Minutes October 22, 1996 CITY OF DENTON CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
October 22, 1996
The Council convened into a Closed Meeting on Tuesday, October 22,
in the civil Defense Room of city Hall.
PRESENT: Mayor Miller; council Members Beasley, Biles, Cott,
Krueger, and Young.
ABSENT: Mayor Pro Tem Brock
1. The Council considered the following in Closed Meeting.
A. Legal Matters -- Under TEX. GOV'T CODE Sec. 551.071
1. Considered settlement of GTE Southwest incorporate~
vs. city of Denton, et al.
B. Real Estate -- Under TEX. GOV'T CODE Sec. 551.072
C. Personnel/Board Appointments -- Under TEX. GOV'T CODE
Sec. 551.074
The Council convened into a Special Called Meeting on Tuesday,
October 22, 1996 at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of city Hall.
PRESENT: Mayor Miller; Council Members Beasley, Biles, Cott,
Krueger, and Young.
ABSENT: Mayor Pro Tem Brock
considered adoption of an ordinance authorlzl g
The Council . · vs. John
1. · Clt of Denton
the pay?ent of the $79,461.98 judgement in Y
Karvoun~arls-
city Attorney Prouty stated that this ordinance would approve
payment of the judgement in this case which was a condemnation case
including jury award plus interest from the time of the original
award. Staff was recommending approval.
The following ordinance was considered: 96-239
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, AUTHORIZING THE
PAYMENT OF THE $79,461.98 JUDGEMENT IN CITY OF DENTON V. JOH~
KARVOUNIARIS; AND DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Biles tioned. Beasley seconded to adopt the ordinance. On roll
mo 'ia e". Cott "aye", Krueger "aye", Young "aye", Biles
vote, Beasley Y .
"aye" and Mayor Miller "aye". Motion carried unanimously.
2. The council ~n~idered adoption of an ordinance authorizing
the Mayor to execute on behalf of the city of Denton a settlement
agreement and release of all claims with GTE Southwest Incorporated
relating to the settlement of the cases styled GTE Southwest
~d vs. cit of Denton et al., and city of Rusk, et al..
vs. GT? Southwest, Inc. and the cit of Dent~n T~s~.~t al.
~omplalnt aqainst GTE S0'uthwest Incorporated before the PUC.
172
City of Denton City Council Minutes
October 22, 1996
Page 2
173
City Attorney Prouty stated that this ordinance would authorize the
City to enter into a settlement agreement with GTE Southwest, Inc.
It completely settled and resolved both the suit which GTE had
filed against the City and the suit which the City, along with
twenty other cities, had filed against GTE. All of the twenty
cities in the coalition had approve~ the settlement agreement. The
cash payment section i~dicated that the City would receive
$1,255,649.76. Of that amount $979,388.76 were past franchise fees
which the settlement agreed would be paid to the City of Denton by
GTE for all past franchise payments which were not paid. $205,147
included the current franchise fees which were suspended when GTE
filed suit against the City. GTE was to pay the City $125,000 per
year under the current franchise and the $207,147 reflected those
suspended franchise fees payments plus 4% interest. There was
$71,114 which represented an advance payment of reasonable
compensation for the use of the City streets not included in the
other amounts. Out of that, only the $71,114 was eligible,
depending on what GTE decided, for pass through to the customers.
On November 5th and November 19th the Council would be considering
an ordinance which approved a right-of-way agreement with GTE.
Under that right-of-way agreement, the Council would set an access
line charge that would set the future franchise fee payment for the
use of the streets.
The following ordinance was considered:
NO. 96-240
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO
EXECUTE ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF DENTON A SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
AND RELEASE OF ALL CLAIMS WITH GTE SOUTHWEST INCORPORATED
RELATING TO THE SETTLEMENT OF THE CASES STYLED GTE SOUTHWEST
INCORPORATED VS. CITY OF DENTON, ET AL., AND CITy OF RUSK, ET
AL. VS. GTE soUTHWEST, INC. AND THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, ET
AL.. COMPLAINT AGAINST GTE SOUTHWEST INCORPORATED BEFORE THE
PUC; AND DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Biles motioned, Young seconded to adopt the ordinance. On roll
vote, Beasley "aye", Cott "aye", Krueger "aye", Young "aye", Biles
"aye" and Mayor Miller "aye". Motion carried unanimously.
Following the completion of the Special Called Session, the Council
convened into a Work Session to consider the following:
1. The Council received and discussed an update from the Airport
Advisory Board.
Rick Woolfolk, Chair-Airport Advisory Board, presented an overview
of the operations of the Airport. The Airport had two new tenants
in the last eight months. The FAA continued to work with Denton
for opportunities for the Airport. The first race at the Texas
Speedway was scheduled in April and would probably impact the
Airport. Projects for next five years were included in the agenda
back-up materials. There was a need to begin considering the
174
City of Denton City Council Minutes
October 22, 1996
Page 3
purchase of additional land for an extension of the runway. Other
future projects included exploring the possibility of obtaining
reliever status for the Airport.
Joseph Portugal, Assistant to the City Manager, presented three
areas of consideration. Economic ~mpact dealt with a five year
strategic plan, fuel flowage, new leases, an antique fly-in, and
the Texas International Raceway. Infrastructure improvements
included Lone Star Gas, the painting of the city owned t-hangers,
new entranceway signage, terminal building enhancements, and an
overlay of interior roads. Issues associated with the Airport
included whether to be a reliever versus a general aviation
airport, State versus Federal funding, the legislative agenda,
marketing/public relations, and intergovernmental relations.
Council Member Young asked about the status of a fire station at
the Airport.
Portugal stated that that would be a discussion for a future
meeting.
Council Member Young asked about security at the Airport.
Portugal stated that there had been only thirteen incidents at the
Airport since 1991. It was felt that security was not an issue at
the Airport. More fencing could be done if needed.
Council Member Young asked about the impact of the raceway on the
Airport.
Portugal stated that staff was contacting other airports in similar
situations to see how the races impacted other airports.
Council Member Beasley asked about entranceway signage at the
Airport.
Portugal stated that the sign would be a monument type sign at the
intersection of the Airport.
Council Member Krueger asked about marketing/public relations. What
would Denton receive if an individual flew out of Denton to Waco or
Dallas.
Portugal stated that Denton did not have landing fees at this point
in time. A tie-down fee could be charged if a plane were left
overnight. Primarily the benefit to Denton would be the exposure
to Denton and Denton's corporations. If a plane were coming for
maintenance etc., there would be the possibility of a fuel
purchase.
Mayor Miller asked about the time frame for determining a reliever
versus a general aviation airport.
City of Denton City Council Minutes
October 22, 1996
Page 4
175
Portugal stated that the Airport really needed to be one or the
other. The Airport Board was currently seeking information
concerning the two designations.
2. The Council received a report, held a discussion and gave
staff direction regarding a curfew ordinance in the City of Denton.
Mike Jez, Chief of Police, stated that in July he forwarded a
report to Council on a curfew enforcement program. That report
examined current and active programs in the cities of Dallas,
Phoenix, Chicago, New Orleans, Denver, North Little Rock, and
Jacksonville. His report found that 73% of the united States'
largest 200 cities had a curfew ordinance. His recommendation was
that if the Council wanted that type of legislation, the
legislation not be considered unless it were done with perspective
of a comprehensive community program including a dedicated curfew
center for those violating the curfews; staffing of those centers
with social service professionals and community volunteers;
intervention in the form of referrals to social service
professionals both for juveniles and their families; procedures for
repeat offenders to include fines, counseling or sentences to
community services and recreation and job programs, anti-drug and
anti-gang programs and hot lines for follow-up services. The
recommendation for a task force would be for it to be multi-faceted
with various members of the community involved.
Council Member Cott felt that there was a need for something like
this in District 4. He wanted to look at the cost for such a
program and would like to be involved with the proposed task force.
Council Member Krueger felt that this should be a budgetary
consideration for the future with all aspects of the proposal
looked at. There was a need to enforce such an ordinance and not
just pass such an ordinance. He felt more information was needed
with specific numbers for a budget on this item.
Council Member Beasley stated that if this were done, it would have
to be a community effort. She questioned how the COPS efforts
would have an impact on juvenile crime.
Jez replied that the COPS program performed multiple tasks to
address juve.~ile issues.
Council Member Biles felt that a juvenile curfew would present more
legal issues to solve at this point in time than the good it would
do. He suggested implementing current resources rather than
starting a new project with an artificial time line.
Mayor Miller felt that curfews were necessary at times, but that
the current numbers did not support instituting a curfew ordinance
at this tine.
Council Member Young felt that the numbers were down for a reason
due to the programs the City and DISD had. Denton did not have a
176
City of Denton City Council Minutes
October 22, 1996
Page 5
large number of bad teenagers. He was in favor of a curfew, but
the City did not have the resources at this point in time. He felt
there was a need to monitor the numbers and support the current
programs.
Mayor Miller stated that the consensus of the Council was to
continue to monitor the situation. Additional legislation was not
needed at this point in time.
3. The Council received a report, held a discussion and gave
staff direction regarding an update on the infill policy.
Bob Nelson, Executive Director for Utilities, stated that the City
had numerous locations around the City which developed without
water and sewer. Over the years those citizens had asked to extend
water and sewer lines to those areas. A concept plan had been
developed for Council to consider.
Jerry Cosgrove, Engineering Administrator, stated that the present
policy required developers/owners to pay the actual cost of all
water and sewer main extensions, lift stations or other necessary
facilities required to serve their developments. The one exception
was the development plan line program which was for specific types
of economic development. It provided that the city could extend
water and sewer facilities to industrial prospects, to
commercial/retail prospects meeting certain conditions and
corporate headquarters. The primary purpose of the proposed infill
policy was to promote compact growth. The projects must promote
public health, public safety, economic development or service to
economically depressed areas. Funding for the proposed police
would come from unused development plan line funds. The proposed
policy for residential infill involved existing residents within
the city limits; projects would be on a first come-first served
basis; the City would pay 100% of the cost upfront; the citizens
would reimburse the City 25%; if the citizens cost exceeded 90% of
on-site cost, then the project would not qualify; and a connection
fee would be established for those citizens who chose not to
participate. Commercial aspects of the policy included that the
project must demonstrate economic development potential; projects
must be interior to 1-35 and Loop 288; staff would identify the
area, the Public Utilities Board would recommend the area and the
Council would approve the area; developers would pay 100% upfront
with the City reimbursing 30% of the cost; and for funding above
30% an economic development ordinance would be developed. Legal
aspects for the infill policy included municipal funding
limitations under state law to finance residential and commercial
infrastructure extensions and mechanism under state law to levy
assessments and provide repayment of on-~ite and off-site
improvements. Residential limitations on funding provided that if
the policy only provided for substantially equal service, it may be
a violation of the constitution. The infrastructure must provide
for economic development or a public purpose. Municipal funding
limitations for commercial projects included infrastructure
provided economic development, up to 100% funding by the city and
City of Denton City Council Minutes
October 22, 1996
Page 6
177
up to 30% funding required no project bidding by the City. Three
types of repayment programs were studied. One was a formal process
with a public hearing and force participants in the program as
opposed to a voluntary program. A second type of repayment
program was a public improvement district in which a taxing
district would be created for each development. A third type of
repayment program would be an assessment by a contract between the
City and the homeowners. The Public Utilities Board had two main
concerns. One was the basic concept of utilizing existing
ratepayer monies to fund infrastructure extensions for those
taxpayers who have chosen to develop their own facilities. The
second concern was the legal limitations under state law to use
public funds for infrastructure extensions.
Council Member Cott asked if this would be considered a gratuity.
Cosgrove stated that if some public good were involved, it would
not be considered a gratuity.
City Attorney Prouty stated that there were three possible ways to
assess a portion of these costs to the homeowners or to businesses.
The most risky was the general home rule authority. In order to
have a valid assessment there was a need for a mechanics lien
contract which must be recorded prior to the start of the
improvements. It was recommended to use either Chapter 402 or 372
of the Local Government Code.
Council Member Young stated that under the home rule provision, the
City would pay 75% and the citizen pay 25%. Under the other
options, the citizens would have to pay the 25% all at once or
could they work out a payment plan.
Cosgrove stated that under Section 402 of the Local Government
code, 90% of the cost of on-site improvements could be charged to
the homeowner with the possibility of a payment program. Under a
public improvement district, the charge could be made either
through taxes or charges.
Council Member Young asked how the sections on Mayhill would fall
in the proposed policy.
Cosgrove stated that in most cases, these areas would meet the
public health standard. It would be difficult to do both sewer and
water for that reason.
City Attorney Prouty stated that a commercial project would be
easier as it could be indicated thatitwas an economic development
project. It was not easy to do that with residential property.
Council Member Biles felt that there were a number of issues which
still needed additional information. He requested the applicable
law relating to the three funding issues; rules for the
administrative publication; more discussion on the funding
opportunities; how the connection fees would be calculated. If
178
city of Denton City Council Minutes
October 22, 1996
Page 7
there were a corresponding rate increase, would be it shared byall
ratepayers. He needed more information on the commercial infill
projects both interior and exterior of Loop 288 and I35. How would
commercial projects be dealt with outside those areas.
Council Member Young asked for more information on the provision of
funding as a health hazard/emergency basis where the City could do
90/10% funding.
Council Member Krueger asked why the Public Utilities Board was not
in favor of the proposal.
Cosgrove replied because of fairness and limitations with State
law.
Council Member Beasley felt that more information was needed in
certain areas. It must be fair to the ratepayers as well as to all
in the city.
Mayor Miller stated that the consensus of the Council was to
receive more information and consider it again at a later date.
4. The Council received a report, held a discussion and gave
staff direction with regard to the proposed annexation of 11.40
acres located south of Robinson Road and east of Nowlin Road. (A-
74)
Harry Persuad, Senior Planner, stated that the 11.40 acres were
located south of Robinson Road and east of Nowlin road. It was not
currently accessible to any of the City's streets. It did abutt
Corinth in this area. The owners of the tract had applied to the
City for annexation. There were two ways the fiscal impact study
was done. One was to study the marginal costs for providing
services to the site. It was found that City services could be
provided, based on current budget, at no additional cost to the
City. The developer was proposing 32 single family homes on the
site. The second fiscal impact study was for the long term costs
and benefits. If the area were annexed and it was developed as
planned, $17,000 would be net over a ten year period. Staff was
recommending approval of the annexation.
council Member Beasley stated th%'.t there was no road to this
property.
Persuad stated that there was-no road currently accessing the
property. The developer would be providing a connecting road to
the area.
Council Member Beasley asked how the City could provide services if
there was no way to get to it.
Persuad stated that at a later phase there would be access off
Robinson Road. In the short term, the City would have to go
through another city to get to the tract.
City of Denton City Coun6ii~Mih~tes~' ~
October 22, 1996
Page 8
179
Council Member Young asked about water/sewer at this time.
Persuad replied that there was sewer and water near this site. The
developers would be responsible to provide water and wastewater to
the site with a possibility of connecting to the existing lines.
Biles motioned, Krueger seconded to proceed with the annexation.
On roll vote, Beasley "aye", Cott "aye", Krueger "aye", Young
"aye", Biles "aye" and Mayor Miller "aye". Motion carried
unanimously.
5. The Council 'received a report and gave staff direction
regarding nomination(s) to the Denton Central Appraisal District's
Appraisal Review Board.
Kathy DuBose, Executive Director for Finance, stated that the
District had requested nominations to the Board. Four terms were
due to expire on December 31st. There were two individuals.on the
Board who lived within the City of Denton - Rolan Laney and Wallace
Batey. Both of those individuals were eligible to serve another
term.
Council Member Young nominated Jane Fulton.
DuBose stated that all nominations would be forwarded to the
Appraisal Board. Council could make as many nominations as it
wished.
Council Member Biles nominated Rolen Laney and Wallace Batey.
Mayor Miller stated that the three nominees would complete
applications which would be forwarded to the Appraisal Board.
6. The Council held a discussion regarding possible Council
projects for "Make A Difference Day".
Fran Miller reviewed possible projects for the council to consider.
Council Member Beasley stated that the Key Club would be working on
their adopt-a-spot which was next to the Council's spot. She felt
that Council should work on their spot. She expressed concern
about doing their project due to all of the homecoming activities.
Council Member Krueger suggesting cleaning their adopt-a-spot on
another day rather than Saturday.
Morgan stated that it could be done on another day if necessary,
possibly on Sunday.
Council Member Krueger proposed to participate as a group on
Sunday afternoon to do clean their adopt-a-spot.
With no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 7:40 p.m.
180
City of Denton City Council Minutes
October 22, 1996
Page 9
iNNi~R WALTERS
TY SECRETARY
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS
ACC0034A