Minutes August 10, 1999CTY OF DENTON CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
August 10, 1999
After determining that a quorum was present and convening in an open meeting, the City
Council convened in a closed meeting on Tuesday, August 10, 1999 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. Deliberations concerning Real Property – Under TEX. GOV’T. CODE Sec. 551.072; and
Consultation with Attorney - Under TEX. GOV’T. CODE Sec. 551.071. Considered and
discussed the valuation and the possible sale, transfer, or other divestiture of real property
pertaining to the City of Denton’s electric utility system, including, without limitation:
the Gibbons Creek generation facility located in Grimes County, Texas; the Spencer
generation facility located on Spencer Road in Denton, Denton County, Texas; the
hydroelectric facilities located in Denton County, Texas; and other components of the
City’s electric generation assets. Conduct a consultation with the City’s attorneys,
including the City’s outside legal counsel, in order to consider and discuss various
options and strategies, and to obtain the advice and recommendations of the City’s
attorneys respecting the issues concerning the city’s electric generation assets contained
in this numbered paragraph.
Work Session of the City of Denton City Council on Tuesday, August 10, 1999 at 6:00 p.m. in
the Council Work Session Room in City Hall.
PRESENT: Mayor Miller; Mayor Pro Tem Beasley; Council Members Burroughs, Cochran,
Durrance, Kristoferson and Young.
ABSENT: None
Item #3 was considered.
3. The Council received a report, held a discussion and gave staff direction regarding two
amendments to the 1998 Denton Mobility Plan Component. Amendment One was described as
the Southwest Denton IH35W/US77 amendment. Amendment Two was described as the
Lakeview Boulevard Route Amendment.
Jerry Clark, Director for Engineering & Transportation, reviewed the alternatives as indicated in
the agenda materials. Staff was recommending taking $170,000 from right-of-way money and
use towards a Cooper Creek bridge. The developer should donate all right-of-way for the route.
Mayor Miller stated that he did not want another low water crossing in the City. He understood
that the Lakeview developers had concerns regarding the proposal.
Paul Spain, Lakeview developer, stated that they were interested in a better location than what
was originally proposed. A suggestion was to change the zoning on the section of Lakeview
Ranch between Mills Road and Pecan Creek. Part of that request was to move Lakeview Blvd.
to the west. They had a meeting with the surrounding neighbors who indicated support of the
second option they proposed.
City of Denton City Council Minutes
August 10, 1999
Page 2
Council Member Kristoferson did not like the idea of a higher level of participation. The bond
money was passed for current citizens while the proposed development of Lakeview was not.
Council Member Young recommended that the development plan be adopted. The proposal
would relieve the area of some of the traffic.
Mayor Pro Tem Beasley stated that this was a major transportation issue. Development was
rapidly progressing in the area.
Consensus of the Council regarding Amendment Two was to proceed with a traffic study to
determine an estimate of cost for right-of-way and bridges for the options before making a
determination on which option to support. The developer could continue through the process
with his proposal.
Clark reviewed the proposal for Amendment One located in the southwest quadrant near IH 35W
and US 377. It was proposed that the section of roadway between IH35W and US377 be
changed to Primary Arterial Classification which changed the section to Urban from the Rural
Expressway Section used on Loop 288 on the north and reduced the needed right-of-way from
220’ to 120’.
Consensus of the Council was to proceed with a public hearing on the proposal.
1. The Council received a report, held a discussion and gave staff direction concerning the
construction and operation of a Materials Recovery Facility at the City’s landfill or alternative
recycling services.
Charlie Watkins, Director of Solid Waste, stated that the 1995 Solid Waste Management Master
Plan recommended the construction of a Materials Recovery Facility. The MRF would be
located at the City’s landfill and would process the residential and commercial waste delivered to
the landfill in order to remove its recyclables. It was estimated that the use of a MRF would add
about nine years to the landfill’s useful life. He presented options for the facility as noted in the
agenda materials. Staff was recommending that the Council postpone further consideration of
the MRF until fiscal year 2001 budget preparation cycle. Staff also recommended the
continuation of the current recycling program.
Council Member Young stated that he would like to see a private partnership with the City for a
MRF. If that was not possible, he suggested contracting the recycle program to a private
organization.
Council Member Kristoferson felt the same as Council Member Young and wanted to proceed
with looking at a MRF.
Mayor Pro Tem Beasley felt that the community wanted to recycle and wanted such a facility.
She questioned what another year would achieve.
Martin stated that another year would provide more information concerning cash flow and
making the facility fiscally sound.
City of Denton City Council Minutes
August 10, 1999
Page 3
Council Member Durrance felt that as growth increased, the need for recycling also increased.
He suggested working on a “blue” based recycling system that might assist in recycling. He felt
the interest in recycling was there in the community.
Consensus of Council was to have staff look at the cost estimates for building a MRF and
purchasing a baler for paper and cardboard. A committee might be formed to look at the issue to
report back to Council.
2. The Council received a report, held a discussion and gave staff direction regarding the
1999-2000 budget adoption process.
Jon Fortune, Director of Management and Budget, reviewed the 1999-2000 budget adoption
process as noted in the agenda materials.
Consensus of the Council was to proceed with the recommended schedule.
4. The Council received a report, held a discussion, and gave staff direction regarding a
proposed amendment to the Council’s Rules and Procedures relative to nominations on boards
and commissions.
Herb Prouty, City Attorney, stated that currently the rules indicated that each council member
was responsible for nominations to places assigned to him/her. City Council Members made
nominations and the entire Council approved those nominations. The concept of the Council’s
rules indicated that nominations would try to have new people in the board/commission places
from time to time and from all sectors of the community. There was not much guidance in the
Council’s Rules and Procedures relative to the number of times to nominate an individual to a
particular position. Roberts Rules of Order did indicate a procedure for such a case. One
Council recommendation was to amend the rules to limit the number of times to nominate
candidates to same position. Another recommendation was to limit the number of times to
nominate a particular candidate and if that nomination failed, to have a vacant position until a
candidate was confirmed. That would not be possible in the case of decision making boards as
the law indicated a hold over provision where people presently serving in a position kept that
position until a new member was appointed and sworn in. His recommendation was to keep the
current procedure to nominate candidates for each place on board or commission. Council
would decide the number of times to nominate each candidate. A single candidate could be
nominated for that number of times and if failed, the nominations would be opened to the
Council and every member would have an opportunity to nominate a person to that position.
When nominations ceased, Council would vote on the nominees and the one with four
affirmative votes would be confirmed. If the current ordinance were amended, it would take
effect when passed and not be retroactive.
Council Member Burroughs suggested a procedure in which each member would submit four
nominations for any one position with no nomination more than twice for the same person. If
that Council Member were not able to successfully nominate an individual to that position after
four votes, then the procedure would be opened to the entire Council. Nominations would have
st
to be completed by September 1 and if no nominations were suggested by the council member,
the process would again be opened to the Council for nominations.
City of Denton City Council Minutes
August 10, 1999
Page 4
City Attorney Prouty suggested a time limit of 30 - 45 days with four attempts to nominate.
Council Member Young stated that he had researched this procedure back for 14 years and could
not find where a Council Member had had a nominee rejected. He was the first and now Council
was going to change the rules. This was a racial procedure as he was the only African-American
on Council and the only one this was being done to. Council should not be able to appoint
someone else’s position. That would allow for a situation where a block of Council Members
could continue to deny an individual Council Member a nomination to a board or commission.
Council Member Durrance suggested a variance to the proposed procedure whereby each
Council Member would have two nominations per position with two votes on each nomination.
If, at that point, the nomination was not confirmed, the process would be opened to the entire
Council as a whole with a majority vote confirming the candidate to fill the position. All
Council Members would have an opportunity for nominations at this process. This would
formalize a procedure Council was following. He suggested making the procedure retroactive to
the present nomination process.
Council Member Cochran noted that in July 1995 a commissioner nominated for the Planning
and Zoning Commission was rejected. The current procedure for nominations had only been in
existence for 4-5 years. There was not a 14 year history of this process. This proposal would be
fine tuning the process that they had been following for a number of years.
Mayor Pro Tem Beasley stated that all of the Council Members had had nominations rejected
before this new process for the Parks and Recreation Board and the Public Utilities Board as they
were open nominations. This was not something new.
Council Member Kristoferson stated that the proposed ordinance was to clarify the officers rules
of service. Issues were to determine the point of termination of service. It was to clarify
termination of current service and to determine the point of termination if not the current
member was not re-confirmed.
City Attorney Prouty stated that by law a decision making board had to hold over the current
member until a replacement could be confirmed and sworn in. A distinction would have to be
made regarding which boards that would apply to.
Mayor Miller suggested not taking any action at this point. If the suggested procedure were
followed there might be a case where a group of council members might purposely not vote for a
nominee in order to have a different nomination.
Council Member Kristoferson felt that there was not a clarification of this particular procedure
and that this type of situation might happen again in the future. If there was an oversight in the
process it needed be corrected.
Mayor Pro Tem Beasley was not in favor of having any type of change be retroactive.
City Attorney Prouty reviewed the proposals presented by Council and indicated that an
ordinance for Council consideration would be prepared.
City of Denton City Council Minutes
August 10, 1999
Page 5
5. New Business
There were no items of New Business suggested by Council for future agendas.
Following the completion of the Work Session, the Council convened into a Special Called
Session.
1. The Council considered a motion to authorize the holding of a City Council meeting
outside of City Hall.
Burroughs motioned, Beasley seconded to authorize the holding of a meeting outside of City
Hall. 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 nominations/appointments to the City’s boards and commissions.
Council Member Kristoferson nominated Diane Crew to the Community Development Advisory
Committee.
Durrance motioned, Burroughs seconded to suspend the rules to allow the Council to vote on the
nomination at this meeting. On roll vote to suspend the rules, Beasley “aye”, Burroughs “aye”,
Cochran “aye”, Durrance “aye”, Kristoferson “aye”, Young “aye”, and Mayor Miller “aye”.
Motion carried unanimously. On roll vote for the nomination to the Community Development
Advisory Committee, 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 10:00 p.m.
_______________________________
JACK MILLER, MAYOR
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS
________________________
JENNIFER WALTERS
CITY SECRETARY
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS