Minutes January 06, 1998CITY OF DENTON CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
January 6, 1998
After determining that a quorum was present and convening in an open meeting, the City
Council convened in a Closed Meeting on Tuesday, January 6, 1998 at 5:45 p.m. in the
City Council Work Session Room at City Hall.
PRESENT: Mayor Miller; Mayor Pro Tem Brock; Council Members Beasley,
Kristoferson, Cochran, Young and Durrance.
ABSENT: None
1. The Council considered the following in Closed Meeting:
A. Deliberations concerning Real Property – Under TEX. GOV’T. CODE
Sec. 551.072
1. Discussed the value and acquisition of various parcels of right-of-
way located on Tributary 4 of Pecan Creek from Robertson to Ruddell Street.
B. Conference with Employees—Under TEX. GOV’T. CODE Sec.
551.075. The Council received information from employees or questioned employees
during a staff conference or briefing, but did not deliberate during the conference.
The Council convened into a Regular Meeting on Tuesday, January 6, 1998 at 7:00 p.m.
in the Council Chambers of City Hall.
PRESENT: Mayor Miller; Mayor Pro Tem Brock; Council Members Beasley,
Kristoferson, Cochran, Young and Durrance.
ABSENT: None
1. Pledge of Allegiance
The Council and members of the audience recited the Pledge of Allegiance to the U.S.
and Texas flags.
2. The Council considered approval of the minutes of November 4, November 11,
November 18, December 2, and December 16, 1997.
Council Member Cochran asked that the work "dictated" be used instead of"deemed" in a
statement he made during the November 11, 1997 minutes on page one.
Beasley motioned, Durrance seconded to approve the minutes as corrected. On roll vote,
Beasley “aye”, Kristoferson “aye”, Cochran “aye”, Durrance “aye”, Young “aye”, Brock
“aye”, and Mayor Miller “aye”. Motion carried unanimously.
CITIZEN REPORTS
3. The Council received a report from Ali Al-Khafaji regarding discrimination
against Arabian-Americans in the City of Denton.
Mr. Al-Khafaji was not present at the meeting.
4. The Council received a report from Dessie Goodson regarding the meaning of
contracts.
Ms. Goodson was not present at the meeting.
5. The Council received a report from Joe Dodd regarding censorship.
Mr. Dodd stated that there were different definitions of terms regarding pornography.
Pornography meant erotic depiction. It did not mean illegal or dirty. Obscenity meant
illegal and child pornography automatically meant illegal. Indecency was a new term
which had no meaning per the courts. Censorship could only be effected by government.
The cable company acted as the City’s agent in this matter of censoring him. The
wording of a letter from the cable company was not correct. The City’s failure to provide
clear guidelines had brought about a lot of this problem. He felt there were several areas
where his Constitutional rights had been violated. He had been denied use of the channel
under equal protection because he had electronically obscured images of children. He
had been denied due process as there was no appeal process. He felt that battles would
always be fought about pornography and hate speeches.
PRESENTATIONS/AWARDS
6. Yard of the Month Awards
Mayor Miller presented the following yard of the Month awards:
Mary L. Downing
Luanne Hicks
Londonderry Oaks Apartments
James R. Kirkpatrick - Downtown Business Award
7. Texas Recycles Presentations
Mayor Miller presented Texas Recycles awards to several schools in the City of Denton.
CONSENT AGENDA
Council Members Young and Cochran asked that Item #13 be pulled for separate
consideration.
Brock motioned, Durrance seconded to approve the Consent Agenda and accompanying
ordinances with the exception of Item #13. On roll vote, Beasley “aye”, Kristoferson
“aye”, Cochran “aye”, Durrance “aye”, Young “aye”, Brock “aye”, and Mayor Miller
“aye”. Motion carried unanimously.
8. NO. 98-001
AN ORDINANCE ACCEPTING COMPETITIVE BIDS AND PROVIDING
FOR THE AWARD OF CONTRACTS FOR PUBLIC WORKS OR IMPROVEMENTS
FOR CONSTRUCTION OF BANNER, ULAND PAVING IMPROVEMENTS AND
STROUD-PIERCE PAVING TO DBR CONSTRUCTION IN THE AMOUNT OF
$103,748.00; PROVIDING FOR THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS THEREFOR; AND
PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. (Bid #2133 – Banner, Uland, Stroud &
Pierce Street Paving)
9. NO. 98-002
AN ORDINANCE ACCEPTING COMPETITIVE BIDS AND PROVIDING
FOR THE AWARD OF CONTRACTS FOR FEED WATER HEATER TUBE
REPLACEMENT TO YUBA HEAT TRANSFER DIVISION IN THE AMOUNT OF
$58,945.00; PROVIDING FOR THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS THEREFOR; AND
PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. (Bid #2139 – Feed Water Heater Tube
Replacement)
10. NO. 98-003
AN ORDINANCE PROVIDING FOR THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS FOR
THE PURCHASE OF BIOXIDE, A CHEMICAL FOR ODOR PROBLEMS, WHICH IS
A SOLE SOURCE ITEM IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF STATE
LAW EXEMPTING SUCH PURCHASES FROM REQUIREMENTS OF
COMPETITIVE BIDS; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. (PO #82109 –
U.S. Filter – Davis Process)
11. NO. 98-004
AN ORDINANCE ACCEPTING COMPETITIVE BIDS AND AWARDING A
CONTRACT FOR THE PURCHASE OF A TRIPLE GANG FLAIL MOWER AND 102
HORSEPOWER TRACTOR COMBINATION FROM BANE MACHINERY IN THE
AMOUNT OF $60,982; PROVIDING FOR THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS
THEREFOR; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. (Bid #2141 –
Tractor/Triple Gang Flail Mower)
12. NO. 98-005
AN ORDINANCE ACCEPTING COMPETITIVE BIDS AND AWARDING A
CONTRACT FOR THE PURCHASE OF AN AGRICULTURE TRACTOR AND
FLEXWING MOWER FROM G & G TRACTOR IN THE AMOUNT OF $40,108;
PROVIDING FOR THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS THEREFOR; AND PROVIDING
FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. (Bid #2143 – Agricultural Tractor and Flexwing Mower)
14. NO. R98-001
A RESOLUTION ADOPTING RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE DALLAS
REGIONAL MOBILITY COALITION EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE (DRMC)
FREEWAY MANAGEMENT WORKGROUP; REQUESTING DRMC MEMBER
AGENCIES TO ESTABLISH FREEWAY MANAGEMENT AND INCIDENT
REMOVAL FROM MAJOR ROADWAYS AS A PRIORITY; ENCOURAGING
AREA/REGIONAL ALLIANCES TO AFFECT EFFECTIVE FREEWAY
MANAGEMENT PRACTICES; EXPRESSING APPRECIATION TO MEMBERS OF
THE WORKGROUP FOR CONTINUED EFFORTS TO IMPROVE MOBILITY; AND
PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
PUBLIC HEARING
15. The Council held a public hearing and considered an ordinance to rezone
approximately 0.80 acres from the Two Family (2F) zoning district to the Commercial
(C) zoning district. The site was located on the north side of Parkway between Carroll
Boulevard and Bolivar Street. (Z-97-030) (The Planning and Zoning Commission
recommended approval, 5-0.)
Dave Hill, Director for Planning and Development, stated that this was a rezoning request
for a zoning change on a 0.8 acre parcel from 2- Family to Commercial district. The
property was on the north side of Parkway. The Planning and Zoning Commission
recommended approval, 5-0. There were fourteen notices mailed within 200 feet of the
proposal with three returned, all in favor. At the Planning and Zoning Commission
meeting, one individual, who owned property on Bolivar, was concerned about the
screening of her property and the day care center. During the response by the applicant,
her concerns were addressed and following that meeting, she elected not to file written
opposition. Area zoning contained 2-Family, office, small business and some residential
properties on the block. Floodplain and floodway issues were involved. The channel
behind the Chamber of Commerce office was in front of this site. Access to the site was
possible on the southeast corner of the property. Development in the floodway was not
permitted. The entire site was in a floodplain and would have to have structures built one
foot above flood elevation which was approximately 4.5 feet. The proposal was for
commercial zoning with the petitioner using the property for motor cycle fabrication with
no traffic associated with the proposal except for employees working in the facility. The
Denton Development Plan indicated that as a parcel within an urban center, intensity was
unlimited and land use diversity should be encouraged. There would be a requirement of
a 10 foot setback and a six foot screening fence along that setback.
