Minutes March 29, 1994104
CITY OF DENTON CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
March 29, 1994
The Council convened into a Special Call Session on Tuesday, March
29, 1994 at 5:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers.
PRESENT: Mayor castleberry; Mayor Pro Tem Smith; Council Members
Cott, Perry, and Miller.
ABSENT: Council Members Brock and Chew
1. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance authorizing
the issuance, sale, and delivery of City of Denton Certificates of
Obligation, Series 1994, and approving and authorizing instruments
and procedures relating thereto.
Lloyd Harrell, City Manager, stated that this was the final step in
the action for issuance of $3,225,000 of certificates of
obligation. Those certificates would be used for the computer
system for the police and fire departments and one for the library
in addition to the City's annual lease for motor pool stock.
David Medanich, First Southwest Company, stated that there were
eleven bids received for the certificates. Those companies
submitting bids along with the effective interest rate included:
First Southwest Company and Stephens Inc. - 5.12%; Smith Barney
Shearson - 5.04%; The Principal - 5.09%; Nations Bank Capital
Markets - 5.11%; Service Asset Management - 5.13%; Costal
Securities - 5.20%; Prudential Securities - 5.06%; Kidder Peabody-
' 5'~11%; Southwest Securities - 5.16%; LaSalle Bank - 5.45%; Merrill
Lynch - 5.21%. Medanich stated that.Smith Barney Shearson had the
lowest bid and.recommended Council approve such.
The following ordinance was considered:
NO. 94-057
AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE, SALE, AND DELIVERY OF
CITY OF DENTON CERTIFICATES OF OBLIGATION, SERIES 1994, AND
APPROVING ANDAUTHORIZING INSTRUMENTS AND PROCEDURES RELATING
THERETO.
Perry motioned, smith seconded to adopt the ordinance. On roll
vote, Cott "aye", Miller "aye", Smith "aye", Perry "aye", and Mayor
Castleberry "aye". Motion carried unanimously.
Following consideration of the above ordinance, the City Council
convened in the Civil Defense Room.
105
City of Denton City Council Minutes
March 29, 1994
Page 2
2. The Council received a report, held a discussion and gave
staff direction regarding a park dedication ordinance.
Lloyd Harrell, City Manger, stated that the itemswhich appeared on
the mid-year retreat were either items from the annual retreat
which Council wanted further discussion on or were items which the
Council had requested for retreat consideration. This item had
been considered during the council retreat and Council had asked
for continued discussion. This was not a new subject for Council
as other Council's had discussed it in prior years.
Rich Dlugas, Director of Parks and Recreation, stated that in the
fall of 1987 the Parks Department worked on a mandatory'land
dedication/fee in lieu of land policy. Components of this policy
consisted of a mandatory dedication by developers of 3 acres per
1,000 population impact or one acre per 100 units developed. If
land was not able to be dedicated, there would be a fee in lieu of
land allowed. After many months of negotiations with developers,
the Parks Board and the Planning and Zoning Commission worked out
a compromise program.
Council Member Chew joined the meeting.
Dlugas stated that in March of 1989 a resolution was approved by
Council for a voluntary dedication policy. This was an 18 month
process which started out as a mandatory policy, that through the
negotiations of the developers and the Planning and Zoning
Commission, resulted in a voluntary policy. Mandatory dedication
was the right of a municipality to require developers to dedicate
land for parks as a condition of the platting process. In
situations where it was not feasible or desirable to secure land
for parks, fees in.lieu of land were allowed which were equal to
the value of the land that a developer would otherwise be required
to dedicate. The monies were used to purchase lahd for
neighborhood parks or to develop existing neighborhood parks. He
reviewed the existing voluntary land dedication policy plus an
overhead which indicated the residential-multifamily housing
permits issued March 1989 - January 1994. He also reviewed an
overhead which indicated the amount of dollars which would have
brought in fees in lieu of land with a mandatory policy. A fee
survey of area municipalities regarding a mandatory park dedication
ordinance had been done which Dlugas reviewed with Council. The
majority of Denton's park acreage was in two major parks and it was
felt that the neighborhood parks were-c~vering the needs of Denton.
The concern was for the future growth of Denton ~nd not having
enough money to develoD Darks in the future.
Mayor Pro Tem Smith asked whether the cities in the survey with a
program of a monthly contribution amount on utility bills was a
106
city of Denton City Council Minutes
Marc~~F4----~---~
Pag~ 3 ~ i
mandatory program.-
Dlugas replied that ~hat was a voluntary program. Irving would be
instituting such a program in May and Richardson would begin in the
summer. I~ving was Projecting to receive approximately $150T
200,000 a year on that program.
City Manager Harrell stated that in the 1980's the mandatory park
dedication requirement came to Council with the recommendation of
the Parks and RecreatiOn Board. The negotiated formula for the
dedication was approved bY all parties concerned including the
developers and the Parks and Recreation Board. The development
community requested that the City implement the
voluntary trial basis. All developers had been aware of the. policy
and had been requested to comply. Representation which was ~ade. at
that point, was that if the policy was done on a voluntarylbasls,
there would be compliance.with the requirements. That had not been
the case. The second issue was one of policy. The major ~oncern
was how, as a community, was the City going· to provide f~r park
land and park facilities in the future as the city grew~ That__
could be done through a mandatory park dedication requirement or
could be taken out of general property tax rates with bond issues
and other revenue sources that would drive that need.
Council Member Perry asked about the rational for the amount of the.
dedication. '-~
Dlugas replied that those figures were developed in 1987 during
negotiations on a mandatory policy with the developers and the
Planning and Zoning Commission.
Council Member Perry asked if the values had changed since that
time.
figures had been the same since I989.
tated that this was not a time for a tax
~just_ been one in the form a sales tax to
He felt that the concept of taxing had to
at this as another tax increase. The'
community was on 'a 90sitive roll and now was not the time to
institute another tax.
Mayor Pro Tem Smith stated that under the voluntary policy, in the
last,five years, only 5.925 aores had been donated. The voluntary
policy was a failure. She suggested that the city look seriously
at a dollar donation from citizens and if a mandatory dedication
policy were again considered, that discussions with developers
107
City of Denton City C°u~cil Minutes
March 29, 1994
Page 4
again take place as they needed to be consulted regarding the
process.
Council Member Perry agreed with Mayor Pro Tem Smith's proposal and
suggested including the Parks Board and the Planning and zoning
Commission in the discussions.
Mayor Pro Tem Smith felt that before anything definite was done
there needed to be discussions with the developers in the City.
Richard Hayes stated that he liked the idea of restudying the issue
under current economic circumstances. Park coverage of the city
seemed to be very adequate. Development seemed to be on.the up
swing and a nurturing environment was needed to do business in the
city. He felt it would be better to set the standard of easier,
better and cheaper to do business in Denton.
Rob Raynor stated.that many of the developers who were involved in
the first discussion of this policy were no longer in Denton. He
suggested that staff review the figures used for average values of
homes as he felt they were too high. He hoped that the guidelines
would be following the volunteer policy.
Fred GosSett stated that there were many factors involved with this
issue. Builders who were here in the past were gone because they
had gone out of business. The City kept adding requirements to
developers such as sidewalks, set backs, etc. If the mandatory
requirements were set, the City would become non-competitive with
other areas. He hoped that this would be a community effort and
community discussion-on the issue.
Wade Harris stated that he was trying to develop entry .level
housing in the City. Under current standards with such items as
set backs and sidewalks, there was little money left to develop the
h?mes. He was trying to develop a park w~th his development. The
p~eces of the puzzle kept affecting individuals at the lower end of
the housing market.
Council Member Brock joined the meeting.
Council Member Miller felt that this was a complex issue as all
wanted parks but there was the problem of how to pay for the parks.
He suggested asking the Parks and Recreation Board to look at the
issue and forecast future park needs.
Council Member Chew suggested that the Parks and Recreation Board
meet with the realtors and builders to determine a policy and then
hold a public hearing.
108
City of Denton City Council Minutes
March 29, 1994
Page 5~
Council Member Cott felt that it was not the Parks Board's place to
determine this issue. He suggested that the Board determine what
was needed and then have the developers address the Council.
Mayor Castleberry stated that if the City had heavy building such
as Flower Mound, this would be an easier issue to deal with.
Council Member Cott suggested that the Parks Board determine what
was needed and then have the Council hold public hearings on how to
achieve those needs.
