Minutes January 27, 1998CITY OF DENTON CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
January 27, 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 27, 1998 at 5:15 p.m. in the
Council Work Session Room of 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. 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 Special Called Meeting on Tuesday, January 27, 1998 at
6:00 p.m. in the City Council Work Session Room of City Hall.
PRESENT: Mayor Miller; Mayor Pro Tem Brock; Council Members Beasley,
Kristoferson, Cochran, Young and Durrance.
ABSENT: None
INDIVIDUAL ITEMS
1. The Council considered approval of a resolution of the City of Denton, Texas
approving the eligibility of the City of Denton to participate in tax abatements;
establishing guidelines and criteria governing tax abatement agreements; and declaring an
effective date.
Linda Ratliff, Director of Economic Development, stated that at the January 6th Council
meeting, Council directed staff to reinstate the current policy with minor changes. Those
changes in sections K and L changed the wording from “may” to “shall” for Council
consideration of a resolution to call a public hearing and to hold that public hearing. The
City Attorney also added other wording to clarify codes. The Joint Tax Abatement
Committee would be meeting on Thursday to consider amendments to this policy. The
purpose of the reinstatement was to consider several applications already received.
Council Member Cochran stated that he had several items to consider for amendments
but would submit them to the Committee to consider.
Council Member Beasley stated that this resolution would approve the zone for two
years. She asked if this was a standard requirement or could it be approved for a longer
period.
City Attorney Prouty replied that State law required a review every two years. To amend
it within that two year period would require a supermajority vote of Council.
Council Member Beasley stated that if the Committee recommended amendments after
passage of this resolution, a supermajority vote would be required to approve those
amendments.
City Attorney Prouty replied correct.
Council Member Cochran stated that that requirement cast a different picture on passing
this resolution at this meeting. There would be different voting dynamics with the new
policy due to the change from a simple to a supermajority. He questioned if the policy
would be directed just for the required amount of time to process the current applications
under that policy. The policy could then be revised as planned.
City Manager Benavides suggested wording for 90 days or whenever the two applications
were taken care of.
Mayor Pro Tem Brock questioned if the wording could indicate that the policy would
expire when the two cases already filed were completed.
City Attorney Prouty stated that the policy was for two years and could not be adopted
for a shorter period. The policy could be amended with a supermajority vote. Council
could wait until completion of the amendment process and then adopt the policy.
Mayor Miller stated that that would not be acceptable as an obligation had already been
made. Waiting would hold up the United Copper project.
Council Member Cochran asked whether United Copper had agreed with the Denton
utility clause.
Mayor Miller stated that if United Copper did not sign the clause, it would not get the
abatement.
Ratliff indicated that United Copper had a verbal agreement but nothing in writing at this
time.
City Attorney Prouty stated that an agreement could not be completed until the guidelines
were completed.
City Manager Benavides asked if it would be possible to have this policy only apply for
the listed projects and then have a different policy after that date.
City Attorney Prouty did not feel it could be limited for only certain projects.
The following resolution was considered:
NO. R98-004
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS APPROVING THE
ELIGIBILITY OF THE CITY OF DENTON TO PARTICIPATE IN TAX
ABATEMENTS; ESTABLISHING GUIDELINES AND CRITERIA GOVERNING
TAX ABATEMENT AGREEMENTS; AND DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Young motioned, Beasley seconded to approve the resolution.
Council Member Cochran stated that he would like to offer several amendments to the
policy.
Cochran motioned, Beasley seconded to amend the policy on page 6, Section 2-1 to add a
listing of other tax incentive programs which the entity was participating in including but
not limited to the Freeport tax exemption.
Mayor Miller stated that he would be voting against the amendment because it would
piece meal the policy
Council Member Young stated that he also would be voting against the motion as the
policy had already gone to Committee and the city had already obligated itself.
Council Member Cochran stated that there would be no regular vote available on this
particular policy for the next two years which was new information. The situation that
had changed was the Council’s knowledge of the requirements for amendments. He had
been willing to submit the proposed amendments to the Committee but now there was a
different criteria. This amendment would provide citizens and decision-makers with
more information.
Mayor Miller stated that the committee would probably recommend amendments that the
Council would have to accept with either a majority or a supermajority. It appeared to
him that Council Member Cochran was willing to propose amendments with a simple
majority required but not with a supermajority.
Council Member Cochran stated his understanding was that it was going to be a level
playing field and that decisions made would be on a temporary basis. The policy would
be revised in a month or so and why make the amendments to this document. He now
knew that it was going to be different with a whole different process.
Council Member Durrance indicated that the policy had been in effect for the past ten
years. The need for amendments had been discussed. There was a need for the
committee to do what was required of them and felt that any changes should be voted on
in that fashion. He felt there was a level playing field that was well known to those who
had reviewed the documents.
Council Member Durrance called the question.
On roll vote of the amendment, Beasley “nay”, Kristoferson “nay”, Cochran “aye”,
Durrance “nay”, Young “nay”, Brock “nay”, and Mayor Miller “nay”. Motion failed
with a 1-6 vote.
Cochran motioned, Kristoferson seconded an amendment that a compliance record with
TNRCC, EPA, and environmental violations be required of any company requesting a tax
abatement.
Mayor Miller stated that that was information the Committee could receive.
On roll vote, Beasley “nay”, Kristoferson “aye”, Cochran “aye”, Durrance “nay”, Young
“nay”, Brock “nay”, and Mayor Miller “nay”. Motion failed with a 2-5 vote.
Mayor Miller stated that the Council was not opposed to the proposed amendments but
there were Council representatives on the Committee who would look at these and other
amendments when looking at a total revision of the policy.
Council Member Cochran stated that he was prepared to send his proposed amendments
to the Committee but then found out that that was not a simple majority vote. This was a
strategic matter for voting as the rules changed during this meeting. He felt the
amendments would strengthen the document. Council was trying to rush this policy
through to help United Copper and Peterbilt.
Mayor Miller stated that Council was not rushing though the policy. It would have been
amended last year except that the Legislature was in session and the policy was put on
hold until after the session. This was the same provision as was in the former resolution
and the back-up materials had the information in it. It was not new to him about the
supermajority vote. This was the same provision that was in the existing policy.
Mayor Pro Tem Brock felt the accusation that Council was voting against environmental
concerns was unjust because the Committee was considering those issues. The
Committee had asked for a list of suggestions from Council on amendments.
Applications had been made under a policy that had already lapsed. This was not
anything new and the process would be fair for future amendments. This was an
important document and a supermajority was not wrong.
Council Member Cochran stated that he would withhold any other amendments. It was
not his intent to insult or to diminish the quality of the document. His intent to offer
suggestions when voting on the policy was to improve it. Realizing this was a two-year
document was different than what he had originally believed.
Mayor Miller stated that it was the intent of the Committee to bring back revised
recommendations with the input of citizens, Commissioners Court, DISD and Council.
The document would have amendments that would require a supermajority for support.
Council Member Beasley felt that the amendments were good and she would vote for a
new policy. She also had suggestions for a new policy and would pass them on to the
Committee.
On roll vote, Beasley “aye”, Kristoferson “aye”, Cochran “nay”, Durrance “aye”, Young
“aye”, Brock “aye”, and Mayor Miller “aye”. Motion carried with a 6-1 vote.
2. The Council considered approval of a resolution of the City of Denton, Texas
calling a public hearing to consider establishing a Reinvestment Zone I for the Trammell
Crow/United Copper project; ratifying prior actions; and declaring an effective date.
Linda Ratliff, Director of Economic Development, stated that the policy that the Council
had just approved required that the Council establish a reinvestment zone for tax
abatement purposes. Part of the zone would include a portion of the City’s ETJ so that the
DISD could enter into an agreement at a different rate than that of the City’s.
Council Member Cochran understood that the reinvestment zone was only for United
Copper that was on 31 acres. He questioned why the zone was larger than the area
needed.
Ratliff stated that part of the City’s ETJ was included so that the DISD could participate.
In no way did this automatically approve any tax abatement for any other company in
that area. Any abatement would have to be approved by Council for another company.
A boundary was identified where tax abatements could be done but that did not
necessarily guarantee a tax abatement.
The following resolution was considered:
R98-005
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS CALLING A PUBLIC
HEARING TO CONSIDER ESTABLISHING A REINVESTMENT ZONE I FOR THE
TRAMMELL CROW/UNITED COPPER PROJECT; RATIFYING PRIOR ACTIONS;
AND DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Beasley motioned, Young seconded to approve the resolution. On roll vote, Beasley
“aye”, Kristoferson “aye”, Cochran “aye”, Durrance “aye”, Young “aye”, Brock “aye”,
and Mayor Miller “aye”. Motion carried unanimously.
Following completion of the Special Called Meeting, the Council convened into a Work
Session 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 received a report, held a discussion, and gave staff direction
regarding an agreement between the Parks and Recreation Department and various youth
sports associations.
Ed Hodney, Director of Parks and Recreation, stated that the reconsideration of the
existing agreement came about due to direction from Council. Staff developed a
document for consideration that included the directive of Council to eliminate the
overlapping of three spring sports and eliminating late night games. Specifically no
games were to begin after 8:00 p.m.. That evolved into the ending of games at 9:00 p. m.
on school nights for children under the age of 10. The revised document also addressed
some staff concerns regarding reporting requirements that the Association was in
agreement with. The final revised agreement eliminated the overlapping seasons and
ended late night play at 9:00 p.m. for children under 10. The City Manager asked staff to
go back to the Park Board after concerns and suggestions were received from Denton
Youth Baseball. At the last Park Board meeting, the Board heard concerns from 32
individuals. Most individuals spoke against one or both of the restrictions. Some were in
favor of late night games and most did not agree with the restriction of season overlap. A
concern of Denton Youth Baseball was that the elimination of late night play would
reduce the number of games below the 12 games required for an affiliation with a
national organization. The 368 games would be reduced to 264 with a specific concern in
a reduction of school night games from 2 to 1. Some parents felt that parents and not the
City should make a determination of when children went to bed. Another concern related
to the reduction of late night games from 2 to 1 and the difficulty in getting umpires for
the games. Most felt that the restrictions would penalize the majority while satisfying a
few. The final Board recommendation was to leave the proposed agreement in place with
one change to limit play for children 8 years and under to 9:00 p.m. on school nights.
Age groups over 8 would end play by 10:00 p.m.
Council Member Durrance asked for the Park Board reasoning in changing the age level.
Annie Burroughs, Chair-Parks and Recreation Board, stated that more parents at the
meeting did not mind their children out that late at night and the Board listened to that
and made a decision on that information.
Mayor Miller asked what would be the effect in the number of games to be played with
the reduced age limit.
Hodney stated that with the adjustment, there would be at least the minimum number of
games and perhaps one more.
Council Member Beasley stated that the back-up indicated Council direction of not
starting games after 8:00 p.m. on school nights. If Denton Boys Baseball was going to
limit the playing time of games, why not start the second game before 8:00 p.m. If the
first game started at 5:45 p.m. and was kept to an hour and a half, there should be enough
time for both games..
City Manager Benavides stated that even if the games were started sooner, there would
not enough slots to make sure that everyone 10 and below would get home before 9:00
p.m.
Mayor Pro Tem Brock agreed that parents should decide when their children went to bed.
However, she felt that if the City was a party to an agreement it should not be impossible
for parents who cared to get their to bed to be able to participate in a sport.
Council Member Kristoferson recommended that a poll be done to receive more
information to base the decision.
Council Member Durrance asked if there were problems with other associations as far as
game time, etc.
Hodney stated that there was concern about the impact on the other two organizations but
they were willing to go along with it.
Council Member Durrance stated that the other organizations had to make concessions.
Hodney replied correct.
Mayor Miller asked if the Park Board voted to eliminate the overlapping seasons.
Hodney replied correct that the only change was to have late night play restricted for
children 8 and under instead of 10 and under.
Mayor Miller stated that part of this situation was due to the shortage of park facilities for
these types of activities. The CIP contained provisions for more parks and the renovation
of parks. He asked when there might be relief of this situation.
Hodney stated that the CIP included four fields, two for softball which were in design and
should be ready for next year. It also included funds at Evers Park for the construction of
two baseball fields. Bonds would be sold this spring and the fields constructed in
approximately 18 months.
Young motioned, Beasley seconded to direct staff to proceed with the recommendation
from the Parks Board.
Council Member Beasley stated that she seconded the motion as the Parks Board had
thoroughly explored the recommendation. She would like to see how this proposal
worked this year with no overlapping of seasons and the reduction in hours. She
suggested a report at the end of the season on the number of games that went over the
time limit, how late the games ran, etc. Council initially looked at this issue because of
numerous complaints received from parents on the late hours.
Council Member Kristoferson challenged Denton Boys Baseball to not play late games
during TAAS week and to keep the games under the time limits.
Council Member Cochran stated that he would vote in favor of the proposal but would
like to revisit the issue next year. He did feel it was the responsibility of the City to make
sure the children were not out late.
Council Member Young stated that he was concerned about having 30% fewer games.
He knew how important it was to have more games to play and felt that parents should
know when their children should be in bed and did not need government to tell them how
to raise their children.
Council Member Durrance stated that he would like to see the proposed schedules of the
various sports. He would also like to see last year’s schedule and the proposed schedule.
On roll vote of the motion to adopt the recommendation from the Parks Board and to
direct staff to bring back information on the games after the end of the season, Beasley
“aye”, Kristoferson “aye”, Cochran “aye”, Durrance “aye”, Young “aye”, Brock “aye”,
and Mayor Miller “aye”. Motion carried unanimously.
The Council considered Item #3.
3. The Council received a report, held a discussion, and gave staff direction
regarding amending an ordinance in order to hold an Air Fair/Open House at the Denton
Municipal Airport.
Linda Ratliff, Director of Economic Development, stated that members of the Airport
Advisory Board and tenants of the Denton Municipal Airport were interested in holding
an annual Air Fair/Open House. Some of the tenants and members of the Board wanted
such an event last September but not enough time was allowed for planning. The
Committee intended to ask for three variances. The Committee would like to invite local
service organizations and commercial vendors to set up booths and be permitted to serve
food and refreshments. Section 3-5(8) of the Code did not allow the Airport to be used as
a base for the conduct of commercial activities involving the sales of refreshments or any
other commodities. Council permission would be needed for such an activity. The other
two variances would allow aircraft acrobatics and sky diving. The current ordinance did
not allow for a variance so the Committee was asking to amend the ordinance to allow for
those two types of activities for an air fair/open house only. The committee was
committed to raising all funds needed to attract unique and antique aircraft and provide
the proposed activities and had already received in-kind contributions for the event. The
Risk Management Office advised the Committee that a liability policy with a minimum
of $5 million in coverage would be required with $10 million preferred. If the Council
approved the amendment to the current ordinance to allow the activities the Air Fair
Committee proposed, the City Manager would pay for the needed liability coverage for
this year’s fair. If the fair was a success, the Committee planed to sell booth space for
future Air Fairs so that funds could be raised to improve the event, expand its activities
and pay for the liability insurance.
Council Member Cochran suggested the group explore the possibility of receiving
hotel/motel funds.
Consensus of the Council was to proceed as proposed.
2. The Council received a report, held a discussion, and gave staff direction
regarding a proposed park dedication ordinance.
Ed Hodney, Director of Parks and Recreation, stated that staff was seeking direction from
the Council on additional information and responses to questions and comments raised at
the last session. Council had asked for a consideration to reduce the minimum
neighborhood park size from the current five acres to something less, in order to permit
the acceptance of smaller “pocket” parks. Staff felt that Section 22-35 (f) provided for
this possibility. The proposed ordinance did not reflect a minimum size of less than five
acres and would address such spaces separately in the new comprehensive plan.
Council Member Young asked the City Attorney to research the policy. He felt the
policy was unconstitutional. He asked if the City Attorney could provide an assurance
that the City would not be sued with this policy.
City Attorney Prouty stated that the park dedication ordinance was not regulatory taking
of property. It had been approved in theory for at least 15 years. Regulatory taking was
defined as destroying the value of the remaining property with no other use of the
property. He could not guarantee that the City would be sued as anyone could file a suit
against the City.
Council Member Durrance asked when the policy would apply to plats that had been
submitted previous to the effective date of the ordnance.
Hodney stated that the Planning and Development Department estimated that 2,907 lots
had been approved since Fall 1996 as preliminary plats in preparation for the submittal of
final plats. Concept plans or preliminary plats for another 3,152 lots had been submitted
but not yet approved. As currently written, the land and fee requirements would be
applied to these lots as final plats were processed. In cases where preliminary plats had
been approved and park land dedication was required, a developer would be given the
option of resubmitting a previously approved preliminary plat or paying fees in lieu of
dedication. Planning estimated that 786 lots had been approved as final plats since Fall
1996 with 118 issued building permits. The current draft ordinance would not apply to
these lots.
Council Member Beasley stated that Council already had a legal opinion regarding this
matter and that it was not illegal. Staff had been telling developers for months to bring
plans for a park dedication ordinance and developers did not have a problem with this
request. Most surrounding communities already had a park dedication ordinance and
there was no decrease in development in communities that had a park dedication
ordinance. She had received calls concerning Habitat for Humanity and Denton
Affordable Housing in relation to this proposal.
City Attorney Prouty stated that there was a concern about applying the ordinance to only
profit corporations. He recommended that instead of providing an exemption section for
non-profit agencies that either a cap on the amount of the fees or an amount of land
dedicated for affordable housing apply for both profit and nonprofit housing be
incorporated. If organizations were exempted, both profit and nonprofit organizations
would have to be exempted..
Rick Svehla, Deputy City Manager, stated that Council would have to look at cost or
other options depending on what direction Council wanted to go but it would probably
have to be done on the basis of cost. Other areas might have to also be considered such
as impact fees. Staff was gathering such information for Council to consider. Building
permit fees, platting fees and other types of development fees might also have to be
considered for non-profit organizations.
Council Member Cochran suggested the possibility of making block grants available for
the fees that would solve the problem of keeping the ordinance non-discriminatory.
Council Member Kristoferson suggested moving forward to capture those developments
near final plat.
Mayor Pro Tem Brock stated that the City needed to look at what degree it wanted to
support low-income housing which would be an overall budget issue.
City Attorney Prouty stated that one way to subsidize low-income housing was to show
that it promoted economic development rather than provide an exception in the
ordinance. He suggested looking at committing CDBG funds or other funds with a
public purpose of promoting low income housing in the city.
Mayor Miller stated that Council was asking staff to look at all possibilities and bring
those back for consideration.
Council Member Young stated that he would not support these types of fees but would
support something where the low -income people and non-profit organizations were
considered.
Hodney stated that it was important to understand that as these requirements were applied
at final plat, there were some approved preliminary plats that would have to be amended
to reflect the new requirements. Developers could also contribute fees in lieu of
developing park land.
Consensus of the Council was to proceed as proposed and to also look at the affordable
housing issue.
Deputy City Manager Svehla stated that staff would look at all areas of affordable
housing together such as park dedication, impact fees, development fees, etc.
The Council received a report, held a discussion, and gave staff direction concerning
adoption of the Water Distribution Master Plan prepared by Shimek, Jacobs & Finklea.
(The Public Utilities Board recommended adoption.)
Jill Jordan, Interim Director of Water and Wastewater Utilities, stated that the master
plan would provide guidance for future development.
Gary Hendricks, Shimek, Jacobs & Finklea, presented the purpose and scope of the
study. Primary products of the study included (1) a working hydraulic model of the city’s
water distribution system, (2) existing system hydraulic map, (3) existing system
recommendations, (4) master plan map and (5) master plan report. The total planning
boundary was 134 square miles. Hendricks reviewed the water distribution system
demands. The existing system evaluation looked at system demands, pump stations,
elevated storage and ground storage. Existing system recommendations included (1)
development of a second source of treated water supple (Lake Ray Roberts), (2)
construction of the Hartlee Field Pump Station, (3) construction of a 1.0mg elevated
storage in the upper pressure plane, (4) construction of 2.0mg elevated storage in the
middle pressure plane, (5) associated distribution system improvements to support
proposed pump stations and elevated tanks, and (6) elimination of the Peach Street
elevated tank from the system. Recommendations were included in the back-up
materials. Where to locate the elevated storage tanks included key factors for location
such as system hydraulics, topography and physical land features, system demand centers
and infrastructure to support the tank. Other considerations were availability and cost of
land and development restrictions. Recommended sites were a site at the University of
North Texas and in the Denia Park area.
With no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 9:20 p.m.
_________________________
JACK MILLER, MAYOR
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS
_____________________________
JENNIFER WALTERS
CITY SECRETARY
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS