Minutes September 29, 199225
CITY OF DENTON CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 29, 1992
The Council convened into the Special Call Session at 5:15 p.m. in
the Civil Defense Room.
PRESENT: Mayor Castleberry; Mayor Pro Tem Hopkins; Council Members
Brock, Chew, Perry, Smith and Miller.
ABSENT: None
1. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance establishing
a program to promote local economic development and to stimulate
business in the City, and approving an economic development grant
agreement with ~PACCAR, Inc.
Lloyd Harrell, City Manager, stated that the item was listed as an
action item, however, the attorneys for the City and for PACCAR had
not completed the formal agreement. It was hoped that the
agreement would come back to Council at the next meeting and if
not, for sure at the following meeting.
Betty McKean, Executive Director for Economic Development/Municipal
Services, stated that Peterbilt Motors Company, a division of
PACCAR, was the City's largest manufacturer since its location in
Denton in 1980. One of the issues which brought PACCAR to Denton
was a corporate goal to get its engineers closer to one of its
manufacturing sites. A consulting firm indicated to her office
that a prospect was looking for an existing building for office
purposes. They indicated an interest in the Moore Business Forms
building and with that staff began examining incentives to
determine how Denton could be best positioned so as to be selected
as the new site. The Moore Business Forms building was not located
in an Enterprise Zone and the Freeport Exemption was not
applicable. The City's formal tax abatement policy was not
applicable due to the fact that the project involved an existing
building rather than new construction. Other alternative
incentives, outside the City's established policies and programs,
were explored. The proposal presented to PACCAR included the
following: (1) PACCAR would purchase the Moore Business Forms
building. Should the assessed value of the land and building
exceed $1,545,650 during the first five years after that date of
purchase, the City would make economic development grant payments
equal to the amount of City and Denton Independent School District
property taxes paid by PACCAR for building and land valuations
exceeding $1,545,650. This grant agreement was permissible under
Section 380.001 of the Local Government Code. The State law did
not afford school districts the same grant capabilities and
therefore, the City would be responsible for the DISD's grant
payment portion. The County Commissioner's Court would consider an
identioal agreement for the County~ portion of increased
valuation. (2) Application of the Electric Utility Economic/
Industrial Development Rider at the Moore Business Form facility
City of Denton City Council Minutes
September '29, 1992
Page 2
would provide an estimated savings of over $54,000 over a five year
period. McKean reviewed a chart indicating the impact of $1
million increase in valuation with the PACCAR grant agreement which
was included in the agenda back-up. An overhead was shown
indicating the jobs which would be created and the sales tax
revenue generated by the Peterbilt relocation.
Dick Bangert, Director of Real Property Resources for PACCAR,
stated that PACCAR was here because the Moore Building met their
needs. If it had not been available, PACCAR might not have made
the decision to relocate at this time. Incentives were also very
important. In the long run, the City and the County would receive
more than PACCAR did with the move. It made a difference to them
what the cities and counties would provide as an incentive.
Council Member Perry asked if there were any additional reasons why
PACCAR decided to locate in Denton.
Bangert replied that ever since PACCAR made the first decision to
come to Denton it had wanted to move the engineering section to an
area closer to a manufacturing site. Denton was the newest plant
in the Peterbilt area. The main reason was to get the engineering
staff closer to the plant. The market was another reason to move
to Denton as it was more concentrated in this part of the country
rather than in other areas.
2. The Council convened into Executive Session to discuss legal
matters (considered intervention in Dallas County Park Cities
Municipal Utility District v. City of Dallas and City of
Grapevine), real estate, and personnel/board appointments
(considered appointments to the Downtown Advisory Board, the
Electrical Code Board, and the Animal Shelter Advisory Board).
3. The Council considered an appointment to the Community Justice
Council.
Miller motioned, Chew seconded to nominate Council Member Perry to
the Community Justice Council. Consensus of the Council was to
appoint Council Member Perry.
4. The Council received a report and held a discussion on the
electric rate study and the proposed electric rates and gave staff
direction.
Bob Nelson, Executive Director for Utilities, stated that there was
a proposed 5.1% reduction in electric rates.
City of Denton City Council Minutes
September 29, 1992
Page 3
Suhas Patwardam, C. H. Guernsey, stated that his task was to look
at the rates and forecast revenues, make a cost of service analysis
and make a recommendation on the type of rate design. He had
worked very closely with the Utility staff during the process.
Patwardam reviewed the implementation of the rate strategy which
included defining the system revenue requirement, defining class
revenue requirements, defining customer revenue requirements,
coordination of the rate design and line extension policy and
monitoring and analyzing the system performance. Conclusions from
the study indicated that the utility was fulfilling its mission
with reliable service, competitive prices and money transfers to
the City. The proposed rates should be adopted and would meet
financial objectives, provide competitive ~process and promote
wise/efficient/cost-based usage of electricity. The proposed rates
would generate approximately 5% less revenue and would be adequate
to operate the system in a reliable fashion. Conclusions from the
Cost of Service study indicated that there were performance or rate
classes which were dissimilar. Large customers in the GS class
were performing much better than small customers. Patwardam
reviewed the proposed changes in the various rate categories. No
customer rates would go up and most would go down. Some classes
would go down more than others. Compared with other area
utilities, the rates were very competitive in the summer months and
the winter months. Patwardam reviewed the rate for churches -
religious worship rate. No one was currently on this rate as the
churches were served on the GS rate and generally had a favorable
load profile with substantial off-peak usage and heavy weekend
usage. The load profile resulted in a lower cost of service. Many
communities and utilities offered incentive rates to churches.
This rate could be offered due to the pattern of usage and the way
the electricity was used. Two options for church rates included
continuing the existing policy which would leave them on the GS
rate or trying an experimental off-peak rate in which the users
would need to demonstrate a lower peak demand requirement during
weekdays and on-peak weekhours which would provide a 20% discount
on demand charge.
Nelson stated the customers in question for the experimental rate
had a higher demand on the weekend than during the weekday. If
that level was set at 80% so that during the week the usage was 80%
less than on the weekend, a 20% decrease from the demand charge
would be provided. The Public Utilities Board recommended a 60%
level of what a commercial customer was paying. The Board
recommended a 60% level with an 80% cut-off level.
__ Council Member Smith a~ked if the time frame was a year for the
experimental service.
28
City of Denton City Council Minutes
September 29, 1992
Page 4
Nelson replied that the experimental service would be analyzed year
to year to determine the effectiveness of the rate.
Council Member Chew felt it was better to do an 80% level and
follow the consultants recommendation and after a year perhaps go
down to the 60% level.
Nelson replied that the revenue would be somewhat less and if the
City were to get challenged on the level, it would have to revert
back to the 80% level.
Jim Harder, Director of Electric Utilities, stated that if the
category were dealing with churches and other businesses in that
category, there would be an incentive to change their loads to
positively benefit the electric utility and changing their current
off-peak period. The proposed rate would be an experimental
weekend rate.
Mayor Pro Tem Hopkins felt that the recommendation of the
consultant should be followed. She was concerned about legal
issues. If the category would fit any other type of business other
than churches, she wanted to know who else it would fit. She asked
what would prevent a business from artificially altering their load
by using excess load on a Saturday in order to qualify for the
reduced rate.
Nelson replied that that was a risk with the experimental rate.
There was the opportunity for a convenience type store to
artificially put a load on their system and qualify for reduced
rate.
Mayor Pro Tem Hopkins felt that if the level were reduced from what
the consultant advised, a year analysis would be too long and felt
that the analysis period should be no longer than 6 months.
Nelson replied that at any point during year if it were found that
the customers on the program were not providing the load management
program, the Council could terminate the experimental rate.
Council Member Chew indicated that h~ had a concern ~ha~ ~hi~ type
of rate had been done before and the structure had to be redone due
to the legality of the proposal.
Nelson replied that both proposals were based on a usage pattern
and not the type of customer. If a customer asked to be on the
rate, the customer data would be analyzed before he was put on the
rate. If there was no current data, the customer would put on a
meter and the data analyzed after three months. If the customer
City of Denton City Council Minutes
September 29, 1992
Page 5
qualified for the rate, he then could be put on that rate. If the
customer broke the 80% rule, he would have to wait 12 months
before he could be put back on. The rate was strictly
characteristic of usage and not type of customer.
City Manager Harrell stated that from a staff stand point, if the
level were set at 60%, then there would be more risk that someone
would artificially manipulate the rates to qualify.