Council Member Miller felt that the developers needed to be
involved in the process from the beginning along with the
community.
Mayor Pro Tem Smith suggested neighborhood hearings similar to the
ones held regarding South Lakes Park be held on the issue.
Consensus of the council was to send the issue to the Parks and
Recreation Board and work with developers and the public on a
policy.
Joyce Poole suggested taking the issue to the Vision group with
comments to the Parks Board.
Russell Bates suggested investigating teaming with the School
District for a joint venture with parks.
3. The Council received a report, held a discussion and gave
staff direction regarding cable T.V. funding.
Bill Angelo, Director .for Community Services, stated that the
government access channel was a good product in terms of
broadcasting council meetings. The lighting, sound and color
seemed better than the live production. There was a problem at
times with the sound and color balance. Don Anderson, Chief Video
Systems Engineer for the University of North Texas, provided the
City with a complete listing of equipment and cost which would
allow for broadcast improvement~ to molve the audio probl~m~ and
allow for constant color balance throughout the meeting. The total
cost of broadcast enhancements would be $8,259.00 Additional
production capabilities had not started at this time. Since the
City had started production many requests had been received for
smaller productions. Council had also requested a 10-15 minute
video to be used during council breaks. At this ti~e, the City did
not have the equipment to edit such a video program. Editing had
been done at UNT but staff was not sure how long they would be able
to Continue. The City needed to purchase the equipment necessary to
109
city of Denton City Council Minutes
March 29, 1994
Page 6
do this editing if it wanted to continue such a program. The
equipment necessary to do the editing and remote videos would cost
approximately $10,000. The total cost of acquiring the new
equipment was estimated at $19,104 with the remaining balance of
the Sammons Cable equipment grant at $19,910. Thus, there were
adequate funds to cover the cost of the recommended equipment. If
Council so desired, the equipment could be purchased soon. Another
item to consider was the broadcasting of other board meetings in
the City. Personnel cost, including benefits, for the broadcast
would be approximately $22 per hour for a two-camera shoot
utilizing one intern as the production director and two interns as
camera operators. Cost of supplies per broadcast averaged
approximately $12.00. Broadcasting the Planning and Zoning
Commission meetings would cost approximately $2,256 per year based
on an average three hours per meeting twice a month. There would
also be some additional costs attributed to prorated equipment
maintenance and amortization costs.
The DISD agreement was another issue. Several meetings had been
held with DISD representatives regarding the sharing of broadcast
equipment and most of the details regarding School Board meeting
broadcasts had been worked out. The DISD had not taken action as
yet on the broadcasting. The DISD had asked about the possibility
of contracting with the City to broadcast their meetings. The DISD
would provide all of the static equipment (video toaster, tape
deck, cables, etc.) 'with the City providing the mobile equipment
(cameras, tripods, headsets, etc.) and manpower for the broadcast.
Advantages to such an agreement would be a cheaper over all price
to citizens. There were some concerns about the sharing of
equipment and who would be using that equipment. With such an
agreement, the City would have total control over the handling of
the equipment. In regards to the Cable TV franchise regulation,
the two issues of benchmark rate review and rate review resolution
were relative. The federal regulations regarding the benchmark
rate were being revised as the FCC had stated that they would be
reconsidering the method in which they calculated the basic cable
rate benchmark. The impact of this change on the City would not be
significant but would cause some confusion for the City when
Sammons filed their benchmark rate calculations next month. Once
the City received the benchmark rate calculations from Sammons, it
would be necessary to review the information to be sure of its
accuracy and appropriateness. If the calculations were not too
complicated, it might be possible for the city staff to conduct
this review. There was a possibility that the City might want to
bring in an outside consultant to conduct the review and report
back to the Council through the CATV Advisory Board. An outside
consultant would not cost more than approximately $10,000.
110
City of Denton City Council Minutes
March 29, 1994
Page 7
The final issue dealt with the rate review resolution. The
resolution designating the City as a rate regulator would be taken
to the CATV Advisory Board in April and to the Council during the
first meeting in May. Sammons would be replacing all converters in
the system during the next several months.
Richard Foster, Public Information Officer, stated that he felt the
broadcast of the meetings was going well. Staff was attempting to
rebroadcast the meetings, but manpower to get the process completed
was a factor to consider. Copies of the meetings were available at
the Library for the public to check out. The Bulletin Board was
being well used and many notices were being placed on the Board.
The Parks and Library Departments were heavy users. There had been
many requests from other departments to do videos and staff was
working on short features which could be played during the Council
break such as adopt-a-spot and composting at home.
City Manager Harrell stated that the City Council agendas were
placed on the bulletin board for public viewing.
Council Member Cott suggestedlooking at the Sammons system for any
franchise fee disagreements during the past several years. He felt
there was a need to broadcast any time the Council was in session.
He asked if the Council had to keep its meetings on Tuesday. The
DISD had their meetings on Tuesdays and there was a potential
conflict with broadcastings.
City Attorney Debra Drayovitch replied that the meeting day was set
by ordinance and the Council could change the day if it so desired.
Mayor Pro Tem Smith asked if additional equipment would have to be
purchased if the DISD contracted with the City.
Angelo stated that the static equipment such as cables would have
to be on site. Those would be the items which could not be moved
easily. The DISD had a budget to do that type of purchase. City
personnel would move the cameras on the day of the broadcast.
Council Member Miller asked if the DISD was aware that they might
have to purchase extra equipment to upgrade the broadcast.
Angelo replied that the DISD was aware that they would have to
purchase some extra equipment, but not ~11 of the same equipment as
the City, as the DISD had better lighting and sound equipment in
their meeting room.
Council Member Brock stated that she would like to broadcast every
meeting as much of the process of decision making was made in the
111
City of Denton City Council Minutes
March 29, 1994
Page 8
work session. The Council should be very active in trying to get
all meetings broadcast.
Mayor Castleberry felt that a change of Council night might cause
problems.
Council Member Cott stated that the DISD should be informed that
Tuesday was Council meeting nights.
City Manager Harrell stated that the DISD knew that city events
would be considered first over DISD events.
Council Member Miller felt that much of the work of the Council
took place in the work sessions. People did not see those
discussions and Council needed to work on the issue of how to
broadcast work sessions.
Council Member Chew stated that if the Council ~ontinued to use
this facility, the work sessions would have to be moved to the
Chambers.
Mayor Pro Tem smith stated that when City Hall was remodeled it
would be a good time to work on a facility which would accommodate
the work sessions.
Council Member Perry felt that the Council needed a suitable place
for a work session which would televise the meetings. Me suggested
holding off on an option until such a facility could be provided.
Mayor Pro Temsmith asked for the time frame for redoing City Hall.
City Manager Harrell stated that it would be at least a year and a
half until work was done. on City Hall.
Council Member Brock suggested doing a trial meeting of a work
session in the Council Chambers to determine how to proceed. This
would allow Council to determine what worked and what did not. She
did not want to wait such a long time to begin the broadcasting of
work sessions.
Council Member Perry felt that there was no need to move from the
current room unless for special occasions. He felt Council could
do better in this setting as the members could speak directly to
each other and there was better interaction in the civil Defense
Room.
Council Member Brock stated that as a citizen, she had attended
meetings in the Civil Defense Room and never felt that she belonged
112
City of Denton City Council Minutes
March 29, 1994
Page 9
at the meeting. There were not enough chairs for the public at
times and it was uncomfortable for citizens at times.
Council Member Perry stated that he was in favor of the public
being at the work session meetings but this was a place to work in
a study mode and the Council worked well in this location.
Mayor Castleberry stated that there had been a suggestion to wait
and broadcast the work sessions after the building was remodeled.
He asked if that was the Council consensus.
Consensus of Council was to not wait until the building had been
remodeled.
Council Member Miller suggested trying a work session meeting in
the Council Chambers as the Civil Defense Room was not a user
friendly room. Such a session could be evaluated from a standpoint
of citizens and council members needs.
Council Member Chew felt that all meetings should be broadcasted
for the public.
Mayor Pro Tem Smith felt that the Council Chambers had the
psychological effect of the "judge" syndrome. There might be
different feelings when entering such a room as the Council
Chambers such as a more reserve and formal feeling and would not be
conducive to free exchange.
Mayor Castleberry agreed with the suggestion of trying a work
session upstairs.
Consensus of the Council was to proceed with a work session in the
Council Chambers.
Mayor Castleberry suggested the fourth Tuesday in April for a trial
work session in the Council Chambers.
City Manager Harrell stated that there was no budget allocation for
televising more meetings than the Council's two regular meetings.
Additiona~ televising would have to be a budget issue.
Mayor Pro Tem Smith stated that the new procedure could be
implemented in October after the trial meeting.
City Manager Harrell stated that the issues raised during the
discussion could be placed in a budget package for Council
consideration during budget discussions.
113
City of Denton City Council Minutes
March 29, 1994
Page 10
Mayor Pro Tem Smith stated that if the City used the grant funds to
purchase the new equipment, where would the funds come from to
repair any broken equipment.
Angelo stated that the equipment purchased was superior equipment
with a life expectancy of 5-7 years when used daily and the City's
equipment was used less often than that.
Council Member Miller felt that unless the procedure was terribly
complicated, the Cable TV Advisory Board should be able to do the
rate review. The Board could begin studying the issue now.
Angelo replied that he felt the regulations would not be a
complicated process to review. The Board had not gone through the
actual rate regulation but had been kept up to date on the rate
regulations, etc. The City would have 30 days from the rate
increase request and after the request would have 180 days to do
the actual study.
4. The Council held a discussion regarding Council working
relationships.
Mayor Pro Tem Smith stated that this item dealt with respect for
one another and communication among the Council Members.
Council Member Perry felt that the Council should work with an
expert in this area as it would be beneficial to Council and that
would benefit the City.
Mayor Pro Tem Smith suggested using the facilitator who was at the
Council's annual planning session.
Council Member Perry felt that that individual did not have enough
expertise on that particular subject. The individual needed to
facilitate communications, self-respect and respect for others. It
was not that the Council did not already do this but there was
alway~ room for improvement and the possibility that it could be
done better.
Council ~ember Miller felt that such a session would have to be
done in conjunction with Council work and not as a stand alone
item.
Council Member Brock asked if Council Member Perry had a specific
person in mind.
Council Member Perry replied no that there were many individuals
who'could perform.this task. He was interested in dealing with a
114
City of Denton City Council Minutes
March 29, 1994
Page 11
particular group of skills as opposed to a particular individual.
Mayor Castleberry stated that he did not have an interest in such
a program as there was no great need at this time. He felt that
the facilitator had done good job at the last planning session.
Council Member Brock stated that as the Council meetings were
public the Council would be limited in what could be accomplished
in interpersonal areas. Those types of sessions required
individuals to get very frank which would not be apprgpriate for a
public meeting. The nature of the situation would limit an
accomplishment.
Council Member Chew felt that if such a meeting were held staff
might be included to help justify the cost.
Council Member Cott stated that sometimes it was difficult for
colleagues to talk to each other. This type of person might help
one to help understand the other. If there were a need for such an
individual, he would be for it.
Council Member Miller felt that Council was exposed to such
sessions at TML and NLC, plus what was done at the annual planning
session worked towards that goal. He had a problem devoting an
entire session to such an issue.
· Council Member Perry stated that he had no problem working though
planning items with such an expert.
Mayor Pro Tem Smith asked what would be the end result of such a
session.
Council Member Perry felt that it would promote better
communication among members and acceptance of one another with
smoother interaction.
Consensus of the Council was to not proceed with such a session.
5. The Council received a report and held a discussion regarding
a mid-year budget update.
Kathy DuBose, Acting Executive Director of Finance, stated that the
update was through the current year budget with a comparison with
the prior year. The City was 42% into the budget year with 58% of
the year remaining. Revenues were quite high with only 35% of the
budget remaining. Compared to the prior year, the city was 13%
over on taxes from the same point last year or approximately
$200,000 over what had been budgeted. This year's budget was
115
City of Denton City Council Minutes
March 29, 1994
Page 12
predicated on a 6% increase over the estimate from last year.
council Member Miller stated that last year there was a newly
imposed tax on utilities. He asked if that was in the base figure
so that this was a true increase.
DuBose, replied yes that the increase went into effect in January of
1993. It was taken into consideration when the 6% forecast was
done.
city Manager Harrell stated that when the monthly budget estimates
were done, it was projected that there would be less growth during
that period of time.
DuBose stated that the sales tax was higher than anticipated. She
presented a comparison of assessed and estimated actual value of
taxable property for the last ten years.
