March 19, 2013 Minutes
CITY OF DENTON CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
March 19, 2013
After determining that a quorum was present, the City Council convened in a Work Session on
Tuesday, March 19, 2013 at 3:00 p.m. in the Council Work Session Room.
PRESENT: Council Member King, Council Member Watts, Council Member Gregory,
Council Member Engelbrecht, Mayor Pro Tem Kamp, Mayor Burroughs, Council
Member Roden
ABSENT: None
1. Citizen Comments on Consent Agenda Items
Robert Donnelly submitted a Speaker Card for Item 4I. He indicated he was opposed to the
ordinance.
2. Requests for clarification of agenda items listed on the agenda for March 19, 2013.
Council Member Gregory, speaking on Item 4I, stated that clarifications and adjustments had
been made to the proposed wording based on prior Council conversations. The backup materials
had an explanation on when a citizen would be able to speak to Council and when a property
owner would be notified. He asked staff to review that information.
Paul Williamson, Real Estate Manager, stated that after the project was identified, the first
engagement with the property owner was for a request to survey the property. That request
might be as much as couple of years before the project was started. Once an area of acquisition
was identified an appraisal was done, the appraiser contacted the property owner to visit the
property and had interaction with the property owner. Those were two elements for active
engagement with property owners ahead of an offer.
Council Member Gregory reviewed a scenario when a couple on Mayhill wanted to shift the
route away from their property to the other side of the street. They had conversation with
council members, did a citizen report and had numerous conversations with staff. He questioned
if this proposal would that make it less possible for that kind of interaction with the Council.
Williamson stated not at all.
City Manager Campbell stated that the way the ordinance drafted it would be only for first offers
pursuant to the appraisal. Any condemnation would still need Council authority
3.Receive a report, hold a discussion, and provide staff with direction regarding potential
amendments to the Public Art policy.
Bryan Langley, Assistant City Manager, presented the details of the Pubic Art Policy passed in
2006. The policy stated that the City would include a base of 2% for the arts from all future
capital improvement programs with the option and flexibility to increase to a 4% maximum,
based on needs and economic conditions. The thought was that a single issue bond issuance
would not be included in this policy. The Citizens Bond Advisory Committee and Council
City of Denton City Council Minutes
March 19, 2013
Page 2
recommended up to $400,000 in public art improvements for the 2012 bond program. Voters
approved the bond program on November 6, 2012.
In July 2012, the HOT Committee asked staff to consider possible amendments to the Public Art
Policy. Some of the issues associated with possible amendments included (1) the Capital
Improvement Program was not defined, (2) a concern regarding whether all debt issuances such
as Certificates of Obligation, General Obligation bonds, Revenue bonds, etc. were subject to the
policy, and (3) it appeared that public art would be a required component of a potential
convention center debt issuance. In January 2013 the Council informally indicated that their
intent was to only apply the policy to voter authorized bonds. At a minimum the policy needed
to be clarified to reflect the intent of the Council.
Additional issues - by applying the policy to only voter authorized bonds, public art funding
would be limited in time and scope. By law, public art funding could only be applied to projects
closely related to bond propositions. This prevented funds from various propositions being
combined to complete standalone projects. Public art projects could be independently approved
by a separate proposition. The timing and amount of future bond programs was not known. As
such, a more reliable, flexible and predictable source of funds was needed to properly fund
public art projects.
The Public Art Committee currently served in an advisory capacity to the Parks, Recreation and
Beautification Board. The reporting structure was problematic since potential public art projects
may be at the Airport, Convention Center and other facilities. The policy made several specific
references to the Greater Denton Arts Council but did not mention any other art groups.
Staff recommended that a new public art fund be created to support public art projects. This
would maintain a minimum balance of $500,000 but not more than $1 million for eligible
projects. The funds would be replenished periodically based on need. Additional flexibility
would be created since the funds could be used for any project. It also provided more reliable
and predictable funding source.
Mayor Pro Tem Kamp questioned the minimum amount of $500,000.
Langley stated that it was to make sure there was a significant source of funding for projects.
The minimum amount could be removed if Council desired.
Mayor Pro Tem Kamp questioned what would happen if a project was at that amount.
Langley stated that if a project approached all of the funding, the funding would have to be
replenished the following year with the budget.
City Manager Campbell stated that currently there was no funding to do projects. The proposal
was an attempt to furnish the fund at a significant amount to be able to do a project.
Mayor Burroughs questioned that if a fund were established, what restrictions would there be on
the City to access those funds for other purposes such as a natural disaster. It would be awkward
to remove the funds once they had been established. There were realistic possibilities that a
City of Denton City Council Minutes
March 19, 2013
Page 3
future Council might want to take the money out of the fund for more pressing needs. He asked
what action would have to be taken to get the funds out.
Langley stated that restrictions could be placed in the policy and if a future Council wanted to
change the policy it could be done. The idea was to try and have a reliable amount of money for
the arts.
Council Member Gregory stated that it would be a statement that the intent was for a specific
purpose and could be changed in the future.
Council Member Roden stated that currently there were no dedicated funds for public art. He
questioned how projects were done now.
Lockley stated that there was approximately $30-40,000 of HOT funds for public art. Other than
that, funding would be a supplemental budget request.
Council Member Roden asked for the reason for the $1 million cap.
Langley stated that the fund meant to be a significant amount of money but not to allocate more
than resources would allow.
City Manager Campbell stated that Council could change the amount at any time as the fund
grew. Council would have the ability to change the range if they wanted.
Council Member Roden asked if the fund would zero out at the end of year or would it continue
to build up.
Langley stated that unspent money would remain in the fund. Staff was proposing to sell
$400,000 in GO bonds related to public art. That funding would be put in the fund with a
shortage of $100,000 for the $500,000 minimum. The Public Art Committee talked about a
public art master plan which would be $70-80,000 for the master plan.
Langley stated that additional language was recommended which would reference various
artistic groups and organizations within the community. This would emphasize that the policy
was intended to engage all members of the community for public art projects. Currently the
policy referenced the Greater Denton Art Council and institutions but a new group in the future
would also be included.
City Manager Campbell stated the wording would provide flexibility in the future to allow other
groups to participate.
Langley stated that the current Public Art Committee had two appointed members from the
DGAC in addition to the seven members appointed by Council. Membership would not change
on the Committee.
Council Member Gregory stated in the revised redline policy, the 2% and 4% funding from the
CIP projects was eliminated. He was not comfortable deleting that wording unless there was
City of Denton City Council Minutes
March 19, 2013
Page 4
another stable funding source in place. He was thinking about increasing the HOT fund levels to
do that.
Langley stated that there was a listing provided with potential sources for funding. Some of
those included any funding source from the Council such as CIP voter approved bond election,
Certificates of Obligation or any other allocation from the city funding source.
Council Member Gregory asked if the revisions would allow money from that fund to be used to
develop a master plan.
Langley stated correct that Council would approve the use of the funds.
Council Member Gregory asked about funding from bonds.
Langley stated that there could be funding from every bond issuance but there would be
restrictions on the use of those funds through the bonds. The funds would have to be related
somehow to the projects approved or have a standalone proposition on the ballot for the funding.
Council Member Engelbrecht stated that the $400,000 from the GO sale was going in the fund
but those funds were restricted for street projects. He questioned what was gained by placing
those funds in the proposed fund.
Langley stated that public art would gain at least $100,000 which was not planned. There was
no funding approved at this time for public art except for the $400,000. As the funds were spent,
they would have to be replenished by the City. The proposal would provide a funding
mechanism for years to come.
City Manager Campbell stated that once the fund was created, there could be several sources of
funding into the fund. Some of the funds in the account could be used for the master plan but not
the money that was specific for the bond funds. Money from any other source could be used for
any other project.
Langley stated that this proposal would place a priority on funding and make sure it met the
funding criteria.
Council Member Watts felt it was a good idea to fund a level and source of funding for major
projects. He questioned what funds would be restricted and what would be unrestricted. Funds
primarily from HOT funds were restricted from the State on what they could be spent for. It
would be an additional key to not using the funds for other purposes. HOT funds were restricted.
He felt that the bond issuance was done and if there was a desire to create a fund, the $500,000
would not have to be put in the fund all at once. It might take 2-3 years to get the funds up to
that level.
Langley continued that staff was also recommending that the Public Art Committee advise the
Council directly. This would increase communication between the Public Art Committee and
Council, enhance the importance of public art in the community, and require a revision to the
ordinance which established the Public Art Committee. Staff also recommended additional
language be included which referenced various artistic groups and organizations within the
City of Denton City Council Minutes
March 19, 2013
Page 5
community. Other minor changes were proposed to clarify language and improve sentence
structure.
In summary, the proposed policy revisions attempted to provide a more reliable and predictable
source of funds for public art, increased flexibility for the selection of public art projects and
enhanced the importance of public art in the community. If the changes were acceptable to
Council, staff would prepare the necessary resolution and ordinance for consideration at a future
meeting.
Carol Phillips, Chair-Public Art Committee, presented a background of the Committee. She
stated that the Committee was expecting that the funding section would be reviewed and revised,
but was surprised by other changes. The Committee felt that “other artistic groups and
organizations” referenced in four sections was unnecessary. The proposed funding changes had
merits but needed clarification and assurances. A listing of positive results from the Committee
was presented.
Proposed policy revisions – the Committee requested clarification of funding from “all future
Capital Improvement Programs”. It was felt that the definition needed to be clarified and set by
Council without other changes to the policy. In terms of the proposed convention center, the
Committee felt that the policy would not apply. Merits of the proposed public art fund included
funding source for public art, and allowed a funding source not currently available on an annual
basis.
Outstanding funding questions and concerns – the current funding had been tested and succeeded
state and nationwide. More specific language needed to be included as to how funds could be
used. The Committee’s primary goal was to complete a Public Art Master Plan in the first year
funding cycle. Staff indicated that the first funding cycle would include $400,000 from the
Street CIP and $100,000 from other sources for a total of $500,000. This raised concerns that
encumbered funds could be used over multiple funding cycles to meet the minimum balance.
The Committee also questioned if in one fiscal year the $500,000 was used in total, would the
City be able to meet the $500,000 minimum as stated. Donations from private sources should be
held in a separate account and not deducted from the fund balance.
Other artistic groups – in 2005 the City reached out to the GDAC in the formation of the original
policy due to its expertise and longstanding strong partnership with the City. The original
document included GDAC which had served since 1970 as the umbrella organization for the arts
with 37 non-profit organizational members and numerous for-profit business members. The
Committee questioned if the intent was to enlarge the size of the Committee.
The Committee felt that it was a knowledgeable, committed and dedicated group. It was ready,
willing and able to work openly and closely with the Council and/or staff.
Mayor Pro Tem Kamp stated that Council was not looking to expand the Committee. The use of
“other artistic groups” was just an overall statement.
Mayor Burroughs stated that he had a number of issues with a set amount of funding asked for
future use. He felt it would set up a lot of friction by unintentionally trying to create a positive
outcome but would be very possible to do the opposite. Keeping up the fund balance would be
City of Denton City Council Minutes
March 19, 2013
Page 6
difficult and could be a tug of war for future Councils trying to fund. He suggested that HOT
funds be increased for the consistent funding. It was much better to allow citizens in future CIP
committees to make the big ticket calls. Council could have a general charge to future CIP bond
committees for a standardized minimum of 2% to be allocated to arts projects and then leave it to
the committee to formulate the projects and prioritize the projects. Because it would be a CIP
bond process it would adjust to the financial position of the City. This would provide stability
for the funds and big ticket items would come from the CIP bond committee. The funding would
be narrowed to GOs only.
Council Member Roden asked how much HOT funds were currently provided.
Langley stated that it was approximately $35,000 per year which represented 2.4% of the
receipts.
Council Member Roden felt the numbers were arbitrary and once in place there could be
guidance for projects on future funding and how to budget for those projects.
Mayor Pro Tem Kamp stated that the reason the policy was started in the first place was that
there was no funding for public art. In 2005 the Council at that time did not think it would take
this long to have another CIP bond election. The proposal would allow for other ways to fund
the account. She suggested specifying that the funding would come from voter approved bonds.
Mayor Burroughs suggested including a charge to the CIP bond committee.
Mayor Pro Tem Kamp stated that once Council realized the policy could be applied to utility
bonds, etc., there was a concern for funding. She felt that additional HOT funds was not a place
to look for more funding as spending of those funds had specific categories on how to spend the
money.
Council Member Watts stated that the Mayor’s proposal revisited the issue Council had with the
street issue whether to have the art funding associated with a project or a standalone proposition.
With the fund COs could be used and out of that fund could do the debt payment.
Mayor Burroughs stated that his suggestion would be for a separate item and not connected to
any other proposition in the GOs. The direction would be a minimum of 2% on a separate line
item for public art. The CIP bond committee would determine what projects to use that funding
for.
Council Member King felt that it would unhinge the frustration and not be connected. He
questioned if the funds were not used in a fiscal year, would it be funded again in the following
year.
Langley stated that the amount would be kept in the fund. Council could address how much to
put in the fund each year.
Council Member King stated that it would make the city financially responsible on how to fund
the account.
City of Denton City Council Minutes
March 19, 2013
Page 7
City Manger Campbell stated that it would not be an either or situation. If it were a specific
project it could be a standalone item on the budget regardless of how it was funded.
Council Member Gregory asked how specific ballot wording would have to be if there was a
separate proposition just for art.
Langley stated that it would have to be a capital project with a long life and no debt issuance. He
would have to get with bond counsel for specifics. He felt there would not have to be individual
details but a general presentation of the project.
Mayor Burroughs felt that as long as it was worded broadly enough, it would be able to meet the
threshold criteria.
Council Member Watts stated that the Public Art Committee wanted a master plan and once that
was in place, the Committee’s recommendations would help with a clearer roadmap to funding.
He felt it was not good to do something now but rather wait until a master plan was in place. He
felt the first order of business would be to develop a master plan.
Mayor Burroughs stated that many master plans did not have a timeline associated with them.
Langley stated that it might not have a detailed cost analysis for projects either.
Council Member Roden stated that a master plan would give goals. He suggested starting a fund
with $80,000-$100,000 and not a minimum balance at the immediate time. The 2005 Task Force
surveyed cities and the current method of funding was the way it was done. He suggested
finding out how that was done mechanically so staff would not have to redo the procedure.
Council Member Gregory stated that he agreed to the change to having the Committee report to
the Council, funding in the upcoming budget for a master plan and after that was done work on
the rest of the policy changes.
Mayor Burroughs suggested that the definition of bonds to be included in the policy would be
CIP GOs and not any others.
Council Member Engelbrecht questioned how long it would take to complete the master plan.
Phillips replied about a year.
Council Member Engelbrecht recommended considering future updates to the Public Art Master
Plan at the same time the Comprehensive Plan was updated. He asked how the maintenance of
the public art would be funded.
Langley stated that the maintenance would be appropriated in the Parks budget.
Council Member Engelbrecht suggested that as part of process there be a report on the
maintenance of outdoor projects.
City of Denton City Council Minutes
March 19, 2013
Page 8
Langley stated there was a section in the policy regarding maintenance and a budget would be
developed for it.
Council Member Watts stated that for clarification, the proposal was to leave in the 2-4% and
just change who the Committee would be reporting to plus tie the policy only to GOs.
Langley stated the proposal was that the funding would remain at 2-4% but only for voter
authorized bond elections (GOs only) and the Public Art Committee would report directly to
Council. He questioned the wording in the proposal dealing with “other artistic groups”.
Mayor Burroughs felt it was not necessary to specify other groups as the GDAC was an umbrella
group for many other organizations.
Council Member Roden stated that next year there would be a bond election for streets only and
the policy was still in the same position as last year. Nothing had been fixed.
Council Member Watts stated that a question from the last vote was whether to have public art
included in the proposition or have as a standalone vote.
Council Member Roden stated that as matter of policy, Council needed to determine if it wanted
to have it included.
Mayor Burroughs stated that a single bond package such as fire stations would present a
difficulty in what public art would be included in that.
City Manager Campbell stated that part of the problem was having that kind of finding tied to a
percentage that was unlimited. At 2% Council would have not discretion on how to limit the
amount.
Langley stated that there would be a challenge for a specific package. If there were several
propositions, even with a master plan, there might not be any kind of overlay with particular
projects. That would continue to be a challenge. He questioned if the Council direction was to
hold on changing anything in policy until it was known what other cities were doing or limited
changes.
Consensus of the Council was to do the limited changes of the reporting structure of the Public
Art Committee, limiting the policy only to GOs and delete other artistic groups.
4. Receive a report, hold a discussion, and give staff direction regarding the proposed
Hotel/Convention Center.
Jon Fortune, Assistant City Manager, stated that his presentation would include a historical
review; project overview in terms of location, hotel/restaurant and convention center; financing
for the construction and next steps. He presented information on the historical review from
1994-to present.
Project overview – this project was a collaboration between the City, O'Reilly (OHM) and UNT.
It involved an Embassy Suites hotel, a Denton convention center and Houlihan's restaurant. The
City of Denton City Council Minutes
March 19, 2013
Page 9
site was 13.5 acres located on UNT property. The hotel and restaurant would be OHM funded
while the convention center would be city funded. The total project cost was $85 million with
$25 million of that for the convention center and $60 million for the hotel and restaurant.
Project Overview – hotel/restaurant - OHM would lease the land from UNT. It would be funded,
built and owned by OHM. The Embassy Suites would have approximately 318 suites and be 12
stories. The facility would be LEED certified. Houlihan’s would have approximately 8000
square feet with 290 seats. There was an educational opportunity through the UNT School of
Hospitality. The cost would be approximately $60 million.
Council Member Gregory questioned what type of restaurant would be included and if it had to
be a Houlihan’s.
Fortune stated that OHM was looking for an upper level type restaurant and had a relationship
with Houlihan’s.
Council Member Watts stated that the $60 million cost did not include any land costs and asked
if there was an idea on the assessed value.
Fortune stated that staff had several conversations with the Appraisal District which indicated
that the value of the project was on a gross income approach. The District had a multiplier that
would be used for the valuations.
Mayor Burroughs asked if that include the value of fixtures, furniture, etc.
Fortune stated he would research that.
Project Overview - Convention Center – the City could lease the land from UNT with the City to
fund and own the convention center. The City would not be funding the hotel. OHM would
serve as architect and construction manager. The convention center would be sub-leased to
OHM to operate and manage. The approximate cost was $25 million to fund the convention
center. The debt would be supported from project revenue including OHM rent.
Financing - Convention Center – the goal was to have the project be self supporting. The City
would sell bonds (COs) to fund the convention center. The debt would be supported from
project revenue including OHM rent. A Tax Increment Finance District would be created to help
insure the project was developed. It would be located on UNT property that was currently tax
exempt, the leasehold interest in the hotel would be taxable and provided an opportunity for
participation by DISD and County.
Council Member Watts questioned that with a sublease, it someone wanted to rent the ballroom
the rental rate would not be taxed and provide gross revenue for OHM.
Fortune stated correct. He continued with the financing of the convention center. The debt
service would be funded by HOT taxes related to the development of the project. This would
include HOT revenue from the convention center hotel and up to $100,000 in HOT revenue from
related convention bookings in other hotels. The debt service would also be funded with TIRZ
revenue (ad valorem taxes from increased value), city sales taxes, and OHM lease payments to
City of Denton City Council Minutes
March 19, 2013
Page 10
the City. Those payments would be equal to the net balance of the total project revenue and the
amount needed to completely satisfy the city's annual debt payment. It would begin in year three
of operations.
Council Member Gregory asked if funding would be taken from other recipients of HOT funds.
Fortune stated that would not be done.
Council Member Watts questioned if the $100,000 was committed whether the project
materialized or not.
Fortune stated that this money would be dedicated to the City's debt services.
Council Member Watts stated that OHM would be make up whatever the City was short in debt
service.
Fortune replied correct.
Council Member Watts asked what would happen if the DISD or County would not participate in
the TIRZ.
Fortune stated it would result in an additional burden to the developer and not the City.
Mayor Pro Tem Kamp stated that the use of HOT funds had been discussed for a number of
years and that the additional amount would not be taken from current recipients.
Council Member Engelbrecht questioned if there was a limitation on the spending of HOT funds.
Mayor Pro Tem Kamp stated it would depend on how the funds were allocated. They also had to
be spent annually.
Council discussed the payment options, debt payment options, debt service, options for payment
if obligations were not met, and future capital replacement fund.
Fortune stated that next steps involved (1) finalizing the development agreement and leases
which required City Council and UNT Regents approval plus Council approval of legal services
to finalize the development agreement, (2) creating the TIRZ and invite the DISD and County to
participate, (3) completing the design, (4) soliciting construction bids, and (5) beginning
construction.
Council Member Watts stated that a condition was to include the TIRZ.
Fortune stated that OHM would want it included as it would determine the lease agreement. The
DISD would not participate until they saw the developers agreement. Without the TIRZ, OHM
might not do the project.
Council Member Engelbrecht asked about how the time line for the I35 rebuild in the area would
fit in.
City of Denton City Council Minutes
March 19, 2013
Page 11
Fortune stated that there was an 18-24 month design and construction process.
5. Receive a report, hold a discussion, and give staff direction regarding State of Texas
Legislative issues, including but not limited to SB and HB 14, related to the process of
issuing bonds; HB 738, related to county authority to review a petition by a Municipal
Utility District located wholly within a municipal extraterritorial jurisdiction; SB 276,
related to the creation of a Local Government Corporation by a transit authority; HB
1496, related to regulation of gas wells; and legislation regarding credit access (payday
lending) practices.
Lindsey Baker, Assistant to the City Manager, presented an overview on the legislative session.
She stated that bill filing ended on March 8th and that approximately 5700 bills had been filed.
She would be reviewing a few bills that were important to the city of Denton.
SH and HB 4 related to fiscal transparency and accountability of cities. This bill would alter the
process for issuance of certificates of obligation by cities and counties, and would significantly
increase items required to be shown on ballots for bond elections. It would also create increased
ongoing reporting requirements regarding indebtedness.
Mayor Burroughs felt this was a high priority bill as it was sponsored by the Comptroller’s
Office. While it was tagged as a transparency bill, Denton was already doing much of what the
bill would require. What affected Denton was the ballot language issue. Part of what was
suggested was that the ballot be required to present statistics about all finances of the City or any
governmental entity. All bond provisions would require a list of financial data on the ballot
itself. This could be done in a graph type form instead of verbiage but there were no notes of
explanation required on the wording of the ballot. The discussion was that this would cause
more confusion on the side of the voter. Part of his testimony was that it was not possible to
educate the voter in the ballot booth. Information could be made available before hand but
background information could not be on the ballot for ease of voting. There was also a proposal
to delay the ability to issue COs to 45 days from the 30 days from notice. There was no reason
for that delay as it was not tied to anything but in debt issuances such a delay could be a killer.
This provision only affected local entities with their funds while no state funds were involved.
He felt that the House subcommittee had good analysis of the bill but the Senate said very little.
Baker continued with payday lending/credit access business legislation. She stated that over 20
bills had been filed that would limit the fees and interest charged plus limit the amount an
individual could access. SB 999 and 1000, sponsored by Senator Wendy Davis, were positive
for municipalities in that they would permit municipal regulation of payday lenders. SB 1247,
sponsored by Senator John Carona, would preempt municipal legislation particularly in zoning
and police powers. A committee substitute would allow cities to regulate zoning but not police
powers.
HB 1496 was related to governmental actions affecting private property rights in certain oil and
gas wells. The bill would add the development of mineral rights to the list of protected private
property rights, proposed to protect against a city regulation that had the effect of preventing or
prohibiting the development of an oil or gas well that had been permitted by the Texas Railroad
Commission and continued to expressly allow municipalities to address visual aesthetics, noise
abatement and hours of operation. At this time, the bill had not moved out of Committee. This
City of Denton City Council Minutes
March 19, 2013
Page 12
item was also scheduled as an item for consideration on the regular agenda per the direction of
Council. To date, only the Town of Flower Mound and the City of Southlake had passed a
resolution in opposition to this bill.
John Cabrales, Assistant City Manager, presented an update on SB 276 and HB 1274 relating to
the authority of certain transportation authorities to create a local government corporation
(LGC). DCTA was in favor of these bills in order to expand their transportation facilities to
allow other entities to participate in their service. DCTA would be able to issue bonds but not
levy taxes. The corporation would be exempt from the bid process and could award a contract
with a no bid process. Staff was concerned about a possible financial impact to services if
Denton’s sales tax revenues were dedicated to a project from the LGC or if it had financial
difficulties. Staff was seeking direction to work with DCTA and look at amending by-laws or
direction to amend legislation.
Mayor Burroughs asked if the LGC was created and defaulted on the bonds, would the DCTA be
obligated to pay that.
Cabrales stated that other entities that were partnered to create that LGC would also be partnered
with the bonds. The LGC would be using the credit and backing of whoever created the LGC.
City Attorney Burgess stated that it might depend on the nature of the issuance and what was
pledged for support of the bond.
Mayor Burroughs stated that he had no problem with the direction of trying to expand service.
The issue was for capital issuances and having 2 of the 3 member cities concurring with the
issuance. Of the three paying member cities two or three have to agree to the capital issuance.
Cabrales stated that when the LGC was created, it would be a standalone entity. There currently
was a discussion on the DCTA Board level whether it would take a two-thirds vote of all three
cities to create an LGC.
Mayor Burroughs stated that under the current DCTA by-laws a capital project involved consent
of two of the three cities to move forward. He questioned if a LGC could be formed to affect the
current level of service.
Cabrales replied correct.
Mayor Burroughs stated that with the current structure the requirement was a two-thirds vote of
paying cities to affect the service plan. If the LGC was formed, it would not take a two-thirds
vote of the paying cities to build a capital project.
Cabrales stated correct as it would be a separate entity.
Mayor Burroughs stated that if a LGC was formed without a two-thirds vote and if a default
occurred, the current paying cities of DCTA would have to absorb the cost of the default.
Cabrales stated if they pledged the sales tax revenues from the three member cities.
City of Denton City Council Minutes
March 19, 2013
Page 13
Council Member Roden stated that any expansion would benefit the system but he wondered if
Lewisville and Highland Village were concerned about this.
City Manager Campbell stated that a meeting was planned with the three member cities during
this week.
Jim Cline, President-DCTA, stated that the intent of what they were trying to do was to protect
their current services. The powers of a LGC were the ones that were given to it by the founding
agencies. Those powers were set up in the Articles of Incorporation. DCTA was in the process
of holding discussions of a by-laws change that would include the Articles of Incorporation as
one of the issues that would require a two-thirds majority. As a minimum, two out of three made
a lot of sense as it would provide protection to the contributing member cities as this moved
forward. A change in the long range system plan and the service plus the operating funds and
capital funds that the DCTA had would have to be approved by a majority of the board and two-
thirds of the financially participating cities. Expanding the system would be a benefit to the
whole system. Funding of that expansion was for those who would benefit from that expansion.
An example would be a rail expansion to Frisco. That would need to be a standalone entity so
that its debt, operations, grant commitments would only be a benefit to and not a liability of the
existing half-cent sales tax in the A Train Corridor.
Mayor Burroughs stated that with an expansion to Frisco, how standalone would that be. He
questioned if the LGC defaulted in its bonds, would the partners of bonds stand behind it.
Cline stated that what was pledged for the debt issuance was where they would go back to.
Mayor Burroughs asked when the pledging took place.
Cline stated that what was needed was to look at the bond covenants. He stated that the Articles
of Incorporation had be to carefully written with proper bond covenants to provide protection as
it moved forward.
City Manager Campbell stated he would be more comfortable with the proposal if he knew at
what point Denton would be responsible and have a voice. Once a LGC was created, then
Denton may be the one out and not in the two-thirds for the capital project approval.
Mayor Pro Tem Kamp stated that she was also concerned about that part. She had concerns
about the service plan. She questioned if when the LGC was formed, would it have the authority
to affect the service plan.
Cline stated that the DCTA Board controlled the service plan for the overall service. The LGC
did not have the authority to raise funds; it only had funds from its members.
Council discussed various scenarios on what would happen if the LGC defaulted on the bonds
and who would be liable for the bonds,
Charles Emery, Chairman-DCTA Board, stated that the service plan had been approved a long
time ago. DCTA felt that a LGC was the best way to protect the sales tax stream and still move
City of Denton City Council Minutes
March 19, 2013
Page 14
forward. He was comfortable with the proposal and felt DCTA could be protected with debt
wording.
Mayor Burroughs felt that the highest degree of protection would be at least two-thirds approval
in the formation of a LGC to ensure that protections would secure the formation and not divert
from Denton's sales tax from DCTA.
Cabrales presented information on HB738 dealing with municipal utility districts (MUD).
Currently if a MUD was proposed to be located within the ETJ of a city, only the city had a role
in consenting or refusing to approve its creation. A county had a role in the creation process, if it
chose to exercise it, only when all or a part of the proposed MUD was to be located outside a
city’s ETJ. The county’s role was to review the MUD petition filed with the TCEQ and to
submit a written opinion stating whether or not the county recommended the creation of the
MUD.
Council Member Watts asked if the County could make comments if the MUD was wholly in a
city’s ETJ.
City Attorney Burgess stated that a county could make comments and the TCEQ could decide
whether to consider those comments.
Cabrales stated that staff had met with Commissioner Coleman addressing concerns over the bill
as it currently was filed. The bill was in conflict of the Council’s legislative program. As such
there were five different versions of the bill which were included with the resolution listed on the
regular agenda. There were other large cities opposed to the bill unless they were bracketed out.
Mayor Burroughs questioned if the County could submit comments now, how was that different
from the bill. The intent of the bill was to slow down special districts to preempt the ability of
cities to extend services. The original wording could be read that the City could object while in
the ETJ but might allow a county to say it wanted to form it and the county would override the
city. His reading of the bill did not add anything not there now. When outside the ETJ, the
county could weigh in. His concern was that the city got informed of the formation of the
proposed project.
Cabrales stated that currently a city determined whether or not it wanted a MUD created in the
ETJ. This would allow the county to have a say for it to be created wholly in the ETJ.
Mayor Burroughs felt that it was just a notice issue and a comment issue and wanted to be really
sure there was a compelling interest to oppose it.
Council discussed the provisions of the proposed bill and what authority a county would have in
commenting on the formation of a MUD.
Cabrales stated that currently the law did not allow the County the ability to provide comments.
This legislation would codify that the County would have a say in a MUD that was completely in
a city’s ETJ. Staff felt that was in conflict of legislative program approved by Council.
City of Denton City Council Minutes
March 19, 2013
Page 15
Knight stated that there was a resolution of support on the regular agenda with five options
attached for Council to select which one to support.
Mayor Burroughs suggested giving staff direction to present Option 5 during the regular session
and then to debate it during the meeting.
Mayor Burroughs announced Work Session Items 6 and 7 would not be discussed at this meeting
and that Closed Session Items A.1. and B.1. would also not be considered.
Following the completion of the Work Session, the Council convened into a Closed Session to
consider the following:
1.Closed Meeting:
A. Competitive Matters Concerning Public Power Utilities – Under Texas
Government Code Section 551.086.
1. Receive competitive public power information from staff regarding plans
and proposals respecting the Denton Municipal Electric (“DME”) system and its
resources; and discuss, deliberate and provide staff with direction regarding such
matters.
This item was not considered.
B. Consultation with Attorneys – Under Texas Government Code Section 551.071.
1. Consult with the City’s attorneys regarding legal issues associated with the
delegation of authority to the City Manager to make offers and accept counter
offers to purchase real property for public works and electric utility capital
projects where the duty of the City’s attorneys to the City of Denton and the
Denton City Council under the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct
of the State Bar of Texas clearly conflicts with the provisions of the Open
Meetings Act, Chapter 551 of the Texas Government Code.
This item was not considered.
2. Consult with and provide direction to City’s attorneys regarding legal
issues associated with the regulation of gas well drilling and production with the
City Limits and the extraterritorial jurisdiction, including Constitutional
limitations, current and proposed statutory limitations upon municipal regulatory
authority, current and proposed statutory preemption and/or impacts of current
and proposed federal and state law, including case law, regulations, and proposed
legislation as it concerns municipal regulatory authority and matters relating to
enforcement of the ordinance.
3. Consult with City’s attorneys regarding legal issues and strategies related
to the adoption of a proposed ordinance regulating credit services organizations
and credit access businesses, where a public discussion of these legal matters
would conflict with the duty of the City’s attorneys to the City of Denton and the
City of Denton City Council Minutes
March 19, 2013
Page 16
Denton City Council under the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct
of the State Bar of Texas, or would jeopardize the City’s legal position in any
potential litigation.
4. Consult with the City’s attorneys regarding legal issues associated with the
creation of municipal utility districts within the City’s extraterritorial jurisdiction
under existing and proposed State legislation, and administrative regulations. The
duty of the City’s attorneys to the City of Denton and the Denton City Council
under the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct of the State Bar of
Texas clearly conflicts with the provisions of the Open Meetings Act, Chapter
551 of the Texas Government Code in this matter.
Regular Meeting of the City of Denton City Council at 6:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers at
City Hall.
1. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
The Council and members of the audience recited the Pledge of Allegiance to the U. S. and
Texas flags.
2. PROCLAMATIONS/PRESENTATIONS
There were no proclamations or presentations for this meeting.
3. CITIZEN REPORTS
There were no citizen reports for this meeting.
4. CONSENT AGENDA
Council Member King motioned, Council Member Engelbrecht seconded to approve the Consent
Agenda and accompanying ordinances and resolutions with the exception of Item I. On roll call
vote: Council Member King, Council Member Watts, Council Member Gregory, Council
Member Engelbrecht, Mayor Pro Tem Kamp, Mayor Burroughs, Council Member Roden –
“aye”. Motion carried unanimously.
Approved the minutes listed below.
A. Consider approval of the minutes of:
February 4, 2013
February 5, 2013
February 12, 2013
Ordinance No. 2013-063
B. Consider adoption of an ordinance of the City of Denton, Texas providing for,
authorizing, and approving the expenditure of funds for the purchase of two
Dragon Runner 20 Remotely Operated Vehicles (Small Platform Robots) from
QinetiQ North America, Inc. which are available from only one source and in
City of Denton City Council Minutes
March 19, 2013
Page 17
accordance with Chapter 252.022 of the Texas Local Government Code such
purchases are exempt from the requirements of competitive bidding; with funding
to be reimbursed 100% through the Dallas Fort Worth Arlington Urban Area
Security Initiative, a Homeland Security Grant Program; and providing an
effective date (File 5191-Purchase of Two Dragon Runner 20 Remotely Operated
Vehicles for the City of Denton Fire Department Bomb Squad in the amount of
$173,886).
Ordinance No. 2013-064
C. Consider adoption of an ordinance accepting bids and awarding a public works
contract for the US Highway 380 Utility Relocations Project; providing for the
expenditure of funds therefor; and providing an effective date (Bid 5190-awarded
to North Texas Contracting, Inc. in the amount of $3,446,977). The Public
Utilities Board recommends approval (6-0).
Ordinance No. 2013-065
D. Consider adoption of an ordinance accepting bids and awarding a public works
contract for the Morse Street and Alexander Street Water and Sewer Replacement
Project; providing for the expenditure of funds therefor; and providing an
effective date (Bid 5170-awarded to Dickerson Construction Company, Inc. in the
amount of $484,105.50). The Public Utilities Board recommends approval (6-0).
Ordinance No. 2013-066
E. Consider adoption of an ordinance of the City of Denton, Texas creating a Capital
Improvements Advisory Committee pursuant to Texas Local Government Code
§395.058 as a requirement before authorizing impact fees; appointing the
planning and zoning commission's members as members of the capital
improvements advisory committee; providing for the appointment of and
appointing one additional ad hoc member to the capital improvements advisory
committee from the extraterritorial jurisdiction of the City of Denton, Texas;
providing for the adoption of procedural rules for the capital improvements
advisory committee to follow in performing its duties; and providing for a
effective date.
Ordinance No. 2013-067
F. Consider adoption of an ordinance of the City of Denton, Texas, accepting that
certain Special Warranty Deed, from Robson Denton Development, LP, an
Arizona Limited Partnership, conveying certain lands located in the C. Manchaca
Survey, Abstract No. 789, also known as Lot 1, Block A, City of Denton Water
Plant, certain real property located in Denton County, Texas, according to the
Conveyance Plat thereof, recorded under Document No. 2013-049, Plat Records
of Denton County, Texas (The "Lands"), and being generally located on the north
side of Lively Road approximately one half mile east of Seaborn Road; and
providing for an effective date.
Ordinance No. 2013-068
G. Consider adoption of an ordinance authorizing the City Manager or his designee
to execute, for and on behalf of the City of Denton, Texas, an Amendment of
City of Denton City Council Minutes
March 19, 2013
Page 18
Temporary Lease ("Amendment"), by and between the City of Denton, Texas
("City") and Billie Glosser ("Tenant"), amending that certain Temporary Lease
(herein so called), dated effective December 28, 2012, by and between City and
Tenant, leasing to Tenant a 147.85 acre tract, more or less, located in the D. Davis
Survey, Abstract No. 356, Denton County, Texas, as more particularly described
in the Temporary Lease ("Property"), said Real Property being generally located
along the west side of Tom Cole Road, across from the Denton Municipal
Airport, said Amendment, among other terms, extending the term of, and
amending the rent payable under, the Temporary Lease; authorizing the City
Manager to execute the Amendment of Temporary Lease; providing a savings
clause; and providing an effective date.
Ordinance No. 2013-069
H. Consider adoption of an ordinance of the City of Denton, Texas to declare the
intent to reimburse expenditures from the Unreserved Fund Balance of the
General Fund with General Obligation Bonds with an aggregate maximum
principal amount equal to $4,000,000 to construct and improve streets approved
by voters in November 2012; and providing an effective date.
This item was not considered.
I. Consider adoption of an ordinance of the City of Denton, Texas, delegating
certain authority to the City Manager to make offers and to accept counter offers
to purchase eligible real property interests necessary for City of Denton public
works and electric utility capital improvement projects; authorizing the City
Manager to execute contracts to purchase said real property interests for and on
behalf of the City of Denton; authorizing the City Manager to expend funds in
accordance with the terms of said contracts; providing a severability clause; and
providing an effective date.
Ordinance No. 2013-070
J. Consider adoption of an ordinance approving a salary increase for Anita Burgess
under the performance review provision of her employment agreement with the
City; authorizing the expenditure of funds; and providing an effective date.
Ordinance No. 2013-071
K. Consider adoption of an ordinance approving a salary increase for George C.
Campbell under the performance review provision of his employment agreement
with the City; authorizing the expenditure of funds; and providing an effective
date.
Ordinance No. 2013-072
L. Consider adoption of an ordinance approving a salary increase for Robin A.
Ramsay under the performance review provision of his employment agreement
with the City; authorizing the expenditure of funds; and providing an effective
date.
City of Denton City Council Minutes
March 19, 2013
Page 19
5. ITEMS FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION
Ordinance No. 2013-073
A. Consider adoption of an ordinance of the City of Denton, Texas, requiring
registration of credit access businesses; defining terms; establishing a
registration fee; imposing restrictions on extensions of consumer credit mor ade
by credit access businesses; providing recordkeeping requirements; providing
defenses; providing a penalty not to exceed $500; providing a savings clause;
providing a severability clause; and providing an effective date.
John Knight, Deputy City Attorney, presented the details of the ordinance. The proposed
ordinance was regulatory in nature to address the nature of credit access lending. A number of
other cities had adopted regulatory ordinances. The purpose of the ordinance was to protect the
welfare of the citizens by monitoring credit access businesses to reduce abusive lending practices
and by restricting the amount of credit that could be extended. The ordinance would establish a
registration program for credit access businesses, impose record keeping requirements and
require the display of a certificate of registration. It also would place restrictions on the amount
of credit that could be extended, restricted the manner of repayments and limits the number of
times the credit extension or loan may be refinanced. Violation of the ordinance would be a
Class C misdemeanor. The provisions would be effective upon publication or could be delayed
to be effective until the summer of 2013 depending on bills passed by the legislature.
Council Member Roden asked which department would deal with the registration and problems
or complaints with businesses.
Knight stated that had not been decided yet. The ordinance stated that the documentation would
be reviewed by a director designated by the City. It could also be a peace officer.
Council Member Roden asked about the timing to enact the ordinance. Businesses needed to
know who to deal with.
Knight stated that if the ordinance was approved at this meeting, it would not be effective until
14 days from date of passage.
Council Member Gregory asked who would receive the misdemeanor charge if a violation
occurred. He questioned if it would be an employee or the manager.
Knight replied that it would be a fact of proof regarding who conducted the violation. It would
depend on the specific case.
City Attorney Burgess stated that the ordinance defined a person in violation as an individual,
corporation etc. Any of those could be in violation and receive the citation.
Council Member Gregory stated that if the ordinance was passed, informational notices would
have to go out to the businesses so that they knew the requirements.
City of Denton City Council Minutes
March 19, 2013
Page 20
Mayor Burroughs stated that because the practices of the business would violate this ordinance,
there was a need to go out of the way to give the actual notices to the businesses. It might take
someone providing the delivery.
Knight stated that the notices could be mailed or hand delivered and would also be published in
the paper.
Mayor Burroughs stated that he would like to go out of the way to provide notice of the
regulations. He noticed that there was no requirement for posting of the restrictions at the
business as part of certificate of registration. He suggested putting in the regulations a provision
for public display of what had been passed. The workers and potential clients would be notified
so they would know about the notice. It would be a simple way to put everyone on notice. He
suggested directing staff to put that wording in the certificate.
Knight stated that as the registration was a function of the City, any kind of desired wording
could be added.
Council Member Engelbrecht suggested having a date certain when the businesses would have to
be registered.
Knight stated that a grace period could be added or the effective date of the ordinance could be
delayed for a time period for an education period. As presently worded, the ordinance
requirements would be immediate.
Mayor Burroughs stated that as there was no registration form at this time, he did not want to do
anything to impede the City's ability to enforce the ordinance. He suggested putting in a couple
of weeks to have all of the provisions ready for registration, etc.
City Attorney Burgess stated that one way to address the issue would be to make the ordinance
effective a month out rather than at publication. The forms could be then mailed with the
businesses coming in to register.
City Manager Campbell stated that it would also allow time for staff to report back to Council on
who would administer the ordinance and the certificate restrictions.
Council Member Roden expressed the need to identify the 39 businesses that might be under this
ordinance. It had been noted that there were certain agencies that might fit the criteria that did
not have to register with the State. He questioned the procedure if a business was identified that
was not State licensed.
Knight stated that the ordinance would not apply if a business was not required by State law to
register with them. If the business was operating and was required to be licensed by the State,
the ordinance could be enforced against them.
The following individuals submitted Speaker Cards:
Kayce Strader, 408 Egan, Denton, 76201 - support
Joe Ader, 607 E. College, Denton, 76209 - support
City of Denton City Council Minutes
March 19, 2013
Page 21
Carmel Perez Snyder, 8140 Walnut Hill Lane, #108, Dallas, 75231 - support
Pat Smith, 2300 East University, Denton, 76209 - support
Hunter Bonner, 3305 Ocean Drive, Denton, 76210 - support
Starita Smith, 301 Coronado Drive, #1034, Denton, 76209 - support
Comment cards were submitted by:
Amber Briggle, 1315 Dartmouth Place, Denton, 76201 - support
Council Member Gregory felt that it would be helpful to add wording to the notice that if
someone felt a business was in violation of the ordinance to contact the city of Denton. Denton
would be joining other cities in passing this ordinance as the State was not taking enough action
to solve the problem.
Council Member Watts stated that he was proud of the community to spearhead this issue. He
thanked the Council for taking a stand on the issue and the cities that went before Denton on the
issue.
Council Member Roden questioned how long staff needed to do what Council had asked in terms
of notification and what would be a good implementation date.
City Manager Campbell stated that staff could get information to Council within the next week
and suggested making the effective date three weeks from this meeting.
Council Member Roden suggested an effective date of 21 days from the date of this meeting.
Council Member Engelbrecht asked if it would be possible to publish the ordinance in the three
week window and not wait for effective date.
City Attorney Burgess stated that could be done.
Council Member King suggested adding a phone number to call with the notice.
Mayor Burroughs stated that these types of businesses were proliferating throughout the State.
The average interest rate was 600%. There was another legitimate reason these entities came
into existence. Some people had little or no credit and needed an immediate loan. These
businesses met a legitimate need but responsible organizations that were not abusive were few.
He hoped that local lending institutions could address the issue in a legitimate way. These were
high risk loans but hoped that legitimate lenders would accommodate the needs.
Council Member Gregory stated that United Way was taking the lead to meet with local banks
regarding a program called Bank On to establish relationships with banks and credit with banks
so when a person had an emergency he could get a loan.
Council Member Roden motioned, Mayor Pro Tem Kamp seconded to adopt the ordinance. On
roll call vote: Council Member King, Council Member Watts, Council Member Gregory,
Council Member Engelbrecht, Mayor Pro Tem Kamp, Mayor Burroughs, Council Member
Roden – “aye”. Motion carried unanimously.
City of Denton City Council Minutes
March 19, 2013
Page 22
B. Consider appointment of board members for Tax Increment Financing Zone
Number One (Downtown TIF).
Julie Glover, Economic Development Program Administrator, stated that there were four
members on the Board whose terms were expiring. All of those members were eligible for
reappointments. James King, Virgil Strange, Hank Dickenson and Harold Strong had all
expressed an interest in serving another two year term. Staff recommended reappointment of
these four Board Members.
Council Member Watts motioned, Council Member Engelbrecht seconded to approve the
reappointments as noted above. On roll call vote: Council Member King, Council Member
Watts, Council Member Gregory, Council Member Engelbrecht, Mayor Pro Tem Kamp, Mayor
Burroughs, Council Member Roden – “aye”. Motion carried unanimously.
Resolution No. R2013-007
C. Consider approval of a resolution of the City of Denton, Texas supporting House
Bill 738 recently introduced in the 83rd Texas Legislature, relating to the review
by a county commissioner's court of the creation of a proposed municipal utility
district (MUD) within a city's extraterritorial jurisdiction; and providing an
effective date.
John Cabrales, Assistant City Manager, stated that this was a resolution of support for HB 738.
He noted that the bill had just come out of Committee with wording that was slightly different
than Exhibit 5; however, the intent was still the same as Exhibit 5. Denton County had passed
legislation in support of the bill and asked the City to do the same.
Council Member Watts motioned, Council Member Gregory seconded to approve the resolution
with the substitute bill from Committee. On roll call vote: Council Member King, Council
Member Watts, Council Member Gregory, Council Member Engelbrecht, Mayor Pro Tem
Kamp, Mayor Burroughs, Council Member Roden – “aye”. Motion carried unanimously.
Resolution No. R2013-008
D. Consider approval of a resolution of the City of Denton, Texas, opposing House
Bill 1496, recently introduced in the 83rd Texas Legislature, relating to the
applicability of the Private Real Property Rights Preservation Act to certain
governmental actions relative to oil and natural gas drilling activities; and
providing an effective date.
Lindsey Baker, Assistant to the City Manager, stated that Representative Van Taylor had filed
HB 1496 that related to governmental actions affecting private property rights in certain oil and
gas wells. The bill was contrary to the Council’s policy statement to allow local governments to
enact ordinances relating to health and safety regulations as applied to gas drilling and
production activities.
The following individuals submitted Speaker Cards:
Ricardo Correa, 117 E. Prairie, Denton, 76201 - support
City of Denton City Council Minutes
March 19, 2013
Page 23
Cathy McMullen, 805 Ector, Denton, 87201 - support
Candice Bernd, 412 ½ Fry, Denton, 76201 - support
Amber Briggle, 1315 Dartmouth, Denton, 76201 - support
Kelsey Fryman, 903 McCormick, Denton, 76201 - support
Comment Cards were submitted by:
Rebekah Hinojosa, 621 Schmitz, Denton, 76209 - support
Morgan Larson, McCormick, Denton, 76201 - support
Adam Briggle, 1315 Dartmouth, Denton, 76201 - support
Vicki Oppenheim, 600 Windfields, Denton, 76209 - support
Lydia Alexander, 2043 Scripture, Denton, 76201 - support
Jay McElhinney, 605 N. Austin, Denton, 76201 - support
Pauline Raffestin, 2015 Bowling Green, Denton, 76201 - support
Council Member Roden asked for an explanation on how the City worked on legislative issues.
Baker stated that Council had passed legislative issues that they were concerned with. Staff
worked with partner cities throughout the State, worked with TML on bills, and had legislative
consultants monitoring the bills. Staff also worked with committees and committee members
where the bills would be heard by presenting letters to them and going to a bill's author to let
him/her know about city's position.
Council Member Gregory asked what a resolution or ordinance did to communicate to the policy
makers about the City's position.
Cabrales stated that it did not carry any more weight than a letter or communication with a staff
person. It depended on what would be best strategy for a particular bill.
Mayor Pro Tem Kamp motioned, Council Member Watts seconded to approve the resolution.
On roll call vote: Council Member King, Council Member Watts, Council Member Gregory,
Council Member Engelbrecht, Mayor Pro Tem Kamp, Mayor Burroughs, Council Member
Roden – “aye”. Motion carried unanimously.
6.PUBLIC HEARINGS
Ordinance No. 2013-74
A. Hold a public hearing and consider adoption of an ordinance of the City of
Denton, Texas, providing for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment from a
"Community Mixed Use Centers" future land use designation to a
"Neighborhood Centers" future land use designation; on approximately 34.04
acres of land located on the east side of Country Club Road (FM 1830), between
Ryan Road to the north and Hickory Creek Road to the south, in the City of
Denton, Denton County, Texas; and providing for a penalty in the maximum
amount of $2,000.00 for violations thereof, severability clause and an effective
date. (CA12-0005, Country Club Road Tract) The Planning and Zoning
Commission recommends approval (7-0).
City of Denton City Council Minutes
March 19, 2013
Page 24
Mayor Burroughs noted that Items A and B would be presented together.
Bryan Lockley, Director of Planning and Development, presented the details of the proposals. He
stated that Item A would provide for a comprehensive plan amendment and in conjunction with
that amendment, the applicant was proposing to rezone the property to Neighborhood
Residential-4. The property was located on the east side of Country Club Road between Ryan
Road and Hickory Creek Road. The neighborhood residential zoning would allow for residential
development. The rezoning would change the makeup of the current zoning and the community
mixed use center.
Some of the issues associated with this request included the Mobility Plan, Denton Plan and the
Development Code. The Mobility Plan showed Country Club Road to become a four lane
secondary arterial. Hickory Creek was planned to become a six lane primary arterial. The KCS
Railroad ran adjacent to the site's eastern boundary. This site was essentially an island bounded
by planned arterials and the railroad. There was also a FEMA floodplain on the south and west
of the property. A portion of the floodplain ran from north to south within the property.
Based on the following criteria, there was adequate public infrastructure capacity to serve the
site: water, wastewater, stormwater, transportation, drainage, environmental, parks, electric,
fire/EMS. Those items could adequately support a residential development. However, the
Denton Plan criteria indicated that neighborhood center would be an inappropriate future land
use designation. This proposed rezoning would create an isolated district. Based on the criteria
a community mixed use center was the most appropriate future land use designation for the site.
The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval for the amendment and for the
zoning. However, the Development Review Committee recommended denial for both proposals.
Staff’s denial was based on code requirements and the Mobility Plan.
Council Member Gregory asked if the rezoning was approved for NR-4 would the developer be
responsible for providing a park.
Lockley stated that the developer would not be required to put in a park.
Council Member Watts questioned if the streets did not become what was proposed in the
Mobility Plan, was the land use more detrimental as single-family residential or developed as
mixed use commercial. Would there be less of an impact if the zoning were single-family
residential.
Lockley stated that from a land use perspective, residential would be more appropriate for roads
there today. However, with the planned development of the roads, commercial would be better
due to intense traffic.
The Mayor opened the public hearings for both A and B.
Paul McCracken, speaking for the applicant, stated that this was a tough area for development as
it was not a good site for commercial due to the t-intersection. There was considerable flood
plain to the south which was hard to attract commercial development. There was a developer
City of Denton City Council Minutes
March 19, 2013
Page 25
ready to start on the tract. The landowner to the south was in support and would like the same
action on his property if they were successful. That would take away the isolation of the
proposed zoning. There had been no commercial retail opportunities in this area for many years.
Residential development might attract commercial in the future.
Council questioned the size of the footprint, the size range of the proposed homes and whether
there would be one story and two story homes.
Bob Shelton, applicant, felt that residential made more sense than commercial at this time. They
would be required to build a portion of Hickory Creek.
The Mayor closed the public hearing.
Mayor Pro Tem Kamp motioned, Council Member King seconded to adopt the ordinance. On
roll call vote: Council Member King, Council Member Watts, Council Member Gregory,
Council Member Engelbrecht, Mayor Pro Tem Kamp, Mayor Burroughs, Council Member
Roden – “aye”. Motion carried unanimously.
Ordinance No. 2013-075
B. Hold a public hearing and consider adoption of an ordinance of the City of
Denton, Texas, providing for a zoning change from a Community Mixed Use
General (CM-G) zoning district and use classification to a Neighborhood
Residential 4 (NR-4) zoning district and use classification on approximately
34.04 acres of land located on the east side of Country Club Road (FM 1830),
between Ryan Road to the north and Hickory Creek Road to the south, in the
City of Denton, Denton County, Texas; and providing for a penalty in the
maximum amount of $2,000.00 for violations thereof, severability clause and an
effective date. (Z12-0010, Country Club Road Tract) The Planning and Zoning
Commission recommends approval (7-0).
This item was considered with Item A.
Council Member Roden motioned, Council Member King seconded to adopt the ordinance. On
roll call vote: Council Member King, Council Member Watts, Council Member Gregory,
Council Member Engelbrecht, Mayor Pro Tem Kamp, Mayor Burroughs, Council Member
Roden – “aye”. Motion carried unanimously.
Ordinance No. 2013-076
C. Hold a public hearing and consider adoption of an ordinance approving a
Detailed Plan to allow a 6,816 square-foot building for new auto parts sale on
0.835 of land located within the Wheeler Ridge Planned Development District
(PD-176). The subject site is located at the southeast corner of Teasley Lane
(FM 2181) and Robinson Road; and providing for a penalty in the maximum
amount of $2,000.00 for violations, thereof, severability and an effective date.
(PDA12-0005, O'Reilly Auto Parts) The Planning and Zoning Commission
recommends approval (7-0).
City of Denton City Council Minutes
March 19, 2013
Page 26
Brian Lockley, Director of Planning and Development, stated that the request was for a detailed
plan to allow a new auto parts sales building on property located within the Wheeler Ridge
Planned Development. He reviewed the current zoning map and future land use map. The
Planned Development was approved by Ordinance 99-367 and designated two commercial
parcels that allowed uses permitted in the commercial zoning category. The requirement of the
detailed plan included acreage, land use, offsite information, traffic and transportation, buildings,
trees, sidewalks and bike plan. There would a joint access with the 7-11 already on the
property. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval as did the
Development Review Committee subject to conditions.
The Mayor opened the public hearing.
Matt Bolls, 2016 Mistywood, Denton, asked how the people across from the proposal were
notified about the building proposal.
The Mayor closed the public hearing.
Mayor Pro Tem Kamp asked for an explanation of how the public was notified of the proposal.
Lockley stated that there were 200 foot legal notices and 500 foot courtesy notices sent out
regarding the proposal.
Council Member Engelbrecht stated that only an auto parts store would be allowed. With
previous planned developments a range of retail uses had been allowed. He questioned if the
business was not successful, would the Planned Development have to be amended again.
Lockley stated no there was a range of uses for commercial uses.
Mayor Burroughs stated that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommendation, as a
condition, was limited to new auto parts sales only.
Lockley stated that as a planned development amendment with a detailed plan, the Planning and
Zoning Commission wanted to ensure that any subsequent uses would meet the same
requirements. Their issue was that new uses should have staff review or come back to the
Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council. They wanted to ensure that because it was
a planned development, it would still require an amendment and still be meeting the
requirements of the planned development.
Council Member Engelbrecht stated that a range of potential operations would do the same thing.
It would then be reviewed by staff and allow more flexibility.
Lockley stated that would be an option for Council to consider.
Council Member King motioned to approve the proposal as recommended by the Planning and
Zoning Commission including all conditions.
Mayor Burroughs stated including the auto parts sales only.
City of Denton City Council Minutes
March 19, 2013
Page 27
Council Member King replied correct.
Mayor Pro Tem Kamp seconded the motion.
Mayor Burroughs stated that although he was in favor of the proposal, he suggested that perhaps
an amendment might be appropriate and Council vote on the amendment. If that did not pass,
then vote on the motion.
Council Member Engelbrecht motioned for an amendment to remove the auto parts sales only
condition.
Council Member King seconded the motion for an amendment.
Mayor Pro Tem Kamp asked for a clarification on why the Planning and Zoning Commission put
that condition on the proposal.
Lockley stated that it was not a matter of the uses as all uses under commercial would be
permitted. The question was if this property were to be vacant for a number of years, the
Planning and Zoning Commission wanted to make sure a new business would meet the same
requirements. If the proposal was limited to auto parts sale, then any change would go back to
the Planning and Zoning Commission. This was to ensure that it met the same code
requirements.
Council Member Watts asked if the maker of the motion and second would approve a friendly
amendment, then there would be no need to vote on an amendment.
Council Member King and Mayor Pro Tem Kamp agreed with the friendly amendment.
Mayor Burroughs stated that the motion was to approve the request with Conditions 1-3 from the
Planning and Zoning Commission.
Council Member King motioned, Mayor Pro Tem Kamp seconded to adopt the ordinance with
conditions #1-3 from the Planning and Zoning Commission. On roll call vote: Council Member
King, Council Member Watts, Council Member Gregory, Council Member Engelbrecht, Mayor
Pro Tem Kamp, Mayor Burroughs, Council Member Roden – “aye”. Motion carried
unanimously.
D. Hold a public hearing and consider adoption of an ordinance of the City of
Denton, Texas, approving a Specific Use Permit to allow a basic utility; a DME
Electric Substation, on approximately 8.75 acres of land within a Neighborhood
Residential Mixed Use 12 (NRMU-12) zoning district classification and use
designation; located west of Loop 288, south of Audra Lane, and directly east of
Audra Meadows, Phase 2 Subdivision, within the City of Denton, Denton
County, Texas; providing for a penalty in the maximum amount of $2,000.00 for
violations thereof; providing a severability clause and an effective date. (S12-
0005, DME Audra Substation) The Planning and Zoning Commission
recommends approval (5-0).
City of Denton City Council Minutes
March 19, 2013
Page 28
Brian Lockley, Director of Planning and Development, presented information on the specific use
permit to construct an electrical substation. The substation would be constructed in two phases.
Phase I would include construction of the substation and connection of the substation to an
existing transmission line adjacent to the site. Phase II would include construction of a new
transmission line, connection of the substation to the new transmission line and
decommissioning and removal of the old transmission line. The site plan and western property
line buffer was described. A Type C buffer was required. The Type C buffer included a 15 foot
planting strip with a combination of 5 evergreen and deciduous trees and 30 shrubs per 100
linear feet. The property was set back from Loop 288 and was one of seven which was
considered for the location of the substation. The Planning and Zoning Commission
recommended approval with conditions. Those conditions included the buffer zone and a
perimeter masonry wall constructed with a minimum height of 10 feet. The Development
Review Committee also recommended approval.
Council Member Gregory asked if there was a requirement for a supermajority vote.
Lockley stated that the threshold needed was 20% of the land area within 200 feet so no
supermajority vote was required.
Council Member Roden stated that there were questions for the public process relating up to this
proposal.
Lockley stated that for the meeting at the Singing Oaks Church, notices were sent out within 500
feet of the proposal.
Council Member Roden asked if the notices were sent out to the owners of the homes or the
residents.
Lockley stated that they were sent to the home owners based on the information from Denton
County Appraisal District.
Council Member Gregory asked if a notification sign was required to be put up for a zoning
change.
Lockley stated that signs were usually installed along arterials where they would get the most
visibility. In this case, the signs were placed along Audra Lane.
Council Member Roden asked about the date of the initial meeting.
Phil Williams, General Manager-DME, stated that the initial meeting was November 27th.
Council Member Roden asked about the number of people present.
Williams stated that five people signed in.
Council Member Roden asked about the separate notices sent from Planning and what was on
the post card.
City of Denton City Council Minutes
March 19, 2013
Page 29
Williams displaced a copy of the post card mailed out. Information was also posted on the City’s
website.
The Mayor opened the public hearing.
Williams stated that there were several different sites considered before this one was chosen.
The proposed landscaping met all of the code requirements. Staff had met with the landowners.
Mayor Burroughs asked why the other sites were not chosen.
Williams stated that one landowner would not sell the property, TxDot would not allow one of
the sites, one had a 30- inch water line on it and the site to north had a drainage feature.
The following individuals submitted Speaker Cards:
Alan Breese, 4317 Boca Raton Drive, The Colony, 75056 - opposed
Kristiey Rodriguez, 902 Bayfield, Denton, 76209 - opposed
Leticia Rivas, 1020 Bayfield, Denton, 76209 - opposed
Richard Hainer, 1112, Bayfield, Denton – concerned about access to the property.
Brendan Carroll, 2223 Houston, Denton, 76201-recommend look at how utility
easements might change in future
Claire Lane, 909 Bayfield, Denton, 76209 - opposed
The Mayor closed the public hearing.
Comment Cards were submitted by:
Mario Vasquez, 1000 Bayfield Drive, Denton, 76209 - opposed
Mayor Pro Tem Kamp asked about access to the property.
Williams stated that the City would be donating right of way for the Mobility Plan to change
Audra. There would be a private entrance off Loop 288 for construction and after Audra was
changed, the traffic would come down Audra.
Mayor Pro Tem Kamp asked about security of the site.
Williams stated that once the facility was constructed staff would only come once a week to
inspect it. The security system would include video cameras and alarms to the dispatchers.
Mayor Pro Tem Kamp asked what would happen to the time line for construction if the proposal
was postponed.
Williams stated that it would give staff time to work out the final details.
Mayor Burroughs asked about weekly inspection at night.
Williams stated that the inspections were usually during the day.
City of Denton City Council Minutes
March 19, 2013
Page 30
Mayor Burroughs asked about the roadway component.
Williams stated that it was not near the current residences.
Council Member Gregory asked about the transformers located in the substation.
Williams stated that there would be two on the site.
Council Member Gregory asked if they were larger than the ones on Kings Row.
Williams stated that they were about the same size.
Council Member Gregory asked about the low hum at the Kings Row station.
Williams stated that there would be no high pitched sounds.
Council Member Gregory stated that the neighbors requested a buffer zone. Using the site plan,
there would be a Type C buffer 15 feet wide, 100 feet from the neighbors fence. He questioned
how long it would be.
Williams stated that it would go from the property line to the drainage ditch.
Council Member Gregory asked if there was any reason to extend it further north.
Williams stated that could be done.
Council Member Gregory questioned if a Type D buffer would be appropriate.
Lockley stated that the condition could be changed to a Type D buffer.
Council Member Gregory asked if it could be extended further to the north.
Lockley stated that it could not go outside the boundary of the substation property.
Council discussed the types of plantings in the buffer and the location of the site on the property.
Council Member Gregory motioned, Council Member King seconded to postpone consideration
until April 2, 2013 to give the applicant time to work with the neighbors on a buffer plan. On
roll call vote: Council Member King, Council Member Watts, Council Member Gregory,
Council Member Engelbrecht, Mayor Pro Tem Kamp, Mayor Burroughs, Council Member
Roden – “aye”. Motion carried unanimously.
8. CONCLUDING ITEMS
A. Under Section 551.042 of the Texas Open Meetings Act, respond to inquiries
from the City Council or the public with specific factual information or
City of Denton City Council Minutes
March 19, 2013
Page 31
recitation of policy, or accept a proposal to place the matter on the agenda for an
upcoming meeting
AND
Under Section 551.0415 of the Texas Open Meetings Act, provide reports about
items of community interest regarding which no action will be taken, to include:
expressions of thanks, congratulations, or condolence; information regarding
holiday schedules; an honorary or salutary recognition of a public official, public
employee, or other citizen; a reminder about an upcoming event organized or
sponsored by the governing body; information regarding a social, ceremonial, or
community event organized or sponsored by an entity other than the governing
body that was attended or is scheduled to be attended by a member of the
governing body or an official or employee of the municipality; or an
announcement involving an imminent threat to the public health and safety of
people in the municipality that has arisen after the posting of the agenda.
Council Member Watts requested a presentation from DME on TMPA debt and a specific plan
on how to achieve desired goals. This could be a joint meeting with the Public Utilities Board.
Mayor Burroughs requested a copy of standard notices for various purposes such as the 200 and
500 foot notice cards, notices sent out for rezoning, detailed plan amendment, etc. He would like
to see how those were worded. This could be accomplished in an Informal Staff Report.
Council Member Gregory suggested that the Committee on Citizen Engagement could also
consider those notices and make suggestions on wording.
B.Possible Continuation of Closed Meeting under Sections 551.071-551.086 of the
Texas Open Meetings Act.
There was no continuation of the Closed Meeting.
With no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 10:34 p.m.
____________________________________
MARK A. BURROUGHS
MAYOR
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS
____________________________________
JENNIFER WALTERS
CITY SECRETARY
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS