Minutes May 13,1997 CITY OF DENTON CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
May 13, 1997
The Council convened into a Closed Meeting on Tuesday, May 13, 1997
at 5:15 p.m. in the Civil Defense Room of City Hall.
PRESENT: Mayor Miller; Council Members Beasley, Kristoferson,
Cochran, Durranoe, 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
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 Work Session on Tuesday, May 13, 1997
at 6:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers of City Hall.
PRESENT: Mayor Miller; Council Members Beasley, Kristoferson,
Cochran, Durrance, and Young.
ABSENT: Mayor Pro Tem Brock
1. The Council received a report and distributed supplemental
1997-98 budget priority questionnaire.
Kathy DuBose, Executive Director for Finanoe, stated that the first
questionnaire was distributed in January, and since there were now
new Council Members she requested the Council fill out new
questionnaires. The questionnaires would look at the aggregate
score of the different service areas based on the current Council's
priorities. The Council needed to give two different views in
which to look at service areas. The first was the Council's view
of the level of service effort; the second was the priority of the
effort. The questionnaire also had an area for comments from the
Council Members. Council was asked to return the questionnaires by
May 20, 1997. The aggregate scores would be presented to Council
on June llth.
2. The Council received a report, held a discussion and gave
staff direction concerning the 1997-98 Community Development
Advisory Committee recommendations.
James McDade, Chair - Community Development Advisory Committee,
stated that the Committee had made the best use of the money
allocated. The recommended activities included: two drainage
projects in southeast Denton, funding to the Denton Affordable
Housing Corporation, SPAN curb-cuts and handicap ramps, renovation
of the TWU Cares dental clinic, funding to the City's Housing
Program and Human Services. The 1997 Action Plan included comments
from citizens, plus a public hearing which would be held regarding
the plan on May 20th.
1
City of Denton City Council Minutes
May 13, 1997
Page 2
Council Member Young asked why Starting Over was not funded this
year.
McDade responded that Wesley Stewart of the Human Services
Committee would be able to answer that question.
Mayor Miller stated that $183,657 was allocated which included
several drainage issues in the CDBG infrastructure. He asked that
the drainage projects be briefly explained because of their
importance.
McDade stated that there were three streets included in the
drainage projects: skinner, Lakey and Bradshaw. The Committee
decided to fund Bradshaw and Lakey which would be the start of the
lower portion of the water flow on the project. It was best to
start at the lower portion of the project to prevent flooding in
other areas.
Council Member Kristoferson commented on Mayor Miller's point of
how much was allocated. In the backup it stated that $186,000 was
allocated, not $183,657.
Barbara Ross, Community Development Administrator, stated that the
$186,000 included carryover from the previous year.
Mayor Miller stated that the considerations and deliberations that
the Committee had to do was greatly appreciated. Their work and
effort made a difference in the community.
Ross stated that the backup included recommendations for both the
infrastructure and Housing Funds, as well as the Human Services
dollars for CDBG.
Mayor Miller requested a recommendation for staff direction.
Beasley recommended, Durrance seconded that the Council proceed as
presented by the Committee.
Council Member Kristoferson requested that the Council wait until
the completion of Item #3, Human Services, as it might impact
Item #2.
COuncil agreed to wait on the recommendation until after discussing
Item #3.
3. The Council received a report, held a discussion and gave
staff direction regarding the 1997-98 Human Services Committee
recommendations.
Wesley Stewart, chair - Human Services Advisory Committee, stated
that 31 organizations requested funding and the Committee
recommended 24 to receive funding. There were six groups which
were not funded last year which were recommended to be funded this
year. The listing of the recommended funding agencies were
City of Denton city Council Minutes
May 13, 1997
Page 3
included in the agenda back-up materials. Total funding was
$183,657 in CDBG dollars and $165,443 from the General Fund for an
increase of $1,575 from last year's request from the General Fund.
The Committee had been informed this year that any funding request
over $15,000 had to go out for bid. CDBG funds to organizations
such as Hope Inc. and Transitional Housing funding, if approved,
would have to go out for bid and might not be back by the June 15th
deadline. He stated that the recommendation was a unanimous vote
by the Committee.
Council Member Young asked why there was no funding for the Family
Health Care Corporation, Kids Unlimited and Starting Over.
Stewart stated that there was a great deal of discussion regarding
all of the organizations requesting funding. The Committee had to
make some tough decisions regarding which organizations would not
be funded. The Family Health Care Center was a group left over
from North Texas Community clinics. The former group of North
Texas Community clinics had received, since the 1992-93 budget
year, over $160,000 from the City. That agency was divided and the
more profitable part of the North Texas Community clinics was sold
to Columbia HCA. The remainder portion of the organization was the
Family Health Care. The Committee specifically asked about who
would the funds be going to help. The answer was it would be to
provide prenatal care for illegal aliens. That was a concern of
many members. There was also great concern about the sale of the
Clinic to Columbia. The Committee's concern was the City gave
$160,000 to build up the goodwill of this organization in the
community which was an asset to the organization and felt the City
should have been included in the sale to Columbia. They felt
something could have been worked out with Columbia to help fund the
new Family Health Care if the City had been included. North Texas
Community clinic's last year's budget request was $335,000-out of
that the City funded $35,000. This year, the same program's budget
had dropped to $283,000 and asked City funding to increase to
$45,000. They had added one line item to their budget of $122,000
to pay for contract services. Contract services would have been
previously provided by the former North Texas Community staff but
that staff had gone to Columbia.~ There was a discussion of
separation of church and state with three organizations. Two of
the three organizations received funding. Kids unlimited was a
Saturday morning program and one of their morning meetings was a
gospel video which was a concern of the Committee. There were
rules about the separation of church and state and the
establishment of religion. The Committee received from the City
Attorney's Office the guidelines regarding what to look for on that
particular issue. Kids Unlimited was a great program but of all
%hree groups, ~hi~ ~oup had the moat oon~rn~. Th~ Committee had
a unanimous vote of not to fund the group. Starting Over had
requested funding last year and was unable to attend the scheduled
meeting which was then rescheduled. Mr. Stewart had a conflict
with the rescheduled meeting and was not able to attend. From
reviewing the minutes, it appeared that at the time of the hearing,
the organization had not actually purGhased a home that they had
City of Denton city Council Minutes
May 13, 1997
Page 4
intended to purchase. At this point in time, he believed that the
purchase had gone through. This was a new group, with a
substantially large budget for a new group (approximately one-half
million). They had had success in receiving funds from other
organizations. This particular program had not been in existence
for very long so there were no real records for the program. The
Committee had a concern about the number of individuals who would
be served in this particular home (with only 4-5 bedrooms). The
numbers did not justify the expenditure requested. Last year,
Starting Over indicated that they had an 80% success rate. The
Committee had questioned if that was an accurate number.
Council Member Young stated that he could understand the Family
Health Care and the Kids Unlimited not being funded. He requested
that the Committee reconsider Starting Over. There was not a
single program like this in Denton County and was needed very
badly.
Council Member Durrance asked about the decrease in funding for
Denton County Friends of the Family.
Stewart responded that the Human Services Committee, up until two
years ago, was a committee aimed at helping start up organizations
begin the process of building up their programs. Two years ago,
the philosophy changed partly in response to several groups
(Friends of the Family and TWU Cares) which had been funded for
longer than three years but were very good organizations. This
year, there were some concerns by Committee members over the
increase in the funding amount which was approximately a 36%
increase over the last several years. One concern by two members
of the Committee was the fact that Friends of the Family had
trouble sustaining their funding level from other sources. They
had discussed with Friends of the Family the possibility of working
with the District Attorney's office to get the perpetrators of
these acts of family violence to contribute more substantially to
Friends of the Family. Their statistics indicated that family
violence occurred in low or very low income families. It was a
very expensive process for anyone to get into the court system.
While Friends of the Family was asking for an increase, the
Committee proposed a diversionary program. There was also a
request from the Children's Advocacy Center which dealt with child
abuse. The Commi%%ee recommended funding of th~ Childr~n'~
Advocacy Center at $10,000 which was another area of abuse or
illegal conduct. The Committee felt that $10,000 to the Children's
Advocacy Center and $30,000 to Friends of the Family was adequate
for that type of service area. Those two combined were
approximately 10% of the total budget level.
Council Member Durrance asked about the diversionary program
discussed.
Stewart stated that Friends of the Family had been very receptive
to that idea, but the problem was that it had to go through the
District Attorney's office. The recommendation for the
City of Denton city Council Minutes
May 13, 1997
Page 5
diversionary program would have to come from Friends of the Family
as the primary focal group for family violence in the County. If
the abuser did not get through the diversionary program for that
year, he not only was charged with any new offenses; he could also
be charged with the original family violence offense. The family
program that was recommended was only for first time non-serious
offenders. The average cost that Friends of the Family had
requested was approximately $500 per client, which happened to
mirror the cost in an average criminal case.
Council Member Durrance asked if it would be possible to coordinate
Children's Advocacy Center funds with Friends of the Family
services.
Stewart responded that the Children's Advocacy Center was
established through the District Attorney's office and the Friends
of the Family worked closely With them.. He hoped that they could
coordinate and cover some of their mutual costs.
Council Member Cochran stated he got the impression from the
Committee minutes that the Committee agreed that Friends of the
Family should be funded to the degree of their requested funding
· but the differences was how to get the money.
Stewart responded that he thought the diversionary program was a
side issue, a suggestion. The problem the Committee had was the
fact that there were new organizations requesting funds and old
organizations requesting more funds. The Committee would not be
upset if the Council funded Friends of the Family at the full
funding requested, but it would be difficult to find the funds for
that organization. The suggestion of the diversionary program was
to encourage the agency to find alternative funding.
Council Member Cochran asked if this type of program was permitted
in the state of Texas.
Stewart stated it was legally allowed. The diversionary program
was not a statutory legal program. In Denton County it was
available for any type of misdemeanor except for family violence.
The recommendation was in first offense non-serious offenses that
it be considered part of the diversionary program. The
diversionary program required the offender to repay Friends of the
Family for the $500. If the offender failed to make the payment or
committed another act of violence within one year, he would be
prosecuted for the current year's charge and for the old charge.
If any abuser did not abuse for a year - that would be substantial
progress.
Council Member Cochran stated he was concerned about the second
year and the record being erased. He questioned the earlier
statement that the Family Health Care served only illegal aliens.
His understanding was that illegal aliens were only a portion of
the individuals served.
City of Denton City Council Minutes
May 13, 1997
Page 6
Stewart read from the minutes of 03/06/97 in which it was asked who
was not eligible for Medicaid. The response was illegal aliens.
Ross stated the patients the City was being asked to fund were all
undocumented aliens.
Council Member Cochran was concerned about taking all the funding
from this group because it was one of the more defenseless groups,
unborn children of illegal aliens. Once born, they became American
citizens and not funding the program would be discriminating
against them because of the legal status of their parents.
Stewart stated that there was a lot of American citizens who were
legally here who fell above the guidelines and could not afford
their own health insurance or prenatal care. Funding that agency
would be subsidizing people, who by law, were breaking the law by
even being here. He agreed that someone should take care of the
infants of illegal aliens. The question was whether taxpayers
should foot the bill.
Council Member Young stated he had the same concerns as Council
Member Cochran for the Family Health Care Center. He understood
that the organization sold the portion of the agency that made the
profit due partially to the state's policy changes. The agency
faced bankruptcy and had to sell a portion to save the program. He
would like to see the agency reconsidered. He felt they needed to
look at all the parts of the issue. He stated that not all the
people using the service would be illegal aliens as legal Americans
used this service, too. The children born of illegal aliens were
citizens and he requested reconsideration.
Council Member Kristoferson stated funding came from the county
level for indigent care and for non-emergency care. It was the
County's responsibility to work out a relationship with the family
health provider. It was not the city's responsibility to consider
major funding for health care sources for the medically indigent.
Council Member Beasley commented that she agreed that the Friends
of the Family funding was too low. Her understanding was that the
diversionary program was not available in Texas. She suggested an
increase in funding for Friends of the Family. The Family Health
Care Center might not be able to be fully funded, but she would
like to increase that funding. She stated that 20% of the people
being seen there were from Denton and others from the county.
Mayor Miller stated the requests were for $581,000 of funding with
only $349,000 allocated. He noted that there were concerns over
the level of funding for two or more of the agencies. If the
Council recommended additional funding, the problem would be where
to get the money. Would the funding come from the General Fund and
Council realize that it would not be a one time funding? If
started, it would become increasingly difficult to continue to
fund. He felt there were two choices: recommending more money
from the General Fund, or redistribute the money recommended, or a
City of Denton City Council Minutes
May 13, 1997
Page 7
combination thereof. Two years ago he was in favor of the Family
Health Care clinic. Now that there had been a sale to Columbia,
the question was-could a better deal have been negotiated? He was
very concerned over the issue. If an issue was the County's
responsibility to take care of, than it should be done by County
government. He had received much correspondence relating to the
Friends of the Family and the fact that the agency's funding should
continue. He felt strongly that it should be funded at the level
requested. He would not agree with funding at a level less than
last year's. The requests had been for the Family Health Care,
Starting Over, and increase funding for Friends of the Family which
would be major dollars. The Council was not indicating that an
organization was not important if not funded.
Beasley motioned, Cochran seconded to reduce the funding for DISD
Trips by $5,000 and the Special Olympics by $5,000 and transfer it
to the Friends of the Family and to leave the remaining balance as
recommended by the Committee. She felt the need for Friends of the
Family was very important. She noted that the Special Olympics did
not receive funding last year, so $10,000 this year would help.
The DISD Trips would be at the funding of the previous year and
they were also funded by DISD.
Council Member Durrance agreed that he was not prepared to look for
additional funding out of General Fund but requested the Council to
consider an amendment to the motion regarding Family Health Care.
He would like some direction from the staff regarding funding and
how much of that was necessarily funded through County or other
entities. Indigent health care was mandated from the state through
the County funds. The split was the difference between actual
health care treatment and preventative health care. He requested
that the Council consider a friendly amendment for staff direction
to find out the split of funding for family health care areas.
Council Member Beasley accepted the friendly amendment.
Council Member Young requested that the Council also ask staff to
look at Starting Over. The Starting Over program helped 15 women
and 5 children in three months, that would be 80 women and 25
children a year. He asked that it be added to the motion.
Mayor Miller questioned as to where he proposed to get the $35,000
funding.
Council Member Young suggested that staff look and find funding.
Mayor Miller stated that the friendly amendment was to find out
wh~ther th~ County was funding it or not. It wa~ not ~ugg~t~d
that the General Fund dollars be increased. Council Member
Beasley's motion stated where the money came from.
Council Member Young stated it could come from the General Fund.
8
City of Denton City Council Minutes
MaY 13, 1997
Page 8
Mayor Miller questioned Council Member Young if he was recommending
that the $35,000 for Starting Over come from the General Fund.
Council Member Young state he would like the staff to find the
funding.
Mayor Miller stated that the amendment was to include $35,000 for
Starting Over which would come from the General Fund. He asked for
a second. The amendment died for the lack of a second.
Council Member Cochran stated that he thought Starting Over was an
excellent program but the difference was a lack of track record in
the community. Family Health Care was still providing a valuable
service to the community. They were not a start-up program. His
understanding was that the agency received county funding for
health care for individuals outside the city of Denton and when the
funds from the City were depleted they went into County funds.
They were not solely funded by City tax dollars. It was a joint
proposal between the County and the City.
Mayor Miller asked staff if there was a problem with the source of
funding.
Ross stated that it was a very delicate balance. If the motion
passed, they would propose DISD Trips be reduced to $10,000 and the
$5,000 CDBG funding would go to the Special Olympics to bring the
total from CDBG to $9,257. The $5,000 General Funding for Special
Olympics would go to fund Friends of the Family. Friends of the
Family would be funded totally out of the General Fund.
Mayor Miller repeated the motion to increase funding for Friends of
the Family by $10,000 and reduce Special Olympics and DISD Trips by
$5,000 each and that the staff be directed to study the Family
Health Care program under the County as to what funding was
available and report back during the budget cycle.
On roll vote, Beasley "aye", Kristoferson "aye",
Durrance "aye", Young "aye", and Mayor Miller
carried unanimously.
Cochran "aye",
"aye". Motion
Council Member Young stated that he voted for the motion and
amendments. He was still concerned abou% ~%ar%ing Ove~ not being
funded this year. He would like the Committee to take a serious
look next year at this program.
Council returned to Item #2 concerning the 1997-98 Community
Development Advisory Committee recommendations.
Beasley motioned, Durrance seconded to approve the recommendations
with amendments as noted. On roll vote, Beasley "aye",
Kristoferson "aye", Cochran "aye", Durrance "aye", and Mayor Miller
"aye". Motion carried unanimously.
city of Denton City Council Minutes
May 13, 1997
Page 9
9
4. The Council received a report, held a discussion and gave
staff direction regarding rules for use of the cable television
public access channel.
Richard Foster, Public Information Officer, stated that
traditionally there were three types of access channels - public,
educational and governmental channels. Denton had one of each type
of channel. The cable TV operator was required to provide a
channel for public access which was Channel 25. However, Channel
25 was not just public access. It was described as a public
access/local origination. The franchise indicated that rules of
that channel would be established between the City and the cable
operator. The Council approved rules for use of the public access
channel in 1991 and amended them in 1994. The rules had worked
well over the years with not a great deal of demand. The current
rules limited access programs to 30 minutes in length and required
them to be produced in the cable operator's studio. There had been
several inquiries or complaints in the last several years about
both of those sections of the rules. As a result of the
complaints, the Cable Board looked at the current rules to see if
they could be less restrictive. A survey and information gathering
process looked at other cities. It was indicated that there were
very few restrictions that could be placed on public access
channels and the programming that appeared on those channels. Any
rules for the use of the channel had to be content neutral, with
the exception of unprotected speech. The Board found that there
were three ways that public access channels operated: the city
operated the channel, the cable operator operated the channel, or
a non-profit organization operated the channel. The Cable Board
studied for months and prepared revisions for the current public
access channel rules. However late in the process, Marcus Cable
hired a new manager who offered to have the cable operator handle
the public access channel. Two options were available for
consideration by the Council: (a) adopt the revisions to the rules
by the Cable Board or (b) adopt more limited rules which would
contain the language that was required in the rules by the
franchise agreement and let the cable operator handle the operating
and administration of the access channel. The franchise agreement
required the City Council to make the determinations of priority of
use, prohibition about the lottery, prohibition of obscenity and
indecency and permitting public inspection for requests. The Cable
Board and staff recommended option (b).
Council Member Cochran asked if the cable company would take over
the operation of Channel 26.
Foster responded no, Channel 25 only and not to any great extent.
Channel 26 would no% be affected at all. In ~ith~r ~as~. programs
longer than 30 minutes would be accepted and tapes produced outside
the cable operator's studio would be eligible on Channel 25.
Mayor Miller clarified that both options only dealt with Channel
25.
10
city of Denton city Council Minutes
May 13, 1997
Page 10
Council Member Cochran asked how much time was taken up by the
current programming.
Foster stated that Channel 25 was a public access/local origination
channel. In the franchise, the cable operator was required to
produce a minimum of 400 hours per year of local origination
.programming.
Council Member Durrance questioned if the cable operator handled
the administration, would the cable company be required to make
decisions.
Foster stated correct. The cable operator removed both the Cable
Board and the Council from service as appeals from the cable
operator.
Herb Prouty, CitY Attorney, stated that the city had received
complaints from citizens who wanted to produce tapes away from the
cable operator's studio. That would mean that the city and Marcus,
initially, would not have much control. The cable companies or
cities could not regulate the content. They could not be liable if
they had no legal authority to regulate the content. Whoever did
the regulating would have that liability because it would not be
regulated. He noted a good aspect of option (b) was that the city
would not incur liability regardless of how remote it might be.
Council Member Durrance asked if it would permit flexibility to
account for any changes from the Supreme Court decisions.
City Attorney Prouty stated yes it would have flexibility.
Council Member Young asked if there was a set number of minority
programming.
Foster stated no that it was simply first come first serve with
everyone having equal opportunity. If anyone was not able to
produce their own program with their own equipment, they would
still have access to the cable operator's equipment.
Council Member Kristoferson understood that there was a prohibition
for obscenity but not for indecency.
City Attorney Prouty responded that the prohlb£%ion for indQc~nc¥
was in the franchise. The franchise was a contract between Marcus
and the City. The term indecency had not been defined by the
courts, therefore it was protected free speech. The term obscenity
had been loosely defined. The portion of the franchise that stated
that the City could prohibit indecent behavior was contrary to the
most recent Supreme Court decision. In his view, that portion of
the franchise was invalid. He recommended that the City not
attempt to prohibit indecency.
Foster added that it might be possible to receive help from the
Supreme Court. The 1996 TeleCommunication Act had a companion
piece, the Communication Decency Act, which prohibited indecent
city of Denton city Council Minutes
May 13, 1997
Page 11
11
material on the Internet. The supreme court was reviewing it and
should make a decision before they adjourned in July.
asked if the cable company could
for determining decent or indecent.
Council Member Kristoferson
indicate their review process
Karen Yurchuck, Marcus Cable, stated that they were not allowed to
look at it. Her opinion of decent or indecent might not be the
same as someone else's. She stated that there was no regulation
that allowed them to keep it off the air.
city Attorney Prouty stated until 1994 the cable company was
prohibited from controlling any content. After 1994, the company
could control or prohibit obscene content. A decision from the
Supreme Court was needed on the particular point of indecency
before one could even attempt to regulate. The public access
channels were channels that the public could use either for no fee
or limited fee. As long as the public used the channel and used it
for freedom of speech, anything that was protected free speech
could not be regulated.
Council Member Beasley recommended option (b).
Council Member Cochran asked that if in the case of a dispute of a
right to show,~was there any appeal process.
Foster said the appeal would be taken to the court system. For
option (b), it would not involve the city Council or the Cable
Board.
council Member Cochran understood if the cable company permitted a
legally qualified political candidate to appear that they must
afford equal opportunity to any other candidates. He asked if that
meant all could be prevented, if none were allowed.
Yurchuck stated that the intention was to lay responsibility on the
producer of the program. The programmer would have to supply equal
opportunity to all candidates. It would not be up to Marcus Cable
to regulate the program, but up to the programmer. The producer of
the show would not, under the law, be able to deny that equal
opportunity.
Mayor Miller asked if this was a local rule or federal.
Yurchuck responded that this specific rule was how Marcus handled
it, as written in the agreement.
city Attorney Prou~y ~t~t~d that this was related to what could and
prohibited. The public access channel~ w~re
could not be be public forums from the stand point of the first
considered to
amendment. They could not prohibit political announcements or
advertisements. They could restrict it. If restricted, they would
have to provide equal opportunity to all political candidates.
12
city of Denton city Council Minutes
May 13, 1997
Page 12
Council Member Cochran stated he agreed with the equal access. He
said this had the potential to make the process more open but
adding that stipulation made it less useful. He felt the
possibility to revisit that one aspect would be a benefit to the
citizens and candidates.
Yurchuck stated that Marcus did not prescreen tapes. Their concern
was if a program not entirely political in nature had a 10-minute
segment on a local candidate, Marcus would be held responsible for
equal opportunity and notification of all candidates. Marcus would
be putting the responsibility on the producer of the tape, who knew
the content, rather than on them.
City Attorney Prouty stated that certain people might run for a
particular office and this might be the only means of
communications available.
Council Member Young said there had always been a guaranteed access
for minorities. Marcus, here in Denton, had a lack of minorities
on staff. He stated he would vote against the motion because of no
guarantees and lack of minorities in Denton at Marcus.
Foster responded that under the language of first come first serve,
everyone was guaranteed equal access.
Beasley motioned, Durrance seconded to proceeded with option (b)
with staff bringing it back as a resolution at a future meeting.
On roll vote, Beasley "aye", Kristoferson "aye", Cochran "aye",
Durrance "aye", Young "nay", and Mayor Miller "aye". Motion
carried with a 5-1 vote.
5. The Council received a report, held a discussion and gave
staff direction regarding Marcus Cable rates.
Richard Foster, Public Information officer, stated that this was a
request for a revision of the cable rates. The rate adjustment was
scheduled for June 1st. Under FCC guidelines, cable operators
could adjust their rates quarterly or annually. The city was
certified to regulate the rates for basic cable service, equipment
with that, and the hourly service charge. The City received the
rate request from Marcus on February 28th. The City had three
months to review the rat~ proposal and make a decision. The
Council had three options: (1) review the rates, (2) approve the
rates as filed, and (3) no official action, at which point the
rates would automatically go into effect on June 1. If the council
decided to review the rates and the study indicated the rates to be
excessive, Marcus would be asked to retroactively refund the
customers. There would be a public hearing on the issue at the
next meeting. Last year, a consultant was hired to review the
rates with only slight revisions. This year, all of the same
cities in the first study were contacted and none were planning to
take official action. They were going to let the rates go into
effect as filed on June 1. He stated that the cable company no
longer rented remote control units. Those already with the rented
City of Denton City Council Minutes
May 13, 1997
Page 13
units could continue their rent on a monthly basis but no new
controls. The rates proposed including the 5% franchise fee; basic
level from $10.26 to $10.37 per month which was an increase of 1%;
remote controls from 13¢ to 17¢ per month; non-addressable
convertor from $1.06 to $1.00 which was a decrease of 6%;
addressable convertors from $2.55 to $2.70 which was an increase of
6%; an hourly service charge $42.72 to $19.98 which was a decrease
of 53%.
Council Member Young stated he would be against any kind of rate
increases as his district felt that the City was too easy on
Marcus. He said Marcus needed to justify the increases. He
suggested that they take the first option and initiate a review of
the rates. The review could take as long as a year and the new
rates would still go in effect June 1. However, if the results
showed Marcus was overcharging, a retroactive refund could be
ordered. He felt Marcus had not done anything to deserve an
increase, provided no new services.
Mayor Miller asked for legal opinion that since a public hearing
was going to be held, would it be appropriate for Council to make
the recommendation at this point in time or take it forward to a
public hearing and then make the recommendation.
City Attorney Prouty stated generally the City was controlled by
the cable ordinance, but the City imposed even stricter
requirements under 81-36 which required the City to hold a public
hearing within 90 days. The Council then was required within 90
days of the hearing to render a written decision on the cable
company's application. It was usually done in a form of a
resolution which either approved, reduced or denied the rate
increase. The appropriate action would be taken after the pubic
hearing by resolution and within 90 days of that public hearing.
Council Member Beasley stated there was an article in the Dallas
Morning News comparing cable rates. She noticed that Denton had
one of the largest availability to channels in the area and many
other cable systems had higher prices with less channels. She
pointed out that the rate study would cost $3,500-$4,000 to
conduct.
Council Member Durrance asked about the 53% decrease in the hourly
service charge and what it was based on.
Karen Yurchuck, Marcus Cable, stated that the entire form was
calculated in their regulatory department. There were 7-10 factors
that went into each of the rates. It came down to everything from
median income, number of channels, hourly service charged included
calculations of average number of hours spent on average number cf
service calls, and the calculations were done by individual city.
There was also a true-up factor which would be calculated into the
coming year's rates.
13
14
City of Denton City Council Minutes
May 13, 1997
Page 14
Mayor Miller stated that a public hearing would be held on May 20,
1997.
City Attorney Prouty stated the ordinance required Marcus to notify
the subscribers of the public hearing on at least two channels.
Foster said the announcement was currently being seen on Channel 25
and 26.
6. The Council
staff direction
Committee.
received a report, held a discussion and gave
regarding recommendations from the Oversight
Rick Svehla, Deputy City Manager, stated that on April 7th the
staff took several recommendations to the Committee with money left
from other sales. The funds were left over from street projects,
sidewalk projects, and from signal/turn lane projects. The
Committee was suggesting the monies be set aside in new accounts
for sidewalks, signals or turn lanes and the monies left over from
street projects follow recommendations received from the '91
Committee. They recommended that any excess from street and
drainage projects go to the US 77 project. The second suggestion
was recommending that $22,000 of the leftover sidewalk money help
fund the improvements of the Sherman Building at Hickory and Elm
and that $27,000 be used for the CMACK project reviewed at the last
Council meeting. The final suggestion was to be allowed to
complete the project at the Railroad Avenue-Uland-Banner Street
area which was a small area between the railroad tracks and Frame
Street, north of McKinney with the leftover funds from the Paisley
and Mingo project, some funding from CDBG, and maintenance money.
Council Member Young asked if any additional streets could be added
in this proposal, such as Carpenter Street.
Svehla stated that it was not recommended. They only recommended
extra funding as indicated; the existing funds might not be enough.
Council Member Young asked how that street could be paved.
Svehla stated that Carpenter was a private road, not a city street.
If the Council directed, Carpenter could be taken to the Oversight
Committee for a recommendation.
Council Member Young requested that it be taken to the Oversight
Committee. The people were willing to dedicate the road to the
City.
Council Member Kristoferson asked if it was more appropriate to
obtain sidewalks on an existing street from CIP or to do this.
Svehla stated generally those were made in the CIP process. In the
last bond issue there were sidewalk monies put aside in different
years. The Blue Ribbon Committee chose to make a list in a ranking
system. Whenever the City received a request in the CIP process or
city of Denton City Council Minutes
May 13, 1997
Page 15
a request from a citizen for a sidewalk, the staff advised the
Oversight Committee to add the request to the ranking list and as
funding became available for sidewalks, it would be submitted.
Durrance motioned, Beasley seconded to follow the recommendation of
the Oversight Committee for funding of the projects.
Council Member Young asked if any of the money was diverted from
another project.
Rick Svehla responded that it was leftover money, with the
exception of the $30,000 coming from the Maintenance Street funding
and the two projects the Oversight Committee recommended--Paisley
and Mingo Road.
On roll vote, Beasley "aye", Kristoferson "aye", Cochran "aye",
Durrance "aye", Young "aye", and Mayor Miller "aye". Motion
carried unanimously.
Following the completion of the Work Session, the Council convened
into a Special Called Meeting.
1. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance of the City of
Denton approving the transfer of Denton's Certificate of
Convenience and Necessity pertaining to water service to a certain
9,500 acre tract of land located in Denton's northern
extraterritorial jurisdiction area to Bolivar Water Supply
Corporation; and authorizing the Mayor to execute any and all
documents necessary to properly effectuate said transfer.
Herb Prouty, city Attorney, stated that the ordinance would
authorize the Mayor to execute documents necessary to transfer
Denton's CCN within a 9,500 acre area to Bolivar Water Supply
Corporation. There was dual certification in the area and
customers were approaching both the City of Denton and Bolivar for
service. Bolivar's CCN could not serve customers more than 200
feet from existing facilities. Denton could serve under its
certification but many were far from Denton's transmission line.
It would be costly to extend lines for those services. Based on
the Council's recent decisions on infill policy, where the infi!l
plan was rejected after the recommendation of the Public Utilities
Board to extend services in similar situations, it would be
inconsistent to subsidize. The policy was basically that they
wanted people within the CCN to be serviced and since Denton was
not in the position to serve those customers in the immediate
future they would like Denton to allow Bolivar to serve. They
recommended transfer of the CCN and the 9,500 acres to Bolivar and
authorized the Mayor to sign those transfer documents. If in the
future the City annexed that area, it would seek certification
again and would be controlled under a section of the water code
which would determine the fair value.
Council Member Young asked if the Bolivar pipes meet the city
specifications.
15
16
City of Denton City Council Minutes
May 13, 1997
Page 16
Herb Prouty, City Attorney, stated Bolivar did not meet the City
specifications. The pipes were smaller than the pipes used in
Denton.
Doug Chadwick stated that he moved to Denton in 1979 and planned to
stay in Denton. He stated that he was moving into that area on six
acres. The CCN was Denton's but was not serviced. They were
beyond the 200 foot limit of the existing lines of Bolivar. With
the help of the Texas Legislature, they determined a plan to
transfer CCN to Bolivar. The Bolivar Board made a change this last
year. In new construction they were putting in pipes which were
closer to Denton's specifications. He encouraged the Council to
approve the motion.
The following ordinance was considered:
NO. 97-139
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON APPROVING THE TRANSFER
OF DENTON'S CERTIFICATE OF CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY
PERTAINING TO WATER SERVICE TO A CERTAIN 9,500 ACRE TRACT
OF LAND LOCATED IN DENTON'S NORTHERN EXTRATERRITORIAL
JURISDICTION AREA TO BOLIVAR WATER SUPPLY CORPORATION;
AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE ANY AND .ALL
DOCUMENTS NECESSARY TO PROPERLY EFFECTUATE SAID TRANSFER;
AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Young motioned, Cochran seconded to adopt the ordinance. On roll
vote, Beasley "aye", Kristoferson "aye", Cochran "aye", Durrance
"aye", Young "aye", and Mayor Miller "aye". Motion carried
unanimously.
With no further business, the meeting was adjourned 8:40 p.m.
C~/Y SECRETARY
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS
JAC~ILLER, MAYOR
CIT3~ OF DENTON, TEXAS
ACC00385