ABSENT: Council Member Heggins
| 1. | Requests for clarification of agenda items listed on the agenda for March 2, 2010. |
Brian Lockley, Development Review Administrator, stated that staff had looked at how to apply the regulations both for commercial developments such as restaurants and residential development. Staff was looking at the issue in terms of non-residential uses.
Council Member Mulroy felt that the non-residential should remain in place is it currently was written.
Mark Cunningham, Director of Planning and Development, stated that the language in the Code could be amended rather than repealed to indicate that residential would still be required to meet the parking requirements but commercial would be exempt for additional parking spaces in the interim.
Council discussed the aspects of the proposed changes in terms of multi-family use, commercial uses with residential uses above the commercial, the interim aspect of the proposed amendment and how long the interim changes would be in effect.
Cunningham stated that staff would amend the ordinance and during the public hearing would offer new wording to reflect the Council’s comments.
Council Member Mulroy requested that Consent Agenda Item 3A not be considered.
a. DH-7: Approximately 143 acres, generally located on the east and north side of Teasley Lane, south of Teasley Harbor Subdivision and west of Southlake Drive;
b. DH-9: Approximately 298 acres, generally located north of Pockrus Page Road, north, south and northeast of Edwards Road; and
c. DH-12: Approximately 1,153 acres, generally located south of E. University Drive, east of N. Mayhill Road, north and south of Blagg Road, north and south of Mills Road, east and west of S. Trinity Road.
Council Member Engelbrecht asked if staff would be presenting a schedule of dates for the annexation time frame.
Lockley replied correct and that it would be similar to the prior annexation schedule.
Council Member Engelbrecht questioned where that information would be available for the public, especially for people in those areas.
Lockley stated that the inventory of services and facilities would be placed on the website and that there would be a link to the annexation plan which would remain on the website until after the annexation was completed.
| 3. | Receive a report, hold a discussion and give staff direction regarding possible revisions to utility customer credit and collection policies. |
Council Member Mulroy stated the due date needed to be reviewed as it was very aggressive especially for residential customers. He also noted that a normal commercial billing cycle was 30 days and questioned why it was different in Denton. He suggested doing something which would fit the mainstream and then look at penalties for overdue accounts.
Cox continued with the challenges with the current process including inconsistent credit screening, collection timeline and inadequate deposit coverage lead to bad debt, customer treatment was the same despite credit and payment history, a lack of clear guidelines led to inconsistent decision making, and the ordinance and business practices were not aligned.
Revenue Collection Strategy- In July 2009 Customer Service partnered with Navigant to create a collection strategy which treated customers based on credit risk, encouraged prompt payment, and reduced uncollectible bad debt. He reviewed the current customer and credit issuance process and the proposed process. A cosigner or letter of good standing for residential customers with fair or insufficient credit would be accepted. For commercial customers, an irrevocable letter of credit would be accepted in lieu of a deposit.
Council Member Watts asked about the amount of the deposit required for the commercial accounts.
Cox replied that 1/6th of the annual billing amount had been proposed. He continued with the current collection timeline noting that delaying non-pay disconnects contributed to a longer wait for revenue. A deposit of 1/6th annual billing did not adequately cover delinquent amounts as of disconnect date.
Council Member Watts asked about the notices regarding past due bills.
Cox stated that the first notice was an automated phone call, the second was a written notice followed by a second automated phone call. The deposit for the current billing cycle was hard to do and needed to be addressed.
Mayor Burroughs asked about people who had a hard time paying a deposit and whether there was a program to help them with the deposit.
Cox replied that there was the “Plus One” program and other outside agencies which helped customers with their utility bills. He reviewed the proposed process for active customer credit rating and the proposed collection timeline.
Council discussed shortening the time frame for late notices and what was an adequate amount of penalty for being past due.
Cox presented the deposit refunds current process and proposed process. He also presented information on requesting additional deposits for the current process and the proposed process.
In summary, Cox indicated that staff would like to change the ordinance and processes to implement regular credit checks and ratings, deposit decisions would be based on customer credit/risk, adjust collection timeline based on customer risk, request additional deposit based on credit rating, and refund excess deposits based on the credit rating.
Mayor Burroughs suggested that prior to implementation, each of the topics raised with questions would be considered and then allocate which ones would be put in the ordinance and which ones would be put in the policy. He indicated that Item L will be pulled and not considered so that staff could adjust the ordinance and policies per this discussion.
The Council convened in Closed Session at 6:10 p.m. to discuss the following:
| 1. | Closed Meeting: |
A. Consultation with Attorney - Under Texas Government Code Section 551.071.
1. Receive a briefing and report from the City’s attorneys regarding the litigation entitled City of Denton, Texas v. Range Resources Corporation, Range Operating Texas, LLC, Stroud Energy, Ltd., and Dan A. Hughes Co.; Cause No. 2008-19218-16, pending in the 16th Judicial District Court, Denton County, Texas. Discuss and deliberate, and provide the attorneys with direction. A public discussion of these legal matters would conflict with the duty of the City’s attorneys to the City Council under the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct of the State Bar of Texas.
B. Deliberations Regarding Certain Public Power Utilities: Competitive Matters - Under Texas Government Code Section 551.086; Consultation with Attorney - Under Texas Government Code Section 551.071
1. Receive a presentation from DME staff, discuss, deliberate and consider possible changes to the ECA Rate Rider to the electric rate ordinance, which issues are public power utilities competitive and financial matters. Receive legal advice from the City’s attorneys regarding possible changes to the ECA Rate Rider. Provide the City’s attorneys with direction. A public discussion of these legal matters would conflict with the duty of the City’s attorneys to the City Council under the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct of the State Bar of Texas. (Mike Grim)
C. Consultation with Attorneys - Under Texas Government Code, Section 551.071.
1. Consultation, discussion, deliberation, and receipt of information from the city’s attorneys involving legal matters relating to possible annexations of property into the City of Denton where public discussion of these legal matters would clearly conflict with 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.
| 1. | PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE |
A. U.S. Flag
B. Texas Flag "Honor the Texas Flag - I pledge allegiance to thee, Texas, one state under God, one and indivisible."
| 2. | PROCLAMATIONS/PRESENTATIONS |