May 30, 2017 City Council on 2017-05-30 2:00 PM

[BLANK_AUDIO] >> All right, good afternoon. This is a special meeting of the Denton City Council, Tuesday, May the 30th, 2017. It is 2 PM. We do have a quorum. And our first item on the agenda is to move into closed session. Consultation with attorneys under Texas Government Code section 551.071, which is receive information from, consult with, deliberate , provide direction and/or recommendations to the city attorneys regarding city's participation in the Atmos Texas municipalities group, etc. So at this time. [BLANK_AUDIO] Okay, we're back in our open session. Following the completion of the closed session, which we just completed, City Council will now convene in a special called meeting at 2.56 AM on Tuesday, May the 30th, 2017. We'll consider it in agenda item 1A, which is reconsider the approval of a resolution of the City Council of the City of Denton passed on May 23 rd, 2017. Approving a change in the rates of Atmos Energy Corporation Mid-Tex as a result of settlement between Atmos and Atmos Texas Municipal, Atmos Texas Municipalities. Who's, is there a staff presentation or just, I have a question for the city attorney. All right, so a couple of things. One is, I ask for this motion to reconsider. >> Yes you do. >> To get some additional information. So for agenda item 1A, let's take a couple scenarios. One is, let's say the motion to reconsider passes. Then we move on to agenda item 2B. >> That is correct. >> Which is then consider the resolution that we considered last week. >> That is correct. >> If agenda item 1A fails, then what will be left standing is the resolution that was passed last week accepting the settlement of $48 million, I believe, for the system wide rate increase through Atmos. Is that correct? >> That's correct. >> All right. >> I have a question. >> Yes. >> We could vote to reconsider and after that reconsider ation happens, we could vote again for the same resolution that we passed before. Is that another alternative? >> That is correct. >> Okay, sure. We do have some cards wishing to speak on agenda item 1A. What I would like to do, well, let's just go ahead and have , cuz I don't know if it's gonna pass or not, so we'll just go ahead and call on Mr. Hutspeth. We'll move into item 1A, state your name and address and your time will begin. >> My name is Willie Hutspeth, I live at 623 Newton. I think the closed session on this discussion was not appropriate. The issue was you are talking about whether or not you should accept something of this. And part of the closed session, I'm sure, was to get some legal things squared away. But then not all the discussion and the people who were in here shouldn't have been here. So I think the whole issue is incorrect and illegal, what you did. You most certainly had people in here who shouldn't have been in here just to get clarification legally as to what to do. The attorney should have been in here, but not these other people. >> All right, thank you. Next speaker is Deb Armitar, please state your name and address and your time will begin. >> Deb Armitar, 2003 Mistywood Lane. I just wanted to reiterate some points that I made to council. Last week when this item first came up, before that, I just wanted to say to mostly to the public, but also to council as well. When I saw this item on the consent agenda for last week's meeting, my first thought was this should not be on the consent agenda. So I wanted to thank all of you for taking it off the consent agenda, that is Atmos' request for a rate approval. So I was very glad that you took that off the agenda. I want to urge you to vote yes to reconsider last week's vote and I hope that one or more of you who voted yes last week to Atmos' rate increase will vote no this week to the rate increase. Dallas has shown really strong leadership and resolve in refusing to be bullied by this private company. Atmos is here to do business for us. If we're not happy with them, we need to let them know. So I have seen no good reason why they should be raising their rates. Of course infrastructure is important. Atmos is, they're doing very well. They've had some losses in some areas which they seem to be wanting to make up for. But across the board, they seem to be doing well enough to be able to pay for any necessary infrastructure updates, which of course they would have to keep up with anyway. So I think it's unfortunate that due to recent legislation, Atmos doesn't have to justify their request for a rate increase. But at least the power rests with us, with you rather, council in deciding to go along with them or not. So anyway, sorry, this is complicated because there are a number of yeses and nos, but please vote yes to reconsider and then no to Atmos ' requested rate increase. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Any discussion, council? >> Councilmember Gregory. >> A question on the reconsideration. If we do reconsider, then what we will be considering is whether to vote again for the same, yes to the same resolution that we did before, which is to accept the rate, or no to the resolution, which is to not accept the rate. Is that my understanding? >> Not quite. The motion for reconsideration basically is a procedure to allow this council to reconsider. And if there is a yes vote to reconsider, then the previous action is reversed. And then you would start from square one again and consider this item fresh or anew, which is slightly different. >> So it wouldn't be appropriate then for us to ask any of our staff informational questions about the rates and that thing under, any of that under the motion to reconsider? >> That is correct. >> Okay. >> Any other questions? The city, city council, my colleagues, any other questions? So the, there is a, the agenda item is to open for discussion a motion to reconsider. Did you? >> I just wanted to read the procedure for the motion. That's all I wanted to make. >> Sure. >> I'm just let this council is aware that section 2-29 of the city code are your rules of procedure. And therein is where your rules, motion for reconsideration procedure is set forth. And according to 2-29 G11, motion for reconsideration can only be made by a member who voted with the prevailing side . It can be seconded by any member. So one of the four who voted in favor of it must bring the motion, must actually make the motion for reconsideration. >> I appreciate you clarifying that. I appreciate you clarifying that. Yes, Councilmember Briggs. >> So that means someone who voted yes last Tuesday is the only one that can make the motion? >> Correct. And I don't, I mean, we can discuss issues related directly to the motion to reconsider, is that correct? >> Yes. >> Like, I can talk about my rationale for asking for it, is that correct? >> Yes. >> All right. Well, I asked for this motion to reconsider because I felt that I sort of knew intuitively what the facts were on the ground. I think there was some other questions that I had and facts that I wanted some clarity on before letting this go to a final acceptance of the resolution for accepting that settlement. I have not heard anything. In fact, everything that I've heard outside, I heard also, I've heard, I've thought of. So for me, whether this motion for reconsideration goes to agenda item B, or stays right here, based upon the information that I had last week as well, that to reverse that means that we would add about potentially $8 a month to a new, to each gas meter customer, if it's just a flat rate over each gas customer. And I understand about Dallas. Dallas has about the same number of meters as the entire coalition that we are involved in, which is about 200, 220,000 meters, I believe. And if Dallas goes to the rate case and they spend, or that there's $2 million of attorney's fees that are reimb ursable, or that are levied back against the rate payers, that comes out to about a dollar a month per meter customer . Whereas if Denton goes alone, it's about eight, because we would only be spreading it out among the meters that we have in our community, in the city of Denton, that's serviced by Atmos. So again, I said last week, I said there's times you can win and then lose. I think that what this has shown me is that we have a process that needs to be fixed, moving forward from this place to ensure that we have the best opportunity to get the best rate we can and use all negotiating tactics and ideas to achieve that, including the leverage of the number of cities that we have . So I voted for it, so but I can't make any motions. And if I could, if the motion for reconsider passes, then we're going to reconsider all the data that we had last time. And there's nothing that's really changed for me. So I will not be supporting the motion for reconsideration, even though I asked for it. But it was also so that I could make sure that for me, that I had all the full information that I needed to continue to feel comfortable with that decision. And I hadn't heard anything that changed my mind on that. So that's my position on that. I asked for it, so I felt the need to go ahead and share with you where it was. So, Council Member Gregory. >> Well, in one sense, I would be willing to move to reconsider, but I think that we made the right decision the last time. So if we move to reconsider, I'm somewhat anxious. Because according to the agenda here, we could either, small letter I, approve a change in the rates or two, finding that the rate increase of 57 is unjust. So if we did the first option, is that basically restoring what we did last month, last week? >> That is correct. That's one of your options. >> As I looked at it, even at our very best proposal of 32 million, which is what our council had originally recommended. If we were able to get that from the Texas Railroad Commission, that would improve our rates by the average rate payer's rate by 69 cents a month. But it would cost us somewhere between $5 and $8 a month to gain 69 cents. That seems like a bad deal. Because we have to pay for our attorneys and their attorneys in the hearing for the Railroad Commission, that's the rules, that's where the rules are stacked. And I sort of look at spending, making a vote for our rate payers in Denton, the same way I would vote, make a decision about my own finances. And I would never spend $5 to $8 in order to gain 70 cents. That's not a win, that's a loss. There's no way to calculate it other than losing. So I'm willing to let the motion stand as it passed last week. >> Okay, any other discussion? Yes, Council Member Briggs. >> So I wanna just, I wanna go on record saying that I'm nervous about the increase we'll see next year. Last year we were at 29.9 and this year we approved the 48 million. If we need to have a policy discussion before next year, it's my request, if we do not reconsider. >> I think that's a given. Yes ma'am, absolutely. Yes, Council Member Walsh. >> And if the question is the process, and I said this last week, then I'd recommend a city council committee of maybe three members to start the process in reaching out to the two different city coalitions. Re-evaluate which coalition is going to benefit our city the most. And so they can bring that information back for the policy decision as a council whole. But also to reach out to some of those other cities to say, the process is broken that we as a city kind of felt steam rolled in all of this. Cuz all the other cities jumped on board, with the exception of Dallas. But all the other cities, when you read dozens and dozens and dozens of Texas cities in these two different coalitions. That already jumped on board and said, hey, so that our choice was go it alone or join and be part of that coalition. So I think it would be a real help for the council to have a three member committee to kind of find some of these answers. And can we change that whole system? I don't know, but it's worth looking into. >> Yes. >> I've spoken already, so. Okay, well, and I think that the people paying attention need to know that of the two coalitions, there are 227 cities. And they range in size from Sanger or even smaller to Fort Worth and Austin on the large end, and that of those 227 cities, none of them have rejected the settlement agreement. None of them. So if we did, it would be our fight. And our fight would be a separate fight, I think, from the Dallas fight, because they're doing separate negotiations. So the cost of that fight would be borne by the Denton rate payers and not by any of those other cities in the coalition. So that would be a bad deal for us. And with 226 other cities agreeing to the $48 million figure, the chances of us being successful would be rather small. And if we weren't successful, that's a 16% reduction from the original. Dallas had agreed to a 20, had reached an agreement of 27% reduction. A better deal. But there's no indication at all that they would be successful with the Texas Railroad Commission. So I think it's a bad gamble. And I'm not willing to gamble other people's money in that way. I'm not willing to gamble and say, let's pay $5 to $8 and see a 70 cent return. >> Well, and Councilmember Gregory, that's if we achieved our aspiration point. If we achieved even $40 million, which would be a substantial reduction, another 15% or so, even if we achieved a $40 million for our portion, that is the difference of 34 cents. And we'd still be responsible for the attorney's fee. But point well taken, Councilmember Briggs, obviously conversation needs to ensue about how we can better position ourselves, not just us as an individual city, but how can we continue to work together and find a different approach to apply more pressure to where we don't have this situation come up again. >> Councilmember Ryan. >> I too feel like I'm glad that this came before us to be reconsidered. Cuz I don't feel like we had enough information last time. It was kind of piece milled. And as we said last week, we held our nose as we passed this because we had no choice. And I do think that we not only have a potential sub committee to look at the future, but also in two years from now or a year and a half from now, legislatively what we send to Austin needs to also be directed towards us. >> Thank you. So Mr. City Attorney, question real quick. It sounds like to me that there might not even be a motion for reconsideration. If that's the case and that dies for lack of a motion, then we do not even consider agenda item 1B. >> That is correct. >> Is that correct? It's basically as if it's not even on the agenda. We can't consider it. >> That is correct. >> Okay. Okay, unless I'm incorrect, I do not hear anybody making a motion to reconsider, especially of the group that voted affirmatively for it. Therefore, that motion for reconsideration dies for lack of a motion. Is that correct? >> That is correct. >> And therefore, since that has occurred, agenda item 1B is no longer even able to be considered because we cannot reach that point in our agenda. Having said that, we move on to agenda item number two, which is concluding items. Yes, Council Member. >> Thank you, Mayor. I would ask staff to take whatever actions are necessary to reassign or add as a duty to our audit and finance committee the assignment of utility rates review. And following with Council Member Wasney's suggestion of working with other cities on our look at our coalition with our fellow cities. Another item that I would ask that we have a workshop session in between seating our last new council member and our budget workshop . Sometime in that period of time, have a workshop to review our comprehensive plan for economic development. Our goals, our objectives, our specific strategies. I'm sure that some of the economic development issues will be part of our budget. But I think in order to have that, a good discussion on that in our budget time, we need to all refresh ourselves and certainly refresh our new members as to what our goals are for our comprehensive economic development plan. >> Any others? Yes, Council Member. >> I would like to request information in the staff report to all of council regarding the Brady List, what it is and why there is one. >> What's it called? >> The Brady List. >> The Brady List. >> Mm-hm. >> Okay. Anyone else? And again, thank you all for indulging me, because I know that this was very short notice. And if there's no other discussions or concluding items, we will stand adjourned at 320 PM on Tuesday, May the 30th, 2017.