Council Member Cochran asked about the availability of land for a driveway.
Hill stated that there was not more than 50 feet which would be enough for curb cut.
There was also an existing concrete pad curb cut on site.
Council Member Cochran asked about possible uses from the same zoning in the future.
Hill stated that the permitted uses in a commercial district were extensive.
Council Member Cochran asked how far the existing metal structure was from the
property line.
Hill stated that the petitioner indicated that it was within the required 10 foot setback but
the building would be grandfathered. It could be improved only as far as code would
allow until there was an expansion of use. The proposal was to also build a 2,000 square
foot building.
Mayor Pro Tem Brock stated that commercial zoning would allow for a wide variety of
uses.
Hill stated that commercial zoning allowed for a wide variety of uses but there would not
be a large amount of zoning types left to build on after taking away the floodway.
Council Member Kristoferson asked if the type of building material was discussed for the
new building.
Hill replied no.
Council Member Beasley asked about the existing structure on the property.
Hill stated that the Planning and Zoning Commission declined to do anything to negate
any use of that structure. That building would be a non-conforming use. There would
have to be screening of the proposal but the existing structure was within 10 foot setback
area.
Council Member Kristoferson asked that with straight commercial zoning could a
condition be included that the exterior of the building would not be metal.
Hill replied yes.
The Mayor opened the public hearing.
No one spoke in favor
No one spoke in opposition.
The Mayor closed the public hearing.
The following ordinance was considered:
NO. 98-007
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS PROVIDING FOR A
CHANGE FROM TWO FAMILY (2F) ZONING DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION TO
COMMERCIAL (C) ZONING DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION AND USE
DESIGNATION; AND IMPOSING CONDITION FOR 0.80 ACRES OF LAND
LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF PARKWAY STREET, BETWEEN CARROLL
BOULEVARD AND BOLIVAR STREET; PROVIDING FOR A PENALTY IN THE
MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF $2,000.00 FOR VIOLATIONS THEREOF; AND
PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE
.
Kristoferson motioned, Brock seconded to adopt the ordinance with the condition that the
exterior could not metal.
Council Member Cochran stated that there were worse materials than metal and that
Council Member Kristoferson might want to mention those which she would not want.
He asked how close the existing building was to the property line and if there were any
limitations for the usage for the building. He was concerned that that building might be
used for an assembly facility with noise and no restrictions on time of usage.
Hill stated that the applicants indicated that they would not be putting cycles together on
this site. The final assembly would be at a different site and that only the rebuilding of
engine parts would take place on this site. There would be no oil or gas leakage on this
site. There would be storage of small parts and final small engine work on site. He did
not think the outbuilding was protected through the rezoning process.
City Attorney Prouty stated that when a non-conforming use was changed, the non-
conforming use was lost and could not be expanded.
Council Member Young stated that he had a problem with the motion. The Council
should not be able to tell an individual what type of material to use when building a
structure. He was not in favor of the extra expense of not being able to use a metal
building.
Council Member Kristoferson stated that Parkway was an entrance into the downtown
area of the City. That should be considered when building new structures in the area.
She restated that her motion dealt with the restriction of a metal exterior.
Council Member Young stated that he was still against the motion. These types of
restrictions were what made businesses not want to come to Denton.
Council Member Beasley stated that she was concerned that the metal building was
against residential property with no setback requirements. She questioned if an
amendment could be made to only grandfather the building in as a storage facility as
suggested by Council Member Cochran. She was in favor of the motion as this was a
highly visible area.
Beasley motioned, Cochran seconded an amendment to the motion to allow the current
metal building to be used only for storage.
Council Member Cochran stated that this was still a residential area and that should be
taken into consideration when considering the zoning.
Council Member Young stated that it was un-American to not allow a metal building on
the site. This would make it hard for this new business. There were nice metal buildings
depending on the style of design.
Mayor Miller felt it was too restrictive to not allow a metal building and to only allow
storage for the existing building.
On rollvote on the amendment to not allow any use of the existing building other than a
storage shed, Beasley “aye”, Kristoferson “aye”, Cochran “aye”, Durrance “aye”, Young
“nay”, Brock “aye”, and Mayor Miller “nay”. Motion carried with a 5-2 vote.
On rollvote of the main motion as amended, Beasley “aye”, Kristoferson “aye”, Cochran
“aye”, Durrance “aye”, Young “nay”, Brock “aye”, and Mayor Miller “nay”. Motion
carried with a 5-2 vote.
ITEMS FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION
Item #13 from the Consent Agenda was considered.
13. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance of the City of Denton, Texas
prohibiting parking on the south side of East Sycamore Street between Exposition Street
and Bradshaw Street; providing a savings clause; providing a severability clause;
providing a penalty not to exceed two hundred dollars; and declaring an effective date.
Council Member Young felt that the restriction of parking in the area was not necessary
as there were no problems in the area. There were problems in other parts of the City.
He asked where else in Denton was there a fine as high as $200 for no parking. Citizens
in the area had not asked for this restriction and were not in favor of it.
The following ordinance was considered:
NO. 98-006
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS PROHIBITING
PARKING ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF EAST SYCAMORE STREET BETWEEN
EXPOSITION STREET AND BRADSHAW STREET; PROVIDING A SAVINGS
CLAUSE; PROVIDING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; PROVIDING A PENALTY
NOT TO EXCEED TWO HUNDRED DOLLARS; AND DECLARING AN
EFFECTIVE DATE.
Young motioned, Cochran seconded to deny the ordinance.
City Attorney Prouty stated that $200 was the maximum allowed on parking fines. That
did not mean that amount had to be imposed. Traditionally the maximum amount of the
fine was listed in the ordinance.
Mayor Pro Tem Brock indicated that the back-up materials stated the people who
operated a club in the area had some difficulties and had asked for this restriction.
Mike Jez, Assistant City Manager for Operations, stated that the area commander had
been approached by residents in the area. There was a policing problem in the area as
well as a litter problem. This would help the police department control the illegal
activities in the area and would help the Parks Department control the litter in area.
Council Member Beasley stated that the time restriction was not listed in the ordinance
but was indicated in the back-up materials.
Mayor Miller stated that the time would be 10:00 p.m. - 7:00 a.m.
Council Member Young asked if a thirty day waiting period could be issued before
beginning to issue any tickets.
City Attorney Prouty stated that typically this type of ordinance was effective fourteen
days from date of passage and that it could be changed to 30 days from date of passage.
Council Member Young withdrew his motion.
Young motioned, Beasley seconded to adopt the ordinance with the hours of restriction
being 10:00 p.m. - 7:00 a.m. and effective 30 days from date of passage. On roll vote,
Beasley “aye”, Kristoferson “aye”, Cochran “aye”, Durrance “aye”, Young “aye”, Brock
“aye”, and Mayor Miller “aye”. Motion carried unanimously.
16. The Council considered approval of a resolution authorizing a Small Area
Planning Program; authorizing a Small Area Planning Program for Fry Street and
downtown areas; and providing for an effective date.
Dave Hill, Director of Planning and Development, stated that this resolution would
approve the Small Area Planning Program for the Fry Street and the downtown area.
Mayor Miller asked if this ordinance defined an area or would it be done in principle.
Hill stated that it would define boundaries.
The following ordinance was considered:
NO. R98-002
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING A SMALL AREA PLANNING PROGRAM;
AUTHORIZING A SMALL AREA PLANNING PROGRAM FOR FRY STREET AND
DOWNTOWN AREAS; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Beasley motioned, Durrance seconded to approve the resolution.
Council Member Durrance stated that this was a part of the Denton Development Plan
that the Council was working on and that it would eventually include other areas of the
City. He invited citizen input regarding this process.
Council Member Young stated that he was against this proposal as people in the area had
not participated enough in the process. Much of the work was done by staff with little
public input.
Mayor Pro Tem Brock stated that this resolution would allow the residents in an area to
begin indicating what they wanted for that area. Citizens in this area could initiate the
planning in this area. This would not be imposed on an area without resident
participation and input. This would help to reinforce the strength of the city and strong
neighborhoods.
Council Member Cochran stated that it was often a problem trying to fit a “one size” plan
throughout the community. This resolution allowed for variances within the City to make
a good community. It would empower the people who lived in these smaller area to
participate in the project and to know that their opinions mattered.
Council Member Beasley stated that this was only the beginning of the process. It was
not approving any plans for Fry street or the downtown area. This only began the process
and was to receive input from the residents in the area.
Council Member Young stated that this was anti-business legislation which he was
against.
On roll vote, Beasley “aye”, Kristoferson “aye”, Cochran “aye”, Durrance “aye”, Young
“nay”, Brock “aye”, and Mayor Miller “aye”. Motion carried with a 6-1 vote.
17. The Council received a report, held a discussion, and gave staff direction
regarding reinstating the Tax Abatement Policy.
Linda Ratliff, Director of Economic Development, stated that the next three items were
related. Staff wanted Council direction on this item before considering the next two. The
City's tax abatement policy expired in 1996. At that time the Joint Tax Abatement Policy
Committee was considering amending the policy to include special provisions for
business which met FANTUS targeted industries or businesses which met the VISION
initiative. The process of looking at the tax abatement policy was put on hold until after
the legislative session closed. There were four applications to consider. The staff was
asking and what the committee had recommended was that the Council reinstate the
policy as it stood and consider the four tax abatement applications. Then look at
amending the policy and future applications would be considered under the new amended
policy.
Council Member Cochran stated that under the section dealing with consideration of
application, it was indicated that the Council" may" consider a resolution calling a public
hearing. The next section stated that the Council "may" consider a public hearing to
determine whether a project was feasible. He suggested changing those "mays" to
"shalls" as he felt this was an important enough issue that a public hearing was a basic
procedure to ensure that citizens would be informed about what was going on.
Mayor Pro Tem Brock stated that the earlier joint tax abatement committee had proposed
some housekeeping amendments to the policy but they were put on hold due to the last
legislative session. The joint tax abatement committee had a meeting scheduled in the
future to consider the three existing businesses in Denton with applications. The plan
was to go ahead with future meetings to work on proposals for changing the policy. The
committee would like to have Council suggestions at this stage for consideration by the
committee.
Brock motioned, Durrance seconded to reinstate the policy with the suggested changes as
suggested by Council Member Cochran.
City Attorney Prouty stated that a motion should give staff direction to bring a policy to
Council with recommended changes.
Brock motioned, Durrance seconded to direct staff to move ahead with the process.
Council Member Durrance stated that the policy was passed over ten years ago with few
applications in that time period. Policies were somewhat loose and there was a greater
need for review and rework of the policy. Reinstatement at this time was right as the
applications were made with this policy in mind and the City needed to be fair to reinstate
policy
On roll vote, Beasley “aye”, Kristoferson “aye”, Cochran “aye”, Durrance “aye”, Young
“aye”, Brock “aye”, and Mayor Miller “aye”. Motion carried unanimously.
18. The Council received a report, held a discussion, and gave staff direction
regarding establishing a reinvestment zone for tax abatement purposes.
Linda Ratliff, Director of Economic Development, stated that in order to grant a tax
abatement agreement, the property for the agreement must be located in a reinvestment
zone. The City had designated two reinvestment zones along with enterprise zones in
1990 and the enterprise zones expired in 1997. Some cities looked at large industrial
tracts and established zones in those areas. Staff recommended looking at each request to
establish a zone.
Mayor Pro Tem Brock recommended to take this targeted approach and go ahead to
direct staff to schedule a public hearing regarding this issue as soon as possible. The
public hearing would be for these targeted areas.
Brock motioned, Durrance seconded to direct staff to proceed with a targeted approach
and to schedule a public hearing regarding this issue as soon as possible.
Council Member Cochran stated that the motion was contingent on the City reaching an
agreement with the property. If no abatement was granted for that parcel, no zone would
be necessary.
City Attorney Prouty stated that this would be contingent on reaching on agreement with
the firm and contingent on Council approval of Item #19.
On roll vote, Beasley “aye”, Kristoferson “aye”, Cochran “aye”, Durrance “aye”, Young
“aye”, Brock “aye”, and Mayor Miller “aye”. Motion carried unanimously.
19. The Council received a report, held a discussion, and gave staff direction
regarding a tax abatement agreement between the City of Denton and United Copper
Industries/Trammell Crow Company.
Mayor Miller indicated that the DISD had met this evening regarding this item and had
voted 6-1 to grant a 5 year 15% abatement or its equivalent.
Linda Ratliff, Director of Economic Development, stated that United Copper Industries
was interested in locating a 420,000 square foot manufacturing distribution and
headquarters facility on Highway 380 east of Loop 288. United Cooper was a Mexican
owned company which produced copper wiring, fittings and pipes. This project would
mean an additional $37 million in property tax valuation for building and equipment if
the abatement were granted. There were some problems with the topography of the site.
The company was considering other communities but it was hoped that they would come
to Denton. Even though the figures showed a ten year impact, the company planned to
build a twenty-thirty year facility. Reasons that staff and the abatement committee was
recommending approval included: (1) it fit several Fantus and Vision initiatives; (2)
provided 260 high paying high skill jobs the first year; (3) the company fell within one of
the targeted companies identified by Fantus. Many times Denton was overlooked as it
did not have developed industrial parks. Fantus indicated that Denton should capitalize
on its proximity to Mexico. She reviewed the community economic impact figures for the
City, County and DISD and the 10 year cost/benefit analysis of the proposal. The City of
Denton economic impact would be $21,367,447.
Council Member Cochran stated that he had seen the abatement compared to the new
taxes which would be generated. The only problem was that the abatement for 5 years or
six years and the new tax generated was for ten years. He asked for a better comparison
in order to have a better idea of the proportions involved.
Ratliff stated that annually the City's abatement would be $57,117 and annually the City's
gross taxes would be $190,389. Manufacturing jobs had an additional impact on a
community with new jobs, retail sales and additional personal income. The value of this
industry would be equal to 371 new $100,000 homes but the project would not place a
demand on schools and city services which those new homes might create. The proposed
provisions for the abatement included: the company would be required to use the City's
electric service; it must create 260 jobs with an annual payroll of $18 million;, it must
build a 420,000 square foot facility; it must create a total of $37 million in building and
equipment ad valorem property value; the building could not be of metal construction;
the building would resemble the drawing submitted; if the company did not meet the
valuation or the jobs in payroll criteria, the abatement would be reduced by the
percentage the criteria was not met. The Joint Tax Abatement Committee unanimously
recommended the agreement.
Council Member Cochran stated that he had noted some discrepancies between previous
information on this issue and information presented in the agenda back-up materials.
One such discrepancy was on utilities. The previous document projected that the utilities
benefit to the City would be $7,936,000 over a 10 year period but the back-up materials
indicated that that figure was now $19 million.
Ratliff stated that in working with the company and getting closer figures on their actual
usage and demand, the back-up materials had the latest figures.
Council Member Cochran asked for the actual benefit figure rather than the gross benefit.
Ratliff indicated that she did not have that figure.
Council Member Cochran asked about the low end of the salary range or the entry level
salary.
Ratliff stated that the company would provide a list of the number of executives and
managers with the salary ranges of each position. The company would insure that that
number was not skewed by the executive staff.
Brock motioned, Durrance seconded to approve the abatement. She stated that when
abatements were used cautiously, they were a good way for a community to reach its
goals. Such abatements added to quality of life and indirectly to economic growth. This
application fit the purposes of the original policy. She and Council Member Durrance
were the City's representatives on the Joint Committee and were recommending the
proposal because it met the chart of the policy to grant a 25% abatement for 6 years or a
30% for 5 years which was really the same amount. The County procedure mandated
30% for 5 years. There were a number of reasons for granting this abatement. The
project would expand the tax base and would create the least drain on City and DISD
services. There would be a 70-75% net gain for the City and was a way to keep the
City’s tax base low. The project would bring high-skill, high-paying jobs to the City and
would employ people already in the surrounding area. Many people came to Denton to
work as Denton was a regional employment center, a medical care center and a shopping
center. It helped to spread the fixed cost to have larger users for the utilities. This would
be the national headquarters for this company and would benefit Denton. There were
safeguards built in agreement would be reviewed annually and if the provisions of the
agreement were not kept, the company would not receive the abatement.
Council Member Durrance stated that it was proper to consider these proposals on a case
by case basis. This location had both problems and benefits and the proposal would
follow the suggestions of Fantus and the Vision process. Employee skills for these jobs
would be drawn from this area. This was a reverse benefit of NAFTA and would be
beneficial to Denton. This type of business would greatly benefit Denton.
Council Member Cochran asked if the motion made by Mayor Pro Tem Brock precluded
hearing from citizens on the subject.
Mayor Miller indicated that he would still acknowledge the citizen in the audience
wanting to speak on the issue.
Bill Giese stated that the City was trying to attract good businesses to Denton and in
order to do so, negotiations had to take place. The bottom line was if this would benefit
the community and he felt it would. The firm was fiscally responsible, employment
salaries were of a good income level, the company had reasonable training opportunities
and had a policy of non-discrimination. There was a need to recognize the opportunity
for spin-offs. There were three possibilities to consider - a traditional business with a tax
abatement, a business without abatement or no business.
Chuck Carpenter stated that the Executive Committee Members of the Chamber of
Commerce were here to thank the City for considering this request.
Mayor Miller stated that he had speaker cards in support of the proposal from Dick
Smith, Bill Patterson, Perry McNeill, Tony Clark, and George Highfill.
Council Member Cochran stated that he did not want his remarks to be misconstrued as
being against this particular plant. He did not think it was bad but would be a wonderful
thing to have in Denton. His only hesitation was the terms in which the company
indicated that it would come to Denton by discounting taxes to the company. He felt there
was amply public sentiment that was philosophically opposed to this in general. He did
not receive answers to the questions he had about the figures associated with the
proposal. He did not receive an answer to the question of what the actual utilities would
cost. He resented the fact that rather than an objective analysis to the question to allow
decisions makers to make an objective decision, there was boosterism more than anything
else. Smoke and mirrors needed to be removed in order to analyze this in an objective
manner. The question of utilities still disturbed him. There was a large movement
around the country that viewed tax abatements as a bad thing. He felt it was one
community bidding against another for a company. To him it seemed like a case of big
city slickers duping country bumpkins. They had been told that unless Denton
discounted its fine community and lowered the tax rate, the company did not want to do
business in Denton. There was no commitment that the company would locate in
Denton. Denton was a community which should sell itself. In hard economic time, he
could see that there perhaps would be an argument for bending the rules but this case not
the case now. It would have been helpful to discuss how much the cost would be for the
infrastructure to service the facility. That should have been on the table for
consideration. He felt the Council had not received good numbers regarding the proposal.
There were no figures for the cost of a road, sewer/water service, or electrical generation.
Dave Noble stated that a few members of Council were not able to listen to Dean
Brown’s message. This project looked at communities for a sense of community. Mr.
Brown's directive was to look for a community for a win-win proposal. The communities
looked at were free standing and the proposal did not come to the communities with a
hand out. The communities offered these proposals.
Mayor Miller stated that some comments made by Council Member Cochran were
unfortunate. They did not give credit to the City nor to the proposal. Prior Councils
developed an abatement policy as it was necessary to be competitive. That did not mean
that the Council would give the City away. An abatement was similar to receiving a
grant from the state or federal government where the City had to match the grant dollars.
In this case, the City would not be receiving full taxes for a number of years in order to
attract the business and then would receive the full amount of taxes after that. It was his
understanding that the lower salary rates would be in excess of $10 per hour. Two major
products would be produced at this plant. This would be a great industry for Denton as it
would be a current business for many years. He felt that word tax abatement was an
inflammatory word. If there was a different system in Texas it might not have to be
done. Denton was a great community and it would be a mistake for United Copper to not
to come here. Denton had a good quality of life with a concern for the level of services
offered.
Mayor Pro Tem Brock stated that the abatement agreement indicated that the United
Copper building would be a generic building which could be used for something else in
the future if necessary. The Committee was not looking for a high employee number and
it was not critical with the committee. This was not a bidding war as there was no back
and forth among the communities. Other communities might have larger resources which
could offer more to the proposal.
Council Member Beasley stated that she always tried to look at both sides of the question,
both sides of the factors involved. There were great pros for the project and a few cons.
Even though in some ways it was hard to give a tax abatement, she was in favor of the
project. This project would bring increased value to the City and increased taxes to the
community.
Council Member Kristoferson felt that Council Member Cochran's perspective was
healthy as it was important in a community such as Denton that all perspectives of the
spectrum were represented. She stated that her decision to vote for the proposal was
based on the growth numbers. In a very short few years the City would be asked to
absorb a 5-10% growth rate. She questioned if the City could afford to absorb more
homes without considering diversification of the tax base. She called the question.
Mayor Miller indicated that Council Member Young had already requested to speak.
Council Member Young stated that competition was the American way. He felt Council
Member Cochran was against economic development. The City of Denton and the
citizens in Denton were excited about this company. This company could increase the
standard of living in Denton. Denton would be a good neighbor for this company and
wanted it to come to Denton.
City Manager Benavides stated that the fixed utility costs were already there. If the
power costs and fixed costs were spread to more customers, it would benefit the City.
The State was committed to improve Highway 380 at the location. There was no profit
margins in the figures. There would be a profit from water, solid waste, etc. The figures
were lower to provide a conservative estimate.
On roll vote for the motion to proceed with a 30% 5 year abatement, Beasley “aye”,
Kristoferson “aye”, Cochran “nay”, Durrance “aye”, Young “aye”, Brock “aye”, and
Mayor Miller “aye”. Motion carried with a 6-1 vote.
20. The Council consider nominations/appointments to City’s Boards and
Commissions.
Mayor Miller had nominated Teresa Starrett to the Library Board at a prior meeting. On
roll vote, Beasley “aye”, Kristoferson “aye”, Cochran “aye”, Durrance “aye”, Young
“aye”, Brock “aye”, and Mayor Miller “aye”. Motion carried unanimously.
Council Member Kristoferson nominated Julia Klinck to the Cable T.V. Advisory Board.
21. Miscellaneous matters from the City Manager.
Mayor Miller stated that the Council would be receiving a report from the City Manager
on an item from the last Council meeting. This was not a posted item and the Council
would only be receiving a report. There would be no Council discussion on the item.
There were speaker cards on this item and as a courtesy to those citizens, the Council
would allow them to speak.
City Manager Benavides stated that at the last meeting, Council asked staff to report back
regarding new technology regarding fire helmets for the Fire Department.
Chief Ross Chadwick stated that the City Manager had authorized him to develop
specifications and go out for bid for two helmets. That would be done in 30-60 days.
One helmet would be placed in the battalion chief's vehicle and the other would be on the
quint. The helmets would be reviewed for effectiveness before purchasing more.
Don White stated that the Denton Greater Caucus had voted on this issue but it failed due
to lack of information. The Caucus was many organizations and no one could speak for
that group except for the chair. The Caucus had supported the Director of Emergency
Services and Fire Chief Chadwick. He would not attempt to micro-manage the budget of
the Council.
Doug Coggeshall introduced Lee Milton who demonstrated the helmet for the Council.
The cost of the helmet was $25,000 each and the technology came out of the military.
22. New Business
There were no items of New Business suggested by Council Members for future agendas.
23. There was no continuation of the Closed Meeting under Sections 551-071–
551.085 of the Texas Open Meetings Act.
24. There was no official action on Closed Meeting items held under Section 551-
071–551.085 of the Texas Open Meetings Act.
With no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 11:10 p.m.
________________________ __________________________
JENNIFER WALTERS JACK MILLER, MAYOR
CITY SECRETARY CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS