted in the agenda back-up included the lessors if not all of the property owners. Tuck indicated permission had been received from the business owners but not necessarily the property owners. The following resolution was considered: R92-045 A RESOLUTION TEMPORARILY CLOSING A PORTION OF AVENUE A BETWEEN MULBERRY STREET AND HICKORY STREET ON SATURDAY, OCTOBER 24, 1992; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Chew motioned, Miller seconded to approve the resolution. On roll vote, Brock "aye", Miller "aye", Hopkins "nay", Smith "aye", Chew "aye", Perry "aye", and Mayor Castleberry "nay". Motion carried with a 5-2 vote.. 8. The Council considered a motion to approve the 1992-93 hotel/motel tax recipient budgets as presented and submitted to the City Council. John McGrane, Executive Director for Finance, stated the City was required by both state law and contracts with the agencies which received hotel/motel occupancy tax to approve their budgets prior to receiving any money. The Council had prior presentations in a work session on those budgets. 426 City of Denton City Council Minutes August 18, 1992 Page 25 Council Member Chew stated that the Council could not change the bottom line but could change line items. He had a problem passing any budget that had a salary increase when the Council was considering not giving City staff any increases. McGrane indicated that the contracts with these organizations indicated a certain percentage of the hotel/motel tax the agencies would receive. However, it also stated that in accordance with State law, prior to receipt of those funds, the Council had to .approve their budgets. The Council could ask the agencies to resubmit their budgets. City Attorney Drayovitch stated that the contracts provided that no payment would be made unless the Council had approved their budgets. Council Member Chew stated that if the Council did not approve the budgets, the agencies would have to submit another budget. City Attorney Drayovitch replied yes. Mayor Pro Tem Hopkins asked if the figures were different from the ones presented at the prior work session. McGrane replied that the documents were the same as presented in the work session. Council Member Chew stated that that meeting had been for receiving information. After looking at the budgets and the various items included in them, he felt it was not in best interest for the Council to approve other salary increases when the Council was considering freezing City employees salaries. Chew motioned, Perry seconded to send these budgets back to the various entities and let them amend their budget to reflect no personal services increases. On roll vote, Brock "nay", Miller "nay", Hopkins "nay", Smith "aye", Chew "aye", Perry "aye", and Mayor Castleberry "aye". Motion carried with a 4-3 vote. 9. Miscellaneous matters from the City Manager. A. The Council received the nine-month review of the 91/92 city budget. John McGrane, Executive Director for Finance, stated that the proposed budget had estimates on how the departments would end the fiscal year. This was an update on that figure done on a nine month time frame and projected on how the various departments would 427 City of Denton City Council Minutes August 18, 1992 Page 26 end the year. He indicated that revenues were coming in under budget which meant that they estimated not receiving as much revenue as projected. Expenditure budgets were well under the estimate but not enough to offset the loss in revenues. The primary concern in the revenue area was in the fines and fees area related to the fees collected through the Municipal Court system. Decisions had been made regarding the collection of those fees which had had a great effect on that revenue source. It was estimated that Facility Management would be $45,000 over budget due to the renovations to the Moore Building which were done in conjunction with the Morrison lease. A year end adjustment ordinance would offset that.amount. The Fire Department was over in expenditures due to the 'overtime problem in the department. There was $37,000 over budget in the miscellaneous area due to the increased collection of the hotel/motel fees. There would be an offsetting increase in the revenue side of adjust for that. The bank franchise tax had been budgeted for $35,000. The City would be receiving zero in that category as the State legislature took that revenue source away from municipalities.. Engineering services had a decrease due to some projects which were put on hold. The Electric fund, due to cooler weather, was under budget for revenue. To offset that, the expenditure budget was well under budget so the account would end in a positive figure. The weather had the same effect on the water fund with revenue down but expenditures were also down and a small excess of expenditures over revenue was expected. The wastewater fund had the same situation. Sanitation showed a deficit due to the commercial area and the law suit which was in progress during first part of the year. Council Member Perry asked about the commercial garbage fees. McGrane indicated that the deficit was due to the City's delay in taking over the exclusive provider service due to the lawsuit. B. Harrell indicated that there would be a luncheon on Wednesday to honor the JTPA students who had worked for the City this summer. This was a reminder to Council if they would like to attend. Council considered Work Session Item #2. 2. The Council held a discussion and gave staff direction on prioritizing the status of F.M. 2499, Loop 288 extension, F.M. 2181 and U.S. 377. Rick Svehla, Deputy City Manager, stated that council Member Miller and he had a meeting with COG regarding the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act. COG along with the Highway 428 City of Denton City Council Minutes August 18, 1992 Page 27 Department would make a number of choices as to which projects would be included and eligible for federal funding. Along with the Mayor, they had also spoken with the Highway Department. COG would be recommending projects to the Highway Department and the Highway Department would choose a number of projects for the Interstate System and the National Highway System. The State would choose the projects and COG must concur. The U.S. 77 project involved U.S. 380 to the truck stop. The Highway Department had indicated that they could still honor the Minute Order with Section 18 money. The U.S. 380 project which was Loop 288 and F.M. 426 had been chosen to be put on the National Highway System. The Highway Department felt this project would qualify under all of the regulations for this system. Portions of U.S. 380 had bond money and would be worked on for the next several years. Loop 288 sections were on the National Highway System and would be built as a four lane divided or four lane with continuous left turn lane project. U.S. 380 would be rebuilt as a four lane facility as opposed to a two lane facility from I35W to the Wise County line and from Loop 288 east to the Collin County line. Loop 288 was a bond project passed in 1986. In the original bond issue it was to go from U.S. 380 south to I35E and would still would be looked at under this program. This was a nine year program for all projects. F.M. 426 would be rebuilt from a two lane to four lane facility from Janie Street past the Ryan High School. It was included on the National Highway System. All of the above projects seemed stable and would be worked on for the next two years. In 1995 Congress would decide if the projects would remain on the National Highway System. If the projects did not remain on the System, work would be stopped. Other projects such as Fort Worth Drive, Teasley Lane and Highway 2499 and Loop 288 were projects which had been worked on for a number of years. Some of these projects had approved bond funds. Those projects were currently being reviewed. The City had indicated to the Highway Department.that all of these projects were very important to the City of Denton and that the City had been working with the Highway Department on these projects. The City indicated that the projects would be listed as iA. lB. etc. rather than a 1, 2, 3 order to emphasize that all of the projects were number one in the City's mind. The Highway Department stated that they had a certain amount of dollars, approximately $36 million, to spend on projects for 10 years in a 7 county area. There were obviously more projects than available money. The Highway Department needed a prioritization of projects or parts of projects. City Manager Harrell stated that the section between Spencer to I35 could be looked at as a possible alternative when rebuilt from McKinney back to the mall. The section of Loop 288 from I35 to the intersection point of Highway 2499 was the section to prioritize. City of Denton City Council Minutes August 18, 1992 Page 28 429 Svehla continued that the City could not indicate that all of the projects were number one. The Highway Department had indicated that the project which would get done the fastest was Teasley lane. Staff agreed that it seemed appropriate to indicate this project as the number one project. Staff was suggesting that it should be strongly stressed to the Highway Department that the spur be a part of Loop 288 and to extend Loop 288 toward Highway 2499. That would be the second project. The third project would be U.S. 377 and the rest of Highway 2499 would be a fourth priority. Highway 407 to Highway 2181 and Highway 2181 to Loop 288 would still be left unresolved. The Highway Department would like the City's choices as soon as possible. Svehla stated that the projects would be listed as Teasley Lane'as first priority, the spur of Loop 288 and the Extension of Loop 288 to Highway 2181 would be second, U.S. 377 would be third and sections of Highway 2499 would be last. Mayor Pro Tem Hopkins agreed with the assessment on Teasley. She expressed concern with including a second choice which the Highway Department had not seen. Highway 2499 had always been a priority. She was concerned that a new project might throw off the whole list. Svehla indicated that when the City received the first direction, it had done a feasibility study to include Loop 288 and all subsequent discussions had always-included the Loop 288 spur. City Manager Harrell stated that the City had talked with the 2499 Committee and were lobbying hard with the Highway Department to allow the County to buy right-of-way for the 2499 project. The spur for Loop 288 was important to the Highway Department as a way to get relief off I35. This spur would help with that situation. Council Member Perry asked that when the priorities were set, how committed would the City be to those priorities. Svehla replied that when the City sent the priorities to COG and to the Highway Department that would give them the City's indications and would help them to make choices. Part of the final decisions would be made by the Highway Commission. It would be difficult to change priorities once made. The process was dynamic, similar to the City's CIP. This was a nine year process and projects could be added in the following year. .43 0 City of Denton City Council Minutes August 18, 1992 Page 29 Hopkins motioned, Perry seconded accept the ranking as presented by staff. On roll vote, Brock "aye", Miller "aye", Hopkins "aye", Smith "aye", Chew "aye", Perry "aye", and Mayor Castleberry "aye". Motion carried unanimously. The Council considered Work Session Item #3. 3. The Council held a discussion and gave staff direction regarding budget issues for the 1992-93 fiscal year. City Manager Harrell suggested that this be discussed at the upcoming work session. Consensus of Council was to consider this item at the next work session. 10. The Council took the following action from the Executive Session held during the Work Session: A. Hopkins motioned to appoint the following individuals to City Boards/Commissions: Library Board - Jean Greenlaw Planning and Zoning Commission - Richard Cooper Electrical Code Board - David Martin Smith seconded to appoint the named individuals. On roll vote, Brock "aye", Miller "aye", Hopkins "aye", Smith "aye", Chew "aye", Perry "aye", and Mayor Castleberry "aye". Motion carried unanimously. 11. New Business The following item of New Business was suggested by Council for a future agenda: A. Council Member Smith asked for an update on the piano situation at the Martin Luther King, Jr. Recreation Center. Mayor Castleberry indicated that there was nothing to report at this time. 12. The Council did not meet in Executive Session during the Regular Session. With no further business, the meeting was adjourned. 431 City of Denton City Council Minutes August 18, 1992 Page 30 JE~-IPER ~ALTERS CItY SECRETARY CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS CITY OF DENTON, TEXAJ ~ ACC000AD