Minutes February 16, 1993234
CITY OF DENTON CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
February 16, 1993
The Council convened into the Work Session at 5:15 p.m. in the
Civil Defense Room.
PRESENT: Mayor Castleberry; Mayor Pro Tem Hopkins; Council Members
Brock, Chew, Perry, Smith and Miller.
ABSENT: None
1. The Council convened into the Executive Session to discuss
legal matters (considered action in litigation styled Fritz v. City
of Denton, considered action in litigation styled Hunter v. City of
Denton, considered action in In Re: Flow), real estate (considered
acquisition of an option to purchase land on Foster Road), and
personnel/board appointments.
2. The Council received a report and held a discussion regarding
the regulatory framework for the Community Development Block Grant
and HOME programs.
Lloyd Harrell, City Manager, stated that several weeks ago Council
had asked for a briefing regarding the Community Development Block
Grant Program and the HOME program and the rules and regulations
governing the use of funds.
Barbara Ross, Community Development Coordinator, stated that there
was a citizen participation requirement under CDBG guidelines. The
requirement was to have at least one public hearing regarding
funding. This past year there had been two public hearings. At
the public hearing, it was required to provide information
regarding the amount of funds available and how the citizens would
like to see the funds used. Information must also be provided on
how the funds were used in the past. Comments from the citizens
were provided to the CDBG Committee and to the Council. The
regulations require that citizen comments be taken into
consideration when allocating the funds.
Council Member Miller asked how many people attended the public
hearings.
Ross replied approximately 20 at both sessions. Less than five of
those twenty were actual residents of the neighborhoods. Notices
were sent out and in one neighborhood, flyers were places on the
residences in an attempt to get more citizen involvement.
Council Member Brock asked if the notices were only in English.
Ross replied no that the notices were in English and Spanish and a
translator was available if needed. Ross continued with the
national objectives which included elimination of slum and blight,
meeting an urgent community need or be a benefit to low and very
low income families. Seventy percent of the funds must be spent
235
City of Denton City Council Minutes
February 16, 1993
Page 2
for low to moderate income families. Eligible activities included
acquisition of real property, disposition, public facilities and
improvements, private owned utilities, clearance, public services
(15% cap), interim assistance, relocation, and loss of rental
income.
Council Member Brock asked for examples of public services.
Ross replied those would include service agencies such as HOPE, Kid
Connection at MLK, and the Pre-Natal Clinic. Additional eligible
activities included removal of architectural barriers, housing
rehabilitation, new housing construction, code enforcement,
historib preservation, commercial or industrial rehabilitation,
special economic development, home ownership assistance, planning
and capacity building, and program administration.
Council Member Perry asked if there was a carryover into other
areas or duplicating other activities such as in economic
development.
Ross replied that economic development with CDBG dollars would have
to be used for job creation for low income individuals.
City Manager Harrell stated that the businesses would have to
demonstrate that they were creating jobs for low income
individuals.
Ross replied that HUD was encouraging micro industries which would
be assisting low income individuals to begin their own businesses.
She continued with the reporting requirements which included CHAS,
GPR, labor relations, MBE & WBE, Federal Transaction Report. HUD
monitoring included rehabilitation, financial programmatic,
environmental, fair housing, labor relations, and state programs.
Ross detailed a chart of the expenditures for the department and a
chart comparison with other area cities on how CDBG funds were
used. The City currently did not have any funds available for the
HOME program. Activities included acquisition, new construction,
reconstruction, moderate and substantial rehabilitation. The city
was not a participating jurisdiction and thus received funds from
the State rather than from the Federal government. Eligible
activities included acquisition, new construction, reconstruction
and rehabilitation. HOME matching requirements included a 25%
match for rental assistance and rehabilitation and a 30% match for
new construction. Forms of the match included cash contributions
from nonfederal resources, value of fees, taxes, etc. that were
waived, value of land or real property, infrastructure investment,
value of site preparation, construction materials donated or
voluntary labor. Restrictions/affordability requirements included
236
City of Denton City Council Minutes
February 16, 1993
Page 3
the requirement.that with rehabilitation or acquisition of existing
rental housing, the period of affordability varied depending on the
per unit subsidy amount. Under $15,000 was 5 years, $15,000 -
$40,000 was for 10 years and over $40,000 was for 15 years. For
new construction or acquisition of newly constructed owner occupied
housing, the unit must remain affordable for 20 years.
City Manager Harrell stated that Council might-want to discuss at
a future meeting the procedures used in the past for funding
decisions and determine if they wanted to make any changes in those
procedures.
3. The Council received a report and held a discussion regarding
the application of the City's Subdivision and Land Development
regulations within the Extraterritorial Jurisdiction and gave staff
direction.
Harry Persuad, Senior Planner, stated that the current
extraterritorial jurisdiction of the City extended for three and
one half miles from the corporate city limits. The ETJ line
extended beyond the "Greater Denton Planning Area" as defined by
the Denton Development Plan. The ETJ line also extended beyond the
area (Certificate of Convenience and Necessity) for which the City
was authorized to provide water and wastewater service. It was
proposed to divide the ETJ into two areas. Division I would be an
area outside the city limits. Division II would be outside the
boundaries of Division I. The City subdivision regulations would
apply to the city area and to the area immediately outside the City
limits within regulatory line. The Denton County platting and
subdivision standards would apply to the outlying areas. There
were three reasons associated with this proposal. The first was
based on an estimate of the City's population in the year 2020.
The Greater Denton Planning Area would accommodate a total
population of 182,592. This figure was in excess of the 2020
population projection. The area within the proposed regulatory
line had the capacity based on current density standards to
adequately accommodate future development at least to the year
2025. A second reason dealt with the development horizon in the
ETJ. If development were not going to occur until twenty to thirty
years from now, most of the paving, drainage and other
facility/service infrastructures might need to be upgraded,
repaired or replaced even when constructed in accordance with City
specifications. A third consideration dealt with the fact that
certain areas located in the ETJ might never be incorporated in the
City in the future.
Due to a time constraint, this item was continued during the
Regular Session under Miscellaneous Matters from the City Manager.
237
City of Denton City Council Minutes
February 16, 1993
Page 4
4. The Council received a report and held a discussion regarding
activities involved in preparation for the 1986 bond election.
This item was considered during the Regular Session under
Miscellaneous Matters from the city Manager.
The Council convened into the Regular Session at 7:00 p.m. in the
Council Chambers.
PRESENT: Mayor Castleberry; Mayor Pro Tem Hopkins; Council Members
Brock, Chew, Perry, Smith and Miller.
ABSENT: None
1. Pledge of Allegiance
The Council and members of the audience recited the Pledge of
Allegiance.
2. The Council considered approval of the minutes of the Planning
Session of January 12, 1993, the Regular Meeting of January 19,
1993 and the Work Session of January 26, 1993.
