Minutes November 21, 19955¸4
CITY OF DENTON CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
November 21, 1995
The Council convened into a Closed Meeting on Tuesday, November 21,
1995 at 5:45 p.m. in the Civil Defense Room of City Hall.
PRESENT: Mayor Castleberry; Mayor Pro Tem Biles; Council Members
Brock, Cott, Krueger, Miller and Young.
ABSENT:
1.
None
The Council considered the following in Closed Meeting:.
A. Legal Matters -- Under TEX. GOV'T CODE Sec. 551.071
1. Considered settlement in Cohaqen, et al. v. City of
Denton.
B. Real Estate -- Under TEX. GOV'T CODE Sec. 551.072
C. Personnel/Board Appointments -- Under TEX. GOV'T CODE
Sec. 551.074
1. Received a management report on executive search
firms to conduct a recruitment and placement of a
City Manager.
The Council convened into a Regular Meeting on Tuesday, November
21, 1995 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers.
PRESENT: Mayor Castleberry; Mayor Pro Tem Biles; Council Members
Brock, Cott, Krueger, Miller and Young.
ABSENT: None
1. Pledge of Allegiance
The Council and members of the audience recited the Pledge of
Allegiance.
2. Resolutions of Appreciation
A. The Council considered approval of
appreciation for Leonard Braughler.
The following resolution was considered:
a resolution of
RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION FOR LEONARD BRAUGHLER
On roll vote, Miller "aye", Young "aye", Cott "aye", Krueger "aye",
Brock "aye,,, Biles "aye"~ and Mayor Castleberry ~taye~
carried unanimously. · Motion
City of Denton City Council Minutes
November 21, 1995
Page 2
B. The Council considered approval of a
appreciation for Danny Jenkins.
The following resolution was considered:
RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION FOR DANNY JENKINS
resolution of
On roll vote, Miller "aye", Young "aye", Cott "aye", Krueger "aye",
Brock "aye", Biles "aye", and Mayor Castleberry "aye". Motion
carried unanimously.
3. Citizens Reports
A. The Council received a citizen report from Carl Williams
concerning a Citizens Police Review Board.
Mr. Williams was not present at the meeting.
B. The Council received a citizen report from Billy Braswell
concerning the waiver form for the City of Denton Youth Basketball
Program.
Mr. Braswell expressed concerns about the waiver form for the
Denton Youth Basketball program. He felt the second paragraph of
the form was unjust as the Parks and Recreation Department was
funded by the taxpayers and the fact that youth basketball charged
a fee in order to pay for the program. His son was denied the
right to play as he would not sign the waiver. He would not sign
a waiver which indicated that his child would be left in the care
of someone who could afford to be negligent and no one would be
responsible. He asked the Council to remove that clause from the
waiver form as it was an unjust clause.
Council Member Krueger asked Mr. Braswell if his son played
basketball last year.
Braswell replied that his son played two years ago.
Council Member Krueger asked if Mr. Braswell had to sign the waiver
form two years ago.
Braswell indicated that he did not sign that particular form two
years ago.
Ed Hodney, Direotor of Parks and Recreation, stated that the Parks
and Recreation Board heard Mr. Braswell speak at their last meeting
and understood Mr. Braswell's concerns. The Park Board felt that
this was not a matter it could address but rather needed to be
56¸
City of Denton City Council Minutes
November 21, 1995
Page 3
addressed through the Legal Department and/or the Risk Management
Department. The Board felt that perhaps it might be possible to
rewrite the waiver language to make it more user friendly. It also
questioned whether it was possible, from a policy standpoint, to
compare costs of what it would cost to operate the program with a
waiver in effect as opposed to operate the program without a
waiver.
Council Member Krueger asked how old was the document.
Hodney stated that this was a new document which was not in effect
before this year.
Council Member Krueger asked if everyone at the recreation centers
had to sign this waiver before participating in programs.
Hodney replied that anyone who registered for a class or registered
to play in a league was suppose to sign a waiver of liability.
Council Member Krueger asked about the difference in liability
between open play with no supervision, when this waiver was not
signed, and the liability in a supervised program.
Hodney replied that he did not know as it was a legal or risk
management question. The waiver was required for all organized
programs but not for a drop-in use of the facility.
Council Member Krueger asked if the same waiver was required for
the adult programs.
Hodney replied yes that it should be a requirement for all
organized classes and programs.
Council Member Young stated that the waivers did not stand up in
court. He did not see why there was such a strong waiver. He
questioned whether the wording could be changed on the waiver.
City Attorney Prouty stated that there were two issues associated
with the waiver. One was the second paragraph of the waiver which
released all claims that an individual or a child might have for
any injury incurred as a result of any negligence whether caused by
the City or otherwise. There was also a hold harmless agreement
which indicated that the individual would indemnify the city
against any claims resulting from any injury any other party might
have coming from this activity. This was done as a risk management
concept of risk avoidance. If it was the city's policy to have the
participants assume the risk and to have them indemnify against the
City's and their negligence such as premise liability, the document
57
City of Denton City Council~Minutes!~ ,~
November 21, 1995
Page 4
would have to be changed to release against the individual's own
negligence. That was a policy matter for the Council to resolve.