Harder then presented a comparison of the experimental weekend
rates with the current rate, the consultant rate and the proposed
weekend rate.
Council Member Miller felt that it would be best to be
conservative. It would be easier to go further in the future rather
that do a larger decrease now and then next year have an increase.
Mayor Castleberry asked if there were a difference between the
winter and summer months in the analysis.
Harder stated that the tendency would be for a violation of the 80%
rule in the summer rather than the winter.
Council Member Chew felt that it was best to take smaller steps
than do it all at once.
Council Member smith felt that 80% was a more conservative and
reasonable figure to start with. An entire year should be studied
at the 80% figure.
Perry motioned, Smith seconded to follow the recommendation of the
consultants. On roll vote, Brock "aye", Miller "aye", Hopkins
"aye", Smith "aye", Chew "aye", Perry "aye", and Mayor Castleberry
"aye". Motion carried unanimously.
5. The Council received a report and held a discussion on the
water rate study and proposed water rates and gave staff direction.
Bob Nelson, Executive Director for Utilities, stated that during
the budget process, revenues at the current rates were
approximately $12.1 million and expenses were approximately $12.8
million. A proposed '5.9% increase in water rates would cover
anticipated expenses and provide a cash net gain of approximately
$35,000.
Howard Martin, Director of Environmental Operation=/Pinancial
Administration, stated that the Public Utilities Board had asked
staff to look at the possibility of adding 2,000 gallons to the
30
City of Denton City Council Minutes
September 29, 1992
Page 6
facility charge. After further review, the Board opted to keep the
structure as it was as it would raise the facility charge too much.
Two new rates were proposed in the water ordinance. One was an
Adopt-A Spot rate and the other was a government sprinkler
irrigation rate which would lower the cost per 1000 gallons on the
basis of providing either non-interruptible or interruptible
service. Martin detailed on an overhead the development of the
revenue targets. $683,430 was needed ~o cover anticipated expenses
over revenues with an overall 5.9% Increase proposed. Several
options were presented for allocating the residential rate increase
to the three block rate structure for the Utilities Board to
consider. The Board elected to select the option that allocated
the rate increase to the first block rate which was 0-15,000
gallons. Martin detailed the residential utilities average
customer increase which would be approximately $1.76 per month.
The commercial rate would be increased approximately $26.50 per
month for an average usage customer. In comparison with area
cities, Denton was in the middle of the area charges.
Chew motioned, Smith seconded to follow staff recommendation for
the water rates. On roll vote, Brock "aye", Miller "aye", Hopkins
"aye", Smith "aye", Chew "aye", Perry "aye", and Mayor Castleberry
"aye". Motion carried unanimously.
6. The Council received a report and held a discussion on the
wastewater rate study and proposed wastewater rates and gave staff
direction.
Howard Martin, Director of Environmental Operations/Financial
Administration, stated that the Public Utilities Board first
discussed the change in wholesale rate methodology that resulted in
a rate decrease for those customers. The Board asked staff to
present a residential rate option that included 2,000 gallons in
the basic rate. After reviewing the proposed option, the Board
elected to retain the existing rate structure. The Board
recommended an overall increase of 14%. The rate increase for most
customers was at least 15% but the overall rate increase included
a wholesale wastewater rate decrease. An average residential
customer would have an increase of $2.14 per month on his
wa~t~wate~ bill. A large residential u~er would have approximately
a $3.00 increase on his wastewater bill. A commercial customer
would have an increase of $58.65 per month. Again Denton was in
the middle of the rate structure for surrounding cities. An
average utility customer would realize a $2.42 increase for all
utilities. Commercial total utilities would have a decrease of
$2,520.94 per month due to a decrease in electric rate.
31
city of Denton City Council Minutes
September 29, 1992
Page 7
Perry motioned, Hopkins seconded to follow the recommendation of
staff regarding the wastewater rates. On roll vote, Brock "aye",
Miller "aye", Hopkins "aye", smith "aye", Chew "aye", Perry "aye",
and Mayor Castleberry "aye". Motion carried unanimously.
7. The Council received a report and held a discussion on the
solid waste rate study and proposed solid waste rates and gave
staff direction.
Bill Angelo stated that the proposed ordinance provided for a $0.35
rate increase for residential customers. The State of Texas
surcharge for solid waste received at the landfill was being passed
on to both residential and commercial customers in the form of a
3.5% charge which would be shown as a separate item on the bill.
He presented Council a handout which detailed the rates at the
landfill and the areas of increase. There would be two new fees
established. It was proposed that the basic disposal fees at the
landfill would remain the same as last year. One new rate would
differentiate between automobile and truck tires. Another fee
would be a charge for "special waste" disposed at the landfill.
The proposed rate was consistent with the charges at the DFW
landfill and reflected the cost of special handling and
administration expenses associated with this type of waste.
Hopkins motioned, Smith seconded to follow the recommendation of
the Public Utilities Board for the rates on solid waste. On roll
vote, Brock "aye", Miller "aye", Hopkins "aye", Smith "aye", Chew
"aye", Perry "aye", and Mayor Castleberry "aye". Motion carried
unanimously.
Brock motioned, Smith seconded to approve the increases on tires
and special wastes. On roll vote, Brock "aye", Miller "aye",
Hopkins "aye", Smith "aye", Chew "aye", Perry "aye", and Mayor
Castleberry "aye". Motion carried unanimously.
8. The Council received a report and held a discussion regarding
solicitations on the roadway and gave staff direction.
Catherine Tuck, Administrative Assistant, stated that in 1988 the
Council had received an increased number of complaints about
persons and organizations attempting to solicit business or
charitable contributions from the occupants of vehicles at
intersections. Groups and individuals were soliciting on numerous
busy intersections all over the City, causing traffic problems and
endangering the individual~ collecting the fund~. The Council
expressed concern with the safety for those out soliciting and for
motorists. In March 1988, the Council passed an ordinance which
32
City of Denton City Council Minutes
September 29, 1992
Page 8
prohibited solicitation on any street or roadway or be on or go
upon the shoulder or median of any street or roadway for the
purpose of soliciting business or charitable contributions of any
kind from the occupant of any vehicle. At the September 1, 1992
Council meeting, Alan Hempstead, representing the City's fire
fighters, requested an exemption to the ordinance on behalf of the
Muscular Dystrophy Association. The fire fighters had requested
permission to solicit for the "Fill-the-Boot" campaign. Mr.
Hempstead had mentioned two Oklahoma cities which made special
provision for the annual Fill-the-Boot campaign despite local
ordinances which prohibited solicitation on roadways. Tulsa's
traffic ordinance did not permitted solicitation from the roadway
but their solicitation ordinance appeared to allow it. Tulsa
permitted only sworn public safety officers to solicit in roadways
for charitable projects adopted by their bargaining agents. The
Legal Department indicated that the ordinance should be consistent.
Either allow all to solicit on the roadways or allow no one to
solicit on the roadways. Area metroplex cities which allow the
solicitation on roadways had a permit process which included
various requirements.
Debra Drayovitch, City Attorney, stated that any time there was an
attempt to regulate the First Amendment rights, there was a good
case for litigation. It was very difficult to legally make a fool-
proof type ordinance which was not subject to some type of
litigation.
Council Member Brock asked about the Tulsa law which allowed only
sworn public safety officers to solicit from roadways. Would this
hold up to a court challenge.
Drayovitch replied that the Oklahoma law was very different and it
could have been part of a collective bargaining agreement.
Tuck stated that the Council could repeal the current ordinance and
follow the State law or could enact an ordinance similar to another
city with strict guidelines.
Mayor Pro Tem 'Hopkins stated that before the current Council
repealed th~ ordinance, members migh% want to speak to former
Council Members regarding reasons for the initial ordinance. They
had been concerned about pedestrian safety and vehicular traffic.
She suggested that if the ordinance were repealed, the Council did
not want to be the entity to grant permission for solicitation from
the roadway. She felt that everyone should be allowed to solicit
from the streets or no one should be allowed. There were many
safety issues to deal with when there were individuals on the
roadway. She was particularly concerned with the youth on
33
city of Denton City Council Minutes
September 29, 1992
Page 9
University Drive and how dangerous it was.
Council Member Perry asked how fully the current ordinance was
being enforced. Was anyone allowed to solicit on the roadways.
City Manager Harrell replied from the permitting standpoint, the
enforcement was consistent and soliciting from the roadway was not
allowed. Some groups had started to solicit on the roadway and had
been asked to leave. There were times when the police department
did not give a high level of enforcement to this event especially
on events such as car washes on University Drive. If Council did
not repeal ordinance, staff would do more enforcement of the
provisions to not solicit on the medians and would even visit the
high schools to talk with groups regarding the provisions of the
ordinance.
Council Member Chew suggested talking with university students as
well as high school groups.
City Attorney Drayovitch stated that a procedure could be developed
which would not include the Council's granting of permission to
solicit in the roadway. The State statute allowed a local
governing body to authorize solicitation of charitable
contributions. Her opinion with respect to free speech and First
Amendment rights would be, if the Council desired, that pursuant to
the State statute the Council authorize solicitation of charitable
contributions.
Mayor Castleberry asked what was the City liability in this matter
such as someone stepping off a curb and into an oncoming car.
City Attorney Drayovitch replied that if the City were sued, it
would argue against the City's liability but that could be
challenged.
Council Member Perry asked if there had ever been a fatality or
injury in the City due to solicitation from the roadway.
A1 Hempstead replied that there had been none documented in the 40
years the fire fighter organizations had been working for MDA.
Council Member Perry replied that he was referring to everyone who
had solicited on the roadways and not just the fire fighters.
Council Member Smith asked Hempstead if he had investigated other
possibili%ies £o~ ~oliei~&tln~ ~ont~ibu~ion~ ~ath~r than on th~
streets.
34
City of Denton City Council Minutes
September 29, 1992
Page 10
Hempstead replied that they had looked at other methods but that
there was no other way to receive the same dollar amount as on the
streets. Previously the fire fighters had raised more money on the
streets than in a shopping center.
Council Member Miller stated that the fire fighters would use good
judgement when going out in the streets but others might not. If
a fire fighter came to a car, the occupant might be more inclined
to donate but might not be so with others.
Julie Shook, Denton MDA, stated that Oklahoma City and Tulsa raised
a lot of money for the event in a weekend. There was not another
type of event which would raise the same amount of money in a
weekend.
Joe Dodd asked if the requiring of insurance and the filing of a
waiver would eliminate the problems.
City Attorney Drayovitch replied that there were certain problems
with the enforceability of waivers. With the invalidation of an
ordinance there might be attorney's fees for the other side to
consider.
Bill Burger, MDA, stated that the $1 million insurance policy
would cover any attorneys fees. MDA was willing to work with the
City in regards to a waiver of liability, limiting the solicitation
to certain streets, limiting hours and days. Nothing had ever been
documented for accidents or injuries associated with the MDA
program.
Council Member Miller asked if it would be possible to direct staff
to draft an ordinance detailing who would be able to solicit from
city streets.
Council Member Perry asked who would chose who would be able to
solicit. He was not saying that the fire fighters could not
solicit in Denton, he was asking them to use a different approach.
He was hesitantto exclude some and allow others to solicit on the
roadways.
Council Member Miller suggested drafting something similar to the
Lewisville ordinance. He was interested in how many requests
Lewisville had in a year. Restrictions could be made to a point so
as to encourage only those who really wanted to do the event. He
suggested a further refinement of the ordinance and look at it in
comparison with other cities.
35
City of Denton City Council Minutes
September 29, 1992
Page 11
Council Member Smith stated that the bottom line was that the
Council needed to decide if it wanted to have any organizations on
the streets. Deciding who or what would come next.
Council Member Chew was concerned about the fact that the ordinance
was not enforced totally. He agreed that perhaps it would be
beneficial to look at other cities ordinances such as Lewisville.
Council Member Miller motioned, Chew seconded to direct staff to
study other city ordinances such as Lewisville and Grand Prairie to
determine how their ordinance worked and their experiences. On roll
vote, Brock "aye", Miller "aye", Hopkins "nay", Smith "nay", Chew
"aye", Perry "nay", and Mayor Castleberry "aye". Motion failed
with a 3-4 vote.
9. The Council received a report and held a discussion on the
City's position regarding the Fry Street Fair and gave staff
direction.
Catherine Tuck, Administrative Assistant, reviewed the history of
the Fry Street Fair over the past several years as detailed in the
agenda back-up.
Council Member Miller suggested forming a task force now to look at
the possibility of holding the Fair on Fry Street. He suggested
starting the process now to make arrangements for the Fair.
Lloyd Harrell, City Manager, stated that a policy question the
Council would have to consider was that if the conditions could be
negotiated with the Delta Lodge, would it be acceptable to have
this event on Fry Street. If so, he could see using staff time
trying to negotiate those conditions. Until that question was
answered, there was no reason for staff to start those
negotiations.
Mayor Pro Tem Hopkins stated that she saw no reason to permit the
Fair. This group was not even recognized by the University and was
not allowed to .use University property or to close a street that
North Texas maintained. There were too many people for the area
during the Fair and there was no way to get in or out of the area.
The area was an area of concern for the police department. If the
University did not recognize this group she did not know why the
Council should give them any credibility. One year the Fair was
held at Carriage Square Shopping Center and they can not return to
that area. The Fair did not work out at the Fairgrounds. She was
opposed to spendin~ any amount of staff time to work out Fry Street
as it was too small for the number of people who attended the event
and it could not be adequately policed.
City of Denton City Council Minutes
September 29, 1992
Page 12
Mayor Castleberry stated that the Council needed to think about a
possible request from the Delta Lodge for the closing of Avenue A
between Mulberry and West Hickory.
Council Member Miller stated that there had been a Fry Street Fair
in 1990, 1991 and 1992. What was the Council going to do in 1993.
Mayor Pro Tem Hopkins stated that she would say no to a Fair
request.
Council Member Miller replied then where was the Fair going to be.
He was asking if it were possible to set up a task force to see
what might be done for 1993 to prevent the problems which occurred
in 1990, 1991 and 1992. He did not think the issue would not come
up and he was looking for a way to help plan for the event and to
help reduce any problems.
City Manager Harrell stated that if the Council were inclined to
not close Fry Street and to not waive the noise ordinance and that
were communicated to the Delta Lodge, it might encourage them to
look for a place in the country or something similar to hold the
event.
Council Member Smith stated that her experience with the Fry Street
Fair had been limited but she did make several trips to the Fair
grounds last year and felt that it was not the type of activity
that she believed should go on within the City limits. The crowd
which was there this last year would never fit on Fry Street or
Mulberry Street. Many of the people who attended the event were
not from this area. She would like to see the event outside the
City limits perhaps on a farm or other such area. It had outgrown
the City.
Mayor Pro Tem Hopkins felt that the Fair had outgrown the confines
of a street fair.
Council Member Perry stated that he would say no to the Fry Street
Fair for reasons already mentioned. He had observed many hours of
the previous Fair and did not feel it would be in the best interest
of the City to promote that type of activity. He would vote
against holding the Fair anywhere in the City. It was not the kind
of event that the council could say was in the best interest of the
City.
Council Member Miller felt that the Council's sentiments needed to
be communicated to the Delta Lodge. The Lodge need not apply or if
they applied, the Council would not authorize a Fry Street Fair or
a similar event by any other name in the City limits this next
37
City of Denton City Council Minutes
September 29, 1992
Page 13
year. Now was the time to make that communication rather than wait
until a request had been made.
Council Member Chew felt that it needed to be communicated
immediately to the Delta Lodge that the feeling of the Council was
that this was not the type of activity which would promote the City
of Denton.
Joe Dodd stated that he used to be an advocate of the Fry Street
Fair but was not now. The Fair used to be a type of homecoming to
area residents but it now had outgrown its identity. Fry Street
Fair away from Fry Street was a beer bust. If the Fair could not
be held on Fry Street and the number of people be contained in the
area, then he saw no reason to hold the event.
Brock motioned, Chew seconded that Council direct the City staff to
communicate with Delta Lodge that the Council was very unfavorable
toward their having the Fry Street Fair, as it had developed in
recent years, within the City limits of Denton and that the Council
most probably would not look favorably on a request to close Fry
Street. On roll vote, Brock "aye", Miller "aye", Hopkins "aye",
Smith "aye", Chew "aye", Perry "aye", and Mayor Castleberry "aye".
Motion carried unanimously.
10. The Council received a briefing regarding the new security
system at City Hall.
Lloyd Harrell, City Manager, stated that as of Monday there was a
new alarm system in operation at City Hall. He discussed the
details of the new system with the Council.
With no further business,
J~'FE%WALTERS
cA%Y SEgfT Y
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS
the Council adjourned at 9:25 p.m.
BOB CASTLEBERRY, MA~OR~
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS
/
ACC000BA