Council Member Cott stated that the actual this year versus the
actual last year was somewhat consistent in revenue and
expenditure. The budget was so much different with a significant
variance in the general fund budget in all items to the actual
performance. He expressed concern with that.
City Manager Harrell stated that one amount was the budgeted figure
for the year and thus far in this fiscal year only a certain amount
had been had collected.
DuBose reviewed the revenues and expenditure for fiscal years 1993
and 1994. Expenditures were broken down by department such as
general government, public safety, public works, and parks and
recreation, capital outlay was a separate item as they were a one-
time purchase. She stated that the electric revenue had a more
detailed report than in previous years and she reviewed the
schedule of budget versus actual expense figures as noted in the
agenda back-up. The water operating fund schedule of budget versus
actual expenses was also reviewed as well as the wastewater
operating budget.
City Manager Harrell stated that he and the Finance Director
reviewed this type of information on a monthly basis.
Bob Nelson, Executive Director for Utilities, stated that the steam
generation column would probably have a budget amendment at the end
of the year due to TMPA's Gibbons Creek machine being down for five
weeks. That meant that the city had to generate more natural gas at
a much higher price than anticipated.
116
City of Denton City Council Minutes
March 29, 1994
Page 13
DuBose stated that with the sanitation operating fund, 41% of the
revenues and 35% of the expenses had been taken with 42% of year
completed. A majority of the fixed asset budget still remained.
6. The Council held a discussion of updating City Council rules
and procedures and gave staff direction.
Debra Drayovitch, City Attorney, stated.that it had been four years
since the Council had completed a comprehensive revision of its
rules and procedures. Several issues had been raised over the past
few months and staff felt it would be a good idea to share with
Council some of those issues to consider.
1. An amendment to include the practice that a council member who
had a personal interest or conflict with an issue on the agenda
would leave the Chambers when the Council was considering that
item. Some of the City's boards/commissions did not leave the room
and felt that it was not necessary. If the Council followed that
type of rule, the boards/commissions would follow.
Mayor Pro Tem Smith asked if this would apply to any board that a
Council Member would serve on even if it were a volunteer board.
city Attorney Drayovitch replied that if the City was funding any
entity, it would be best to excuse that member from the meeting..
There had been instances where if an individual was not an officer
of an organization, it would not be necessary to abstain in a
matter. It was best to consider such issues on a case by case
basis.
Council Member Miller asked about a non-voting ex-officio member.
He felt that that would not be a conflict of interest.
Ci-ty Attorney Drayovitch stated that that had been considered. If
a council member were in a decision-making capacity when an
organization was requesting funding from the city, that member
should be excused.
Council Member Miller stated that an ex-officio member did not fall
in this area.
City Attorney Drayovitch stated that the amenament would be dealing
with personal interest. If a council member were a non-voting ex-
officio member, there would be no conflict. She felt it was better
to look at each particular situation.
Council Member Miller felt that the amendment was doing more than
the law required. He suggested that it did not go too far beyond
117
City of Denton City Council Minutes
March 29, 1994
Page 14
that so that a council member could not serve as an ex-officio
member with. an organization.
City Attorney Drayovitch stated that that was not the intent. The
second item dealt with posting notices of meetings. She felt it
would be a good idea to include a provision that City Council
subcommittees post agendas of their meetings. Item 3 dealt with
the method by which council members placed items on the City
Council agenda. Section 6.3 of the rules provided that the agenda
would provide a time when the Mayor or any council member could
bring before the Council any business. It did not give specifics
regarding this procedure and Council might want to clarify that
procedure.
Council Member Chew felt that any council member should be able to
place an item on the agenda such as the Dallas procedure. He would
not like to be limited when placing an item on the agenda.
City Manager Harrell stated that he understood the practice of
raising an issue for discussion. One item of concern would be that
the procedure would be'so liberal that any member could ask that an
item be placed on a work session for analysis. One member might
ask for an item which would require much staff timefor discussion
or one member might put many items on an agenda using much staff
time in which no one had any interest. That could cause a problem
as it would involve much staff research for only one member.
Council Member Chew stated that if that became a problem, the
Council could change the procedure. He was not in favor of
limiting the procedure for Council Members. ~
Council Member Milier stated that there was a case recently when he
wanted to place an item on an agenda but because another member
questioned the procedure, the Council voted on the matter and he
did not have the right to put the item on the agenda. It appeared
that the regulations applied most of time but not always and there
needed to be a consistent way to challenge the procedure.
Council Member Chew felt that the Council should not be limited on
new items and have a procedure for consideration of previous items.
Dallas had a procedure whereby the council requested an item on the
agenda and the mayor placed it on within four weeks of the request.
Mayor Castleberry asked about an item on the age~da which had
previously been considered. If there was no limit on the process,
an item could be on every agenda. He felt that Council should
consider a time limit for such an item.
118
City of Denton City Council Minutes
March 29, 1994
Page 15
Council Member Miller stated that a motion for reconsideration
required a second and a vote. Reconsideration was provided for in
the rules and regulations.
City 'Attorney Drayovitch recommend changing the wording of the
reconsideration of an item to "voting with the prevailing side" as
opposed to the current wording which indicated "voting with the
majority". The majority was not always the prevailing side.
Another issue was when did reconsideration end and when did renewal
come into play. The Council meeting was a session and .under
Roberts Rules of Order motions to reconsider were to be made within
the same session.
Council Member Chew stated that a reconsideration was an item which
had already been before Council and was not a new item. Any
Council Member could place a new item on the agenda. To reconsider
an item, the majority of the Council would have to want to
reconsider an item up to a period of 6 months. After that the item
would be a new item.
City Attorney Drayovitch asked about a tie vote procedure.
Council Member Miller stated that if it were going to be a tie
vote, the item should be deferred until the entire council was
present.
Mayor Castleberry asked what would happen if there was a case of a
long term absence of a member for a tie vote.
Council Member Perry felt that whatever the procedure that it
should not be tied to predicting what an absent member might do
with the vote.
Mayor Pro Tem Smith asked if a reconsideration could only take
place at the same meeting when decided.
City Attorney Drayovitch stated that it could be considered at that
meeting or at the next subsequent meeting with a suspension of the
rules by. four votes.
Mayor Pro Tem Smith felt that when the Council revisited an issue
at the last meeting, it did so with inadequate information. When
an item was revisited, there was a need to hear all sides of an
issue and have all the facts together.
Council Member Cott felt that this was 'somewhat self-regulating.
To get in a voting position, it could not be done alone. The
Council already had what was needed in the system.
119
City of Denton City Council Minutes
March 29, 1994
Page 16
Mayor Castleberry asked if this item needed to be place4, on the
annual planning session.
Consensus of the Council was to place the item on the annual
planning session.
7. The Council held discussion of water, sewer and transportation
impact fees and gave staff direction.
Bob Nelson, Executive Director for Utilities, presented the history
of impact fees in the City. Impact fees were investigated from
1984-1987 but not adopted. A Capital Recovery Fee Citizens
Committee was formed in 1986 and a major engineering firm was
commissioned to work with the Committee in 1987. That report
recommended "investigating possible use of assessments", but
recommended postponing development of the fees pending proposed
state legislation. No fee development program was commissioned.
An employee impact fee task force worked from August 1989 to
January 1990 on the issue regarding amendments made by the State
legislature. Denton's prorata fees had been rendered ineffective
and Denton ceased the collection of fees for the City but fees for
developers were still applicable. Competition in rates was the
biggest issue at this time and a reason to reconsider impact fees.
Most neighboring cities had impact fees and those were being used
to help pay for the oversizing of lines. Denton did not have those
fees and had to issue bonds or use current revenue for capital
projects.
Frank Robbins, Executive Director for Planhing and Development,
stated that the State had a very definite process involving
procedures for adoption of impact fees. Robbins reviewed those
procedures for adoption as found in the agenda backup materials.
Council Member Cott stated that he accepted the concept of impact
fees and the need for them but was not sure he wanted to proceed
with the process. He suggested bringing the information to the
Council instead of a committee.
Robbins replied that state law required that an advisory board be
established and that the procedures outlined be followed.
Council Member Cott suggested giving the information to the Council
and the Council determine if it wanted to go through the process or
not.
Robbins replied that if the Council wanted to look at impact fees,
the City would probably want to use a consultant, and it could be
a major budget issue.
120
City of Denton City Council Minutes
March 29, 1994
Page 17
Council Member Cott suggested looking at the facts regarding the
impact fees and determining whether or not to proceed. If the
Council desired to proceed, then establish the committee.
City Manager Harrell stated that if there was any interest in
debating the subject on whether to take up consideration of impact
fees, the most logical procedure would be to present it as a major
budget issue and let Council decide whether to allocate funds to
bring on a consultant to develop what types of impact fees to
consider. If the Council did not wish to fund the consultant, the
issue would not be considered. If the Council wanted to fund a
consultant, then the Council would be taking the next step and
bringing someone in to develop land use assumptions and CIP and
give an estimate per dwelling unit for the impact fee. At that
point, the Council would have to make another determination whether
or not to go forward.
Council Member Cott stated that rather than make the assumption
that this was needed, he would rather show what the need was for
the impact fee. Was there a need for these fees.
city Manager Harrell stated that this was done with the Capital
Improvement Program. That program developed what capital
expenditures would be needed over the next six year period of time.
The only way to finance those needs was through utility rates.
Council Member Cott felt that the process sounded like the City was
going to have impact fees and now would be talking about how to
apply those fees.
City Manager Harrell stated that staff '~as trying to show the
process involved if Council decided to take up the question of
impact fees.
Council Member Brock stated that since the law was so precise the
City would have to consider what the process was before deciding
whether to take up an impact fee or not.
Council Member Miller felt that the City needed to have information
which indicated, over the next 10 years, what an impact fee would
do and what would happen if there were no impact fees.
Mayor Pro Tem Smith felt that a consultant was needed to do the
figures and projections even before a decision was made whether or
not to have the fees.
City Manager Harrell stated that Council could devote a period of
time at the annual planning session to talk about impact fees,
121
City of Denton City Council Minutes
March 29, 1994
Page 18
specifically with projections of current assumptions and impact on
rates and taxes. This would help the Council decide whether or not
to take on a consultant to develop those fees. An official from
another city involved with impact fees could also discuss the
procedure with Council.
Consensus of the Council was to discuss the issue at the annual
planning session with staff developing estimates.
8. The Council discussed and considered issues for the Council
annual planning session including facilitator, place, and date and
gave staff direction.
City Manager Harrell stated that staff needed direction on dates
for the annual planning session, a location and a facilitator.
Consensus of the Council was to hold the session on June 17-18,
1994.
Council Me~ber Cott suggested keeping the meeting in Denton.
Council Member Chew felt that there would be too many distractions
if the meeting were held in town.
Council Member Brock stated that it would be good for public.
relations if the meeting were held in Denton but that the point of
the session was to get lots of work done. That was difficult to do
in town.
After discussion on location, consensus of Council was to appoint
Council Member Brock and Mayor Pro Tem Smith to assist staff in
locating a facility.
After discussion regarding a facilitator, consensus of Council was
to contact Bob Saunders or Joe Lanford as facilitator for the
session.
9. The Council received a report, held a discussion and gave
staff direction regarding proposedprocedures and time schedule for
the preparation of contracts and the allocation of hotel occupancy
tax funds.
Kathy DuBose, Acting Executive Director for Finance, presented
information on when each contract would expire. A survey had been
completed with various neighboring cities regarding the allocation
of Lalor funds. The survey indicated that Denton was the only area
entity which contracted with recipients of the funding. The last
time Council worked on renegotiating contracts with the entities,
122
city of Denton City Council Minutes
March 29,.1994
Page 19
a council subcommittee was formed to work with the Legal and
Finance dePartments on the contracts.
City Manager Harrell stated that there were other groups who would
be eligible for funds which would like a procedure to have access
to the Council as allocations were made.
council Member Chew suggested setting aside some of the money for
a convention site for the city and not have such long term
contracts with the entities.
Council Member Brock asked how the percentages came to be as there
seemed to be some disparities in the allocations.
Council Member Miller suggested that the Council consider extending
the two contracts due to expire and have all the contracts expire
at same time. A task force could be established to work with the
entities.
Consensus of the Council was to have staff discuss with the
entities to extend the two contracts due to expire in 1994 and have
a task force set up to consider all of the contracts.
With no further business, the meeting '~as adjourned at 9:40 p.m.
BOB CASTLEBERRY, MAYO~ ~
/
~F~N-I F E~FWALTERS
~?,'I TY S~RETARY
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS.
ACC001B8