Loading...
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