Hopkins motioned, smith 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.
3. The Council considered approval of a Resolution of
Appreciation for Paul Beadle.
The following resolution was considered:
No. RA93-003
RESOLUTION IN APPRECIATION OF PAUL BEADLE
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.
4. The Council considered approval of a Resolution of
Appreciation for Lewis Wayne Murphey.
The following resolution was considered:
238
City of Denton city Council Minutes
February 16, 1993
Page 5
RA93-004
RESOLUTION IN APPRECIATION OF LEWIS WAYNE MURPHEY
Smith motioned, Hopkins seconded to approve the resolution. On
roll vote, Brock "aye", Miller "aye", Hopkins "aye", Smith "aye",
Chew "aye", Perry "aye", and Mayor Castleberry "aye". Motion
carried unanimously.
5. Public Hearings
A. The Council held a public hearing and considered adoption
of an ordinance rezoning a 32.045 acre tract located on the east
side of Country Club Road, approximately 920 feet south of Hobson
Lane, from the Agricultural district to the Single Family 10
district with conditions.
Frank Robbins, Executive Director for Planning, stated that the 20%
rule was not in effect at this time for this proposal. Options
available to the Council included approval of the ordinance with a
single condition that abutting lots be at least 13,000 square feet,
Council could direct staff to prepare an ordinance with additional
conditions and direct that it be put on the next regular agenda,
Council could continue the public hearing or consider the ordinance
without a public hearing. Other options included amending the
ordinance and passing that amended ordinance, denying the petition,
or delaying consideration to a future date. The developer had made
a proposal to the Forrestridge neighborhood on February 4, 1993.
That proposal included the elimination all alley ways and increased
lot sizes by the amount of the alley ways, the building of an eight
foot high wooden screening fence along the 336.24 foot east
boundary where the proposal abutted Forrestridge which would be
built during the development phase, including in the deed
restrictions a provision that the minimum square footage would be
2100 square feet for all single story homes and 2300 square feet
for all two or one and one half story homes built on the most
easterly 12 lots in the subdivision. The application was made on
August 20, 1992 with the Planning and Zoning Commission holding a
public hearing on October 14, 1992. At that time, the Planning and
Zoning Commission tabled consideration due to neighborhood
concerns. The Commission held another public hearing and
considered the case after a neighborhood meeting on November 5,
1992. On November 11, 1992 the Planning and Zoning Commission made
a recommendation to the Council which was the proposed ordinance
before Council. On December 8, 1992, Council held a public hearing
on the case and tabled the discussion to allow for further
negotiations between the developer and the neighbors. After the
second neighborhood meeting the developer proposed the above
239
City of Denton City Council Minutes
February 16, 1993
Page 6
conditions. This proposal was in a low intensity area and the
proposal was consistent with the intensity allocation for the area.
The issue around which some of the conditions and the discussions
had most recently revolved dealt with good site design transition.
The Mayor opened the public hearing.
Clif Todd had completed a "Request to Address Council" card but
yielded to Dick Kelsey.
Dick Kelsey stated that he was representing Clif Todd for the
zoning of the property. He felt it was important to remember that
zoning was being considered and not platting at this time. At
this point, the only item to consider was the highest and best use
of the property consistent with the overall development plan and
with the individual staff plans. Staff had indicated that the
proposal met all of those requirements. Within the Southridge
development, there was SF16 zoning which faced directly into SF10
zoning. South of Southmont, the zoning phased from PD16 to SF10.
This was not an inconsistent zoning application. This was not a
zoning application which required a great deal of transition. This
was not a transition use, it was a transition emphasis. No change
was being made of the use. The property had been vacant for a long
time. Residential lots were needed in Denton. Realtor's had
indicated that there were not enough single family residential lots
available. The staff policy was for diversification. The original
zoning application was for SF10 and apparently the residents in
Forrestridge were upset over that zoning. The developer had met
with the residents on several occasions and had agreed to eliminate
the alley ways and incorporate that square footage into each lot,
had agreed to fence part of the property and to place deed
restrictions on the property. Potentially the development could
add $14 million to the tax base of the City. The reduction,
percentage wise, from Montecito to SF16 was a 2/3rds size
reduction. The reduction of the proposal was approximately 18%.
Council Member Miller stated that the developer would be willing to
put an 8' fence next to Forrestridge, eliminate the alley ways, and
have deed restrictions on 10 lots which abutted the property.
Kelsey replied yes that the developer had agreed to those
conditions and that the deed restrictions would be for the first 12
lots working eastward from the boundary with Forrestridge.
Council Member Miller asked if the developer had a problem with
placing those restrictions in the zoning approval.
Kelsey replied no.
24O
City of Denton City Council Minutes
February 16, 1993
Page 7
Council Member Miller asked if there were plans for development of
other parts of the property.
Kelsey replied that all of the property would be zoned at one time
as single family residences. It would all be developed at one time
as it was not feasible to develop it in stages.
Clif Todd, developer of the property, indicated that the proposal
was for two stages of development. The first phase would be west
of Country Club Road near the drainage ditch.
Kelsey indicated that the second phase would be in the area under
discussion.
Council Member Miller asked if there were any plans for the size of
the homes in the first phase;
Todd made a reply from the audience which was not audible.
Council Member Perry asked if the stipulations, from the developer
were voluntary.
Kelsey replied yes that Mr. Todd had elected to work with the
homeowners and staff to satisfy the requirements in area.
Mayor Castleberry asked with the elimination of alley ways, were
the lots next to Forrestridge slightly larger.
Kelsey replied that they would be 13,000 square feet plus.
Mayor Castleberry asked if that affected the balance of the lots or
were they still SF10.
Kelsey indicated that the two adjoining lots were 13,000 square
feet and then the lots went to 12,000 square feet.
Todd indicated that the lots would be a little over 12,000 square
feet.
Mayor Castleberry indicated that the' smallest lot would be near
County Club Road and would be an SF10 lot.
Kelsey indicated that the lots across from Country Club Road were
originally platted as SF10.
Mayor Pro Tem Hopkins asked if the increased size affected the 12
lots from the alley ways and were those the lots which would be
more like an SF12 lot.
241
City of Denton City Council Minutes
February 16, 1993
Page 8
Kelsey replied that there were two lots which were back-to-back
which were 13,000 square feet and ten lots which were 12,000 square
feet and the rest were 10,000 square feet.
Council Member Smith asked if the deed restrictions of the 2100
square feet applied to all lots or only the ones next to
Forrestridge.
Kelsey indicated that they would be 2100 square feet for single
story homes, 2300 square feet for two story homes on the 12 lots
which were closest to Forrestridge. The others would be from 1800-
2000 square feet depending on the individual situation.
Sam Rosson stated that he was in opposition to the proposal. He
asked Council to consider the continuity and integrity of the
neighborhood. There was diversity in the area. He felt the
Council needed to look at long term goals versus short term goals.
The short term goal would be that the City could immediately profit
by approving the proposal with additional taxes on the roll. That
was not necessarily the best policy for the City. The long term
aspect was that if the zoning were held, there would be a larger
lot and a better buffer between the existing homes and the new
homes. In this request, the developer could win but could not
lose. The homeowners who had been paying taxes in the City would
lose the property values in the area.
Amy Quate urged the Council to remember several items. The first
was that hundreds of citizens had voiced strong opposition to the
proposal. The second was the approval from the zoning staff might
have been based on insufficient criteria and both the developer and
the proposal appeared unprofessional and not capable of producing
a viable product. The neighborhood had diversity in types of
property in the area and in residents living there. In every case
where SF10 abutted SF16, development was cut off. She questioned
the credibility of the proposal and development as she had been
sent a letter with no business name, no signature, and no return
address on it. She urged the Council to deny the proposal.
Jerry Browder stated that he lived near the proposed development.
He did not stand to lose equity as the home had declined in value
since he purchased the home. He was concerned about the value of
his home as were his other neighbors. The developer wanted to
increase his profits and felt this would cost the neighbors and
himself money after development. In regard to the deed
restrictions, he had learned that the developer, until
approximately two-thirds of the lots were sold, had complete
ability to give variances in terms of the designs of the homes.
Browder asked for restrictions to be made in the zoning rather than
242
City of Denton City Council Minutes
February 16, 1993
Page 9
in the deeds. Mr. Kelsey made the point that SF16 and SF10
adjoined each other in Southridge and Southmont. Those SF16 lots
had less value, up to now, than the value of the lots and property
in Forrestridge. He felt one reason was that S¥10 did not adjoin
the property. The park property which the City had purchased
originally had zoning which began with SF16 and reduced down away
from the Forrestridge subdivision. He stated that he would like
the City to require the property on the 32 acres begin adjoining
Forrestridge be SF16 lots.
John Traube stated that he was part of the petition drive to keep
the current zoning. There was a need for more lots but the need
was for larger lots rather than smaller lots. A longer term
consequence was the land next to the proposed development. If the
proposed development were zoned SF10, the adjoining land would
probably also be zoned SF10. If restrictions were added, he
suggested putting them in the zoning conditions rather than with
the developer.
Dick Fulton stated that he was concerned with the shortage of
larger lots in Denton. The only other area for lots of this size
was on Ryan Road at Forrestridge. If SF10 became part of the
section west of Forrestridge, it probably would stay SF10. There
was a need for SF16 lots in Denton. There was a lot of difference
between an SF10 and an SF16 lot. He asked about the specification
of the width of the alley.
Kelsey replied that the alley was 15 feet wide which would be added
to the lot sizes.
Fulton continued that he was in favor of maintaining the SF16 lots
rather than SFiO lots.
Council Member Brock asked Fulton for his opinion on what impact
the building of Forrestridge had on home values in Montecito. Did
the smaller lots of Forrestridge diminish the value of homes in
Montecito.
Fulton reDlied that the homes in Montecito were older which
probably affected the value rather than the lot size.
Perry Slack stated that early in the process, they had been told
that there was no transition between SF10 and SF16. The residents
had asked for a buffer such as SF13. There were ways to develop
SF16 or SF13 so why did there have to be SF10. This proposal would
cut prime property in two sections and never again would there be
anything more than SF10. He felt that the next step might be to
reduce the SF10 to SF7 in the area. The residents had nothing
City of Denton city Council Minutes
February 16, 1993
Page 10
other than lot size to protect the value of the property. He might
be in favor of a smaller lot with a greater priced home placed on
it. Beautiful trees would be destroyed with the smaller lots.
Council Member Smith asked if Fulton had any concept of how much a
tree buffer would be left between Forrestridge and the development.
There seemed to be many trees on the east part of the development.
Slack replied 20% of the lots would be 13,000 square feet and
greater. Fourth-fifths of the lots would be smaller. When
driveways and foundations were included, there would not be much
footage left. On his lot, he lost many trees when his home and
driveway were built.
Mayor Castleberry stated that a proposal had been made to have SF13
lots on the east with deed restrictions for 2100 square foot
minimum housing. Was that acceptable to Slack.
Slack replied no. It would be acceptable to have a natural break
for Phase I at the drainage ditch which wouldbe good for SF10 and
zone from the ditch in SF13 with SF16 on the Forrestridge side.
That would be a better configuration.
Mayor Castleberry stated that the proposal was that the 12 lots
closest to Forrestridge would be SF13 with no alley and with the
fence. The deed restrictions would be a minimum 2100 square feet
for a one story house and a two story house would be slightly
larger. Was that acceptable for the neighborhood.
Slack replied that in his opinion it would not be.
Mayor Castleberry stated that the proposal indicated that SF10
homes would be 1800 square feet with a two story house being
slightly larger with the drainage between the two, was that
acceptable if it were in the deed restrictions.
Slack replied that a number of people indicated that that would be
acceptable. If the SF10 were done first, the rest could wait.
Kelsey stated that what the developer had proposed and agreed to
was that the 2 lots which abutted Forrestridge would be SF13, the
next 10 lots (five on each side) would be SF12, and everything else
would be SF10 which would be on the Country Club road side.
Slack stated that the 2 lots to be designated as SF13 lots had a
20' easement on the back of the property. The next 6 houses on
each side would be 12,000 square foot lots and then it dropped back
to 10,000 square feet after that. He asked what was to keep changes
2 4'4
City of Denton City Council Minutes
February 16, 1993
Page 11
from SF10 occurring once zoning was completed.
Robbins replied that with the proposed ordinance, there was SF10
zoning with one condition which was the first two lots could not be
any smaller than 13,000 square feet. That would be a zoning
condition which would be enforced. Those lots would have to be
platted that size.
Slack stated that that was not satisfactory. There had been two
meetings on this proposal and the concessions from the developer
amounted to very little.
Mayor Pro Tem Hopkins questioned whether Council should proceed
with the public hearing and then have questions at a later time.
Virginia Ramsey stated that they were building a home on Rolling
Hills and asked the Council to take the opposition into account.
The petitioner was allowed a five minute rebuttal.
Dick Kelsey stated that the developer had been giving all the
concessions and homeowners had not done any giving. There was no
demonstration that there was any difference between the SF16 lots
and SF10 lots in Southridge. There was no indication that the
values were lessened. There was a fear that people would not be
able to maintain their property values because of a smaller lot and
a smaller home. Forrestridge was a two-thirds step down from the
Montecito lots. The design of the subdivision did not have any
traffic in the area. Diversification was not a question. It was
a question of "not in my backyard". There was nothing wrong with
SF10 lots and was not a refection of anything other than diversity.
People needed a diverse market place. Comments regarding
downzoning were not true as the property was never zoned. He
urged Council to do what the job was and that was to zone the
property in the highest and best use for which it was suitable
according to the master plan and according to the plan which
applied to everyone in the City. He asked for approval of the
zoning.
Council Member Miller asked about the effectiveness of deed
restrictions and asked if the developer would be willing to make
the conditions a part of the zoning.
Kelsey replied yes.
Council Member Miller stated that if that were done then the
Planning Department would require that it be adhered to whenever a
lot would be developed.
245
City of Denton City Council Minutes
February 16, 1993
Page 12
Kelsey replied that the staff might want to address whether it
wanted to be burdened with those details but once the deed
restriction was filed, it would be applicable once one lot was sold
in the subdivision.
Mayor Pro Tem Hopkins asked if the petitioner was willing for
zoning restrictions to be put into the ordinance, then it appeared
to her that rather than doing the home size why not do SF13 or SF12
on lots to where street butted out. If the lots east of that could
be SF12 and the two SF13 and the developer was willing to
compromise with the square footage, then why not compromise with 5
lots that would be SF13 or SF12.
Kelsey replied that he felt that the developer had gone as far as
he could in regard to lot size. The developer had agreed to SF13
in the adjoining 2 tracts and 12,000 square foot lots for next
lots.
Mayor Pro Tem Hopkins stated that the developer was not adverse to
12,000 square foot lots in next 5 lots.
Kelsey replied that the developer had agreed to that. There would
be two 13,000 square foot lots with the next 5 lots being 12,000
square foot lots.
Mayor Pro Tem Hopkins asked if that could be put into the
ordinance.
Debra Drayovitch, city Attorney, stated that it was her
understanding that that was the intent with the list of conditions
offered by the developer and they could be included as a condition
to the ordinance.
Kelsey replied that the developer did not have a problem with that
aspect.
City Manager Harrell stated that the SF10 zoning ordinance would
apply with the one condition from the Planning and zoning
Commission which dealt with the two adjacent lots being SF13. The
Council could add a second condition that the next five lots on
each side would have to be a minimum of 12,000 square feet.
Council Member Perry asked if the final ordinance would include the
fence plus the deed restrictions.
Mayor Castleberry asked about the square footage.
Kelsey replied that it could be incorporated into the ordinance.
246
City of Denton City Council Minutes
February 16, 1993
Page 13
He had a problem with how that would come before staff and how
staff would follow up on that.
Mayor Castleberry asked Mr. Slack if this would be a workable
solution.
Slack replied that it would be workable but objectionable.
Mayor Castleberry asked Slack if he felt it was a good solution to
the problem.
Slack replied that in his opinion it was not a satisfactory
solution.
Mayor Castleberry asked if there were equal ground where the
developer and residents could agree on.
Slack stated that in his opinion the developer and homeowners would
not reach agreeable conditions. It would be postponing the
homeowners agony if the Council would not decide at this meeting.
Amy Quat stated that she had taken a petition through her
neighborhood requesting that the zoning be the same as the current
zoning in Forrestridge which was SF16. She went to all homes and
all homeowners supported the SF16 zoning.
Mayor Castleberry stated that Mr. Kelsey could respond to the
comments.
Kelsey stated that he felt the developer had given as much as he
could.
The Mayor closed the public hearing.
Council Member Miller asked if there would be a problem for staff
to regulated the size of the homes on the lots.
Robbins replied that it would not be a problem.
Council Member Miller asked that if the property were platted with
the two lots as 13,000 square feet, the 10 lots as 12,000 square
feet and the balance as 10,000 square feet, would that be a problem
for the staff.
Robbins replied that it would not be a problem.
Council Member Brock asked if the elimination of the alley ways and
the incorporation of the space into lot size was guaranteed. Would
247
City of Denton City Council Minutes
February 16, 1993
Page 14
that have to be added as a condition.
Robbins presented the proposals which could be added.
City Manager Harrell stated that the discussion held thus far and
the representation of the developer would be a fourth condition
which would specify five lots proceeding westward would be a
minimum of 12,000 square feet.
Robbins replied yes plus another condition which had not been
listed was the square footage of the houses.
Miller motioned, Chew seconded to approve the zoning with changes
incorporating restrictions of the size of houses to be built on the
lots to be 1800 square feet for a single story home, 2000 square
feet for a two story home on the lots exclusive of first 12 lots to
the east. Those lots would be two 13,000 square feet, the next 10
lots would be 12,000 square feet with the zoning restriction of
single story home no less than 2100 square feet and for two story
of no less than 2300 square feet and that the other conditions that
were agreed to in terms of the fence be included in the
restrictions. The alley ways would be eliminated and that land be
used to increase the size of lots in that amount.
Council Member Perry suggested having staff prepare the ordinance
as set forth by Council Member Miller and have Council consider
that ordinance to better ensure that all of the conditions were in
place.
Miller amended his motion to direct staff to prepare an ordinance
as was proposed and put on the next agenda to include those
conditions. Chew agreed with the change in the motion and seconded
that change.
city Attorney Drayovitch asked staff to clarify several points to
be sure all were in agreement with the conditions. She asked what
was the development phase for the building of the fence. Was it
prior to the start of the development or when was it proposed.
Robbins stated that it would be built with first house.
Todd stated that he agreed to build the fence when the second phase
was built.
city Attorney Drayovitch stated that the property was not platted
so the alley ways on the proposed site plan would be difficult to
enforce as to the increased lot size.
248
City of Denton City Council Minutes
February 16, 1993
Page 15
Robbins stated that it could be noted that there would be no alleys
in this zoning district.
Mayor Pro Tem Hopkins suggested that the requirement for the fence
indicate that it would be built prior to any actual lots being
developed in Phase II.
Robbins suggested that the condition state that before a house was
built east of the drainage area.
Kelsey stated that the building of the fence would be a matter of
timing. If the fence were done before dirt work was done, it could
be damaged. There was an orderly phase during construction at
which the construction of the fence would be appropriate. He felt
that would be after the utility work and the development of the 20'
easement was complete and the lots were graded.
Todd suggested that the fence be put up before a building permit
was granted.
City Attorney Drayovitch stated that the fence would be built prior
to any building permits being issued.
Kelsey stated that it could be prior to east of the drainage line.
Council Member Brock motioned to amend the main motion to require
the $ foot fence be masonry rather than wood.
City Attorney Drayovitch asked if she wished to include in her
amendment that it be constructed before any building permits were
issued for houses to be built east of the major drainage ditch.
Council Member Brock replied yes.
Hopkins seconded the amendment.
Council Member Brock indicated that with a wooden fence there
always was the question of maintenance. She realized that a
masonry fence was more exDensive but it also enhanced the value of
the property being developed.
Kelsey stated that that type of fence could cost as much as $20,000
more than a wooden fence. A masonry fence could be a great deal of
expense to maintain. He asked Council to reconsider that item.
Council Member Miller stated that a masonry fence could work both
ways. Some masonry fences could be problem as far as cost was
concerned to maintain.
249
City of Denton City Council Minutes
February 16, 1993
Page 16
Mayor Pro Tem Hopkins stated that as Southmont was developed, it
was found that brick was too expensive so brick pillars were used
every so many feet to keep the boards from shifting.
Council Member Perry asked the City Attorney and Mr. Robbins if it
were necessary to detail the fence. The fence was a condition that
the developer had agreed to. Was the Council within its bounds to
require a masonry fence.
City Attorney Drayovitch stated that similar conditions were
imposed by Council with such projects as Pep Boys. She was not
sure that the fence was specified to be masonry.
Robbins stated that Pep Boys proposed the masonry fence.
Kelsey stated that the developer would accept a fence with brick
pillars to tie in the wood fence. They wanted to know what to
build. The lots would be sold and the owner would have to maintain
the fence, not the developer.
The Council voted on the amendment to the main motion regarding a
masonry fence. On roll vote, Brock "aye", Miller "nay", Hopkins
"aye", smith "nay", Chew "nay", Perry "nay", and Mayor Castleberry
"nay". Motion failed with a 2-5 vote.
City Attorney Drayovitch recommended that the later part of the
amendment as to when the fence was to be built be incorporated in
the form of an amendment.
Brock motioned, Perry seconded to amend the main motion that the
fence would be built before any building permits were issued for
the lots east of the main drainage ditch. On roll vote, Brock
"aye", Miller "aye", Hopkins "aye", Smith "aye", Chew "aye", Perry
"aye", and Mayor Castleberry "aye". Motion carried unanimously.
The Council voted on the main motion. On roll vote, Brock "aye",
Miller "aye", Hopkins "nay", Smith "aye", Chew "aye", Perry "aye",
and Mayor Castleberry "aye". Motion carried with a 6-1 vote.
Council considered Item 7.B.
7. Ordinances
B. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance approving
a contract with the County of Denton for the establishment of a
Central Counting Station for the May 1, 1993 City Council Election.
25O
City of Denton City Council Minutes
February 16, 1993
Page 17
City Manager Harrell stated that this item followed the direction
of Council regarding various options for the May 1 election.
Council desired to approach the County with the possibility of
County Clerk Hodges assisting in the elections as had been done in
the past. The City Secretary would still be responsible for
conducting the election and dealing with the administrative affairs
of the election. The County would tabulate the ballot cards and
supply the voting equipment. It had been clarified with the County
Clerk that he would have control over the Central Counting Station.
The County Clerk had been very receptive to the wishes of the
Council. The Commissioners had not yet signed off on the contract
but it was on their agenda for that evening.
The following ordinance was considered:
No. 93-024
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS APPROVING AN
AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF DENTONAND THE COUNTY OF DENTON
FOR A CENTRAL COUNTING STATION OF BALLOTS; AND PROVIDING 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.
C. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance ordering
an election to be held in the City of Denton, Texas, on May 1,
1993, and if a runoff election was required, on May 29, 1993, for
the purpose of electing Council Members to Places 1, 2, 3, and 4 of
the City Council of the City of Denton, Texas; designating voting
places and appointing election officials; and providing for
bilingual notice of the election; ordering that the punch card
electronic voting system be used.
City Manager Harrell stated that this ordinance would officially
call the election and establish voting places. There were three
items he wanted to point out to Council. On page 2, Item 1 noted
a space for an alternate judge for the central counting station.
He asked Council to delete that provision at this point in time.
Staff would return with a name at a later date. The second item
dealt with the polling places in the ordinance. The ordinance
specified the traditional polling places the City had used in the
past. The May 1 election would really be different from a
traditional City election as there would also be a County election
on an educational constitutional amendment and a senatorial
election. The County Commissioners desired to make the polling
251
City of Denton City Council Minutes
February 16, 1993
Page 18
places unified in order to accommodate the voters and were willing
to change their polling places to match the city's at the Martin
Luther King, Jr. Recreation Center, Fire Station 4, and North Lakes
Recreation Center. There would be two sets of voting activities
occurring in those facilities but would not be the same ballot.
One exception was the Denia Park Recreation Center. The
Commissioners felt that voter participation would be better at the
Southmont Baptist Church and that it would be a better voting
location. They were requesting the Council to change the
designation for District 4 from Denia to the Southmont Baptist
Church. The final item was the date for the runoff election. The
ordinance indicated that it would be the 29th of May. There were
no Saturdays available except for the 29th in the time frame
allowed by the State Election Code. The 29th of May was Memorial
Day weekend which might present a problem. The Council could move
the runoff date to a day other than a Saturday if it so desired.
Council Member Brock questioned whether the County was required to
hold their election by precincts.
Tim Hodges, County Clerk, stated that the governor had signed a
proclamation waiving that restriction.
Council Member Brock stated that then for the city of Denton there
would be only those four polling places.
Hodges replied that the County would match the City so that the
elections could be advertised as unified voting. This would be
done countywide to facilitate voters.
Council Member Chew stated that there would be time to get the
change precleared and that it would not disenfranchise any voters.
Council Member Perry asked what was wrong with Denia.
Kirk Wilson, County Commissioner, stated that most of precincts
were more accessible than Denia. Denia was out of the way for most
of the residents in the area.
Mayor Pro Tem Hopkins stated that voters east of Fort Worth Drive
voted there anyway and people were used to voting there. To vote
with the County made sense.
Council Member Perry stated that he wanted it a matter of record as
to why to the city was moving the Dolling Dlace. He wanted
clarification on that issue.
Council Member Brock stated that Parvin Street was very hard to
find if someone did not know the route.
252
City of Denton City Council Minutes
February 16, 1993
Page 19
Council Member Smith stated that part of purpose for the move would
be to increase voter turnout by making it easier to get to the
polling place.
The following ordinance was considered:
No. 93-025
AN ORDINANCE ORDERING AN ELECTION TO BE HELD IN THE CITY OF
DENTON, TEXAS, ON MAY 1, 1993, AND IF A RUNOFF ELECTION IS
REQUIRED, ON MAY 29, 1993, FOR THE PURPOSE OF ELECTING COUNCIL
MEMBERS TO PLACES 1, 2, 3, AND 4 OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS; DESIGNATING VOTING PLACES AND
APPOINTING ELECTION OFFICIALS; PROVIDING FOR BILINGUAL NOTICE
OF THE ELECTION; ORDERING THAT THE PUNCH CARD ELECTRONIC
VOTING SYSTEM BE USED; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Hopkins motioned, Perry seconded to adopt the ordinance with the
amendments of holding the runoff date on May 29 if necessary, to
move the District 4 polling place to the Southmont Baptist Church,
and to omit the blank for the alternate judge for the Central
Counting Station. On roll vote, Brock "aye", Miller "aye", Hopkins
"aye", Smith "aye", Chew "aye", Perry "aye", and Mayor Castleberry
"aye". Motion carried unanimously.
The Council returned to the regular agenda order.
5. Public Hearings
B. The Council held a public hearing and considered adoption
of ~n ordinance rezoning a 1.2777 acre t~act from an Agricultural
zoning district, to a Commercial zoning district with four
conditions, C(c). The tract was at the southeast corner of Milam
Road (FM3163) and Interstate 35. (The Planning and Zoning
Commission recommended approval at its meeting of 1/27/93 by a 6-0
vote.)
Frank Robbins, Executive Director for Planning, stated that this
was a re~oning for a part of the p~operty which was currently in
the City. This was a conditioned zoning in which the uses were
noted in the ordinance. The uses would be only for those currently
in effect.
The Mayor opened the public hearing.
No one spoke in favor.
No one spoke in opposition.
253
City of Denton City Council Minutes
February 16, 1993
Page 20
The Mayor closed the public hearing.
The following ordinance was considered:
No. 93-022
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS,PROVIDING FOR A
CHANGE FROM AGRICULTURAL (A) TO COMMERCIAL (C-c) ZONING
DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION AND USE DESIGNATION WITH CONDITIONS
FOR 1.2777 ACRES OF LAND LOCATED ON THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF
MILAMROAD (FM3163) AND INTERSTATE 35; PROVIDING FOR A PENALTY
IN THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF $2,000 FOR VIOLATIONS THEREOF; AND
PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Hopkins motioned, Chew seconded to adopt the ordinance. On roll
vote, Brock "aye", Miller "a~e", Hopkins "aye", Smith "aye", Chew
"aye", Perry "aye", and Mayor Castleberry "aye". Motion carried
unanimously.
6. Consent Agenda
Mayor Castleberry indicated that Item #6.A.3. had been pulled from
consideration. Council Member Chew asked that Item #1460 be pulled
for special consideration.
Council Member Chew stated that he was concerned on how the
specifications had been developed for Bid #1460.
Tom Shaw, Purchasing Agent, stated that Jack Jarvis, Fleet
Maintenance Superintendent, and he had gone over the bids from last
year and made changes to include a larger size vehicle. They
reviewed the specifications provided by the manufacturers (General
Motors and Ford). Once the comparisons were made to be sure that
they were not arbitrarily eliminating any particular bidder the
bids were then mailed and staff waited to hear if anyone had
concerns regarding the bids. If there were no concerns expressed,
no addendums were included in the bids. After the bids were
received, they were evaluated and a recommendation made to Council.
Council Member Chew stated that he had a concerns in that some of
the specifications on this bid could not be met both with the anti-
slip rear end and the anti-lock brakes. When it looked like there
was a $1.25 difference between a local dealer and a non-local
dealer it concerned him. He asked if there were a way to do more
work on particular specifications with type of bid. He knew that
GM products would come with the anti-lock brakes where Ford could
not produce a vehicle with the anti-slip rear end and the anti-lock
brakes. At one time Council had talked about legislation to favor
254
City of Denton City Council Minutes
February 16, 1993
Page 21
businesses in the City. He felt the Council needed to pursue that
legislation.
Shaw replied that it was the City's full intent to solicit local
bids as much as possible. Upon evaluation of the bids, staff had
considered rejecting all bids and purchasing off the State
contract. On the Ford bids only one local dealer chose to
eliminate the anti-lock brake. One other dealer, Denton Motors,
included the option as did the dealer from Decatur. Council Member
Chew was correct in that Ford did not offer anti-lock brake and the
traction lock differential. They did offer an optional anti-lock
brake system which featured traction assist. There were numerous
terms presented by each manufacturer for the same concept. The
specification used a generic term "traction lock" and stated that
it would be for police usage. Staff highly encouraged all bidders
to call attention to any proprietary specifications. Other bids
had had addendums sent out in order to keep the specifications
generic. The dealer did not call this to staff's attention until
the bids were opened. The traction lock was a mechanical locking
situation that accomplished the same thing as a traction assist.
The traction lock was an $85 option and the traction assist was a
$591 option. The agenda backup materials indicated that $506 was
arrived at by subtracting $85 from $591. If $506 were added back
into the Bill Utter bid, it was still was the third highest bid.
The local Chevrolet dealer did not participate in the bidding but
would assist with the service. Only warranty work was done in an
outside facility and the rest of the maintenance was done in-house.
Shaw shared Council's concern regarding doing business with local
businesses. Perhaps a pre-bid conference in the future would help
to eliminate the problem. State legislation was needed for a local
option.
Council Member Miller felt that a pre-bid conference was a good
idea for future items such as this.
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:
Bid #1460 - Police Sedans
P.O. #32573 - Denton Motors, Inc.
B. Plats and Replats
1. Considered approval of the preliminary plat of Lot
255
City of Denton city Council Minutes
February 16, 1993
Page 22
1, Block A, Eagle Picher Addition being a 10 acre
tract located on the west side of 1-35W south of
Airport Road. (The Planning and Zoning Commission
recommended approval at its 2/10/93 meeting with a
6-0 vote.)
7. ordinances
A. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance accepting
competitive bids and awarding a contract for purchase of materials,
equipment, supplies or services. (6.A.1. - Bid #1460; 6.A.2. - P.O.
#32573)
The following ordinance was considered:
No. 93-023
AN ORDINANCE ACCEPTING A COMPETITIVE SEALED PROPOSAL 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, 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.
D. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance
authorizing the Mayor to execute an Escrow Agreement with Flow
Regional Medical Center, Inc.
City Attorney Drayovitch recommended adoption of the ordinance
which culminated the enforcement of the arbitrator's decision.
The following ordinance was considered:
No. 93-026
AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE AN ESCROW
AGREEMENT WITH FLOW REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER, INC; AND
PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Perry 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.
256
City of Denton City Council Minutes
February 16, 1993
Page 23
E. The .Council considered adoption of an ordinance
authorizing the City Manager to execute an agreement with Resource
Management International, Inc. for performance of services relating
to a long-range power supply study. (The Public Utilities Board
recommended approval.)
City Manager Harrell stated that at the last study session Council
had reviewed a power supply study as proposed by staff and as
recommended by the Public Utilities Board.
The following ordinance was considered:
No. 93-027
AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AN
AGREEMENT WITH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT INTERNATIONAL, INC., FOR
PERFORMANCE OF SERVICES RELATING TO A LONG-RANGE POWER SUPPLY
STUDY; AUTHORIZING THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS THEREFORE; AND
DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Hopkins 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.
8. Resolutions
A. The Council considered approval of a resolution
authorizing the City Manager to execute an agreement with the North
Central Texas Council of Governments (NCTCOG) for a grant to fund
a household used oil collection program.
Bill Angelo, Director of Community Services, stated that several
months ago a grant was submitted to the NCTCOG to establish a
collection system for used oil and a public education program on
what to do with used oil. The collection facility would be near
the Service Center and a public information brochure would be done
indicating places to take used oil products. Oil and oil filters
were no longer acceDted at the landfill.
Council Member Brock asked if the City would only be collecting the
oil and then a commercial entity would pick it up and dispose of
it.
Angelo replied correct.
The following resolution was considered:
257
City of Denton City Council Minutes
February 16, 1993
Page 24
No. R93-009
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AN
AGREEMENT WITH THE NORTH CENTRAL TEXAS COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS
FOR A GRANT TO FUND A HOUSEHOLD USED OIL COLLECTION PROGRAM;
AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Perry motioned, Chew seconded to adopt the resolution. 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 approval of a resolution
designating certain officials as being responsible for, acting for,
and on behalf of the City of Denton in dealing with the Texas Parks
and Wildlife Department, for the purpose of participating in grant
programs for South Lakes Park.
Janet Simpson, Park Planner, stated that in July a proposal was
submitted for a $500,000 matching grant for the Phase I development
of South Lakes Park. The City had been notified that the funding
had not been approved. Of the 55 projects which were submitted, 25
were funded. The City was 29th on the list. A meeting with the
Texas Parks and Wildlife staff indicated it was a good project.
The city could not gain any other points by adjusting the projects.
Points could be added by redistributing some of the site
preparation dollars for the dirt work for the building, playground,
etc. That had been done and had been redistributed into each
facility. Another area staff was working on was with the Denton
Independent School District for a cooperative agreement. The City
would allow the DISD classrooms to use a small area of the park as
a test garden, for ecology and biology studies, and for
horticultural studies. In return the DISD would provide help in
identifying plant material, ecosystems, wildlife identification,
and ultimately develop brochures and field guides. This type of
cooperative agreement scored a minimum of four points which would
enhance the possibility of receiving the funding. In order to keep
the community informed, a community meeting would be held at
Southmont Baptist Church on February 25, 1993.
Council Member Perry stated that he liked the idea of an agreement
with the DISD as it provided an opportunity for education for the
community.
The following resolution was considered:
2 5 8
City of Denton City Council Minutes
February 16, 1993
Page 25
No. R93-010
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS DESIGNATING CERTAIN
OFFICIALS AS BEING RESPONSIBLE FOR, ACTING FOR, AND ON BEHALF
OF THE CITY IN DEALING WITH THE TEXAS PARKS & WILDLIFE
DEPARTMENT FOR THE PURPOSE OF PARTICIPATING IN THE GRANT
PROGRAMS; CERTIFYING THAT THE CITY IS ELIGIBLE TO RECEIVE
ASSISTANCE UNDER SUCH PROGRAMS; AND DEDICATING THE PROPOSED
SITE FOR OUTDOOR RECREATION USES; 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
authorizing the City Manager to execute an agreement with Sammons
Communications, Inc. to delay the restructuring of the cable
television service until such time as Sammons Communications, Inc.
had rebuilt and upgraded its cable television service system. (The
Cable T.V. Advisory Board recommended approval.)
Bill Angelo, Director of Community Services, stated that the item
had been discussed with Council at a prior work session. Since
that time staff had been working with Sammons to finalize an
agreement which would delay their restructuring of the cable
channels until the completion of their rebuild. There was area of
concern remaining with the agreement. This was on page 2 of
agreement, Section 2B1. The City would like the sentence to read
"for the term of this agreement". The Sammons attorneys had a
problem with that wording and staff was still trying to negotiate
that point.
City Attorney Drayovitch stated that the agreement in the Council
backup included the language which the City would like to use.
This language was taken out by the Sammons attorneys. She
recommended an addition to the resolution which would allow the
City Manager to execute an agreement with Sammon~ which
substantially conformed to the attached agreement. Both sides
agreed to the concepts and principles of the agreement. All that
was needed was to get the correct wording for both entities.
Mayor Pro Tem Hopkins asked how that motion would be worded.
City Attorney Drayovitch stated that the Council would move to
adopt the resolution with an amendment to Section 1 to provide that
the City Council authorized the City Manager to execute an
259
City of Denton City Council Minutes
February 16, 1993
Page 26
agreement whichsubstantially conformed to the attached contract.
Council Member Chew asked if enough time had been allowed to look
at the agreement in order to pass it at this time.
City Attorney Drayovitch replied that staff was satisfied with the
agreement except for the one minor wording in the agreement.
Council Member Perry asked what Sammons was objecting to in the
contract.
Angelo replied that their main objection was to the sentence in
Section 2B1 where the city had listed "for the term of this
agreement". Their attorneys did not want the phrase and Angelo
felt that their attorney felt that the City could, after the
agreement expired, retroactively challenge that agreement.
City Attorney Drayovitch stated that the agreement with the
questionable wording was not in the Council's packet but rather was
on their desks.
The Mayor indicated that Council had received a speaker card on
this item.
Joe Dodd stated that the main point regarding this issue had been
missed. In all of the surveys he had seen regarding cable
companies, the main concerns dealt with selection availability and
price. The converter box was not the prime issue except for the
cable company. The concern was about selection and price. WTBS
and WGN stations were added to the package to inflate the value.
What should be in the life line package would be the weather
channel and CNN Headline news which carried local news. Local
advertisements were sold on that channel which would lower the cost
of the service for this package. What would be established as
basic would probably be that area of cable which the City would be
allowed to regulate. He urged the Council to do nothing. Don't
override the provisions of Senate Bill 12.
The following resolution was considered:
No. R93-011
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AN
AGREEMENT WITH SAMMONS COMMUNICATIONS, INC., TO DELAY THE
RESTRUCTURING OF THE CABLE TELEVISION SERVICE UNTIL SUCH TIME
AS SAMMONS COMMUNICATIONS, INC. HAS REBUILT AND UPGRADED ITS
CABLE TELEVISION SERVICE SYSTEM; AND PROVIDING FOR AN
EFFECTIVE DATE.
26O
City of Denton City Council Minutes
February 16, 1993
Page 27
Hopkins motioned, Perry seconded to approve the resolution with an
amendment to Section One instructing the City Manager to execute an
agreement which substantially conformed to the attached contract.
Council Member Miller asked why there was no 24 hours news station
in basic tier.
John Enlow, Sammons Communications, stated that it seemed that the
intent of law was that cable systems establish a level of service
which included access and broadcast channels. That level of
service would be priced close to what it cost to provide. He
believed the intent was to establish a level of service which was
uniform across the county which included at least the broadcast and
access channels. This would avoid the problem of trying to
regulate many different basic cable packages. The basic package
included all the access and 'broadcast channels as well as CSPAN.
A problem with the process was the speed in which decisions had to
be made. The intent was to establish a low cost package which
would include broadcast and access channels.
Council Member Miller asked if this was consistent with what was
being done in other locations.
Enlow replied yes that it was similar with other systems in this
area.
On roll vote, Brock "aye", Miller "aye", Hopkins "aye",
"aye", Chew "nay", Perry "aye", and Mayor Castleberry
Motion carried with a 6-1 vote.
Smith
"aye".
D. The Council considered approval of a resolution
suspending the proposed effective date of the proposed rate
schedules and service regulations of Texas Utilities Electric
Company; providing that the rate schedules and service regulations
of said company shall remain unchanged during the period of
suspension; providing for notice hereof to said company; and
finding and determining that the meeting at which this resolution
is passed is open to the public as required by law.
Bob Nelson, Executive Director for Utilitiesl stated that on
January 22, 1993 Texas Utilities filed a petition of statement of
intent to increase electric rates. There were approximately 700-
800 customers in the City of Denton, the majority were in mobile
home parks. TU had asked for 15.3% increase effective February
26th. They had also filed their intent with Public Utility
Commission which would be reviewing documents. Denton had four
options with this request. The first option would be to approve
the rate and move forward with implementation on February 26th.
261
City of Denton City Council Minutes
February 16, 1993
Page 28
The second option would be to deny the rate increase. A third
option would be to relinquish the City's original jurisdiction over
rates to the Public Utilities Commission. A fourth option would be
to suspend the implementation of the rates pending the Public
Utilities Commission's review. Two years ago Council took action
to suspend implementation until the PUC review which was staff's
recommendation for this request.
Mayor Pro Tem Hopkins asked for the philosophy of why the City did
not allow the PUC to make the recommendation and give them original
jurisdiction.
Nelson replied that he was not sure what that might mean in terms
of service levels in the future.
Mayor Pro Tem Hopkins stated that the City was bound by the actions
of the PUC.
Nelson replied that the City might not be bound by their actions
but it would take a substantial amount of evidence and work to do
something different than what they would recommend.
Mayor Pro Tem Hopkins stated that the City would not be financially
able nor desirous of trying to stop the rate implementation. She
still did not see the advantage of the City remaining involved in
the process.
city Manager Harrell stated that detailed research was done two
years ago regarding this issue. There was a concern that if the
City relinquished jurisdiction, it might not be a temporary action
and that there might be implications for all matters in the future.
Mayor Pro Hopkins stated that this action would prevent TU from
implementing any rate increase.
Nelson replied that it left the jurisdiction with this Council to
decide whether to implement the rates or not.
City Manager Harrell stated that this was the procedure used last
time when Council suspended the rate increase. TU filed a bond with
the PUC and went ahead and raised the rates. After the hearing
process, the bond would be used for a refund if the increase were
not granted or if not as much of an increase were granted.
James Loveday, TU Electric, stated that under the PUC Act, any
electric company which came before them had the right to place
rates under bond. They used that procedure with the last proposed
increase due to the length of the process. It applied to the
262
City of Denton City Council Minutes
February 16, 1993
Page 29
customers in Denton as well as all other cities served by TU.
The following resolution was considered:
No. R93-012
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS SUSPENDING THE
PROPOSED EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE PROPOSED RATE SCHEDULES AND
SERVICE REGULATIONS OF TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC COMPANY;
PROVIDING THAT THE RATE SCHEDULES AND SERVICE REGULATIONS OF
SAID COMPANY SHALL REMAIN UNCHANGED DURING THE PERIOD OF
SUSPENSION; PROVIDING FOR NOTICE HEREOF TO SAID COMPANY;
FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT THE MEETING AT WHICH THIS
RESOLUTION IS PASSED IS OPEN TO THE PUBLIC AS REQUIRED BY LAW;
AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Miller 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.
9. The Council considered and adopted an annexation schedule with
regard to the proposed annexation of 3.85 acres located east of 1-
35 and south of Milam Road (A-61).
Frank Robbins, Executive Director for Planning, stated that this
was an annexation of property at Loves Truck Stop. The schedule
included dates for instituting and final approval for the
annexation.
Smith motioned, Perry seconded to approve the schedule. On roll
vote, Brock "aye", Miller "aye", Hopkins "aye", Smith "aye", Chew
"aye", Perry "aye", and Mayor Castleberry "aye". Motion carried
unanimously.
10. Miscellaneous matters from the City Manager.
Mayor Castleberry indicated that Council would return to the Work
Session items not completed earlier.
3. The Council received a report and held a discussion regarding
the application of the City's Subdivision and Land Development
regulations within the Extraterritorial Jurisdiction and gave staff
direction.
Harry Persuad, Senior Planner, stated that the regulatory line was
drawn outside the City limits and inside the ETJ. The proposal was
263
City of Denton city Council Minutes
February 16, 1993
Page 30
to apply the City's Subdivision Regulations within the regulatory
line and the Denton County Subdivision Regulations outside the
regulatory line.
Council Member Perry asked how far east would be the provisions.
Persuad replied that the regulatory line would go to the lake on
the east side.
Council Member Brock stated that reference had been made that the
County would inform and consult with the City on plats. If someone
presently built outside the ETJ, were they required to plat with
County.
Persuad replied no the City did not see plats outside the ETJ. They
did have to plat with the CoRnty.
Council Member Miller asked if this had been discussed with the
County.
Persuad replied that Jerry Clark had discussed with County staff
the details for the monitoring of platting activities in all areas.
Mayor Pro Tem Hopkins felt this was a positive forward step. She
always felt it was unfair to the distant ETJ residents to have to
comply with the City's regulations. The Council repeatedly had to
deal with variances in the ETJ and this proposal would help solve
some of those problems.
City Manager Harrell stated that if the Council approved the
concept, it would help the relationship with the County and
communications with County development.
Consensus of the Council was to proceed with the ordinance.
council considered Work Session Item #4.
4. The Council received a report and held a discussion regarding
activities involved in preparation for the 1986 bond election.
Catherine Tuck, Administrative Assistant, stated that the back-up
information provided a synopsis on the timetable followed for the
1986 bond election. Tuck reviewed that information and timetable
with the Council. The Subcommittee did a lot of the work regarding
the issues. Election activities were summarized and were included
in the agenda back-up materials. All options were passed at the
election on December 13, 1986.
2
City of Denton City Council Minutes
February 16, 1993
Page 31
11. There was no official action taken on Executive Session items
discussed during the Work Session Executive Session.
12. New Business
There were no items of New Business suggested by Council Members
for future agendas.
13. There was no Executive Session held during the Regular
Session.
With no further business, the meeting was adjourned 10:45 p.m.
CIndY SECRETARY
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS
CITY OF DENTON, TE~ ~
ACC000E6