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