The intent of the waiver was to both release the City from any
liability and also have the City indemnified against any injuries
which might be caused by the individual to another individual
participating in the program.
Council Member Brock felt that this was an issue the Council needed
to discuss as a regular agenda item.
Mayor Pro Tem Biles suggested that the issue be placed on a work
session so that the city Attorney could examine the language of the
waiver and brief the Council on the legal issues.
Council Member Cott asked that the City Attorney examine whether a
parent could sign insurance rights away on a minor child.
Council Member Young asked if Mr. Braswell's child would be allowed
to play basketball without signing the waiver while the Council
studied the issue.
Prouty stated that until there was a change in the policy, the
child could not play as everyone else was required to sign the
release.
4. Public Hearings
A. The Council held a public hearing and considered adoption
of an ordinance rezoning a 0.36 acre tract from the Single Family -
7 (SF-7) district to the Planned Development (PD) district and
approval of the Detailed Plan for property located at 1920 N. Bell
Avenue. (The Planning and zoning Commission recommended approval
4-3.)
Frank Robbins, Director for Planning and Development, stated that
originally there was opposition from 35% of the area land owners.
That figure had changed and was now at 16%. Six votes from the
Council was no longer needed to approve the proposal. The proposal
was for a Planned Development District from a Single Family-7
district. The Planned Development District in this case was much
more restrictive than the Single Family district because it
required that only the foot print of the existing house and the
foot print of the garage apartment remain the same. The Traffic
Safety Commission granted a variance for a circular drive. The
Council could override the variance with an amendment to the
ordinance if it did not approve of the variance. The change in
zoning would allow for a second living unit. One issue associated
with the planned development was that it was only four feet from
City of Denton city Council Minutes
November 21, 1995
Page 5
the fence and there was no single family zoning district which
would allow a living unit that close. However, this was an
existing structure whose roof line had been changed to allow for
more area inside the building. Conditions associated with the
planned development were that no more than one tenant would be able
to occupy the unit, and the north and east windows would have to be
altered to obscure the view of neighboring homes.
The Mayor opened the public hearing.
Annette Wheldon stated that she was a neighbor of the proposed
property. There were garage apartments and rental units present in
the area when she moved to the area. This was not something new to
the neighborhood and the garage with the room above it had been
there for many years. The proposal was to rent the room above the
garage and she and many of the area neighbors did not have an
objection to that. The property was well maintained and this would
not hurt the neighborhood. She felt another issue was one of
private property. A property owner should be able to reasonably
use that property without the interference or approval or
disapproval of the neighbors. She felt the request should be
granted to rent the existing garage apartment.
Margaret Ambuehl stated that she lived across the street from the
proposal. The Pollocks had only a positive influence in the
neighborhood and had made substantial improvements in the area.
The garage apartment was done very well and she asked the Council
to consider their request.
Bruce Pollock stated that he and his wife had owned the property
for five years and this summer remodeled the property. They hired
a general contractor to remodel the home. He was issued a permit
to do the work in May of 1995 and continued to work through August.
They felt that by hiring a general contractor all building codes,
inspections and policies would be followed. It was even specified
in the contract that all work would be done to meet City codes and
regulations. When they discovered that the garage apartment needed
to be rezoned in order to be rented, they began the rezoning
process. At no time did they falsify their intentions. It had
been asserted by some individuals opposing their rezoning of the
property, that he had misled the City in his intentions or the
former condition of the garage apartment. A neighbor incorrectly
stated that she had spoken with the previous owners and that no one
had ever lived in the garage apartment. He had a letter from the
previous owner indicating that two of his ~on~ lived in the garage
apartment while in high school. One individual in opposition did
not even live in neighborhood. There was some concern with
additional parking requirements of one tenant. He owned only one
59
City of Denton City Council~Minutes':~ ~'~
November ~1, 1995
Page 6
vehicle. The minutes of the Planning and zoning Commission, which
paraphrased him, indicated that they had three vehicles and also
indicated that his children drove. His children were three and six
years old. The approval for a circular drive was a separate safety
issue due to the difficulty entering Bell Avenue. The garage
structure was there when the home was built. The contractor did
not increase the square footage of the structure nor did he change
the footprint of the building. He raised the roof line on the east
side to put in a kitchen area and small bathroom. The total square
footage was the same. He agreed to frost the glass on the east and
north side of the apartment. His intention had always been to rent
to only one individual.
Council Member Cott asked if there were separate papers for the
garage apartment and for the house.
Pollock replied that the general contractor did all of that
paperwork.
Mary C. Gay stated that she did not live within 200 feet of the
property but was in opposition to the proposal. Zoning was
important to people buying homes. This was a single family zoning
neighborhood and she felt that this proposal would be an
encroachment on that zoning and would open the door for others in
the neighborhood to build garage apartments on the back of their
lots. She felt this was spot zoning and could not find anywhere in
the zoning regulations where planned development zoning would cover
this situation. Section 35-1 stated that a variation from the
standards established by the ordinance would not be granted to
relieve a self created or personal hardship nor for a financial
reason. She felt that the proposal would devaluate the property.
Mack Gay, Jr. stated that he owned and rented the adjacent
property. He was concerned about the spot zoning aspect of the
proposal. The City had approached the area for creating a
historical district in the area. Traffic was a problem in the area
and to add additional families and residents would add to the
problem. He asked the Council to not support the proposal.
Mrs. A. V. Robles stated that she was a resident of the area. A
planned development was not the remedy for this situation and the
rezoning request was a case of spot zoning. Approval of this
change would set a precedent and open the door for other future
developments. She requested Council consider the problems of spot
zoning and the adverse impact on the neighborhood before voting on
the proposed change.
City of Denton City Council Minutes
November 21, 1995
Page 7
Ophelia Sparks stated that she had lived in the neighborhood for
fifty-seven years. The Pollock's garage structure looked out and
down on the back part of her property. The structure was
previously a gabled roof garage with a small storage area above a
downstairs workshop. By changing the roof line, the owner had
converted the storage area into a small poorly designed apartment.
This conversion was done without a change in zoning and no building
permit was obtained to create the apartment. Following a complaint
to City Hall, Greg Mitchell red tagged the location. When he made
an on-site inspection, he was given false information that a garage
apartment had previously existed there. On that basis, Mitchell
issued a building permit to alter and repair a garage apartment.
A garage apartment never existed there. There was only a work shop
with no plumbing. Charles Kragel confirmed her statement to Mr.
Mitchell and the permit was voided. Mr. Pollock was told that he
could not use the space as a rental apartment unless he applied for
rezoning but in the interim the apartment was advertised for rent.
The visual impact of the structure was unsightly as the building
was much larger than the surrounding area. The apartment could not
be seen from the street but could be seen from surrounding
neighbors. The building was used as a shop and not as an
apartment. The former owner indicated that the area was used as a
study room but there was no plumbing to the room.
Mayor Pro Tem Biles stated that Ms. Sparks' concern was if Mr.
Pollock rented out the property but would not have an objection if
a family member resided above the garage.
Ms. Sparks replied that originally she thought the area was going
to be a family room for the Pollock's.
Mayor Castleberry indicated that he had a Speaker Card from Mr. A.
V. Robles indicating opposition to the proposal but not wishing to
speak.
Mr. Pollock was allowed a five minute rebuttal.
Pollock stated that he was also opposed to spot zoning; however,
this was not an example of spot zoning. There were many garage
apartments, rental properties and duplexes in the area. His
proposal would not alter the character of the neighborhood as there
were many garage apartments in the area. He felt he was doing the
correct procedure by hiring a general contractor to do this
project. When he bought the property it was mentioned to him about
the potential income from rentals. He did not build a garag~
apartment but merely remodeled an existing structure. The circular
drive was for safety reasons and was a separate issue. His
proposal would not affect the character nor historic nature of the
61¸
City of Denton City Council~Minutesi~!?i~ ,~~
November 21, 1995
Page 8
area. This proposal did not qualify as spot zoning as supported by
the Assistant City Attorney. The proposal would not add any
traffic to the area.
The Mayor closed the public hearing.
Cott motioned, Young seconded to deny the request.
Mayor Pro Tem Biles asked if there were any other garage apartments
on North Bell between Sherman and university.
Pollock replied yes.
Mayor Pro Tem Biles asked if they were rental units.
Pollock replied correct.
Mayor Pro Tem Biles asked where they were located.
Pollock located the apartments on an overhead map.
Council Member Miller asked how and why a building permit was
issued on this property to renovate the garage.
Robbins replied that the general contractor made a building permit
application to renovate an existing garage apartment and on those
terms the permit was issued. After that there were complaints
raised and before the final inspection was done, an inspection was
done which indicated that construction was proceeding which would
change the way the building was designed. The two issues were what
was the real use and how would it be built. Based on those issues,
the permit was voided and the zoning application process started.
Based on the information supplied by the general contractor, it was
assumed that this property was a non-conforming use.
Council Member Krueger asked who decided what was non-conforming.
Was a structure not a home unless it had plumbing.
Robbins replied in this case, it was when the plumbing was put in.
There was an area designed for sleeping, living and the addition of
plumbing. The construction of the plumbing made it another unit.
Council Member Krueger stated that if there was electricity and gas
in an attic portion of a garage with a stove and refrigerator but
no running water, it would not be a house.
Robbins replied correct. There were two items which could be added
to a structure which might make it a separate unit.
City of Denton City Council Minutes
November 21, 1995
Page 9
Council Member Krueger asked who made that determination and where
was that written down.
Robbins stated that the Chief Building Official made that
determination and the standards of what comprised a unit were in
the Building Code and the Zoning Ordinance.
Council Member Miller questioned if the use of a planned
development was a usual procedure in a residential neighborhood.
Robbins replied that it was unusual but the only zoning district
allowed in which this type of activity with a detached unit on a
lot, was a planned development district. The only district which
allowed a set back as narrow as four feet or less, was a planned
development district.
Council Member Miller asked if someone could take a vacant lot in
the area and do the same request for planned development for
development of something other than SF7 based on this request.
Robbins replied yes but the issue would be whether it should be
approved. This proposal only took the existing structure and
changed the roof line.
Council Member Miller asked if the circumstances of the request had
been known would the building permit have been issued.
Robbins replied no.
Council Member Brock stated that the other garage apartments in the
area were legal non-conforming uses as they were already there when
the present zoning was adopted. They were non-conforming to the
zoning ordinance but were legally grandfathered in. The question
was if this was an appropriate use to approve right now in spite of
the diversity in the neighborhood.
Council Member Young felt that this was spot zoning and would
change the character of the neighborhood.
Mayor Pro Tem Biles asked if the planned development was required
because the proposal was for rental property.
Robbins replied no.
Mayor Pro Tem Biles asked if Pollock wanted to put his child in a
bedroom over the garage, even though it was detached from the
house, a planned development would be needed.
City of Denton City Council Minutes ~
November 21, 1995
Page 10
Robbins replied no.
Mayor Pro Tem Biles stated that the distinction was because it was
a rental property.
Robbins stated that the distinction was that in a single family
district, there may be four unrelated people occupying a structure.
Bedrooms with plumbing did not have to be part of the house but
when it was occupied by more than four unrelated individuals, then
it could be a second unit. If someone other than Pollock's family
occupied the structure, as now designed with plumbing, with the use
and the way it was constructed, it became another unit.
City Manager Harrell stated that the difference came from the way
the garage unit had been converted. It now had plumbing, a stove,
etc. and now met the requirements and the definition of a dwelling
unit. If there were three people living in the main house and a
fourth unrelated person occupied the apartment like it was before
the plumbing and a stove and had to go to the main house for those
functions, it would be allowed. But when there was the combination
of converting it to a dwelling unit and then have an unrelated
individual occupying the location, that was the problem.
Cott motioned, Young seconded to call the question. On roll vote,
Miller "nay", Young "aye", Cott "aye", Krueger "nay", Brock "nay",
Biles "nay", and Mayor Castleberry "aye". Motion failed with a 3-4
vote.
Council Member Brock stated that there had been past issues similar
to this when an individual wanted to create an apartment within a
house for a relative. The definition of a separate dwelling unit
indicated a kitchen would be present.
Robbins replied that that was part of the definition.
Mayor Pro Tem Biles stated that he had a problem with the planned
development. He questioned if the planned development was the only
way to accomplish the objective of a rental property because it
would be a rental property to an unrelated individual and was a
stand alone unit.
Robbins replied correct.
Council Member Miller stated that this was a difficult situation
bU% he would vote for the motion on the basis of his ~on~e~n about
land use and the potential impact of the use of planned development
for other requests.
city of Denton City Council Minutes
November 21, 1995
Page 11
Council Member Krueger indicated that he had a problem with the
term used "legally non-conforming". He also had a problem with the
definition of a kitchen and how it constituted part of the
requirement for a dwelling structure.
Council Member Young left the meeting.
Council Member Krueger stated that the issue dealt with a situation
where a City staff member was denied a permit based on an
assumption of what a separate dwelling was. He felt that that
assumption was incorrect.
Council Member Miller stated that there was a legal definition of
a non-conforming use.
Robbins replied that it was a situation where there was an existing
use and the property was annexed and zoned or the rules changed.
Basically it occurred when the rules changed after the zoning was
in place.
council Member Young returned to the meeting.
Council Member Krueger stated that that was exactly what the
situation was in this proposal.
Cott motioned, Young seconded to call question. On roll vote,
Miller "aye", Young "aye", Cott "aye", Krueger "nay", Brock "aye",
Biles "nay", and Mayor Castleberry "aye". Motion carried with a 5-
2 vote.
On roll vote of the motion to deny the zoning request, Miller
"aye", Young "aye", Cott "aye", Krueger "nay", Brock "aye", Biles
"aye", and Mayor Castleberry "aye". Motion carried with a 6-1
vote.
B. The Council held a public hearing and considered adoption
of an ordinance for a specific use permit for Sterling House, a
nursing home or residence home for aged (assisted living) on 6.3855
acre~ in the Agricultural (A) z~ning district. The subject
property was Lot 1, Block 1, of the Gateway Addition, and was
located on the west side of Hinkle, one hundred feet north of
Meadow Ridge. (The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended
approval 7-0.)
Frank Robbins, Director for Planning and D~v¢~pmen~, ~tated that
this was a request for a specific uss permit in an agricultural
zoning district for an assisted care facility. Many homes in the
neighboring subdivision were built within four feet from the back
65¸
City of Denton City Council Minutes'
November 21, 1995
Page 12
lot line with a short setback. The applicant changed the layout of
the facility and placed the parking lot on the north side. There
were some landscaping issues which were discussed at the Planning
and Zoning Commission which recommended approval with the condition
that additional trees being planted. The Planning and zoning
Commission determined that the criteria needed to approve a
specific use permit had been met.
The Mayor opened the public hearing.
Dan Gassett stated that he would be available to answer any
questions regarding the proposal. The facility would provide an
assisted living facility for the elderly as long as the residents
were ambulatory.
Council Member Miller asked if there were plans for the back part
of the lot.
Gassett stated that there were no specific plans at this time but
could be another facility similar to this one.
Council Member Cott stated that in the last few weeks there had
been many applications for assisted living facilities. He
expressed a concern about having a great number of people in a
relatively small amount of space. He asked that staff follow
through with a standard for this community as to what the community
was willing to accept for this area of housing. How many people
should go into such units.
Gassett stated that the facility would have a residential look as
well as a residential feel. There would only be 37 units in this
facility and each unit would have a kitchen with a microwave.
No one spoke in opposition.
The Mayor closed the public hearing.
The following ordinance was considered:
NO. 95-236
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, APPROVING A
SPECIFIC USE PERMIT TO OPERATE A NURSING HOME OR RESIDENCE
HOME FOR AGED (ASSISTED LIVING FACILITY) ON 6.3855 ACRES
LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF HINKLE ROAD, APPROXIMATELY ONE
HUNDRED FEET NORTH OF MEADOW RIDGE DRIVE, PLATTED AS LOT
BLOCK 1, OF THE GATEWAY ADDITION, AND CURRENTLY ZONED UNDER
THE AGRICULTURAL (A) ZONING DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION AND USE
DESIGNATION; PROVIDING FOR A PENALTY IN THE MAXIMUMAMOUNT OF
66¸
City of Denton City Council Minutes
November 21, 1995
Page 13
$2,000.00 FOR VIOLATIONS THEREOF; AND PROVIDING FOR AN
EFFECTIVE DATE.
Biles motioned, Young seconded to adopt the ordinance. On roll
vote, Miller "aye", Young "aye", Cott "aye", Krueger "aye", Brock
"aye", Biles "aye" , and Mayor Castleberry "aye". Motion carried
unanimously.
5. Variances
A. The Council considered a variance to Section 34-114 (17)
[sidewalks] of the Code of ordinances relative to the proposed
Clampitt Addition. The 10.00 acre tract was located on the east
side of F.M. 2164, approximately 4,000 feet north of Loop 288.
(The Planning and zoning Commission recommended approval 7-0.)
Frank Robbins, Director for Planning and Development, stated that
this was an exaction variance. The Planning and Zoning Commission
recommended approval as the cost of the sidewalk would be greater
than the benefit.
Krueger motioned, Brock seconded to approve the variance. On roll
vote, Miller "aye", Young "aye", Cott "aye", Krueger "aye", Brock
"aye", Biles "aye", and Mayor Castleberry "aye". Motion carried
unanimously.
B. The Council considered a variance to Section 34-124 (f)
[concrete channel] of the Code of ordinances relative to the
proposed Clampitt Addition. The 10.00 acre tract was located on
the east side of FM 2164 approximately 4,000 feet north of Loop
288. (The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval, 7-
0.)
Frank Robbins, Director for Planning and Development, stated that
the applicant proposed to divide the 10 acres into three single
family residential lots. The existing channel would be left in a
natural condition and a detention tank would be constructed. A
drainage easement wide enough to contain a 100 year flood would
also Be ~e~ca%ed.
Krueger motioned, Cott seconded to approve the variance.
Council Member Young requested an amendment for a condition that a
drainage easement be dedicated to contain a 100 year storm.
Council Member Krueger stated that that had already been considered
and the variance had been approved by the Planning and Zoning
Commission. He did not want to change his motion.
City of Denton City Council Minutes
November 21, 1995
Page 14
Mayor Castleberry stated that that requirement was already a part
of the variance.
On roll vote, Miller "aye", Young "aye", Cott "aye", Krueger "aye",
Brock "aye", Biles "aye", and Mayor Castleberry "aye". Motion
carried unanimously.
6. Consent Agenda
Council Member Krueger requested that Item 6.B. be pulled for
consideration.
Tom Shaw, Purchasing Agent, stated that Item 6.B. was an extension
of an interlocal agreement with Denton County for the purchase of
police vehicles. The City had an interlocal agreement with Denton
County and had purchased the City's police vehicles for the past
two years off of bids solicited by the County.
Council Member Krueger asked who was the lowest local bidder.
Shaw replied that there was only one local bidder, Bill Utter Ford,
because Chrysler and General Motors no longer built police cars.
Council Member Krueger asked for the difference in price between
the Denison firm and the local dealer.
Shaw stated that the recommendation was for Hillside Ford in
Denison. The difference in the base bid without the options was
$16 per unit and with the options was $43 per unit.
Council Member Krueger asked if the city had to go to Denison to
get the vehicles.
Shaw replied no that they were delivered to the City's Fleet
Vehicle Center.
Council Member Krueger stated that the City needed to take the best
available bid but not necessarily the lowest bid.
Shaw stated that the wording of the law was that the award would be
made to the lowest and best bid for the cities. It used the term
lowest and most responsible for the counties and the Attorney
General had ruled that these two terms were the same.
Council Member Krueger mia%ed that it then wa~ what would b~ the
definition of responsible.
68
City of Denton City Council Minutes
November 21, 1995
Page 15
Shaw stated that the definition of responsible was dealt with by
the Attorney General in several rulings. The Attorney General had
ruled several times that the location or the contribution that a
bidder made to a community could not be considered as part of the
determination of lowest and best bid.
Council Member Krueger asked where these vehciles would be
serviced.
Shaw stated that they would be taken to the local dealers for
warranty service. Denton Motors and Bill Utter Ford solicited the
City's business on a regular basis.
Herb Prouty, City Attorney, stated that a low bid had to be
accepted. The Attorney General had ruled on several occasions that
a local bidder could not be used in that consideration. A
responsible bidder was one which was capable of delivering the
project or doing the work and included such factors as financial
ability of the bidder, previous contracts and how that bidder
preformed. The only way to determine that a bidder was not
responsible was to find that the bidder did not perform well on
other contracts or did not have the financial ability to deliver
the product.
Council Member Krueger stated that there was a difference in some
of the items offered by the local vendor which were not offered by
the other vendor such as a full size spare tire.
Shaw replied no that the specifications required a conventional
spare on all the vehicles. There was no exception taken to the bid
from Hilltop Ford.
City Manager Harrell stated that throughout the years there had
been this kind of difficulty on any project when the price was
close and there was a local vendor who was not the low bidder.
Based on the City Attorney's recommendation and State law, the
Council had consistently followed that law and awarded the low
bidder. From time to time, the Texas Municipal League considered an
amendmen% to the State law which would allow ~oun~ils to have more
leeway to look at the location of vendors when awarding contracts.
With this particular case it was important to point out that the
Council was agreeing with the interlocal agreement with Denton
County. The low bidder in the interlocal agreement was Hilltop
Ford. If the Hilltop Ford bid was not accepted, the only recourse
would be to reject the contract and not agree to have this done
with Denton County. The City would have to then rebid the cars
before any dealership could be considered. The problem with that
was that it was near the end of a manufactured year. It would be
City of Denton City Council.~MinUtes''
November 21, 1995
Page 16
impossible to rebid and award a contract this year thus not buying
police cars this year.
Mayor Pro Tem Biles asked if delivery time could be used for a
determination of best and responsible bid.
Shaw stated that time was not an issue for delivery.
Brock motioned, Cott seconded to approve the Consent Agenda as
presented. On roll vote, Miller "aye", Young "nay", Cott "aye",
Krueger "nay", Brock "aye", Biles "nay", and Mayor Castleberry
"aye". Motion carried with a 4-3 vote.
A. Bids and Purchase Orders
Bid #1802 - Distribution Transformers
Bid #1814 - 69 KV SF6 Circuit Breakers
Bid #1828 - Teasley Lane Median Irrigation
B. Interlocal Agreements
1. Denton County - Police Vehicles
7. Consent Agenda Ordinances
Council considered Consent Agenda Ordinances 7.A. - 7.C. Miller
motioned, Brock seconded to adopt the Consent Agenda ordinances.
On roll vote, Miller "aye", Young "aye", Cott "aye", Krueger "aye",
Brock "aye", Biles "nay", and Mayor Castleberry "aye". Motion
carried with a 6-1 vote.
A. NO. 95-237
AN ORDINANCE ACCEPTING COMPETITIVE BIDS AND AWARDING A
CONTRACT FOR THE PURCHASE OF MATERIALS, EQUIPMENT, SUPPLIES OR
SERVICES; PROVIDING FOR THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS THEREFORE;
AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. (6.A.1. - Bid #1802,
6.A.2. - Bid #1814)
B. NO. 95-238
AN ORDINANCE ACCEPTING COMPETITIVE BIDS AND PROVIDING FOR THE
AWARD OF CONTRACTS FOR PUBLIC WORKS OR IMPROVEMENTS; PROVIDING
FOR THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS THEREFOR; AND PROVIDING FOR AN
EFFECTIVE DATE. (~.A.3. - Bid ~1828)
City of Denton City Council Minutes
November 21, 1995
Page 17
C. NO. 95-239
AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXTEND AN
INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT WITH THE COUNTY OF DENTON TO AUTHORIZE
PARTICIPATION IN VARIOUS DENTON COUNTY CONTRACTS FOR THE
PURCHASE OF. VARIOUS GOODS AND SERVICES; AUTHORIZING THE
EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS; AND DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
(6.B.1.)
8. ordinances
A. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance renaming
Payne Drive to Windsor Drive. (The Planning and zoning Commission
and the Historic Landmark Commission recommended approval.)
Frank Robbins, Director for Planning and Development, stated that
this was the second consideration for this issue. Council asked
staff to contact members of the Payne family which resulted in a
letter of opposition from M. E. Payne. This was a petition from
the residents in the Westgate area who had experienced a problem
with service delivery from more than one entity. This was not a
precedent setting issue. There was potential confusion with a
future exit in the area. As the family still owned land in the
area, there would be other opportunities to name another street
Payne.
The following resolution was considered:
NO. 95-240
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, PROVIDING FOR THE
RENAMING OF PAYNE DRIVE TO WINDSOR DRIVE; AND PROVIDING AN
EFFECTIVE DATE.
Brock motioned, Miller seconded to approve the recommendation of
the two Boards and rename the street to Windsor Drive because of
consistency and convenience. There would be no addresses to change
and the area was confusing to unfamiliar drivers.
Council Member Young disagreed with the name change as the Payne
family was a pioneer family in Denton which made many contributions
in Denton. The street name was in their honor and changing the
name would be taking that honor away.
Mayor Castleberry stated that he was not in favor of the motion. It
would be a good point to honor a family in Denton by keeping the
name of Payne.
71
City of Denton City Council Minutes
November 21, 1995
Page 18
On roll vote, Miller "aye", Young "nay", Cott "aye", Krueger "nay",
Brock "aye", Biles "aye", and Mayor Castleberry "nay". Motion
carried with a 4-3 vote.
B. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance
authorizing the Mayor to execute an engineering services agreement
between the City of Denton and Gutierrez, Smouse, Wilmut and
Associates, Inc. for Cooper Creek Drainage Basin rehabilitation and
design.
Bob Nelson, Executive Director for Utilities, stated that
approximately a year ago, several residents came before the Public
Utilities Board and the Planning and Zoning Commission regarding
sewer overflows on Stewart Road. Rehabilitation money was included
in the CIP and in the Utilities budget for this project. This
would be the engineering contract to begin the full rehabilitation.
Mayor Pro Tem Biles left the meeting.
Nelson continued that some work had already been done. Last year
a smoke test was done to determine any leakage which provided a
place to begin the work.
The following ordinance was considered:
NO. 95-241
AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE AN ENGINEERING
SERVICES AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF DENTON AND GUTIERREZ,
SMOUSE, WILMUT & ASSOC., INC. FOR COOPER CREEK DRAINAGE BASIN
REHABILITATION AND DESIGN; AUTHORIZING THE EXPENDITURE OF
FUNDS THEREFOR; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Cott motioned, Miller seconded to adopt the ordinance. On roll
vote, Miller "aye", Young "aye", Cott "aye", Krueger "aye", Brock
"aye", and Mayor Castleberry "aye". Motion carried unanimously.
C. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance approving
two hour parking restriction on Elm, Cedar, Pecan, and McKinney
Streets directly adjacent to City Hall West and to provide for
customer parking 8:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday
heading east approximately 250 feet.
Rick Svehla, Deputy City Manager, stated that this was a change in
parking around City Hall West. Several City departments had been
moved to that building and in an attempt to provide more parking
for citizens, a two hour parking limit was suggested around the
building.
city of Denton City Council Minutes
November 21, 1995
Page 19
The following ordinance was considered:
NO. 95-242
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, WHICH PROHIBITS THE
PARKING OF VEHICLES FOR MORE THAN TWO HOURS ON CERTAIN
PORTIONS OF ELM, CEDAR, PECAN AND MCKINNEY STREETS AND CERTAIN
PARKING SPACES ADJACENT THERETO AND CITY HALL WEST BETWEEN THE
HOURS OF 8:00 AM THROUGH 5:00 PM MONDAY THROUGH FRIDAY;
PROVIDING A PENALTY OF A FINE NOT TO EXCEED TWO HUNDRED
DOLLARS ($200.00); PROVIDING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; REPEALING
ALL ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT HEREWITH; PROVIDING FOR
PUBLICATION; AND DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Young motioned, Brock seconded to adopt the ordinance. On roll
vote, Miller "aye", Young "aye", Cott "aye", Krueger "aye", Brock
"aye", and Mayor Castleberry "aye". Motion carried unanimously.
9. Resolutions
A. The Council considered approval of a resolution
supporting settlement of issues affecting TMPA cities and amending
the power sales contract; directing the Mayor, City Manager, and
Denton's TMPA Board Members to work diligently on behalf of this
compromise.
Bob Nelson, Executive Director for Utilities, stated that this
agreement had four major components. The first dealt with an
amendment to the TMPA Power Sales Agreement which would allow each
of the four cities to make future power production supply decisions
on their own. Presently the contract mentioned full requirements
and without a special activity, the cities were unable to do that.
The second component dealt with how much of the TMPA power and
energy each city would receive. Denton had received 22% in the
past and would be changed to 21.3%. The third component dealt with
the savings anticipated from the change to western fuel. It was
anticipated that there would be approximately $30 million worth of
savings per year. This compromise would ask the TMPA Board to set
the rates as low as possible to keep the money in the ci%ies% The
cities would then set up some type of fund to use in the future to
offset future debt service increases.
Mayor Pro Tem Biles returned to the meeting. Council Member
Krueger left the meeting.
Nelson continued that the fourth component stated that each city
was responsible for its percentage of future TMPA costs. The
greatest advantage of this compromise was the $750,000 reduction in
73
City of Denton City Councii MinUtes
November 21, 1995
Page 20
power costs from TMPA.
City Manager Harrell stated that the agreement, in similar form,
had been approved by Greenville and Bryan and was on the agenda for
the Garland City Council.
Council Member Krueger returned to the meeting.
The following resolution was considered:
NO. R95-076
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS
SUPPORTING SETTLEMENT OF ISSUES AFFECTING TMPA CITIES AND THE
AMENDMENT OF THE POWER SALES CONTRACT; DIRECTING THE MAYOR,
CITY MANAGER, AND DENTON'S TMPA BOARD MEMBERS TO WORK
DILIGENTLY ON BEHALF OF THIS COMPROMISE; AND PROVIDING AN
EFFECTIVE DATE.
Miller motioned, Young seconded to approve the resolution. On roll
vote, Miller "aye", Young "aye", Cott "aye", Krueger "aye", Brock
"aye", Biles "aye", and Mayor Castleberry "aye". Motion carried
unanimously.
Council Member Young left the meeting.
10. The Council considered a motion to confirm the appointment of
a Fire Chief.
City Manager Harrell presented the appointment of Ross Chadwick as
Fire Chief.
Council Member Young returned to the meeting.
Biles motioned, Brock seconded to confirm the appointment of Ross
Chadwick as Fire Chief. On roll vote, Miller "aye", Young "aye",
Cott "aye", Krueger "aye", Brock "aye", Biles "aye", and Mayor
Castleberry "aye". Motion carried unanimously.
11. The Council held a discussion and gave staff direction
concerning selecting an executive search firm to assist the City
Council in recruiting and selecting a city manager.
Tom Klinck, Director of Human Resources, stated that the City had
solicited proposals from several execu%ive search firms for this
process. Each of those proposals had been analyzed and he asked
for Council's desire of which firms to interview.
74¸
City of Denton City Council Minutes
November 21, 1995
Page 21
Miller motioned, Brock seconded to interview the firms of Jensen,
Oldani and Cooper; the Par Group; and Anderson and Associates. On
roll vote, Miller "aye", Young "aye", Cott "aye", Krueger "aye",
Brock "aye", Biles "aye", and Mayor Castleberry "aye". Motion
carried unanimously.
12. The Council received an update from the Acting Municipal Judge
regarding the Municipal Court of Record.
Judge Ramsay stated that he was working on a survey of the progress
of the Municipal Court which should be completed soon for Council
review. He had assigned several directives and court rules to
reduce time and effort in work load. He had made a policy change
for failure to appear which did not require another bond be posted
for another court date. There were 150-200 warrants which still
needed to be processed. The citation format was changed to allow
for language for the option for the City to contract with the DPS
to collect unpaid tickets. Parking citations would be reduced from
a fine of $15 to $10. The parking citations had a list of fines on
the front but the print was very small and difficult to read. It
would cost $1,800 to reprint the ticket books to reflect the new
fine for over limit parking. He suggested the parking officer hand
strike out the $15 amount and write in the $10 amount. He asked
Council for guidance. The court docket was already set for January
and they were working on trial dockets for January, February and
March.
13. The Council considered nominations/appointments to the City's
Boards, Commissions and Committees.
B.
C.
D.
Keep Denton Beautiful Board
Traffic Safety Commission
Sign Board of Appeals
Joint Tax Abatement Committee
Mayor Pro Tem Biles nominated Fjola Jeffries to the Keep Denton
Beautiful Board.
Council Member Kruger nomlna%ed Derrick Har%sfleld %o the Traffic
Safety Commission.
Council Member Brock did not have an appointment to the Sign Board
of Appeals at this time.
City Manager Harr~ll stated that according to the joint tax
abatement policy, there was a joint committee made up of
representatives from the County, DISD and the City. This committee
made recommendations to the appropriate bodies regarding tax
75
city of Denton City Council ~MinUt~s ~
November 21, 1995
Page 22
abatement. The policy indicated two elected representatives and
one representative from each jurisdiction who was a staff member.
The previous representatives were Council Members Hugh Ayer and Bob
Gorton and City Manager Harrell.
Miller motioned to appoint Council Member Brock, Mayor Pro Tem
Biles and Kathy DuBose, Executive Director for Finance, to the
Committee. On roll vote, Miller "aye", Young "nay", Cott "aye",
Krueger "aye", Brock "aye", Biles "aye", and Mayor Castleberry
"aye". Motion carried with a 6-1 vote.
14. Vision Update
Council Member Miller stated that there had been one Cabinet
meeting after the public presentations at which the strategy boards
were reviewed. There would be another meeting soon to begin
working out the program for the implementation of the Vision
projects.
Council Member Cott left the meeting.
15. Miscellaneous matters from the city Manager.
A. City Manager Harrell expressed his appreciation to the
Council for all the support and encouragement given to him over his
years of service he had with the City of Denton.
16. The following action was taken on Closed Meeting Items:
City Attorney Prouty asked the Council to make a motion to
authorize a settlement offer in the Cohaqen v. City case as
discussed in Closed Session.
Biles motioned, Krueger seconded to authorize the settlement offer.
On roll vote, Miller "aye", Young "aye", Krueger "aye", Brock
"aye", Biles "aye", and Mayor Castleberry "aye". Motion carried
unanimously.
16. New Business
The following items were suggested by Council Members for future
agendas:
A. Council Member Young asked for a work session item
regarding the sewage and water problems on B~id~ Str~t and a
review of the City's annexing policy regarding water and sewer
services.
City of Denton City Council Minutes
November 21, 1995
Page 23
B. Mayor Pro Tem Biles requested a work session item
regarding the Municipal Court's citation books.
C. Council Member Krueger asked for information regarding
the layout of the land annexed by the truck stop, particularly the
west side of I35. He wanted to know when it was annexed, what was
grandfathered, how many fines and violations had been paid and
issued from the point of annexation to present.
With no further business, the meeting was adjourned 10:40 p.m.
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS
ACC002D2