January 31, 2012 Annual Planning Session Minutes
ANNUAL PLANNING SESSION MINUTES
CITY OF DENTON CITY COUNCIL
January 31, 2012
After determining in Open Session that a quorum was present, the City Council convened in an
Annual Planning Session on Tuesday, January 31, 2012, at 8:30 a.m. in the Facilities
Management Department Training Room at 869 S. Woodrow Lane.
PRESENT: Mayor Burroughs, Council Member Engelbrecht, Council Member Gregory,
Council Member King, Council Member Roden, and Council Member Watts.
ABSENT: Mayor Pro Tem Kamp
1. Closed Session
A.Consultation with Attorneys under Texas Government Code Section 551.071.
1. Consult with and provide direction to City’s attorneys regarding legal
issues and strategies associated with Phase I and proposed Phase II Gas
Well Ordinance regulation of gas well drilling and production within the
City Limits and the extraterritorial jurisdiction, including Constitutional
limitations, statutory limitations upon municipal regulatory authority,
moratorium on drilling and production, and statutory preemption of
municipal regulatory authority.
Mayor Pro Tem Kamp arrived during the Closed Meeting discussion.
Following the completion of the Closed Session, the Council convened in a Planning Session.
ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION:
1.Receive a report, hold a discussion and give staff direction concerning the long and short
term goals of the city including, but not limited to, the following:
a.Gas Wells
Fred Greene, Assistant City Manager, stated that there had been two public meetings of the Task
Force. The meetings were progressing well and one of the ten focus areas was completed. The
Task Force would be meeting every Monday night through March.
Darren Groth, Gas Well Administrator, presented the objectives of the Task Force. Those
included (1) assisting the City to draft an ordinance that was fair, defensible, appropriate and did
not risk taxpayer resources and (2) representing the interests of all stakeholders by soliciting
public input. He presented information on city staff and voting members of the Task Force. The
action items had been forwarded to the scientific and legal members for review. A review of the
scheduled meetings was presented along with a gas well ordinance Phase II Amendment flow
chart that showed how items would proceed through the review.
Council Member Gregory noted that some issues might not have any scientific areas associated
with that topic.
City of Denton City Council Minutes
January 31, 2011
Page 2
Groth stated that those would have a notation as to why no scientific area was included with the
issue. The focus areas included air quality, water, compliance, other gas well drilling related
facilities, public input process, insurance and bonding, lease process and property acquisitions,
on-site requirements, city infrastructure and seismic testing. He presented the voting results for
the air quality action items and the summary of those issues.
Council Member Roden suggested that as the process moved forward annotations be added
where the items were addressed in ordinance. If they were not in the ordinance, indicate why.
Annual inspections - Groth presented information concerning the 2011 annual inspections. Total
invoiced amount was $165,700 with $144,335 received in payments. That resulted in a 4.5%
outstanding collection rate. The collection rate of nearly 96% included all payments remitted by
operators; plus wells voided due to multiple factors such as plugged wells; wells permitted and
not drilled, or RRC permitted dry holes.
The figures for 2012 included 266 city of Denton wells at a cost of $850/well and 185 ETJ wells
at a cost of $580/well. For 2012, the estimated invoice amount would be $333,400. At a 95%
collection rate, the figure would be $316,730; at 90%, it would be $300,060; and at 85% it would
be $283.390.
Council Member Roden asked about the cost of the inspection team as opposed to the invoices.
Mark Cunningham, Director of Planning and Development, stated that staff had started out with
a budget and what was anticipated that would be needed. All of those funds were not used and
they were able to cut some costs.
Council Member Roden asked if it was being considered to recalculate the inspection fees in
Phase II.
Cunningham stated that the fees were based on a cost of service analysis and would probably not
be increased unless staff could justify the work being done would be at a higher cost.
City Manager Campbell stated that as the staff provided more services, there was the possibility
of having to adjust the fees as the objective was to have the program pay for itself.
Groth continued with information concerning gas well permitting. He stated that prior to August
4, 2010 the City issued 186 gas well permits. Since August 4, 2010 the City issued 21 permits.
Four permit applications had been submitted for new wells from January 13, 2012 to January 25,
2012.
Permits and inspections – Groth noted that operators must obtain their RRC permit prior to the
city’s permitting process. The RRC permit data was used to anticipate the number of future gas
wells. The 2011 inspection summary noted 2,344 notices of violation and 1,592 total
inspections.
Council Member Gregory requested that future reports include the number of violations that
were abated.
City of Denton City Council Minutes
January 31, 2011
Page 3
Council Member Roden stated that after 30 days the violation would go into a citation.
Groth stated that was correct and that staff worked with the prosecutor to work with those issues.
At date, there was a high compliance rate to get the issues corrected.
Council Member Roden asked if there ever was a point where the violations were so large that
the well had to be shut down immediately.
Groth stated that inspectors had issued stop work orders until the violations were corrected.
b. Future Bond Programs
Bryan Langley, Chief Financial Officer, stated that during the development of the FY 2011-12
budget, the improvement of street infrastructure was a major initiative for the City.
Overview and Purpose – the Overview and Purpose of the presentation was to (1) review key
elements of the Strategic Plan related to street infrastructure, (2) discuss street maintenance and
capital funding needs, (3) present key elements of the proposed bond issuances in FY 2011-12
and beyond, (4) discuss the proposed structure and charge of the advisory committee for the
2012 bond election, and (5) review key elements of the proposed bond program calendar and
outline next steps.
The Key Focus Area of Public Infrastructure was associated with street related goals and
objectives. These were based on the Council Retreat and Citizens Survey. Key objectives
included developing a long-range strategy to transition street funding to achieve the OCI criteria
and developing and implementing financing plans for identified infrastructure needs.
Street Funding – as previously discussed with Council the OCI rating (quality) of streets in
Denton had deteriorated over the past several years. The current level of street maintenance
funding was insufficient to maintain the current OCI rating. Approximately $10 million was
needed on an annual basis to prevent further decline and an enhanced capital program was also
required on an annual basis to maintain the OCI rating. A long-term strategy should be
developed to address maintenance and capital funding requirements.
In the FY 2011-12 adopted budget, street maintenance funding was increased from $2.8 to $3.5
million. In addition to the maintenance funding requirement, a capital investment of
approximately $4 million per year was needed to reconstruct existing streets.
Mayor Burroughs asked if that figure included streets available to received state funding.
Howard Martin, Assistant City Manager, stated it did not include any TxDOT roadways.
Mayor Burroughs suggested including that in the presentation as there was the need to
differentiate between local streets and those the City might be able to leverage outside funds for
such as from TxDOT.
Council Member Watts asked if the reconstruction of existing streets involved the removing of
the old asphalt to the base or overlaying.
City of Denton City Council Minutes
January 31, 2011
Page 4
Martin stated that an OCI of 40 or less would involve a complete reconstruction down to the
base.
Council Member Watts asked about the table of specific street projects and those streets that
might have a utility CIP.
Martin stated that staff had coordinated with the utility CIP for water/wastewater line
replacements and also coordinated with the bike program.
Council Member Roden questioned that if there presently was not a bike lane on the street would
the amount be included for a bike lane.
Martin stated it would be covered under that part of the project.
Langley continued that the proposed $20 million bond program would address the first five years
of the commitment, but future bond programs would also need to devote significant resources to
street construction.
FY 2011-12 Bond Program Highlights – Langley presented details on the issuance of dollars for
the program in terms of Certificates of Obligation and General Obligation bonds. COs would be
issued in lieu of Utility System Revenue Bonds for water, wastewater, and electric system
projects.
Mayor Burroughs requested that in the bond program highlights, utilities be separated out from
the other items as he would be looking at what would affect the tax rate as utilities were rate
based.
Langley stated that in 2012 there was also a potential debt issuance associated with the proposed
conference center under discussion. In November 2012, a $20 million street infrastructure voter
approved bond program was proposed. $4 million was expected to be sold each year over a five
year period.
Council Member Watts questioned why COs would be issued for the conference center rather
than an election for GOs.
Langley stated that COs were being proposed due to the timing of the project but could do an
election if Council directed.
Council Member Watts stated that there was no timeline at this point in time.
Langley stated that the general time frame was to begin construction in the summer with a fairly
aggressive schedule.
Mayor Burroughs suggested more public involvement in the conference center concerning the
issuance of certificates of obligation.
City Manager Campbell indicated that staff was keeping the Economic Development Partnership
Board appraised on what was happening with the proposed conference center.
City of Denton City Council Minutes
January 31, 2011
Page 5
Mayor Burroughs suggesting thinking about an additional vetting process to afford the same
discussion that utility Cos received with the Public Utilities Board.
Langley stated that the $20 million bond program was intended to be only be used for the
reconstruction of existing streets. Funding was intended to complement increased street
maintenance funding. The bond program assumed no tax rate increase.
Council Member Engelbrecht asked about drainage.
Martin stated that any drainage component which might be needed to accommodate the street
reconstruction would be considered.
Council Member Engelbrecht stated that he would like to know how much of $20 million would
be used for drainage as opposed to building the road.
Martin stated that they would not know that before the start of the project but could as the project
progressed.
Mayor Burroughs questioned if the committee would know about that when considering the
project streets.
Martin stated that if there were substantial drainage improvements needed, staff would be able to
address that but not be able to determine normal drainage requirements.
Bond Program Advisory Committee – Langley stated in prior bond elections large advisory
committees were formed to explore the needs of the community. Staff was recommending a
bond advisory committee no larger than 14 members with up to 2 appointments per council
member. This would be similar to the size of the Transportation Subcommittee used in a prior
process.
Council Member Roden asked if the committee would be put together prior to the bond election.
Langley stated yes and reviewed the bond election schedule.
Council Member Roden asked if the recommendation of the Committee might change as time
went on.
Langley suggested that the provisions of the election be worded carefully so they would be
flexible to reallocate the funds to a different project if needed. An oversight committee would be
created to monitor the use of the funds.
Council discussed the number of members for the committee.
Council Member Watts suggested making sure there were a certain number of members from
each district.
Mayor Burroughs suggested having a good representation from members and then divide the city
per area for the members to concentrate on.
City of Denton City Council Minutes
January 31, 2011
Page 6
Mayor Pro Tem Kamp stated that these would be appointments and not nominations. She
suggested choosing two people per district so there would be balanced representation across the
city.
Council Member Watts felt that it would be better to have 3 appointments per council member.
Charge of Advisory Committee – Langley stated that the Committee charge would be to assist
the Council with determining projects for consideration. Staff had completed a preliminary
review of the potential projects which would serve as a foundation for the Committee’s work.
Other future bond issuances planned – Langley noted that in FY 2013-14 approximately $9
million in COs were expected to be sold for the City’s matching requirements associated with the
Bonnie Brae and Mayhill projects. In FY 2015-16, an additional $40-50 million voter approved
bond election was planned.
Mayor Burroughs asked if the $4 million per year was a single amount needed or if every year
that amount would be permanently needed.
Langley stated that at least for the short time it would be issued every year but may be reduced as
the maintenance caught up to the needs.
Martin stated that as the program moved forward, staff would through look at how the backlog
was being reduced. At some point there would be an acceptable amount of backlog and then
there would not be the need to spend that $20 million. In the long term there would be less
spending as the $10 million maintenance kicked in.
c. Comprehensive Plan
Fred Greene, Assistant City Manager, presented information on where staff was in the process.
He indicated that the original bid was $743,700 and was negotiated down to $640,900. Further
reductions in the contract produced the amount of $628,500 which was $115,200 less than
originally bid. Each reduction was made to provide the greatest opportunity for the public input
and to take advantage of the consultant’s experience in community visioning, comprehensive
planning, and sustainable development. If the project was reduced any further it would impact
the scope of the project. Staff would like to put the contract on an upcoming agenda to get
approval to start the process.
Brian Lockley, Development Review Committee Administrator, presented a Comprehensive
Plan update. He stated in April the City issued a request for quote and received five proposals.
There were five phases of the work program. Those included (1) project organization, (2) issues
and existing conditions, (3) framing and vision, (4) comprehensive plan development, and (5)
final comprehensive plan and adoption. Each phase was designed to elicit the necessary data to
assess the current conditions, develop a vision and goals, and identify strategies for achieving
goals, plan preparation and adoption. Staff anticipated that Council would be briefed quarterly
on the progress of the update to the Comprehensive Plan.
City of Denton City Council Minutes
January 31, 2011
Page 7
He reviewed the steps to be included in each phase as listed on the Gantt chart which was
included in the agenda backup materials. The plan went through November 2013 to complete.
The current bid was $628,500 with staff participation to take over some of the consultant’s time.
Staff was requesting direction concerning the schedule/time frame and the current bid amount.
Mayor Burroughs felt that the timing was good and was glad to move forward with the project.
He noted that Phases 3 and 4 sounded like the current plan was being discarded and starting over
with a new phase. He did not want to discard the old plan but rather make an adjustment to the
old plan.
Lockley indicated that the concept was to update and not discard.
Council Member Gregory asked about the expenses for travel and incidentals.
Lockley stated those were included in the price.
Council Member Gregory asked about the procedures for community forums.
Lockley stated that the consultants would be in Denton for about a week. Meetings would be
held for several days but not so many meetings that people would not want to attend. After each
meeting, the results would be prepared and sent out with a newsletter and put on the City’s web
page.
Council Member Gregory questioned if the first forum would be more of a brainstorming session
and the second forum would be a reporting back scenario.
Lockley stated that the first forum would look at the information already prepared. Each meeting
would look at the information done in that section.
Council Member Gregory asked if the mind mixer program would be on-going.
Lockley stated that staff would launch the comprehensive plan on that and inform citizens on
how to participate.
Council Member Roden suggested putting on line what had been done before so residents not
familiar with the former process would know what was done before. City staff or Council could
also have additional meetings as desired and report those back to the consultant with no
additional costs.
Council Member Engelbrecht questioned who would be involved in the tour.
Lockley stated that any staff or Council who was interested could participate.
Council Member Engelbrecht questioned how to get people up to speed about the planning issues
on the comprehensive level as well as the history of how it was developed. He felt waiting too
long would be difficult to attract new individuals to the process. He suggested staff oriented
meetings to bring people up to speed on the proposal.
City of Denton City Council Minutes
January 31, 2011
Page 8
Lockley stated that before getting into the actual details of the update staff would have a series of
meetings around the city to announce what the update of comprehensive plan would involve and
what was a comprehensive plan.
Council Member Gregory suggested four pre-meeting in the four council districts as
neighborhood meetings that the Council could participate.
Mayor Pro Tem Kamp stated that an update of the current comprehensive plan was to have been
updated every 10 years but it was not done at the ten year mark due to financial reasons.
d. City Council Meeting Procedures
City Attorney Burgess stated that she would be presenting information on parliamentary
procedures and the fundamentals of delaying a question. Commonly misused motions included
lay on the table (to table), postpone to a certain time and postpone indefinitely.
Laying on the table - the purpose of the motion to “Lay on the table” was to take up a matter of
immediate urgency, putting the pending question aside. It could be used when considering an
item on the agenda and a speaker came in and Council wanted to hear the speaker. In that
instance, Council could lay the motion on the table so they could hear the speaker. A motion to
lay on the table was non debatable.
Mayor Burroughs stated that a motion to lay on the table would be during the meeting and
Council would intend to come back to it.
Burgess continued that the motion to lay on the table remained on the table until there was a
motion to take it off the table or it died at the end of the next meeting.
There was no such thing as tabling a motion indefinitely. It was not proper to table until a
certain time and was only used to lay something aside temporarily to attend to an urgent matter.
It took a majority vote, was not debatable and died if not removed from the table by the next
meeting.
Postpone to a certain time (postpone definitely) – the purpose to postpone to a time certain was
to allow a motion to be put off, within limits, to a definite day, meeting or hour or until after a
certain event. This motion could be debated but debate had to be confined to the merits of the
postponement and not the question being postponed. A motion to postpone to certain time took
precedence over the main motion and amendment, and to postpone indefinitely or to amend.
Motion to postpone indefinitely – the effect of this motion would be to kill the main motion and
was useful in disposing of a badly chosen main motion without adopting or rejecting the motion.
It could be put back on an agenda and would not need a vote by Council to consider.
Council Member Gregory stated that a motion to delay to a date or event certain would be the
one most often used.
Burgess stated that a motion to postpone would be used rather than one to continue.
City of Denton City Council Minutes
January 31, 2011
Page 9
Mayor Burroughs stated at times a public hearing was kept open and the item continued so that it
would not have to go through reposting requirements. He questioned if that postponement to
date certain was against the notice requirements.
Burgess stated that the public hearing could open and Council postpone all of it and not violate
the publication notices. The public there would hear that it was being postponed and not have to
be published again.
City Manager Campbell presented information on the City Council public hearing process.
With the existing process, the Mayor typically read the caption, the City Manager introduced
staff for a presentation, staff presented the case, there were potential questions of staff by
Council, potential statements were made by Council and then the Mayor would open the public
hearing. He had a concern that during the questioning and dialog portions there might be the
impression that Council had made a decision on a case before opening the public hearing. The
Mayor asked if the applicant was present to speak before other individuals spoke on the issue
which resulted in potential questioning of the applicant by Council. There was the potential for
questioning of staff by Council and potential statements made by Council before the Mayor
opened the public hearing.
Staff was proposing a process whereby the Mayor read the caption and then opened the public
hearing. Staff would be introduced to make the staff presentation which would consist of facts
relative to the case. The applicant would then present his case with potential questioning of the
applicant by the Council. Input would then be provided by the public with potential questioning
of the public by the Council. Following that there would be a potential rebuttal by the applicant,
potential questioning of staff and/or the applicant by Council. The Mayor would then close the
public hearing, discuss the case, provide a motion, second of the motion, discussion and vote.
Mayor Burroughs indicated that he did not have a problem with that adjustment. He questioned
the time allotted to the applicant.
City Manager Campbell stated that the Council’s Rules of Procedures indicated the allotted time.
Council Member Gregory indicated he was in agreement with the new proposal and asked about
the length of time for rebuttal.
Council Member Engelbrecht suggested being sensitive to the number of people speaking as
opposed to allowing the applicant a larger amount of time. He questioned if the Planning and
Zoning Commission had the same regulations
City Manager Campbell felt that the same principles would apply.
Council Member Watts stated that once the public hearing was closed and Council was in
discussion, they might have questions for the applicant. At that point the applicant would have
the opportunity to come back up and speak which the public would not be able to do. Unless it
was a question of fact, how would it be handled that so that the applicant did not come back with
more time.
City of Denton City Council Minutes
January 31, 2011
Page 10
Council Member Gregory stated that if the process was followed and the public hearing was
closed, then the item postponed to a certain time or event to get answers back, citizens would
have another opportunity to speak on the item when it was placed back on an agenda.
Mayor Burroughs stated that there was a difference between closing the public hearing and
leaving the public hearing open when postponing an item. If the public hearing was left open,
citizens could not speak again and Council could only hear new speakers. Perhaps the public
hearing could be reopened.
Burgess stated that she would not be in favor of reopening a public hearing in a different
meeting.
Council Member Gregory stated that he did not like negotiating with the applicant during the
meeting.
Council Member Roden suggested an educational moment before the start of a public hearing so
everyone knew how the process was done.
Council Member Gregory suggested the City Secretary develop a fact sheet on the purpose of a
public hearing; how it happened, group speakers so as to not repeat information, how to do it
effectively to make all of the points. Perhaps this could be added to the agenda so the public
could view it when they clicked on the agenda.
Mayor Pro Tem Kamp felt that the most confusion was with Individual Items and Public
Hearings. Blue speaker cards were not required for Public Hearings.
Council Member Engelbrecht felt that the differences between Individual Items and Public
Hearings needed to be presented. He knew that in the past at the Planning and Zoning
Commission meetings, the process was discussed prior to opening a public hearing. He
suggested finding tapes of prior meetings that citizens could view ones that were good examples
of public hearings.
Mayor Pro Tem Kamp suggested putting a permanent note on agendas or prepare an information
sheet with a brief statement about the process.
e. Citywide Strategic Plan
Bryan Langley, Chief Financial Officer, presented an update on the Strategic Plan.
Overview and purpose of the presentation included (1) a review of the goal and history of the
City’s strategic planning process, (2) provide an overview of key focus areas and goals outlined
in the Strategic Plan, (3) discuss potential changes to the Strategic Plan, (4) outline design and
intent of the Strategic Plan performance report, and (5) next steps.
Goal of Strategic Plan – a strategic plan defined who we were, where we wanted to go, and how
we planned to get there. It shifted policy and administrative decision-making from a reactive to
a proactive approach. It established long-term commitment and stability for the community and
organization, and linked organizational direction to established vision, mission, and values.
City of Denton City Council Minutes
January 31, 2011
Page 11
A review of the strategic planning process from the January 2008 Council Planning Session
through January 2010 Leadership Team performance report was presented. Key Focus Areas
consisted of (1) organizational excellence, (2) public infrastructure, (3) sustainable economic
development & environmental stewardship, (4) safe, livable, and family friendly community, and
(5) partnerships, and regional leadership;
Council made suggested language changes to some to the subgroups under the KFAs which
Langley indicated would be incorporated into the document.
Potential changes to the Strategic Plan – Langley indicated that the Strategic Plan was approved
in April 2011. Strategic Plans should be reviewed at least annually to determine if any
modification were necessary. The Leadership Team had reviewed the Strategic Plan and did not
recommend any changes at this time. As staff went through other KFAs they might find areas of
suggested changes and those would be brought back to Council.
Langley reviewed the Strategic Plan Department Responsibility Matrix and Performance Report
Dashboard. Council made comments and suggestions on the key performance indicators.
Council agreed with the process and to continue with the other key focus areas.
Langley stated that the next steps in the process were to revise the Strategic Plan for Council
review in necessary, incorporate Council feedback and complete the Strategic Plan Performance
Report, utilize the Strategic Plan and performance data in development of the 2012-13 budget,
refine and improve performance measures and scorecard for the next fiscal year.
f. DME Infrastructure Planning and Pole Attachment Policy
Phil Williams, General Manager-Denton Municipal Electric, stated that although DME’s
substations serviced the peak loads experienced this summer, the present system continued to
need new substations and transmission infrastructure which must be constructed to provide
customers highly reliable electric service and to comply with NERC requirements. He presented
statistics on the percentages of the station’s maximum transformer ratings and a 2013-2017
transmission enhancement schedule. He indicated that continued emphasis on electric system
construction, improvement, and age related replacement was essential.
Williams continued with a pole attachment discussion. He indicated that electric and phone
companies had been in the pole business for a long time. To minimize the number of poles
required to provide utility services and to share costs, many years ago, electric and telephone
entities agreed to allow each other to attach to each other’s poles. As cable companies entered
the market they also sought to utilize and attach to existing poles. Cable companies attached via
pole attachment agreements where telephone companies attached via shared cost agreements.
Currently there were 7,083 Verizon attachments to DME poles and 2,168 DME attachments to
Verizon poles for a net of 4,915 pole attachments billed to Verizon. It was estimated that cable
companies had about 6,600 pole attachments. Periodic pole inventories were done and audited to
keep accurate records. The poles were also inspected at that time to determine if they needed to
be replaced.
City of Denton City Council Minutes
January 31, 2011
Page 12
Council Member Gregory asked if the current contract required the entities to change out in a
certain amount of time.
Williams indicated that Verizon had not signed a current contract and the old contract did not
have a time frame.
Council Member Engelbrecht felt that residents needed to know that some poles were still up due
to Verizon lines on it.
Council Member Roden asked if there were certain sections of town when new pole were
constructed and the old poles were cut down but still used.
Williams replied correct. He indicated that currently all telecommunication companies had
signed an agreement and were paying the per pole attachment cost except for Verizon. Verizon
was billed the same amount per pole as the cable companies, but Verizon had indicated that
according to FCC rules their calculations indicated that they should be paying much less. Staff
was in discussions with the City Attorney’s office about legal options.
g. Regional Transportation Issues
Mark Nelson, Director of Transportation, indicated that he would be discussing an alternate
delegate to the Regional Transportation Counsel, I35E, the fleet maintenance agreement with
DCTA and the A-train.
RTC alternate –the current alternate delegate was not seeking re-election thus the alternate
delegate would no longer be an elected official.The need was to find a new alternate prior to the
May-June time frame.
Mayor Pro Tem Kamp stated that she had not heard from anyone in the other cities who might be
interested in serving as an alternate. Her preference, unless heard otherwise from other cities,
was to have Mayor Burroughs serve as the alternate.
Council Member Gregory suggested having a newer council member be an alternate to keep the
history going as Mayor Pro Tem Kamp and Mayor Burroughs would soon be term limited. This
would especially be needed in the last year of the term.
After discussion, consensus of the Council was to proceed with contacting the area cities to see if
anyone would object to Mayor Burroughs serving as the alternate.
I35 widening –Nelson stated that the southern portion of the project from I-635 to George Bush
and up to Hickory Creek had been cleared by the environmental study. The northern section
from Swisher Road to Highway 380 had not yet received environmental clearance. That should
st
be received by April 1. TxDOT had issued a Request for Quote to see what type of responses
they could receive regarding the project.
DCTA/City joint fleet maintenance facility – the Federal Transportation Authority had expressed
a concern about the project time line. The facility DCTA planned for the Teasley area and
southeast Denton was near the end of the design. They received grant money for a portion of the
City of Denton City Council Minutes
January 31, 2011
Page 13
project. FTA was concern if the project was constructed on city property and there was, at some
point in the future, a desire to discontinue the agreement how would the funds be paid back to
th
the FTA. If the project built 6 bays and only 5 were used by DCTA, the FTA indicated the 6
bay could not be used by the City. Incidental use by the city would not be allowed. DCTA was
now thinking about moving forward with their own facility. The Landfill also wanted their
facility back from DCTA and returned to Solid Waste by July of 2012. The joint maintenance
agreement would not be completed.
Council Member Roden asked if a new DCTA facility would have to have city approval.
Mark Cunningham, Director of Planning and Development stated that the site was zoned
correctly but would have to go through the permitting process.
Downtown shuttle – there was some desire by Council to have a downtown circulator route
around the Square to the Transit Center which would be a hop-on/hop-off service. Recently
DCTA had changed some frequencies for service around the Square and there was no signature
service from the Square. In 2011 DCTA presented a plan to the Mobility Committee for a
circulator route. Hours of operation were proposed for Friday 3:00 pm to 11:30 pm and Saturday
11:00 am to 11:15 p.m. at a proposed cost of $95,000. Service for Monday through Thursday
and weekend service would be in $100,000 range. SPAN was also contacted about providing
service with an estimated cost of $117,000 as opposed to the $95,000 from DCTA.
Complimentary ADA services would also have to be provided at a cost of $20,000. The City
would also have to provide that service if it did the circulator route.
Council Member Watts indicated that he would like to know how the Friday night service would
be worked out with DCTA before considering this service.
Mayor Burroughs felt that it could be an on-the-shelf item to take down when they were able to
do it. Have the details worked out so it could be used when ready.
A Train service – Nelson indicated that the DCTA had benchmarked weekend service to meet
50% of the weekday service.
Council Member Watts asked how that benchmark was established.
City Manager Campbell stated that DCTA had worked with the cities and had some discussion
about the benchmarks but there never was an agreement regarding those benchmarks. DCTA
went back to the Board and the Board adopted those benchmarks.
Nelson stated that DCTA had collected data from July to the end of December and only on 3 of 4
weekends did Friday night service meet the threshold with ridership continuing to go down.
Saturday service was much higher than anticipated. Friday night and Saturday service had
always been viewed as a package service. The City’s figures indicated 95% when combined.
There was some discussion at the DCTA Board meeting regarding efforts to market the service
whether from the Chamber of Commerce, the city of Denton or merchants in the downtown area.
The Board voted 7-2 to continue the pilot service until June of 2012. Some opponents of Friday
service were in favor of midday service as currently there was no midday service.
City of Denton City Council Minutes
January 31, 2011
Page 14
City Manager Campbell presented information concerning inspection fees and the traffic signal
at MedPark.
Staff was still working with DCTA regarding the inspection fees. When the project started the
inspection fees were discussed and at that time reduced the fees to 2.5% from the normal fee of
3.5%. The original estimated fee would have been $265,337. Based on the cost of the project at
that time, that would have saved DCTA $106,000 in costs. During the course of the project
DCTA paid $188,000, leaving a balance due of $76,000 which was invoiced to DCTA. In
January, DCTA revised the unit costs downward and omitted some costs originally included in
the agreement indicating that the balance they owed was $10,000. Staff reviewed the DCTA
revised unit costs and added back the items omitted. By accepting DCTA’s revised unit costs
and including the omitted items, the balance due would be $36,000.
Traffic Signal at MedPark-
Construction of the signal (not operable) was a requirement of DCTA as part of the project costs.
The cost of the signal was about $250,000 but the contractor built it too tall to meet separation
requirements with TMPA power lines and there was not enough clearance between the signal
and the TMPA power line. Staff was working with DCTA to find a remedy and have determined
that the clearance would have to be expanded and change out the poles for shorter ones.
Additional poles would also have to be purchased for storage if needed. Cost for the
modification to DCTA was unknown at this time. The issue was that DCTA paid $250,000 for
the signal and would have to pay all costs for remediation of the problem. The City had capital
funds that could be paid to DCTA in an amount up to $165,000 as a contribution to the cost of
the signal. Funds came from another developer who paid funds to the City. The City could
either use it to contribute to the signal costs or return it to the developer. Scenarios to consider
were (1) the City pay DCTA $165,000 as a contribution to the signal, (2) DCTA pay the City
$36,265 in final Inspection fees and (3) DCTA nets $128,735 to apply to the construction of the
signal, use in operating budget, put in a working capital reserve fund for Positive Train Control
or for any other purpose. Campbell indicated that unless Council had a problem, staff would
proceed with discussions with DCTA.
Consensus of the Council was to continue with the negotiations.
With no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 3:40 p.m.
____________________________________
MARK A. BURROUGHS
MAYOR
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS
____________________________________
JENNIFER WALTERS
CITY SECRETARY
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS