Minutes March 26, 1996276
CITY OF DENTON CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
March 26, 1996
The Council convened into a Work Session on Tuesday, March 26, 1996
at 5:15 p.m. in the City Council Chambers.
PRESENT: Mayor Castleberry; Mayor Pro Tem Biles; Council Members
Brock, Miller and Young.
ABSENT: Council Members Krueger and Cott
1. The Council received a report, held a discussion and gave
staff direction regarding the results of the citizen Survey.
Dr. Jim Glass, Director of the Survey Research Center-University of
North Texas, stated that 402 residents of the City of Denton were
interviewed during the month of January. 85% of those interviewed
rated Denton as an excellent or a good place to live. 96% rated
the library as excellent or good. There was a high level of
satisfaction of the park facilities. The majority of people found
that electric, water and utility rates were acceptable given the
quality of services given. 89% indicated that solid waste services
were acceptable. There was a satisfaction level with service and
rates. 50% of those interviewed were willing to pay more fees for
curb side recycling. 38% felt that the City's roads had improved
and 41% felt the roads had stayed the same. 50% of those
interviewed had contacted City officials in the past year, with 95%
responding that their contact had been courteous.
Council Members Cott and Krueger joined the meeting.
Mayor Castleberry asked if the City, as a whole, received an "A or
A+".
Glass replied that he could not answer that. It was hard to
compare Denton to another community. It was good to repeat this
survey every couple of years. The overall responses were good for
the City.
Council Member Brock felt that 50% contact with someone with the
City was a high percentage.
Glass replied that between 40-50% was an average figure. This
contact was for any reason and not necessarily for something wrong.
Council Member Young asked about the viewing of the Council
meetings on cable television.
Glass replied that there was not a high percentage of regular
viewers. Of the people who watched the channel, 80% watched
occasionally. There was no basis of comparison from previous
years.
Mayor Castleberry stated that these results were quite an
improvement over the last survey.
City of Denton city Council Minutes
March 26, 1996
Page 2
277
2. The Council held a discussion and considered participation in
the Lewisville Environmental Enhancement Project.
Howard Martin, Director of Environmental Services, stated that
staff was seeking the Council's consensus to move ahead with a
feasibility study on a Lewisville Environmental Enhancement
Project. This project had been before the Council on several
occasions and was to be done in conjunction with the Greenbelt
Corridor. This project was made possible through the Water
Resource Development Act of 1986 and provided for 75% of the
projects costs to be paid by the Federal government. The project
was located in the upper flood control pool of Lewisville and
represented 2,400 acres of Corps owned property. Of that acreage,
250 acres were affected by the proposedlproject. This project
would be adjacent and downstream of the Greenbelt Corridor. The
project was divided into three componentsl Component A consisted
of 25 acres of wetlands, 15 acres of grass land restoration and 100
acres of emergent wetland vegetation restoration. Component B
consisted of 15 acres of an abandoned strip mine which would be
reclaimed. Component C was the construction of 75 acres of
wetland. The primary purpose of the project was for restoration of
wildlife habitat. It was anticipated that the project would cost
$800,000 with 75% of that to be paid by the Federal government and
25% by the City of Denton. At this point, staff was asking to move
forward with a feasibility study only. There were no costs to the
City at this point in time. The purpose of the study would be to
identify, in greater detail, the costs associated with the
construction of the project. Only after the study was done and
staff returned to Council with the results of the study, would
there be a request to participate in the construction of the
project. Another important component was that the non-Federal
sponsor would be responsible for 100% of the operation and
maintenance of this area. The Public Utilities Board requested
staff to solicit interest in the project. The University of North
Texas indicated that they would provide in-kind services for the
program. The University would provide on-going operation and
maintenance of the area in cooperation with research cooperatives
they had.
Mayor Pro Tem Biles stated that the university's cooperation would
only be for the operation and maintenance and the in-kind services
which they were providing could not be applied to the $200,000
costs.
Martin replied that there was a possibility that the in-kind
services could be used on that part also but only after the details
of the project were known. There was a possibility that it could
offset some of the costs.
Mayor Pro Tem Biles asked for the cost of the feasibility study.
278
City of Denton city Council Minutes
March 26, 1996
Page 3
Martin replied that there would be no cost on the feasibility cost
to the city of Denton unless the City decided to move into the
construction of the project and then it would represent
approximately 1% of the project.
Council Member Cott asked if there were partners with this project
similar to other Lake Lewisville projects.
Martin replied that this project was a group of approximately 8-9
universities.
council Member Cott asked how Dallas felt about this project.
Martin replied that Dallas was not a participating partner in this
part of the project. Dallas was only a partner in the Greenbelt
Corridor. This was a separate project from the Greenbelt Corridor.
Council Member Brock asked if Lewisville had been contacted to be
in the project.
Martin replied that Lewisville was currently participating in a
Lake Lewisville Environmental Learning Area and was not interested
in participating outside of that area. Staff had contacted a
number of other organizations to see if they would be interested in
the project. Some were willing to provide volunteer labor but the
University of North Texas was the only entity willing to
participate.
Consensus of the Council was to proceed with the feasibility study.
3. The Council received a report, held a discussion and gave
staff direction regarding funding alternatives for replacing the
Job Partnership Training Act (JTPA) program in the city of Denton.
Tom Klinck, Director of Human Resources, stated that at the
February 23rd meeting, Council studied the JTPA program. The City
had historically been a strong participant in this project.
Mayor Pro Tem Biles left the meeting.
Klinck continued that the North Texas Education and Training Co-op
had provided a proposal for alternative funding. The proposal
involved 40 students for 10 weeks at 40 hours per week. Proposed
funding for the program was included in the agenda back-up
materials.
Council Member Cott asked how the students were chosen.
Klinck stated that there was a specific eligibility criteria which
was outlined in the program.
City of Denton City Council Minutes
March 26, 1996
Page 4
Council Member Miller stated that there was an outside possibility
that Congress would fund the program for the summer. The Senate
had approved a $635 million expenditure which was 75% of last
year's level.
Mayor Pro Tem Biles returned to the meeting.
Council Member Miller continued that the House had not approved the
funding. Until Congress approved a final continuing resolution, it
was not known if there would be funding. The Co-op proposal was
the worse case scenario. He felt that the proposal showed that the
City was concerned for the young people of the community. These
were at-risk youths who learned the ethics of the work force.
There was also an effort to get the private sector to participate
in the project.
Council Member Young wanted to see the City participate in the
program. There was a need to be ready to put the City's program
into effect if the Federal funding failed. He recommended to
continue to allocate the funds for the program.
Acting city Manager Svehla stated that this was the worse case
scenario and that it was important to proceed as soon as possible
so as to work out a formal agreement with the JTPA agency to start
the program when the students were out of school.
Council Member Brock stated that these were expenses that were not
anticipated. She asked what kind of funding would be available
until the last three months of the fiscal year.
Kathy DuBose, Executive Director for Finance, stated that until
budget adjustments could be done, contingency funds would have to
be used. Funds could not be transferred across agency lines until
July. When the program began, the funds would be absorbed until
the transfer of the funds. ~
Mayor Pro Tem Biles stated that if the contingency funds were used,
would those funds be replenished after the budget allocations.
DuBose replied yes.
Mayor Pro Tem Biles asked that if the Federal dollars were at the
75% funding level, would the City experience a shortfall in other
areas of the budget and would the contingency fund have to be used
to cover those loses.
DuBose stated that any of those issues which would have a financial
impact would be brough% individually ~o ~h~ Counoil to make that
decision.
279
0
city of Denton city Council Minutes
March 26, 1996
Page 5
Council Member Cott stated that this was the third year this same
discussion had been made. He felt there was a need to begin to get
a private industry program to take over the program. He did not
understand why the government had to be involved as the employer of
last resort. He hoped the program would go into Denton's private
industry next year.
Young motioned, Miller seconded to proceed and fund the proposal.
On roll vote, Miller "aye", Young "aye", Cott "aye", Krueger "aye",
Brock "aye", Biles "aye", and Mayor Castleberry "aye". Motion
carried unanimously.
4. The Council received a report and held a discussion regarding
contract revision procedures/change orders to contracts.
Acting City Manager Svehla stated that several meetings ago Council
had a concern about change orders for Council consideration. A
memorandum detailing the changes to the procedure in order to keep
Council aware of change orders was included in the agenda back-up
materials. The City Manager had the authority to process change
orders up to $15,000. Staff would be using the weekly
communication to inform Council about change orders.
Council Member Krueger stated that his concern was not about the
amount of the change order but rather the timeliness of the
communication. He was comfortable with the present amount but did
want to be notified about the changes.
Acting City Manager Svehla stated that the new procedure should
correct that situation.
Mayor Pro Tem Biles stated that his concern was the Council might
not have approved the original contract if it knew the scope would
be changing at a later date.
Council Member Krueger left the meeting.
Mayor Pro Tem Biles continued that he felt it was necessary to hold
the line at 15% at this point in time.
Council Member Miller suggested keeping this open until more
information wa~ roeoivod. Thoro woro largo contracts which might
need to get the work done quickly. It might be more costly to
delay approval of a change order than to proceed with it quickly.
Consensus of the Council was to not change the current policy.
5. The Council received a report, held a discussion and gave
staff direction regarding the renovation of the American Legion
Building in Fred Moore Park.
city of Denton city Council Minutes
March 26, 1996
Page 6
Ed Hodney, Director of Parks and Recreation, stated that in 1994
Council approved $100,000 in CDBG funds to renovate the American
Legion Building. One specific objective for the renovation was to
create a facility to serve as a dedicated space for the American
Legion and for the Senior population in southeast Denton. A second
objective was for additional meeting space for the community and to
restore the deterioration of the building. Russell Bates was hired
as the architect to design the building. Plans and specifications
were advertised in December of 1995 and opened in January of 1996.
The lowest bid received was still higher than the amount of money
allocated for the project. A decision was made to reissue the bids
after revising the plans. The second set of bids came in in
February but were still higher than the amount available for the
project. ~
Council Member Krueger returned to the meeting.
Hodney presented options available for the reconstruction. Option
#1 was the "no build" option. Option #2 was to allocate additional
funds, probably from the CDBG program, to build the facility as it
was currently designed. In consideration of the renovation and use
of additional funds, Council might want to refer this matter to the
Community Development Advisory Committee. Option #3A was to
construct new space either in Fred Moore Park or at another
location probably adjacent to the MLK Center. One problem with
this option was that new construction dollars were higher than
renovation dollars which would reduce the space of the building.
It was possible to buy a prefabricated building, option #3B would
be to design and build a physical attachment to the MLK Center.
This option would be very costly with a minimal amount of square
footage. It was felt that unless additional funding was provided,
the building should be taken down.
Council Member Miller asked that if Option #2 was chosen, would the
building be adequate for the renovations discussed.
Hodney stated that it was his understanding that with the
renovation as designed the building would be structurally sound.
On March 12th, staff consulted with citizens in the area
representing NICE, Seniors in the area and the American Legion.
The groups asked to have the funding increased and to renovate the
existing building. The current low bidder would extend his prices
for another 30 days.
Mayor Pro Tem Biles stated that option #2 had a cost of $120,000
but of the four options that was the second to the lowest per foot
cost and was less than half of the cost of new construction or an
addition to the MLK Center. He preferred Option #2 as the building
had a place in the area history and evidenced an earlier
cooperation between the City and other entities.
281
282
city of Denton City Council Minutes
March 26, 1996
Page 7
Council Member Cott asked about a partial fundraiser for the
project.
Hodney stated that that suggestion was raised during the March 12th
meeting. The concern was that there were many projects going on in
the area at this point in time.
Council Member Young stated that the building had been used for
various functions over the years and had sentimental value to the
residents of southeast Denton. The people in the area wanted the
building renovated. He was in favor of proceeding to designate the
additional funds and start the project as soon as possible.
Mayor Castleberry stated that the building was owned by the city of
Denton and was leased to the American Legion.
Council Member Brock agreed with the historical significance of the
building. The other options were not feasible with the per footage
costs. She felt it would be good to preserve this building for
history.
Council Member Miller supported Option #2. He questioned whether
this needed to be referred to the Community Development Advisory
Committee.
Acting City Manager Svehla stated that technically the Council
could move ahead with the project. It had been past practice to
have the Committee review any excess funding and receive a
recommendation from the Committee.
Barbara Ross, Community Development Coordinator, stated that the
Committee would be happy to consider the proposal and give Council
a recommendation if desired. She did know that the Council could
move funds if they so wanted.
council Member Krueger suggested structuring a small fee for use of
the building to help pay for the structure. If it was a community
building, then the community should pay for it.
Council Member Miller asked if there was a similar fee charged in
the other city buildings.
Council Member Krueger replied yes that there was a fe~ in all
other facilities. This building would help the community and the
community could help the City with the project.
Biles motioned, Young seconded to move forward with option #2. On
roll vote, Miller "aye", Young "aye", Cott "aye", Krueger "aye",
Brock "aye", Biles "aye", and Mayor Castleberry "aye". Motion
carried unanimously.
City of Denton city Council Minutes
March 26, 1996
Page 8
6. The Council received a report, held a discussion and gave
staff direction regarding amendments to the Council's Rules and
Procedures relating to the Agenda Committee and speaker time for
citizen Reports.
Herb Prouty, City Attorney, stated that this amendment would
clarify the speaker time limits and clarify the procedure for
agenda review. It would establish a three person agenda committee,
impose a five minute time limit for citizen reports and public
hearings and a three minute time limit for all other presentations
on an agenda. It would carryover the other restrictions such as
not speaking on a work session unless the Mayor approved such. An
additional amendment would be no right to speak on a Consent Agenda
item unless it was removed from the Consent Agenda by a Council
Member and there wOuld be no right to speak on another citizen's
report on the same agenda.
Cott motioned, Young seconded to proceed with the amendments.
Council Member Miller suggested changing the wording in Section 6.4
to indicate that debate among citizens regarding citizens reports
would be not permitted rather than discouraged.
Mayor Castleberry asked if the changes to the Consent Agenda would
restrict or delay an item that Council wanted to pull or that
citizens had questions about.
City Attorney Prouty stated no but that citizens would not have the
right to speak on Consent Agenda items. If they wanted to do so,
a Council Member would have to pull that item to put on the regular
agenda.
Council Member Miller stated that it would defeat the purpose of
the Consent Agenda if a citizen were allowed to speak on the
Consent Agenda. If a citizen could pull the item, it would defeat
the purpose of the Consent Agenda. ~
Mayor Pro Tem Biles suggested totally deleting the sentence Council
Member Miller suggested amending.
Council Member Cott agreed to the change to his motion as did
Council Member Young to his second.
On roll vote, Miller "aye", Young "aye", Cott "aye", Krueger "aye",
Brock "aye", Biles "aye", and Mayor Castleberry "aye". Motion
carried unanimously.
7. The Council received a report, held a discussion and gave
staff direction regarding an ordinance authorizing the Mayor to
execute a second addendum to the lease with the Chamber of Commerce
extending the lease for an additional 25 years for a consideration
283
4
city of Denton city Council Minutes
March 26, 1996
Page 9
~ITY S~CRETARY
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS
of $1.00 per year.
City Attorney Prouty, stated that this was a simple amendment to
the current Chamber lease for the Chamber building and property.
The Chamber was planning to raise a significant amount of money to
renovate the existing building and improve the adjacent property.
To extend the lease from 2023 to 2048 would improve the Chamber's
ability to receive favorable financing. The only other change was
that since the property was slated to be significantly improved and
probably would go up in value, the insurance clause was changed to
make sure the full value of the property was covered by insurance.
At the end of the lease the property became city of Denton
property.
Biles motioned, Krueger seconded to proceed with the amendment. On
roll vote, Miller "aye", Young "aye", Cott "aye", Krueger "aye",
Brock "aye", Biles "aye", and Mayor Castleberry "aye". Motion
carried unanimously.
With no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 6:55 p.m.
BO C~ASTLEBERRY, MA~ O~R~
CITY OF DENTON, TE~S
/
ACC002F9