Minutes January 13, 1998CITY OF DENTON CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
January 13, 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 13, 1998 at 5:15 p.m. in the
Council Work Session Room of City Hall.
PRESENT: Mayor Pro Tem Brock; Council Members Beasley, Cochran, Durrance,
Kristoferson, Young
ABSENT: Mayor Miller
1. Closed Meeting:
A. Conference with Employees – Under TEX. GOV’T. CODE Sec. 551.075.
The Council received information from employees during a staff conference or briefing,
but did not deliberate during the conference.
The Council convened into a Work Session on Tuesday, January 13, 1998 at 6:00 p.m. in
the City Council Work Session Room at City Hall
PRESENT: Mayor Pro Tem Brock; Council Members Beasley, Cochran, Durrance,
Kristoferson, and Young.
ABSENT: Mayor Miller
1. The Council received a report, held a discussion, and gave staff direction
regarding impact fees.
Jill Jordan, Interim Director of Water/Wastewater, introduced Walter Huelsman, National
Director of the Government Utility Group and Bob McClain, Senior Managing
Consultant for David M. Griffith & Associates, Ltd.
Mr. Huelsman reviewed DMG's qualifications. He went into a quick overview of the
impact fee study process. He stated there was a logical development the city must go
through and there were laws a city must follow when looking at impact fees. The city
had to determine their needs and where more capacity would be needed. A ten-year CIP
program had to be identified to ensure the city could service what they wanted to
accomplish. Impact fees were one way to finance this growth.
Mr. McClain stated that they would go over some of the questions and concerns Council
voiced at the previous briefing on impact fees. He stated that as part of the process a
capital improvement advisory committee had to be appointed. This CIP committee
would report to the City Council twice a year on the progress of the capital improvement
plan. DMG would help the Council through the decision-making process. They would
also make sure that the reporting process was established, in the event anyone ever came
back to challenge the City, they would actually be able to prove not just how the fees
were collected but also what projects the funds were spent on. Mr. McClain went
through the surveys. Of 35 cities in high growth areas, Highland Village ranked among
the highest impact fees. The City of Garland had near the lowest. The impact fee was
collected per 5/8” meter equivalent.
Council Member Beasley asked if a 5/8" meter was one house.
McClain stated that when the council went through the impact fee study process, it would
determine what would be a service unit––for most cities, it was a 5/8” meter equivalent.
Council Member Young asked if the price of the house affected the impact fee.
McClain stated no. There were different methods of setting impact fees. The volume
method would basically be what the average customer already paid into the water assets.
Another way was the incremental method. The mortgage payment would basically be
what the impact fee would be based on.
Council Member Young asked if there was an impact fee on remodeling a house.
McClain stated no, as long as the use of the house was not changed. For example, if
someone bought a house and remodeled it into a restaurant. Based on the change from a
5/8” meter to a 2” meter, the impact fee would be based on the incremental difference
between the two.
Mayor Pro Tem Brock stated that it appeared that the higher impact fees were in the cities
with rapid growth.
McClain stated that part of the impact fee process was determining what percentage the
city could charge, what the market could stand. Another factor had to do with
transportation fees. Very few cities charged transportation fees, although some cities
were considering them. There were some restrictions such as a three-mile circumference
around the benefit area around a roadway. DMG’s expertise was in water and sewer and
not in the transportation area. Another consideration was the percentage of the maximum
impact fee that could be collected by a city. 56-57% of the maximum impact fee, based
on a cost basis, could be charged. When calculating impact fees per service unit, the total
eligible cost, which was the capacity cost within the 10-year time window, was divided
into the number of units expected to grow. This would be the maximum impact fee the
city could charge. The percent of the maximum impact fee charged had to be consistent,
as all citizens within the city had to be treated the same.
Council Member Beasley asked why 100% of the impact fee wasn’t used.
McClain stated that to use 100%, the city’s costs would have to be accurate or when it
came down to the reconciliation after the 10-year period, refunds might have to be made.
Council Member Young asked if an impact fee could be raised or lowered.
McClain stated yes, it could be adjusted after all the information from the study was in.
The study needed to be updated every three years. If the growth rate had accelerated or
the city’s assumptions had changed substantially, it could be done every year.
McClain stated that impact fees were typically assessed at the planning stage. Some were
collected at the building permit stage, some at the platting stage.
Council Member Young asked how an impact fee on an apartment building was
determined.
McClain stated it would be based on the impact fee schedule the council developed.
McClain stated that in 1987, a law was passed that mandated each city adopt impact fees
for water and sewer per service area. The law gave cities a three-year grace period; so
many cities enacted impact fees in 1990. He stated that out of 35 cities, eighteen
completed the comprehensive plan before the impact fee study process. Twenty cities
completed water and sewer master plans before the impact fee study process. The City of
DeSoto has had to refund transportation fees. Grand Prairie has had to refund all three
types of impact fees. The development rate of the cities with impact fees had not been
affected. The majority of the cities in the survey were among the highest growth rate
cities in Texas: Plano, Flower Mound, The Colony, Highland Village, McKinney, and
Southlake.
Council Member Young asked if they had looked at any cities in which the growth rate
declined after impact fees were enacted.
McClain stated that he was not aware of any that had. Huelsman stated that impact fees
did not seem to affect the growth rate. Some developers may have to be included in a
grandfather clause on property they already had purchased. Other developers would
include the impact fee in the selling price of the property in their development.
Council Member Young asked if impact fees affected affordable housing.
Huelsman stated no.
McClain reviewed some of the pitfalls of the impact fee study process. He said a city had
to make sure the CIP was comprehensive. When land use assumptions were defined, the
potential growth areas would be defined, which could be controversial. There would be a
large amount of time and effort related to the administration of the fees, such as keeping a
list of owners who had contributed impact fees and submitting a semi-monthly report to
Council on the CIP. The city must ensure funds were spent on projects in the CIP and
ensure timely reconciliation of actual expenditures.
McClain reviewed some of the benefits of the impact fee study process. Impact fees
addressed the concerns that growth did not pay its own way. The fees helped keep down
the debt service component of rates. Impact fees, such as Allen, Corinth, Flower Mound,
Highland Village, Keller, Lancaster, and Plano had offset some cities’ rates. McClain
stated that in enacting impact fees they were not loading down the present customers who
had been with them for years.
Jordan stated that they had interviewed six consulting firms to look at land planning and
wastewater management. Two firms had been selected to do the studies. These reports
would be brought back before Council in mid-February.
The Council received a report, held a discussion, and gave staff direction regarding a
proposed park dedication ordinance. The Parks and Recreation Board recommended
approval, 3-0.
Ed Hodney, Director of Parks & Recreation, stated that the proposed ordinance applied to
all residential development, multi-family, as well as single family. Requirements for the
ordinance were based on a standard of 2.5 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents and a
service area of 1 square mile. The minimum neighborhood park size would be 5 acres.
This ordinance established two kinds of fees–full land and facility development costs for
a typical 5-acre neighborhood park.
Mayor Pro Tem Brock asked that once a linear park plan and trailway plan was in place
would it be possible to add these to the park ordinance.
Hodney stated yes.
Council Member Beasley asked if this was normal, if this was what other cities were
doing.
Hodney stated yes, communities were using the fees they collected to develop or buy
parkland.
Council Member Young asked if he was building a house, would he have to pay any fees.
Hodney stated that the ordinance was set up to apply to developers.
Mayor Pro Tem Brock wanted to get an idea how big a 5-acre park was.
Hodney stated Fred Moore Park was about 7 acres. He stated that the ordinance was set
up to allow for maneuverability if a circumstance for less than a 5-acre park came up. A
5-acre minimum was typical of other ordinances examined. Land requirements and fee
calculations were based on 2.8 persons per single-family and 1.8 persons per multi-family
dwelling units. Fees and/or land dedication would be due prior to final plat approval.
Proposed requirements would not be applied to previously approved plats that were in
compliance with existing subdivision regulations as of the ordinance adoption date.
Hodney stated the ordinance provided a basis for land fee calculation for developments of
less than 714 single-family units or 1,111 multi-family dwelling units. The formula was
2.5 acres x (number of proposed dwelling units) x (persons per unit) divided by 1000 =
park acreage required to serve the development. To establish the value for the acreage,
the appraisal district valuation could be used or the City could buy its own letter of
valuation. The land fee calculation was determined by the acreage required x pre-
development value of the land per acre divided by the number of dwelling units proposed
in the preliminary plat. The land dedication calculation for developments equal to and
greater than 714 single family or 1,111 multi-family dwelling units was 2.5 acres x (no.
of proposed dwelling units) x (persons per unit) divided by 1,000 and that figure would
be the number of acres to be dedicated.
Hodney stated he estimated the park development costs of a typical neighborhood park at
$208,000. For a typical 5-acre park, this included basic infrastructure and sitework
(parking and driveway, utilities, grading/drainage, and demolition and cleanup),
playground, picnic shelter, multi-use court (tennis court, basketball court, roller hockey
court), site furniture (picnic tables and benches), walks/trails, amenities (may include
goals, backstops, irrigation, landscaping and turf, lighting and signage), and
design/contingencies.
Council Member Beasley asked if a developer came in and wanted to give a 5-acre park
even though the requirement was less, could it be accepted and would the developer still
have to pay the development fee, or could some kind of allowance be made.
Hodney stated there were two ways to deal with that as the ordinance provided for some
flexibility. More land, essentially as credit, dollar for dollar could be accepted for what
would be required by the park development fee. It depended on the situation, if it was a
piece of property the City really wanted or if it was flood plain land to preserve.
Council Member Young asked about someone putting in a development right across from
where there already was a park.
Hodney stated the ordinance had an allowance for that providing certain criteria were
met. He stated the ordinance also provided for fees and/or land dedication due at the time
of the final plat. Collected fees must be spent to acquire and/or develop the parkland
within one mile of the periphery of the subdivision. The City must spend the collected
fees within ten years of collection. If not, the original fees may be refunded to the
developer or heirs upon written request. Dedicated land was considered acceptable if at
least 25% was out of the 100-year flood plain; at least 50% had slopes of less than 5%; it
was free of debris, hazardous substances, underground tanks; it had reasonable street
frontage. Additional flood plain acreage may be dedicated at a ratio of 3:1, in lieu of
non-flood plain land. A partial credit of up to 50% against land dedication and fee
requirements may be applied to proposed private recreation land and facilities. Park
development fees would be adjusted annually, in accordance with the Consumer Price
Index. A comparison of park fees from different cities was discussed. Ft. Worth and
McKinney did not collect the development fees.
Council Member Kristoferson stated it was interesting that cities outside of Denton had
sports complexes and that citizens in Denton had questioned why Denton didn’t have
any.
Hodney stated that some cities collected a fee on all parks, not just neighborhood parks.
Council Member Young asked if this would apply to commercial development.
Hodney stated no, it was rare for cities to have a commercial land dedication. Hodney
stated two public hearings were held at the Planning & Zoning Commission meetings.
The first public hearing was held January 5, 1998. Comments received included: (1)
additional parkland was not needed; (2) there may not be maintenance budget for added
land; (3) the ordinance gave the City too much time–(ten years to spend fees on a new
park; five years would be more reasonable); (4) there was a concern the developers had
little influence over the park location; (5) one-half to one-mile service distance was too
far; (6) it added too much cost to the price of a home, especially when impact fees were
enacted; (7) it was not needed, since development generated taxes to cover costs of new
public facilities; (8) the City was doing too much at once (park dedication, impact fees,
landscape ordinance); and (9) may not be able to afford to develop property. The
following were comments from the public hearing held January 7, 1998: (1) the fees may
be too high; (2) establish a fixed land fee, rather than variable; (3) one-half mile service
radius too far; (4) how to ensure proximity; (5) how to apply the ordinance in areas where
land was not available for purchase; (6) should not apply to development in ETJ; (7)
might be okay with land dedication, but not the park development fee; (8) should a
variable park development fee be included, to be based on development determined by
the residents; (9) high fees would adversely impact affordable housing goals; (10) reduce
the minimum park size to less than five acres, thereby decreasing the fees; (11) fees were
too high in comparison to competition; and (12) the City was not committed to
maintaining its existing parks, let alone additional parklands.
Council Member Cochran stated that in regards to the minimum park size required and
the expense required to develop it, it seemed there would be a place in the community for
some smaller, less expensive parks that could be open spaces with a tree and a bench. He
stated that the cost of development of these parks might be lower if an alternative style of
park were developed, maybe with fewer amenities. He stated he was in favor of the
ordinance but would like to see a few adjustments made to it.
Mayor Pro Tem Brock stated the idea of smaller parks that were not typical parks such as
greenspace needed to be incorporated into the ordinance.
Council Member Young stated that he was opposed to the park dedication ordinance
altogether. He felt it would add too much to the cost of homes and put a strain on
affordable housing. The City was going to put too many burdens on developers and they
would go somewhere else. The City was not committed to maintaining existing parks, let
alone additional parks. He stated the policy should stay as it was–voluntary. It had
worked that way for years. He stated he did not see the urgency in implementing this at
this time, maybe five or ten years down the road.
Council Member Kristoferson stated affordable housing was being limited. Some type of
fee was needed to accommodate the growth that was coming here. This should be a
burden shared by others.
Council Member Beasley stated there was a need to plan for Denton’s growth. The
people of Denton that came to the public meetings for the Capital Improvements
Programs wanted better parks, more parks, better amenities in the parks. The City
needed to plan now. She felt this was a good policy. Operation and maintenance of
parks would be possible with the population growth and the taxes from new homes.
Council Member Durrance felt the ordinance with minor changes was good. He stated
this was a major part of future planning. Developments under way now don’t have this.
Council Member Cochran felt a provision needed to be added to the ordinance allowing
for the nearest park to have amenities added if there was no land available for a new park
in a new development.
Mayor Pro Tem Brock stated there was a need to place the cost of new growth on new
developments. She stated that children who live in subdivisions with smaller homes on
smaller lots needed the parks more so than children who live in areas with large homes on
large lots. People looking for affordable housing were going to look at availability of
nearby parks.
Hodney stated that it was his intention to bring the ordinance back before council next
week in final draft for adoption.
Mayor Pro Tem Brock stated she would like the suggestions that had been made to be
incorporated in the final draft.
Council Member Durrance stated that he would like to see the final draft of the ordinance
with changes.
Council Member Cochran suggested that on page 4 of the contract the number of required
elements for private parks be reduced which would increase flexibility. He stated just
having a green space was not bad.
City Manager Benavides stated that he saw a trend of comparability and standards. One
neighborhood wanted what another neighborhood had. Because there weren’t these
dedication fees a large part of the debt capacity was used trying to play catch up and also
trying to develop and maintain. Park development fees would create capacity in the bond
program where policies could be made towards this and more dollars would be available
to accrue from the development fees for maintenance and would provide the flexibility to
buy land for parks.
Mayor Pro Tem Brock stated that the public was not going to distinguish between private
land and how it was acquired. The public was going to see a substandard park and want
to know why that park was not as nice. The City would have to subsidize funds for
private parks.
Council Member Young stated that citizens that had attended the public meetings were
against the park ordinance. This was a new tax along with the impact fees.
Council Member Cochran asked if a homeowners association or the City of Denton
would own private parks.
Hodney stated that in the past the homeowners associations had owned them but had been
known to give up a park facility that was substandard and come back to the City Council
and expected the Council to solve their problem.
Mayor Pro Tem Brock stated that it would seem that this would benefit homeowners in
Denton.
City Manager Benavides stated staff would bring this back to Council at the January 27th
meeting for briefing and the February 3rd meeting for approval.
3. The Council received a report, held a discussion, and gave staff direction regarding
operational issues associated with Ray Roberts Lake.
Howard Martin, Assistant City Manager for Utilities, stated there were three issues
relating to Lake Ray Roberts. The first issue involved current activities as they related to
TPWD. The second issue was current developments as they related to Jordan Park. The
third issue involved future concerns as they related to the control of development on Lake
Ray Roberts.
Martin stated that Lake Ray Roberts was a 30,000-acre lake. It had 18,000 acres of
parkland and protected wildlife. There were two recreation parks – Isle Du Bois and
Johnson Branch. It had five access areas. There was a waterfowl sanctuary and wetlands
management area. These were all operated by the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department.
An area called the Greenbelt, which was a long narrow development that connected Lake
Ray Roberts and Lake Lewisville along the Elm Fork of the Trinity River, should be
completed in April 1998. It included about nine miles of biking and hiking trails and
three canoe launch areas. There would be an equestrian trail from F.M. 428 to the Jordan
Unit.
Martin stated that in the original lease, TPWD agreed to operate and maintain the
Greenbelt at no additional cost to the cities of Dallas and Denton. Revenues from the
traditional park facilities at the Lake would be used to operate the Greenbelt. The City
had received a letter from TPWD stating they would operate the Greenbelt when it
opened; however, they have not yet signed a contract. The cities had responded to
TPWD, raising two issues of concern. The first issue had to do with revenue sharing.
Lake Ray Roberts park facilities generated a profit for TPWD. The cities financed the
facilities through their water rates and should have received a portion of the revenues.
The cities were not receiving any type of revenue, either from the park facilities or
concessions that had been or would be developed on Lake Ray Roberts. The cities of
Denton and Dallas had drafted a letter to TPWD asking them to renegotiate the lease to
include revenue sharing and also to grant the cities authority in lake development and
recreation-use decisions. In March 1997, the City Council approved a resolution that
would allow the City Manager to negotiate with the City of Dallas concerning the future
operation and maintenance of Lake Ray Roberts and the Greenbelt. This would allow the
cities other alternatives if TPWD refused to operate the Greenbelt.
Martin stated that the Public Utilities Board had directed staff to look over the revenue
potential of Lake Ray Roberts and William Haralson was hired to do that. Mr.
Haralson’s report would be brought to Council in February.
Mayor Miller arrived at the meeting at 8:54 p.m.
Council Member Cochran asked when Denton and Dallas signed the lease with TPWD
and how long it was for.
Julie Smith, Environmental Compliance Manager, stated the lease began in 1991 and
included a 2-year notice provision from the date of termination.
Council Member Cochran asked if the City of Denton anticipated sharing revenues with
the City of Dallas.
Martin stated that in the beginning Dallas was not interested in sharing risk or revenues,
but now they had indicated they might be interested. Their experience with Lake Ray
Hubbard had made them hesitant to take on another lake.
Council Member Cochran asked about the portions of revenue sharing.
Martin stated it would probably be 74% to Dallas and 26% to Denton. Martin stated that
TPWD was currently negotiating a concessionaire’s contract with Larry Lakes to develop
the Lantana Lodge at the Jordan Access Area. He introduced Larry Lakes who went over
his plans for developing Jordan Park. This was the park site on the west side (Pilot Point
side) which was one of the most beautiful nature areas in North Texas. The lodge would
not be on the lakefront. He stated there was no reason to destroy the lakefront. The park
extended almost 2 miles along the lakefront with the equestrian trail that was the only
development right now. Lakes stated their goal was to maintain the beauty of the site as
the recreational area was developed.
Lakes stated they planned to break ground June 1998. Construction would be complete
December 1998. It would open January 1999. There would be a lodge, cabins,
conference rooms, restaurant, store, beach area, and nature trail. Lakes stated when the
lodge was built tree cutting would be minimal. The cabins would have four rooms to a
building. The concept of cabins in the woods instead of hotel rooms had more appeal.
Cabins would be built out of recycled materials and the green sustainability building
concept would be used. This would minimize the impact on the environment and
maximize the use of recycled materials and essentially support the green building
concept. Sustainability in building design meant meeting the needs of the present without
compromising the needs of the future. Their core values would be guest services –
enhancing the visitor’s assurance that the Jordan unit was the most important function of
their business. Solar design would be used to make maximum use of sunlight for heating
and lighting. Permaculture and zeroscape systems; renewable energy applications,
rainwater harvesting system; graywater; wood reduction building system – reduce the
amount of wood actually used in structures – would also be used.
Council Member Beasley asked if there would be a marina.
Lakes stated there would be a marina, but it was not part of Phase I. Phase I was the
lodge and conference center.
Martin stated the last issue had to do control of development along the lake. The lake
was a crucial water supply for the cities of Denton and Dallas. It was a very popular lake.
A lake could only support so much recreational activity and development before water
quality became a major concern. The cities had asked TPWD to renegotiate the lease,
giving the cities approval authority for development. Staff had proposed that the cities
conduct an impact study and develop a Master Plan for Ray Roberts. The study could be
used as a baseline for recreation and development decisions such as: How many
marinas/boat slips can the lake support? Should the surface area be zoned for different
types of use (jet skis, etc.)? What type of development should be permitted on the
shoreline? How will safety concerns be addressed?
Mayor Miller asked if this had been discussed with Dallas.
Martin stated yes. The City of Dallas had recently completed a similar study for Lake
Ray Hubbard and would be willing to share the costs of such a study for Lake Ray
Roberts.
Martin asked the Council to communicate with staff or the City Manager whether to
renegotiate the TPWD lease to include revenue sharing and/or development control. If
TPWD refused to renegotiate the lease, should staff terminate the lease. If the lease were
terminated, the City would have to be ready to take over operation and maintenance in
two years. Martin stated that a contingent agreement would be included at the January
20th Council meeting for consideration. Around February 10th, the results from Mr.
Haralson’s study on revenue potential of Lake Ray Roberts should be available for
review by Council.
City Manager Benavides stated he would like to keep pushing and asking for both issues.
Council Member Durrance asked if Mr. Haralson’s report could include staff capabilities
and requirements if the City were to take over operation and maintenance.
Smith stated that the PUB had asked for revenue potential only but would ask Haralson to
include that in his report.
Martin stated they would bring this information back to Council in February.
Council Member Cochran asked why TPWD would renegotiate a contract that was
financially rewarding. He stated that he knew of another municipality that had taken over
a park and asked if staff could check into what change in attendance occurred when it
went from a state park to a municipal park.
Smith stated there was another lake that was operated half by the state and the other half
by concessionaires. The half operated by concessionaires was doing better than the half
that was state operated.
Council Member Young asked City Manager Benavides to look into purchasing a van for
the Martin Luther King, Jr. Recreation Center.
With no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 9:32 p.m.
____________________________________
EULINE BROCK, MAYOR PRO TEM
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS
__________________________________
JANE RICHARDSON
DEPUTY CITY SECRETARY
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS