Minutes January 13, 2003CITY OF DENTON CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
January 13, 2003
After determining that a quorum was present, the City of Denton City Council convened in a
Work Session on Monday, January 13, 2003 at 11:00 a.m. in the City Council Work Session
Room at City Hall.
PRESENT:
Mayor Brock; Mayor Pro Tern Burroughs; Council Members Fulton, McNeill,
Montgomery, and Phillips.
ABSENT: Council Member Redmon
1. The Council received a report, held a discussion, and gave staff direction regarding a
review of the Boards/Commissions.
Mike Conduff, City Manager, presented information regarding the formalizing of practices that
had been followed in the past several months. He stated that the Council's jobs were to
determine the vision for the city; articulate the outcomes; delegate authority; and monitor results.
He stated that Council should focus on the tasks that only the Council could do; set the
outcomes; and delegate activities to others. The roles of the boards included advising the
Council to help the Council do its job such as the Planning and Zoning Commission and Traffic
Safety Commission, advising the staff to assist in achieving outcomes such as the Parks,
Recreation and Beautification Board. A question Council could ask was whom was the board
advising in this situation. Council appointed boards could spend more time on issues; focus on
details, and hear more input than the Council. A good governance agreement to follow that
supported the theory was that Council set aims and outcomes; all boards worked under the
Council authority; and Council supported the decisions of the boards. A question to ask when
considering an issue was if the board recommendation furthered Council outcomes. If the
answer were yes, were the board and staff in agreement - was the information the same and was
the information received individually by the Council or were presentations made before the
Council? If the answer to those questions was yes, the Council should approve the board
recommendation. If the answer was no, the Council should remand the issue with comments
back to the board for the board to understand the new information instead of overturning the
decision by the board. If the board and staff agreed, the item should be placed on the consent
agenda if allowed; if the item required a public hearing, was there new information? If not, the
board recommendation should be supported if no new information were presented.
If the board and staff disagreed, it was suggested that the item be placed on the regular agenda,
the Council listen to the input; and if the Council agreed with the board; support the board
recommendation. If the council disagreed with the board and agreed with staff, the item should
be remanded to the board with comments to help the board understand the issue. Advantages to
this procedure included the empowerment of the boards, it allowed Council to focus on
outcomes, the participants knew where to invest their time, and provided consistency to the
process.
Conduff suggested that if the Council were in agreement with this procedure, sessions should be
held with keyboards to talk about the process and philosophy; include community education in
process; and try it.
Mayor Pro Tem Burroughs stated that he liked the idea of meeting with the various boards and
felt it could be done once a year with the board that provided more input to Council and perhaps
every two years with those boards that did not provide as much input to Council. He felt that
City of Denton City Council Minutes
January 13, 2003
Page 2
with a severe split in the vote, it was not valuable to send an item back to the Planning and
Zoning Commission. There may be some circumstances when a board did not have a good sense
on the outcome of an issue and needed council guidance. It might be burdensome to remand in
some circumstances.
Council Member McNeill stated that there may be a 5-2 Planning and Zoning Commission vote
for approval but Council might be concerned that the Commission did not look at certain issues
or that the board missed the mark.
Council Member Fulton felt that the decision needed to be with the Council. There was too
much on the Consent Agenda and rubber-stamping of board decisions. Some boards members
felt that they were being misdirected from staff and not getting full information. Council was
elected to make the decisions.
Mayor Brock felt that it helped to have the transcription of the Planning and Zoning Commission
minutes and that it provided an opportunity to ask for additional information. She felt the
board/commission members should be encouraged to review information and ask for additional
information that might not be there.
Council Member McNeill stated that he liked the process as described and that the process was
described in the Charter. If Council received information that the Planning and Zoning
Commission members did not have, it would be a legitimate reason to send the item back to the
Commission.
Council Member Fulton felt that the public was not being properly informed on the Council's
actions, especially with items on the Consent Agenda.
City Manager Conduff suggested that the Council needed to determines its role. If that role were
to educate the community, it would have to be determined how to do that. He felt there were lots
of ways for the community to become educated and get information.
Council Member Phillips felt that the Council had empowered its boards to look at many of the
details and that Council did not have to do that.
Council Member McNeill felt that there were many opportunities for the public to address their
concerns to Council. He felt that the process described was the best utilization of the boards and
of the Council's time. Council needed to listen to the boards. If not, all of the boards should be
abolished and Council would do the roles. He questioned if there were too many boards or
commissions, if there might be a need to combine some, change some roles, or change whom the
board/commission reported to.
Mayor Brock did not see any boards that could be eliminated. She felt that the Council should
appoint the members to the boards even if the board made recommendations to staff.
Council rated the boards and commissions in terms of reporting structure: "A" reported to
Council, "B" reported to staff, and "C" other. The "A" category included the Human Services
Advisory Board, the Planning and Zoning Commission and the Public Utilities Board. The "B"
category included the Civil Service Commission, the Library Board, and the Parks, Recreation
City of Denton City Council Minutes
January 13, 2003
Page 3
and Beautification Board. It was felt that some boards were both "A and B" and included the
Airport Advisory Board and the Community Development Advisory Committee. Boards that
fell in the "C" category included the Construction Advisory and Appeals Board, the Denton
Housing Authority, the Historic Landmark Commission, TMPA and the Zoning Board of
Adjustment.
Council discussed the appointing process for the boards and commissions. It was noted that in
some cities, appointments to boards and commissions in the "B" and "C" categories were
delegated to staff with direction on geographic representation, demographic representation and
set criteria for appointment from council. Consensus of the Council was to continue to make its
own appointments. Council would welcome recommendations from staff for appointments
especially in the "B" and "C" categories.
Consensus of Council was to move forward with the joint sessions with the boards to discuss the
process, how the boards were doing and how was Council treating the board's recommendations.
The Planning and Zoning Commission would have a separate meeting as they provided the most
input to council. One meeting would be scheduled with the Human Services Committee and the
Community Development Advisory Board. Another meeting would be scheduled with the
Airport Advisory Board and the Public Utilities Board. These meetings would be scheduled
within the next 90 days. After that, meetings with the chairs of the "B and C" boards would be
scheduled. Council also discussed the possibility of combining boards such as the Traffic Safety
Commission and the Planning and Zoning Commission.
2. The Council received a report, held a discussion, and gave staff direction regarding a
review of the Council Rules/Procedures.
City Manager Conduff questioned if any of the Council had concerns with the Council' s Rules
and Procedures.
Council Member McNeill asked about the electronic use for council concerns.
City Manager Conduff replied that it was rarely used.
Council commented that requests were sometimes made during the meetings in order to let
citizens know that the Council was addressing their concerns. Council also discussed various
sections of the rules and procedures including citizen report, speaker cards, and presentations by
members of Council and printed/typewritten ordinances for Council review.
3. The Council received a report, held a discussion, and gave staff direction regarding a
review of the City Council retreat.
Betty Williams, Director of Management and Public Information, presented a strategy review of
methods to overcome barriers to success.
Council discussed whether or not there was a need for a lobbyist on the state level. Consensus of
the Council was that as the City utilized a specialized lobbyist when needed, had a staff person
who was a registered lobbyist and Council attended legislative sessions when needed, there was
City of Denton City Council Minutes
January 13, 2003
Page 4
no need for a lobbyist on the state level at this time. Consensus of Council was that most of the
issues were well in the works.
Council Member Phillips left the meeting.
4. The Council considered appointment of a Council Member as coordinator for the
Council's Adopt-A-Spot.
Consensus of Council was to appoint Council Member Fulton as the coordinator.
With no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 1:15 p.m.
EUL1NEBROCK
MAYOR
CITY OFDENTON, TEXAS
JENNIFER WALTERS
CITY SECRETARY
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS