Loading...
Minutes July 28, 1998 CITY OF DENTON CITY COUNCIL MINUTES July 28, 1998 After determining that a quorum was present and convening in an open meeting, the City Council convened in a closed meeting on Tuesday, July 28, 1998 at 5:15 p.m. in the Council Work Session Room at City Hall. PRESENT: Mayor Miller; Mayor Pro Tem Beasley; Council Members Burroughs, Cochran, Durrance, Kristoferson, and Young. ABSENT: None 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. B. Personnel – Under TEX. GOV’T. CODE Sec. 551.074 1. The Council discussed the appointment of an Acting City Manager and the duties of the appointee. The Council convened into a Work Session Tuesday, July 28, 1998 at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Work Session Room at City Hall. PRESENT: Mayor Miller; Mayor Pro Tem Beasley; Council Members Burroughs, Cochran, Durrance, Kristoferson, and Young. ABSENT: None 1. The Council received a report, held a discussion, and gave staff direction regarding the Denton Central Appraisal District’s budget. Kathy DuBose, Assistant City Manager for Finance, stated that Council would consider approval of the Denton Central Appraisal District’s budget at the August 4th meeting. Joe Forsythe, Denton Central Appraisal District, stated that the total budget for the District was $4,079,934.00. Mayor Pro Tem Beasley stated that the utility evaluation was increased due to the level of service needed to appraise Entel. She questioned if the plans had changed since Entel had placed their plans on hold. Forsythe stated no that this was the second year of a two-year contract. Even though Entel was on hold, they would still have to evaluate what was there. The entire amount might not be paid out as indicated in the budget but they would still have to proceed with the major portion of the contract. Mayor Pro Tem Beasley stated that Council was not given actuals of what was spent last year and she felt that was really needed in order to determine the budget for next year. City of Denton City Council Minutes July 28, 1998 Page 2 Forsythe stated that he could deliver that to the Council. Those figures went out with the audit near the end of the budget year. Council Member Kristoferson stated that there had been an increase in budget equipment inventory and custom homes. She questioned which area of Denton had increased. Forsythe indicated that most of the growth was in the southern portion of the County. Denton’s share of the budget was based on the City’s tax levy. Even the tax exempt property had to have work done on it. Mayor Miller asked if there were enough people to do the appraisals with this budget. He had been concerned about the numbers for several years. Forsythe replied he hoped so as the Board did not remove any of his requests for additional people from the proposed budget. Consensus of the Council was to draft an ordinance approving the budget as proposed. 2. The Council received a report, held a discussion, and gave staff direction regarding the City’s ad valorem tax rate and changes to the property tax code. Jon Fortune, Director of Management and Budget, stated that prior to legislative changes in the last session, there was a trigger that would require a special notice and the holding of a public hearing whenever an entity adopted a tax rate that exceeded the notice and hearing limit, which was the lower of the effective rate times three percent or the rollback rate. The Legislature this year eliminated the notice in hearing rate and required taxing jurisdictions to have a special notice and hold a public hearing whenever a tax rate would result in any increase in total property tax revenue over the prior year. It was anticipated that this would not be used for this budget year. He presented a calendar with important dates dealing with the adoption of the budget as shown in the agenda materials. Consensus of the Council was to proceed as proposed. 3. The Council received a report, held a discussion, and gave staff direction regarding Hotel Occupancy Tax allocations. Jon Fortune, Director of Management and Budget, stated that current contracts with Hotel Occupancy Tax (HOT) recipients would expire on September 30th. Council needed to decide future allocations and a number of other issues regarding the management and distribution of the tax funds. Issue 1. Carry forward obligations - In 1995-96 Council approved a provision that would allocate funding based on a percentage up to a cap. The provision required any excess HOT revenue over the budgeted amount to be distributed (carried forward) in the subsequent year according to the contracted allocation percentages. A problem was that there was no contractual requirements concerning future carry forward money. One concern was that there were some entities the City no longer had contracts with that were still eligible to receive carry forward money. It was proposed to use a reserve appropriation to pay the agencies still entitled to carry forward money and no longer City of Denton City Council Minutes July 28, 1998 Page 3 deal with carry forwards. Consensus of the Council was to proceed as proposed by staff. Issue 2. Allocation - split growth option – This proposal allowed for future allocations for growth and still kept a portion of the amount of funds for City projects. The proposal would increase recipient allocations by a maximum of 5% over their 1997-98 budgets and allow the City to keep the remaining portion of 5% for alternate purposes. Consensus of the Council was to proceed with the split growth option. Issue 3. Annual audit – Staff was recommending to use HOT funding to conduct annual external audits of the recipients. Council Member Cochran felt that this was a reaction to only one instance and was not needed. DuBose stated that this had been done a number of years ago and numerous agencies had problems so this was not a new problem. Consensus of Council was to refer the proposal to the Lalor Committee for a proposed policy. Issue 4. Contract terms – Staff was recommending changing contract periods to three year terms. Council Member Kristoferson suggested first time recipients be given only a one year contract and then perhaps a three year contract after that. City Attorney Prouty stated that the contracts had a 180 day termination clause without cause. He felt that was really too long and recommended a 30-60 day period. He also suggested quarterly reports be done for each recipient to be approved by the City Manager. The funds would not be paid until that report was approved. Mayor Miller suggested having one year contracts for the first three years and then go to three year contracts. Consensus of the Council was to have one year contracts for the first three years and after that go to three year contracts. Issue 5. Unspent funding – Staff recommendation was that at the end of the fiscal year, excess HOT funds should be returned to the City. A timing process still needed to be determined for this proposal. Council Member Cochran felt that this clause would allow for amended budgets for the flexibility for usage of the funds. Fortune stated that some entities maintained a reserve for certain functions. All money not spent would be returned and not be kept in a reserve so as to keep accountability with the funds. City of Denton City Council Minutes July 28, 1998 Page 4 Council Member Durrance felt this was an item for the Lalor Committee to consider for an exact proposal. Issue 6. Quarterly reporting – The staff recommendation was for a January-December contract for recipients. Revenue currently was not lining up with the expenses. Going to the actual contract year would resolve this problem. Consensus of the Council was to proceed as proposed. Issue 7. Third party management – It was the recommendation of the staff to not delegate the management and allocation of HOT funds to another organization. Consensus of the Council was to follow the staff recommendation. Issue 8. Number of HOT recipients – The recommendation was that Council consider a policy to limit the number of recipients each year. The use of selection criteria to limit the number of potential recipients would help maintain or reduce the current number of recipients. Council Member Kristoferson felt that the criteria was needed but not perhaps a limit on the number of recipients. There may be a need for staff allocation to monitor these contracts. Mayor Pro Tem Beasley expressed a concern about fracturing the money in such small amounts for everyone who requested it. A criteria process was good but a limit might also be needed. Council Member Durrance felt that the applications needed to go to Lalor Committee. He also suggested that the Committee develop a set of criteria to be reviewed by the entire Council. Consensus of the Council was to submit the proposal to the Lalor Committee which would formulate a recommendation to Council. Council could modify the recommendation if desired. The Committee would forward to Council a rational for selection of recipients. Issue 9. Selection Criteria – considered with Issue #8. 4. The Council received a report, held a discussion and gave staff direction regarding Lake Chapman (Cooper Lake) contract between the City of Denton and Upper Trinity Regional Water District considering the pass-through of water from Cooper (Chapman) Lake. Jill Jordan, Director of Water/Wastewater, stated that in 1990 the Upper Trinity Regional Water District (UTRWD) purchased a portion of water from Lake Cooper (now Lake Chapman). The UTRWD’s proposed pass-through agreement with Denton would allow for the conveyance of UTRWD’s Chapman Water supplies through Lake Lewisville to the existing water supple intakes. Jordan reviewed the provisions of the contract and the key components that were listed in the agenda materials. Mayor Miller asked at what point would it be determined that this was not in the best interest for the City. City of Denton City Council Minutes July 28, 1998 Page 5 Jordan stated that she had received a letter from the UTRWD for a time frame to decide whether Denton would continue with the project. She felt it would be good to remain in this pass-through agreement as Denton would be getting revenue only and not putting out any money. 5. The Council received a report, held a discussion, and gave staff direction regarding Planned Development Multi-Family zoning issues. Dave Hill, Director of Planning and Development, stated that Council had requested staff to prepare information for discussion regarding the feasibility of a Planned Development Overlay District. Staff’s recommendation was that any action taken to develop an overlay district for the purpose of regulating multi-family development densities be postponed until the completion of the comprehensive plan. Several reasons were detailed in the agenda materials for this recommendation. Council Member Cochran asked if there was a way to put a time limit on existing and future planned developments. Hill stated that considering the market conditions in 1980 and the current change in the development market, what had been approved then would not apply now. Staff was already seeing evidence of that as current planned developments were being processed with amendments. Detailed plans already had a time limit on them. Council Member Cochran asked if the time limit could be a condition of the zoning. Hill stated that that was not allowed. City Attorney Prouty stated that there were two ways to address the situation. An existing planned development would have to come back for consideration and when changes were asked for, a condition could be imposed for development within a certain period of time. Another possibility was overlay zoning on planned developments with time limits. Hill stated that a concern was that typically there had to be a legitimate public purpose for a time clause on the zoning. In recent years there was a movement to protect private property interests. Council Member Durrance asked about a comparative analysis on balance growth by lot size or development size. Hill stated that that might be incorporated with the growth management study. Mayor Miller suggested looking at the issue of demand and price of the land as to how dense to develop it. Council Member Kristoferson asked about time extensions. Hill stated that right now that was considered at the Planning and Zoning Commission level but could be changed to a Council consideration. City of Denton City Council Minutes July 28, 1998 Page 6 Consensus of the Council was to look at extensions and conditions for planned developments as part of the Denton Development Plan review. 6. The Council received a report, held a discussion, and provided direction to staff regarding the interim Corridor Ordinance. Dave Hill, Director for Planning and Development, stated that staff had had several extensive discussions with the Chamber of Commerce regarding this issue. A joint public hearing with the Planning and Zoning Commission was scheduled for August 4th. A committee had been set up with the Chamber for discussions on the issue. Another meeting with the Chamber would be held after the public hearing on August 4th for further discussion. Chuck Carpenter, Denton Chamber of Commerce, stated that two key points of concern for the Chamber were the compliance period and the comparison of standards of commercial/retail to industrial/warehouse. He requested additional time for clarification. Consensus of the Council was to proceed with the process as outlined. Following the completion of the Work Session, the Council convened into a Special Called Meeting. 1. The Council considered and adopted a motion to reconsider an ordinance establishing fees to be charged for emergency ambulance services and standby emergency ambulance services in the City of Denton as provided for in Sec. 27-102 of Article IV of Chapter 27 “Vehicles for Hire” of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Denton. Beasley motioned, Cochran seconded to approve reconsideration. On roll vote, Beasley “aye”, Burroughs “aye”, Cochran “aye”, Durrance “aye”, Kristoferson “aye”, Young “aye”, and Mayor Miller “aye”. Motion carried unanimously. 2. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance establishing fees to be charged for emergency ambulance services and standby emergency ambulance services in the City of Denton as provided for in Sec. 27-102 of Article IV of Chapter 27 “Vehicles for Hire” of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Denton. Ross Chadwick, Fire Chief, stated that there were issues to discuss at this meeting. The ordinance presented at the last meeting never meant to discriminate against anyone. Much research had been done on this issue and recommendations were given from the billing company. Based on some of the perceptions in the community and other communities, staff was recommending rescinding the portion of the ordinance dealing with an additional charge for patients over 300 pounds. This additional charge was a national standard and was nothing unusual. The second issue dealt with the non transfer fee. He was confused by the language in the ordinance. The fee listed was $50 plus the cost of supplies when not transported. He thought Council had directed staff to not charge the $50 but to charge for cases when an individual was transported by another agency. The ordinance indicated just the opposite. Mayor Pro Tem Beasley asked how many times an ambulance went out to a home, provided service and did not transport the patient. City of Denton City Council Minutes July 28, 1998 Page 7 Chadwick stated that an estimate would be at least ten times per week. This was a very common occurrence. Council Member Burroughs stated that if there were multiple means of transport available, insurance would not pay for the other means of transport that was there. He felt that was unfair to the individual in that case. He would agree with charging for supplies used even if an alternate means of transport was used. Chadwick stated that that would not happen in the city limits as the city service was the only one allowed. Council Member Young expressed a concern about having to pay for an ambulance call and not using the transport service. Chadwick stated that if an ambulance went on scene and did a basic assessment, there would be no charge. But if the individual were treated, there would be a charge. Council debated the issue of whether or not to include the charge for non-transport. Cochran motioned, Young seconded to remove Items “g” and “m” from the ordinance. Mayor Miller stated that Appendix “A” would also have to be amended. Council Member Durrance called the question. On roll vote, Beasley “aye”, Burroughs “aye”, Cochran “aye”, Durrance “aye”, Kristoferson “aye”, Young “aye”, and Mayor Miller “aye”. Motion carried unanimously. 3. The Council considered nominations/appointments to the City’s Boards/Commissions. Council approved nominations and made further appointments as indicated in an attachment to the agenda materials. 4. The following official action was taken on Closed Meeting items held under Section 551.071- 551.085 of the Texas Open Meetings Act. A. Burroughs motioned, Young seconded to employ Mike Jez as City Manager and to request the City Attorney to prepare an employment contract to be considered at the next council session.On roll vote, Beasley “aye”, Burroughs “aye”, Cochran “aye”, Durrance “aye”, Kristoferson “aye”, Young “aye”, and Mayor Miller “aye”. Motion carried unanimously. With no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 9:15 p.m. City of Denton City Council Minutes July 28, 1998 Page 8 ____________________________ JACK MILLER, MAYOR CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS __________________________ JENNIFER WALTERS CITY SECRETARY CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS