Loading...
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