Jan 12, 2021 City Council on 2021-01-12 3:00 PM (Special Called Meeting)

January 12, 2021 City Council
Full Transcript

20600 words Download SRT Download VTT
             Thank you.
 Good afternoon and welcome to this meeting of the Denton city council.
 It is three Oh one today, January 12th.
 2021.
 We do have a quorum.
 And so I will.
 First get us.
 Let's see what the first item is.
 Do we have any.
 No.
 Okay, great.
 So we have no comments.
 That will take us to item number two on our agenda request for clarification on
 agenda.
 On on agenda items.
 Questions for staff.
 Okay.
 Thank you.
 Council member Melzer and then council member Armitage.
 Yeah.
 Need to pull item B for recusal.
 And on item P.
 Could be now or could be this evening.
 I think the public would be interested to hear just briefly.
 What is envisioned.
 In a three one one system and how much.
 Better that would be then.
 The great effort that's put forward.
 Today.
 Okay.
 Mr.
 City manager.
 Do we have someone that could speak to that now?
 Item P.
 Yes, I think Ryan Adams may be on board.
 He's working on that along with.
 David gains as well.
 So either one of them can,
 can talk to you about where we are in that process.
 And.
 It's just sort of happy.
 What is it?
 What's good about it?
 Sure.
 You know, they, they're pretty complex systems and, you know,
 Drew Allen can back me up on the, the.
 The technical side of it where I, where I miss any places,
 but essentially what this is going to provide.
 Is a cohesive one-stop shop for not only serving our customers
 and our customers, but also for our customers as well.
 So it's going to, it's going to take a lot of work.
 It's going to take a lot of work from a service or question
 perspective, but also it's going to tie in all our various work
 order systems that right now exist on different platforms.
 And it will bring everything together under one umbrella.
 So what that means from a customer service standpoint is that.
 If a customer calls in with a question or an issue.
 We are not only able to immediately retrieve the status of that from
 a customer service standpoint, but also from a customer service
 standpoint.
 We will be able to see the full history across multiple systems
 of what their issue has been, what their past issues have been,
 the resolutions.
 And also part of that is staff will be able to see.
 For instance, as a, as an example,
 if someone comes in with a street concern.
 We will also be able to see what is going on,
 not only with that street concern, but any associated.
 Information from all these other work order systems and what this is
 going to do, not only from a city efficiency perspective,
 we are going to be able to.
 Break down even more of the information silos that currently exist
 because the service information is in different systems,
 but we're going to be able to respond to the customers a lot faster.
 With a lot more complete information.
 That's great.
 Thank you.
 I don't know if people realize that.
 You know, the engaged debt map, for instance, presents a.
 You know, a really great face to the community.
 And it's not necessarily obvious.
 How much manual scrambling there is.
 Behind the scenes to make that all work and make the responses happen.
 You know,
 This led a lot more horsepower to that. Thank you.
 Thank you.
 I was just going to ask to recuse myself for item B as well.
 Okay.
 Any other questions for staff.
 On the consent agenda.
 Great. Thank you. That'll conclude that portion.
 That'll take us to section three of the agenda for our first work
 session item.
 And I'll just go ahead and call that it's item.
 Two.
 And hold discussion, give staff direction regarding internal audit.
 Of meter reading and billing electric and water utilities.
 All right. Can you hear me?
 Yes. Thank you.
 All right. Let me just pull up the presentation real quick.
 Okay.
 All right. Hello, I'm Madison Rocha didn't city auditor here to present
 our audit of the city's meter reading.
 And billing processes for its electric and water utilities.
 So.
 Annually the city collects about $250 million in revenue for electric
 and water usage.
 This revenue is generally used to maintain and improve each utilities
 for each of the utilities.
 And this revenue is used to increase the capacity to the city's
 residents effectively.
 In order to equitably charge residents for these commodities.
 The city city measures each customer's usage with a meter.
 So this audit evaluated the city's ability to accurately measure,
 read and bill electric and water utility usage.
 Via this metering process.
 So I'm going to outline them here.
 So the first part is the utility metering accuracy during which the
 electric metering division and water metering division.
 Are each responsible for performing for performing maintenance on their
 respected meters.
 As well as testing their meters to provide assurance that they're
 accurately measuring usage.
 Next is a meter reading accuracy.
 During which meters must be read.
 And these readings have to be documented for billing.
 The electric metering division.
 Has staff that are responsible for maintaining.
 The city's electric advanced metering infrastructure system.
 And then they also have separate staff.
 Physically collect water meter reads by going out and walking around
 basically.
 And then finally customer billing accuracy.
 This during which the customer service division.
 Is responsible for accurately calculating utility bills for each of the
 cities.
 For each of the city's utilities.
 And then distributing these bills to customers.
 So I'll begin by discussion, discussing.
 Meter accuracy.
 So in order to continue ensuring that utility meters are accurate,
 they have to be adequately maintained.
 Like many maintenance functions,
 both the electric and water metering divisions utilize work orders to
 manage and track maintenance activities.
 That need to be complete.
 In addition, these divisions use work orders to complete customer
 requests, like turning on or off a meter.
 We're correcting billing discrepancies, like requesting a meter be reread.
 So based on.
 A review of a statistical sample of the electric division's work orders.
 And a judgment sample of the water division's work orders.
 We found that.
 In general, the work orders were completed on time.
 However, it was occasionally difficult to understand.
 The details of the work performed.
 Because information was not documented consistently in the work order
 system.
 In addition.
 The work order system only recorded the date that a work order was
 supposed to be completed.
 Data was scheduled for completion.
 And the date that it was reviewed.
 So.
 The details of the work order system.
 This means that the work order timeliness can only really be reviewed
 manually.
 Because you have to go into the details to determine when the,
 when the work order was actually complete.
 So based on our recommendation.
 Customer service, electric metering.
 And water metering are going to collaborate collaboratively develop an
 electronic work order system.
 And then they're going to report that actual completion date out so that
 they can report on that easily.
 And not manually anymore.
 So.
 It should be noted that during the audit period, water meterings.
 Crews recorded work order details on paper.
 Instead of electronically in the billing systems, work order module.
 Like electric did.
 So this resulted in some maintenance work orders,
 where the water meterings.
 And the water meterings.
 They may hinder customer services response to customers.
 As they might not be able to see what maintenance had been completed on
 that account.
 Kind of like we were just talking about with the three one one system.
 There's issues with that.
 Then being in different systems.
 So we identified a couple other data issues in the water meter work order
 process that may have hindered customer service as well.
 As well as.
 More completely.
 So this switch will likely correct these issues.
 As well as increase the division's efficiency.
 However.
 We'll review this as part of a future follow-up report and report back to
 you.
 So in addition to maintaining meters.
 Best practices suggest that utilities test their meters to ensure they're
 accurately, accurately recording usage.
 As well as to ensure that they meet the requirements.
 So this is part of the electric metering plan.
 And the results of which should be retained.
 The city's electric metering division generally has two types of meters.
 Self-contained, which measure smaller electric currents.
 And instrument rated meters.
 Which is a multiplier to measure and bill for larger electric currents.
 According to the division.
 The instrument rated meters are tested annually.
 For example,
 300 electric customers meters.
 Which is a subset of the instrument rated meter category.
 Are tested annually.
 Unfortunately, most electric meter accuracy test results were lost a few
 months ago.
 Due to a malfunction with the meter testing equipment.
 So for this reason,
 we only reviewed a judgment sample of 30 instrument made it rated meters
 work orders.
 To see when they were tested.
 To see if they were tested annually.
 And to see if they were tested in the last.
 So based on our, the,
 that review of 30 work orders or 30 meters work orders.
 We found that 27.
 Of the instrument rated meters were tested once in the last three fiscal
 years.
 However, 10 of the reviewed meters were top 100 customers.
 So they should have been tested annually, according to our,
 the stated practices.
 In addition,
 Accuracy test results are critical to understanding a meter's history and
 its remaining useful life.
 And for this reason records should be backed up and stored per industry
 standards to ensure they're not lost in the future.
 As for self-contained meters.
 The city had previously established.
 A meter test program,
 which reviewed a sample of meters every five to 10 years.
 This program was discontinued.
 When the city completed implementation.
 Of the advanced metering infrastructure system.
 Because at that time, basically all meters were new.
 So there was a lot of work to be done.
 So that, that's pretty standard for, for best practices.
 However, at the end of 2020, about 70% of meters.
 We're more than five years old.
 So that indicates that this program should be reinstituted.
 And it should be noted that while the test program hasn't been active,
 about 500 to a hundred.
 Meters will be tested every two years.
 To make sure that they're not lost in the future.
 That being said,
 Reinstituting the test program will provide a clearer picture.
 Of the accuracy of the entire electric meter system.
 Because maintenance tests are typically only conducted.
 If there's an issue.
 And so based on their management response.
 Electric metering will develop an SOP.
 To ensure that a certain percentage of meters will be tested annually.
 In addition, all of the top 100 customers will be tested once every two
 years.
 And the results will be documented in work orders.
 And the testing log will be periodically backed up in the city on the
 city's network.
 So similar to electric meters.
 Best practices suggest that large water meters.
 Be tested for accuracy periodically.
 But that small lot water meters are,
 they're not typically tested during their life cycle.
 Instead water utilities generally use a replacement program.
 To measure the accuracy of the water meter.
 Under which they replace meters after a set period of usage.
 According to the water metering division.
 The city's 300 large water meters are tested annually to ensure that
 they are accurate.
 However, based on a review of testing records,
 we found that only a third of the large meters were actually tested
 annually.
 Over the last three fiscal years.
 And the water meter has not been tested.
 So for this reason,
 large water meters should be tested annually.
 To ensure that the city's measuring these large volumes of water
 accurately.
 Based on their management response.
 The water metering division has developed,
 developed a process to track this more effectively.
 So that should,
 we should be able to make sure that they're being tested annually and
 recorded.
 In the future.
 So that's what we're trying to do with the water meter.
 So the water meter is a small water meter.
 And it's a small water meter.
 It's a small water meter program with a goal to test 10%.
 Of the meters that are replaced.
 However.
 There's currently no criteria established to determine if this
 program is effective.
 It's based on.
 That those tests.
 So in particular, the city city should determine at what level it's
 comfortable with small water meters failing.
 Given that this means revenue needed for infrastructure investment is
 lost.
 So the water meter has to be tested annually.
 This issue is illustrated in the figure on the top half of the slide.
 This may be due to workload issues as a certain number of meters.
 Must be replaced annually.
 Due to maintenance.
 Which you can see kind of that broken out.
 On the lower half of the slide.
 Furthermore,
 we found that less than 1% of the replaced meters were tested as part of
 the program.
 The water meter was tested at the end of the previous year.
 And in addition.
 About half of the meter tests that were performed weren't performed for
 industry standards.
 So without testing enough meters appropriately.
 The program's failure rate cannot be estimated confidently.
 So based on the management responses,
 water metering is currently undergoing a study to determine if implementing
 water meters.
 In addition,
 water metering will no longer be testing small meters.
 That have been replaced and will instead.
 Just rely on industry standards to determine an acceptable failure rate.
 For that meter replacement program.
 Finally.
 Water metering will implement additional measures to verify that.
 The testing standards are followed when meters are actually tested.
 So the next step in this process is to read each meter.
 To identify how much each customer should be billed.
 Each period.
 So the city's electric and water utilities use two methods to record and
 communicate these readings to the billing system.
 As kind of detailed on the slide.
 So beginning with electric.
 And a advanced metering infrastructure or AMI system.
 Is used to read electric meters.
 So an AMI system is essentially a network of wirelessly connected meters
 that communicates five minute interval reads for every meter to DMD.
 DME once a day.
 We found that the system accurately communicates readings from the meter to
 DME's database.
 The electric metering division.
 Then uploads one read a month.
 To the billing system.
 So this means that despite collecting real time usage data,
 the city's still billing electric customers as though meters were being read
 physically once a month.
 On the other hand, water meters are read physically once a month.
 By electric metering division staff.
 And this is these readings are recorded in a read database.
 Based on a statistically valid sample.
 We found that usage information appeared to be accurately communicated to the
 billing system from that database.
 These monthly meter readings are then evaluated using two sets of parameters
 to ensure any potential inaccuracies are caught before billing.
 And based on our view, these monitoring parameters appear to be appropriate.
 So while we found that both the electric and water meter reading processes are
 effective.
 There are certainly a number of advantages to using an AMI system for meter
 reading.
 These include one efficiencies game just from not having to read meters
 physically.
 To a better understanding of customer usage from the collected interval data.
 That can then be used to create more inventive pricing structures.
 And three increased customer intelligence if that data is shared.
 On the other hand, traditional meter reading ensures that all meters are
 observed at least once a month.
 Which helps to identify any potential damage or protect from like environmental
 hazards like something hitting the meters or damaging it.
 So while the city is experiencing efficiency gains from having automatic
 electric meter reads, not all AMI benefits are being fully exploited.
 Specifically sharing real time electric usage information with more customers
 could increase energy efficiency throughout the city.
 So based on their management response, customer service is already working to
 procure a system that will share this information with customers.
 With all of our customers.
 So the final step in this process is to use the collected meter readings to
 calculate each customer's utility bill.
 As a reminder, meters measure utility consumption continuously.
 So each period the meter's reading is greater than the last.
 The usage is then calculated by subtracting the previous month's reading from the
 current month's reading as illustrated on the slide.
 The appropriate utility rate must then be applied to this usage to calculate
 the amount each customer owes.
 The city's billing system automatically calculates usage and calculates the
 amount owed based on an assigned utility rate.
 This assignment allows customer service to adjust all customers with a specific
 utility rate at one time.
 So based on recalculating a sample of 11 electric or water charges, we found
 that the billing system appears to be accurately calculating customer bills.
 And those 11 bills that we recalculated cover 97% of electric and water
 customers.
 Finally, the city council has authorized customer service to adjust bills
 automatically calculated by the billing system to correct errors due to
 inaccurate meter reads or to waive penalties and interest under certain
 conditions.
 Based on a review of a statistical sample of adjustments, we found that
 adjustment documentation does not always provide enough detail to determine
 why an adjustment was made.
 In addition, there's not currently a formal process to review these
 adjustments to make sure they're always appropriate.
 So regular review of adjustments should further increase assurance that they
 are all appropriate.
 Based on their management response, customer service will update their
 manager to clarify and formalize expectations on bill adjustment
 documentation.
 In addition, customer service's billing supervisor will ensure that at least
 100 billing adjustments are reviewed every month to verify that they're
 documented appropriately and that they're adequately authorized.
 So in summary, we issued a total of 14 recommendations to the three separate
 divisions that we discussed, and all of them were concurred with.
 Based on the division's management responses, we believe the identified
 risks will be adequately addressed.
 But as with all of our audits, we'll perform a follow-up review in the next
 year or so.
 So that's all I have.
 >> Okay.
 Thank you.
 Great.
 Questions for staff?
 Okay.
 Seeing no movement.
 Any questions?
 Great.
 I have one, Mr. City manager, could we take a note or could you tell me what
 we do in instances of lost records that are not able to be recovered?
 So if something's been in this instance lost, is there a log or a message or
 some way to capture that note and make sure we're all aware?
 Does that make sense?
 >> It does.
 I have to defer to Chris or Tony if they're online.
 >> Todd, this is Chris.
 Could you restate -- I'm sorry, it cut out right in the middle.
 >> Sure.
 So just wondering, what is our reporting as a city if something is not
 recoverable?
 If something is accidentally deleted or in this instance a glitch or some
 sort and data is lost, is there a log for that that then is reported to
 council or to management?
 >> Yes, mayor.
 There is -- if you would have noticed in Madison's report that these
 meters are continually reading, recording the data.
 Actually the meter has the ability to store, I believe, 90 days worth of
 data in itself.
 So if we were to miss a data dump at one point, it would validate itself
 with the next data dump.
 Then again, our software that handles this also has the ability to see that
 a read was skipped or missed or omitted.
 It has the ability to gap fill that data point based on the last known good
 read and then the next good read that comes in.
 >> Well, I think -- thank you for that.
 That's great to know.
 But I think in this instance, Madison, correct me if I'm wrong, but is that
 the maintenance reports that were lost?
 Or I can go back to that slide, I guess.
 >> Yeah, it was the results of the meter accuracy tests.
 >> There you go.
 >> Yes, sir, mayor.
 I can speak to that.
 So that's a different item there.
 So actually we have a test log.
 It's a set of equipment that when it tests the meter, it stores the results
 from the meter.
 What happened is that platform had a server failure and we lost that data.
 So going forward, we're going to have the ability to take that data and get
 it off of the test network and get it backed up on the city's next work --
 city's network.
 >> Okay, great.
 That answers my question.
 Thank you.
 >> Yes, sir.
 >> Any other questions for staff?
 Great.
 Okay.
 Then let's go to -- thank you, Madison.
 So that will take us to our next work session item, which is item B, which is
 ID202094, receive report, hold discussion, and give staff direction on
 pending city council request.
 >> Yes, good afternoon, mayor and council.
 Stuart Verzai, assistant to the city manager here.
 And I am with you for the pending request for information.
 By way of reminder, we will present up to seven requests per meeting, one
 council member.
 Staff will introduce the request.
 And then the elected official that made the request will have one minute to
 describe and justify their request.
 The remaining elected officials will then have up to one minute to provide
 feedback and indicate their support for use staff of time -- for the use of
 staff time or the policy or work session.
 And then we will respond to all requests for a consensus of council is
 established.
 Today we have one request.
 It came from council member Armator.
 And it is to have the city audio record and archive as confidential, all
 closed council and board and committee meetings.
 In your backup, it has council member Armator's full request there.
 And then it also includes information about what is required, either a
 certified agenda or tape recording, the exceptions to that requirement.
 And then it gives an outline of how the city secretary's office currently uses
 the certified agenda process.
 So with that, I will bring down my screen and turn it over to council
 member Armator.
 >> Thank you.
 Today I ask you to agree to a work session on recording our closed meetings.
 When it comes to documenting closed meetings, the Texas open meetings act
 gives cities a choice.
 Create a certified agenda or make a confidential recording for posterity.
 Transparency light or real transparency.
 Currently, the city of Denton creates an agenda.
 And if you have ever requested one, you know it is really not much more than
 the posted agenda topic.
 It provides no detail about what goes on behind closed doors.
 For the future historical record and for open government today and to help
 jog our own memories and inform future councils, I urge you to give your
 constituents and future generations the real transparency they deserve and
 agree to have a work session on recording our closed meetings as allowed
 under the Texas open meetings act.
 >> Great.
 All right.
 Thank you.
 I will take comments from the other councilmembers.
 Councilmember Meltzer.
 >> It is an option provided by law.
 I have no objection to it, certainly no objection to having a discussion
 about it.
 Maybe there are some pluses and minuses that aren't apparent.
 Certainly willing to hear them.
 >> Okay.
 Thank you.
 Anyone else?
 And just to make sure we are all on the same page.
 If you don't want to hear to affirm to move forward to a work session, if you
 don't speak on it, then it is assumed you don't support the pitch, just so
 you know.
 That is how it is calculated.
 Is there anyone else care to speak on this?
 Seeing no movement.
 >> I will say that -- let me start the timer for myself to keep an eye on
 myself.
 I will say I think I can get behind a work session just because it allows us
 to ask questions and kind of deliberate a little further.
 I do have concerns about it, but I'm happy to have a discussion first and
 then make a decision.
 That is where I fall on it.
 Any other?
 Councilmember Johnson?
 >> Yes.
 I would like more clarification on what she is asking and more detail if
 possible.
 >> Okay.
 To get that, just there is -- as Stuart mentioned in the backup, there is
 that, but also after reviewing that, your question remains, I think we
 would have to have the work session.
 Is that what you are saying?
 >> Yes.
 >> Okay.
 Got it.
 That is for in the affirmative to move forward with a work session to
 discuss it and then we will make a decision at that point.
 Anything else we need to cover there, Stuart?
 >> No, sir.
 Thank you.
 >> Okay.
 Very good.
 Thank you.
 Are there any other work session items I do believe?
 Make sure.
 Yes.
 That will take us straight into our consent agenda.
 Is there anything that has changed before we go into that?
 >> No, mayor.
 >> Okay.
 Great.
 Then I will take -- so then from my notes, the only thing that was pulled
 was item B and there is no presentation needed.
 >> Okay.
 All in favor say aye.
 All in favor say aye.
 All in favor say aye.
 All in favor say aye.
 All in favor say aye.
 All in favor say aye.
 All in favor say aye.
 All in favor say aye.
 All in favor say aye.
 All in favor say aye.
 All in favor say aye.
 >> Okay.
 All in favor say aye.
 All in favor say aye.
 All in favor say aye.
 All in favor say aye.
 All in favor say aye.
 All in favor say aye.
 All in favor say aye.
 All in favor say aye.
 All in favor say aye.
 All in favor say aye.
 All in favor say aye.
 All in favor say aye.
 All in favor say aye.
 >> Okay.
 All in favor say aye.
 All in favor say aye.
 All in favor say aye.
 All in favor say aye.
 All in favor say aye.
 All in favor say aye.
 >> Okay.
 >> And mayor Hotschpeth is yes.
 That item carries 7-0.
 Now we'll take up item consent agenda item B under items for individual consideration.
 And let me get there.
 Great.
 And for the record, councilmember Armichael, are you going to recuse?
 >> I will.
 >> Okay.
 So for the record, councilmember Armitter and councilmember Meltzer have recused themselves.
 And the item I'll call it is item B, ID202564, consider adoption of ordinance of the city of
 Denton, Texas, home rule municipal corporation, authorizing the city manager or his designee to
 execute a memorandum of understanding regarding electrical distribution, switching procedures
 with the University of North Texas.
 No presentation was requested.
 So I'll take a motion.
 Councilmember Ryan?
 >> Move approval.
 >> Thank you.
 Mayor Pro Tem Davis?
 >> I'll second.
 >> Thank you.
 And any discussion?
 We have a motion and a second.
 And councilmember Ryan, how say you?
 >> Aye.
 >> Mayor Pro Tem Davis?
 >> Aye.
 >> Councilmember Johnson?
 >> Aye.
 >> Councilmember Baker?
 >> Aye.
 >> And mayor Hutzpeth is an aye as well.
 That item B passes five to zero.
 And we'll welcome back councilmember Meltzer and councilmember Armitter.
 And that will take us to -- if I can turn the page.
 Our special call -- or the rest of our items for individual consideration.
 So I'll call the first item.
 This is 2A.
 It's ID 202276.
 Consider adoption of an ordinance establishing the city of Denton utility system extendable
 commercial paper finance program and authorizing utility system revenue extendable commercial paper notes.
 Series B and providing an effective date.
 >> Mayor, I'll actually have one presentation for item A and B.
 >> Okay.
 So let me call that as well.
 So item B is ID 21070.
 Consider adoption of an ordinance considering all matters incident and related to the issuance, sale, and delivery of up to 100 million in principal amount of city of Denton utility systems revenue reading bonds.
 >> Council, I'm Cassie Ogden, director of finance.
 And before I get started, I did want to let you know that our bond council and our financial advisors are on the line.
 If you have specific detailed questions, I'll probably ask them to jump in.
 So I'm here to discuss the utilities -- or a commercial paper program for the utilities capital program.
 So let me share my screen and I will get started.
 >> Okay.
 >> So just a little bit of background.
 November 2019, the citizens approved the 2019 bond election of 220 million of capital projects for street improvements, public safety facilities, and land acquisition.
 In April 2020, city council then approved an extendable commercial paper program, which is a short-term financing tool for the GEO bond election projects.
 Recognizing the benefits of the GEO commercial paper program, staff brought forward an extendable commercial paper program specific for the utilities capital program to the PUV in November.
 In December, the PUV recommended approval to city council for this program.
 So what is commercial paper?
 Like I mentioned before, it is a short-term financing tool.
 It's short-term because the notes have a maximum maturity of 270 days.
 So currently, long-term bonds, which are 20 to 30 years, are sold before the city enters into contracts for construction services.
 A commercial paper program could be used for the same type of contracts for capital projects that the city currently funds with bonds.
 The proposed utilities commercial paper program is for $100 million, which is the same amount council previously approved for the GEO bond election commercial paper program.
 However, this program will be specifically for the utilities capital program, which is approved by council annually through the budget process.
 So by state law, the city cannot enter into a contract without having the appropriation authority or the funding available for the entire contract amount when council approves the contract.
 The commercial paper program gives the utilities appropriation authority for council approved capital project contracts.
 So why is this beneficial?
 It allows the utilities to move forward with capital projects without having to wait until the city's annual bond sale to take the contract to council and begin the project.
 Another benefit of a commercial paper program is it allows the city to align debt issuance or our bond sales with utility project timelines.
 Additionally, council still maintains project and contract approval authority of all of the projects used for the commercial paper program.
 So just an example, this slide shows the current practice for utilities capital projects without a commercial paper program in place.
 The construction of a water treatment plant is estimated to cost $85 million. Bonds would be sold for the entire $85 million before the construction contract is approved by council.
 The water treatment plant would be sold for $85 million before the actual project costs are incurred.
 And I apologize, I have a mistype on this slide. It says tax rate increases, but this is water. This would be water rate increases.
 In addition to capital projects, a commercial paper program instead of selling $85 million of bonds before council approves the construction contract, the bond sales can be aligned with the project expense timeline each year.
 Using a commercial paper program for the utilities capital program reduces the risk of premature rate increases needed to fund large capital projects.
 This allows capital projects to move forward with the contracts without having to wait on the bond sale to secure project funding.
 So just like with the GEO bond election commercial paper program already established, in order to use the utilities commercial paper program as appropriation authority, council must approve item B, which the mayor already called, is a utility system revenue refunding ordinance annually.
 If commercial paper is used, the refunding bonds sold would be used to pay off the maturing commercial paper notes and convert the debt to long-term bonds.
 As with the GEO bond election commercial paper program, the utilities intend to use the commercial paper program for appropriation authority for its contracts.
 And this slide shows you the project timeline. So these are the steps that we have already taken up to this point, and if council approves the program today, we anticipate closing on the program in February.
 And with that,
 we'll take questions.
 Okay, thank you very much. And so let's take Mr. City Attorney, can we ask questions about both since they're both open we kind of vacillate between the two, right?
 Yes, sir. Perfect. Okay, questions for staff.
 Okay. No questions. Great. Then I will take action on item A, which is, and correct me if I'm wrong, do I need to take B and then A or does we take them in order?
 A will need to be approved first. Perfect. Okay. Thank you. Council Member Meltzer.
 Yeah, it's a very helpful liquidity tool. I move approval for item A.
 Agreed. Thank you. Mayor Pro Tem Davis.
 I'll second. Okay. Thank you. So we have a motion and a second. Any discussion?
 I want to echo what Council Member Meltzer said it really is a great tool to help us with these projects and pass those savings down and, you know, especially when you're talking about these numbers in the example 85 million that we'd have to take out and let it sit for years,
 especially with the volatility. So, thank you. Okay. Any other discussion? Great. Council Member Meltzer, how say you?
 Aye. Mayor Pro Tem Davis? Aye. Council Member Johnson? Aye. Council Member Baker? Aye. Council Member Armitage? Yes.
 Council Member Ryan? Aye. And Mayor Hutchbeth is an aye. That passes 7-0. And then now we'll take up item B ID 21070. Council Member Meltzer? I move approval.
 Okay. Mayor Pro Tem Davis? Second. Thank you.
 All right. I have a motion and a second. Any discussion? Great. Council Member Meltzer, how say you? Aye. Mayor Pro Tem Davis? Aye. Okay. Council Member Johnson? Aye. Council Member Baker? Aye. Thank you.
 And Council Member Armitage? Yes. Council Member Ryan? Aye. Mayor Hutchbeth is an aye. That passes 7-0. That takes us to, thank you.
 And so that takes us to item C, which is ID 202424. Consider adoption of an ordinance of the City of Denton to declare the intent to reimburse capital program expenditures of electric utility solid waste.
 Well, let me give the numbers. $42,538,108 solid waste, $3 million, water, $23,647,184 wastewater, $26,144,574 in general government, $72,608,678 with the tax preferred obligation.
 Certificates.
 I'm back. Hello. Cassie Ogden, Director of Finance. Let me share my screen.
 So the reimbursement ordinance, this is something that the city undertakes annually. So federal law does require formal documentation of the city's intent to reimburse itself with tax exempt bonds.
 Generally the sale of the bonds happens within 12 months, and I have a future slide that will show you the timeline. We generally have a spring bond sale. And if you remember that this is allowed under the debt policy that was just updated and approved by Council last week.
 So all of these projects were included in the 2021 budget that was adopted by Council in September. The geo-funded projects. So for general government, you can see on your screen, the adopted budget was $55.3 million.
 We are requesting to fund $52.4 million of the total bond budget for these projects. The reason for the decrease is the public safety facilities project.
 Not that it will not cost the full amount, just that we project to only spend $40 million this fiscal year with the other $2.9 million moving into the next fiscal year. So we don't need the bonds yet.
 Our CEO funded projects for general government, as you can see, $20.2 million. We only have a difference of $18,000 from what we budgeted to what we are expecting to fund with debt funding.
 And now I'll go through each of the utility funds. So for water, the budget included $35 million worth of capital improvement projects funded by debt.
 This number has been reduced based on shifting timelines for those capital projects. And projects may have been reprioritized due to other items. And we do have each utility director on the line if you have project specific questions for them.
 You can see budget of $35 million, we are asking to sell bonds for $23 million for those budgeted projects.
 And for wastewater, there's a couple of slides for the wastewater projects. Some of these items, the smaller projects, we chose to revenue fund instead of debt funds. So that's why you're seeing the difference on this slide from budget to funding.
 And then again on this slide, the smaller projects we are revenue funding.
 And so total wastewater project difference, $6.7 million from budget to what we are going to issue debt for.
 And the impact fee reduction number that you see there, that's impact fee revenue that will be applied to those projects.
 For solid waste, $3 million was budgeted for the solid waste fleet facility and we are requesting to sell bonds for the full $3 million.
 And then electric, some projects were reprioritized and you can see the difference from budget to funding. The total difference being $18.9 million from budget to what we are issuing debt for.
 So in summary, our budget was $208 million. We are requesting to sell debt for $167 million. So a difference of approximately $40 million.
 So next steps, we will come back to you for a notice of intent ordinance to issue the COs and then in May, just like in previous years, you'll consider the parameters ordinance for both the GO and COs.
 And then if the market conditions are favorable, we will sell the bonds and close in June.
 With that, stand for any questions. Great. Thank you. Great presentation. Questions for staff. Mayor Pro Tem Davis.
 You're still muted. Sorry, hit the button. It didn't work. No worries. I was going to use like that thing when I do they fill in the words. It's like lip thinking.
 Yeah. Well, maybe it would have sounded better than whatever I'm about to say. But I really appreciate seeing all those revenue funded items. Is there any particular reason why we were able to slide some of those items from debt funded to revenue funded?
 Are we just doing so well over there in utilities selling enough water and electricity that we can afford all these projects?
 We met we meet with each of the utilities quarterly to go through their project prioritization and a lot of those smaller maintenance type projects. While they're not true capital projects, we decided to revenue fund.
 So we were able to shift some of the funding around.
 And I would just add customer Davis that when you adopt the budget, you're still two to three months behind us closing out the books and some of those those utility funds are very weather sensitive.
 So we're making our best guess we're going to end up once once the budgets adopted, once we go through the audit and close out the year, we try to put any additional dollars that we can find towards those projects and reduce the debt load to give future councils that flexibility. So that's the strategy.
 Okay.
 Any other questions for staff.
 Okay, that sounds like to me Mr. City Manager that we bought a new couch and we cleared out the old couch at the end of the year.
 Money fell out.
 Okay, I'll take a motion.
 Mayor pro tem Davis.
 I'm of approval of the item.
 Okay.
 Councilmember Baker.
 I'll second it. Got it.
 We have a motion and a second any other discussion.
 Great.
 Mayor pro tem Davis I'll say you.
 I Councilmember Baker.
 Hi.
 Thank you, Councilmember Johnson.
 Hi.
 Councilmember Meltzer.
 Hi.
 Councilmember Ryan.
 Hi.
 Councilmember armature.
 Yes.
 And Mayor Hudson is a I as well that passes seven zero Thank you, Cassie.
 And that'll take us to item D, which is ID 21049 consider approval of a resolution by the city of Denton authorizing the city manager or his desic need to apply for funding under the Denton County transportation reinvestment program.
 Hello. Good afternoon, Mayor Council members, Laura Barons, the grant administrator for the city of Denton.
 Today I wanted to share.
 I'm always start by sharing my screen here and we'll get started.
 Today I wanted to share some information with you on the transportation reinvestment program or trip, which is a new funding initiative through the Denton County Transportation Authority or DCTA and the city's proposal for projects under the new program.
 The program provides financial assistance to DCTA member cities or projects, consistent with their long range service plans.
 It is a five year program that is beginning this year.
 It is targeted by taking 15% of DCTA's available funds from a previous fiscal year and allocating 95% of those funds to member cities, proportional to the sales and use tacker tax receipts, and then allocating another 5% for program administration.
 This year, approximately $5.9 million has been set aside for all cities with 2.5 specifically allocated for the city of Denton calls for projects will be made in January of each calendar year.
 Projects for funding must meet location and budget criteria, like proximity to DCTA stations or bus routes and well defined cost estimates based on recent projects.
 So, based on those eligibility criteria, the city has identified six projects, we propose to submit for funding.
 We do have staff from capital projects available if there are any specific questions on each project, but the first one is a train to UNT bike and pedestrian path.
 This is a request for $1.6 million for the project that would improve Sycamore and welch streets to serve DCTA customers from the train station to downtown and ultimately to the UNT campus.
 That project is scheduled to start in spring of 2021 and be completed in the fall of the same year.
 The next project is Jennings and Alexander elementary sidewalks.
 This project proposes filling in the gaps in existing pedestrian infrastructure that would provide safe paths to the schools and to DCTA routes.
 The request on this project is a little over half a million dollars that this project would begin in the spring of this year, be completed in the summer of next year.
 Similarly, we have proposed sidewalk infrastructure around Wilson and pecan Creek elementary schools that will provide connectivity to the schools and connectivity to transit routes for DCTA.
 The request on this is a little over $80,000 with a start date of this spring and a completion date of next summer.
 The next project is for the all walk crosswalk design, which will make improvements from the pedestrian connectivity from the A train stop to the downtown area.
 This project has a request of $68,000 with a start date of this spring and a completion in the fall of this year.
 The Bell sidewalk construction project would add missing sidewalk connectivity on the east side of Bell Avenue to the downtown area. This request is for $88,000 with a beginning date of the fall of this year and a completion estimate for the winter of 2021 or 2022.
 And our last project is the Med Park sidewalk construction project.
 This would install a hundred, I'm sorry, 1200 linear feet of sidewalk on the north and south sides of Med Park, which is a major DCTA hub for us.
 We're requesting the full amount for this project at $147,000, starting in the spring of 2021 and ending in the fall of this year.
 So overall, these six projects meet the long range service plan goals and the location requirements. They also have the funding plans for project completion. We have a breakdown of what that funding plan looks like.
 The estimated completion amount, current funding that's allocated towards each project and any external funding that we're receiving from other programs also includes the proposed request to DCTA under the new trip program.
 And that is for the full allocated amount in the current fiscal year.
 Okay.
 Great. Thank you. Councilmember Meltzer.
 Couldn't be more for it.
 Thank you for pulling all these proposals together.
 I think on the fourth item, you meant to say always crossing
 and I move approval.
 Okay.
 And make a note.
 Sorry.
 Great. Okay. And Councilmember Armitage.
 Yes. So these are all really important projects that are high priority that we were going to do anyway. So I very much approve of these projects.
 I have some concerns about the source of the funding. And so I was wondering if someone from staff could answer questions about that.
 Councilmember Meltzer, I may have to ask you to make your motion again, but go ahead. Mr. City Manager.
 I'm sure I'm happy to answer the questions on the source of the funding. Councilmember Armitage.
 Okay, thanks. Yeah. So I was wondering if you could explain what the rationale was behind of DCTA behind taking this 15% from public funding.
 To capital projects for an entire five years.
 Well, it was actually a program that was pushed by myself and the manager in Lewisville.
 DCTA was sitting on significant reserves, level of service decreased. And our question was, if you've got that that type of money there, which is all Lewisville and Denton supply about 75% of the funding to DCTA through the one cent sales tax
 option that our residents approved years ago. So rather than let that money sit there, we argued for a program that would as long as there was a link to pedestrian to their to their mission that we would like to have a program set up to rebate it back since they didn't have the ability to spend it all or the need, most importantly, to spend it all right now.
 The 15% number is a number that we, we agreed to at the board level, former mayor Watson's on the board and the mayor pro tem in Lewisville as well as the county appointees and a representative from Highland Village and they, they agreed upon the 15% this first year to see how the DCTA budget shakes out and agreed to to take a look at it, year over year to make sure that the funding can support it if there's additional funding that can be put towards this program.
 That's fine, but it was an it was an easier way than perhaps having the public discussion with the communities about lowering that has had sales tax to a quarter cent so that was the that was the issue is we we analyze their books for about a year, asked a lot of questions about why the money was sitting in reserves and why it couldn't be returned to the communities until it is necessary.
 And so we can invest in those infrastructure improvements to get our residents to, you know, the bus routes to schools that sort of thing so they agreed to work with us and the board approved the program in this fashion.
 Thank you so much. Can I ask a follow up question.
 Okay, thank you. So, um, I'm concerned about. So this year, there's a decline because of covert obviously.
 So, but why, why wasn't it or was it considered in subsequent years, putting those reserves into increased and improved public transportation.
 It possibly could be they're going through a subcommittee of myself and appeared my peers from Highland village in Louisville worked with the DCT a staff to bring in a consulting firm right now and so it's a four team firm that is taking a look at the service levels currently
 provided by DCT a are they the appropriate services that are being provided is there a different service can be provided, and it will be working with their staff to adjust the budgeting.
 In the next year to based upon where the DCT a board wants to go and if they want to enhance services they can certainly do that but they're looking at options. So this was a one year sort of attempt to rebate back some of the sales tax you got to remember
 the sales tax in Louisville and Denton has been fairly stable it is, it is overperformed based upon DCT a is early projection so as a result when they reduce services because there was no demand.
 They ended up with far more money in their reserves to the bottom line. So they'll go through and have that public discussion this next year about what services are being offered what they might want to do differently and what that incremental cost could be so
 this isn't a given for the next five years but there are certainly dollars right now that we can apply for to invest back into our community while that study is undergoing.
 I think that's very helpful. Okay, any other questions for staff.
 Mayor Pro Tem Davis.
 So I couldn't help but notice that some of these projects we've seen before as part of the bond package or at least there's some tie in some of them are new some of them aren't.
 Bond money because of this grant if we apply for it and successfully rewarded it. If bond money is not needed for those projects does that mean that we'll have other street packages or sidewalk packages that we can bring online or does that mean that the price
 tag of those projects has gone up and we need the grant money to offset it. It's all about flexibility.
 The, the grant money is not going to be able to cover all the sidewalk sections that we had hoped to meet us, we remember when we passed that when we asked voters to pass that bond, it was also to leverage federal state shared dollars.
 It's safe route to school dollars to get to get those sidewalks there so we are counting on that amount of money being, you know, budgeted by the federal government on a year to year basis really all it means is if we can get dollars funded through DC ta, then
 then as the state, I'm sorry as this safe route to school dollars become available we get more done. So it we're hoping it's a double bang for the buck right now.
 That's what I wanted to hear. Thank you.
 Questions for staff.
 So a couple of notes for me. Well, let's let's do this Councilmember Meltzer, I'll do it during this discussion, because they're not questions. So, do you still move approval.
 I do. Okay.
 Mayor protein Davis.
 I'll second. Okay, that we have a first and a second. So discussion.
 Okay, so for my, for my standpoint I want to I want to highlight and say how thrilled am about this project and I'll echo kind of what the city, city manager said and for my peers that haven't have have not been following along or didn't look it up, I think.
 From round numbers from memory, two years ago I think the number was $13 million is what DC ta received from sales tax dollars this past year I think is round numbers on pace for $14 million.
 And so that's why this 15% coming back in and such a big deal and it's a vehicle that kind of keeps the the dollars and the silos they belong in, and I'll say you know to staff's credit as a city manager pointed out, you're talking about a year of unpredictability
 and 2020, and yet and still somehow staff is on the right on the money with the sales tax projections, never in a million years what I thought that would happen in this in this climate but it did and so that's important to note that that.
 DC ta gets their money from sales tax dollars and then also I want to point out the walk from you and T, pardon me the sidewalk you and T and welch that sort of thing.
 And I want staff to look at the timing obviously Hickory is under construction, right now. So if there's some sort of stub out that we can do or some kind of understanding if we're going if we can get a feel we're going to get the grant, maybe we, we just kind
 of turn that corner and wait for the rest of the dollars but while the street is under construction. I'd like to try to avoid having to tap back in at Hickory and Welch.
 If possible, to kind of have some maybe front some money to at least make that turn while the constructions there.
 And then, Mr city manager is there a way for before these come forward or in short order to have the bike lane discussion about if we want to move the route of all protected lanes, you know, so that if this these dollars I don't know how their
 budget if they were share roles or protected lanes that sort of thing but I really want to have that conversation to see what this council wants to do with respect to bike lanes, and hopefully we, there's a consensus to commit to investing for dedicated protected
 lanes more than just share those but I leave that with you to kind of bring that to the group whenever you feel it's appropriate, but that would, to me would tie into the funding.
 Also, just to get in front of it, I think the earlier we can get this these proposals to the disability committee, we can kind of understand that as we're getting ready to to get shovel ready, we'll have that feedback and we can bake it in best we can.
 Lastly, I made a note that the Patterson Appleton visual arts center there so if we're talking on the east side of Bell at that one segment just before Hickory, I think that it kind of eats into their parking lot and there's that drainage there and so just want to
 maybe have some conversations with them in advance, and then lastly, I would be curious on the fire station said that I say fake. It's the Med Park segment. I don't know what's there now if it connects with the fire station, you know, so if we have.
 I know it's that one segment but I don't know if it connects to an existing sidewalk to that would stretch all the way to the fire station but again that'd be maybe another supplemental if it's not there, but I think that may be worth looking at to see if we can complete
 that segment. So, we get that.
 If we get notice of these being funded we will let you know in a Friday report, I'll ask staff to make sure that you know before we actually award these projects, we're going to have to bring them back to me anyway, but we take a look at how we're going to integrate any bike infrastructure
 as well so we'll make sure that our city attorney say engineer in her staff can take a look at that. Great. Thank you. Any other comments, Councilmember Meltzer.
 Yeah, member Ryan. Thank you. I just want to underscore something that is kind of been said but that might get missed by the general public just tuning in.
 Most things we do.
 There's a proposal. It's costed out. And then funding is identified and then, you know, both smaller public transportation, which I'm entirely for that needs to be enhanced is not currently done that way.
 It's, it's just a function of how much our sales taxes. So, when our sales tax was was super high.
 The funding for DCT a was super high. It was just a function of that that alone. And when I first came on to the mobility committee to the prior DCT a president.
 We saw a presentation about no enhancements of service, but staff kept getting bigger.
 Why not. It was just more money because the sales tax was high. So, this is, you know, a bit of an adjustment for that but it's, it's it's it's it's a separate question from what should our public transportation be like, and how should
 be funded so that it's, it's, you know, it's a very reasonable adjustment, being directed in a very productive direction.
 That's it. Councilmember Ryan.
 Yeah, I just wanted to kind of point out for the public that I believe most all of the external funding is came from regional transportation council.
 The route from the a train to UNT was actually approved in late 2019. And the southern the other funds are probably don't know the exact numbers how they all break down but most likely are safe route to school dollars.
 So, one of the problems that we've run into on RTC is if projects don't move forward, then the funding can be revoked back to the RTC to be pushed off to another city so it's very important that we get these projects up and going as quickly as possible.
 Good. Thank you for that.
 Any other discussion.
 Councilmember armature.
 I'll just say that I am going to vote yes to this, because it makes sense to me this year, but in in future years.
 I will be concerned to see as we get over coven at some point, and workers need a, you know, fixed routes to get to work. And there's a continued demand for more and better bus service and bus drivers need to get paid and paid better with better benefits.
 And when it comes to that, I'll be more ambivalent about spending that public transportation money on anything other than expanded public transportation, but for this year.
 I approve of this.
 Okay, great. Any other discussion.
 Okay.
 Councilmember Melzer how say you.
 Mayor pro Tim Davis.
 Councilmember Johnson.
 Councilmember Baker.
 Thank you.
 And then Councilmember armature.
 Yes, Councilmember Ryan.
 Hi, and Mayor Hutz with his eye that passes seven zero Thank you, Laura.
 And then Councilmember E, which is ID 2025 49 consider appointing and a nominee committee to recommend appointees to serve on the economic development partnership board.
 Councilmembers Jessica Rogers director of economic development.
 So the item before you this evening is to appoint the nominating committee that recommends nominees to serve on the economic development partnership board for background for our new council members and just as a reminder to our existing
 or previous council members who've gone through this before, there are currently two unexpired term vacancies on the economic development partnership board. Those are the positions that were previously held by Councilmember Keely Briggs, and a top 20 taxpayer seat that was held by Chris Davis of Peter built.
 Mr Davis was recently transferred to a plant outside of the state. And so he has vacated his seat under the ordinance that authorizes the economic development partnership board, it does require the city council to appoint
 three people to service the nominating committee for considerations of new appointments for the partnership board. The nominating committee under that ordinance solicits nominations and contacts the nominees confirms their eligibility and their willingness to serve and then presents
 those long, those nominees to city council for your consideration.
 The nominating committee is composed of two city council members and one member of the Denton Chamber of Commerce. The chamber has nominated Marty Rivers as their representative.
 Previously, I believe, former Mayor Watts and Councilmember Meltzer were the appointees and 20 were set on the nominating committee in 2020 just for reference. And then as a reminder, and council members who serve on the nominating committee are themselves qualified for appointment to the economic development partnership board.
 So for your consideration today is just the appointment of two city council members and one member of the Denton Chamber. Again, the chambers nominated Mr Rivers, and to serve as the excuse me 2021 economic development partnership board and 2021.
 Moving forward. All right. And that is all I have for this presentation. Thank you.
 Okay, so I'll just open it up to nominations for the nominating committee.
 Mayor Pro Tem Davis.
 I'd nominate Mayor Hudspeth.
 Okay.
 I'll accept that. And then, any others.
 Councilmember Ryan.
 I'll nominate Mayor Pro Tem Jesse Davis.
 Okay.
 Got it.
 Any other nominations.
 Okay, seeing no action we'll take those up so
 do we need just a show of hands second motion how does that help me understand how that flows.
 Typically a motion to appoint those.
 Yes, perfect. Thank you. So I'll take a motion on myself and hurts with and Mayor Pro Tem Davis to be placed on the nominating committee.
 Councilmember Ryan.
 So move. Thank you. Is there a second.
 Councilmember Baker.
 I second it. Thank you. So we have a motion in a second any discussion.
 Councilmember Ryan how say you.
 All right. Councilmember Baker.
 Councilmember Johnson.
 Council, I mean Mayor Pro Tem Davis.
 I thank you.
 Councilmember Meltzer.
 I see. And then, Councilmember Armitage.
 Yes.
 And Mayor Hudson is an eyes well that passes seven zero.
 Thank you.
 That will conclude individual items for consideration I'll take us to section three public hearings of our agenda, and I'll call item A which is Z.
 20 0011 D.
 Oh, yeah.
 Yeah, it's posted for 630 got it. Okay.
 So, we will adjourn until I just saw that note so forgive me.
 So we will adjourn until 630 it is currently for 19pm and it still is January 12 2021. Thank you. We'll see you in a couple hours.
 And welcome back to this meeting of the Denton City Council special called meeting today is January 12 2021 it is 630, and we are resuming today's meeting from our earlier agenda we are now to the public hearings portion.
 And that'll bring us, and we do have a quorum. And so, that'll bring us to item A which is Z. 0011 D hold a public hearing and consider adoption of ordinance of the city of Denton Texas regarding a change in the zoning district and use classification for planned
 development district to residential one district on approximately 4.23 acres of land.
 So, and for the record we have no calls for this item.
 All right, good evening council members I'm just going to pull up my presentation.
 Good evening.
 All right.
 My name is Karina Maldonado be presenting z 20 dash 0011 state school road estates.
 And tonight is to rezone approximately 4.23 acres for plan development to our one district. The site is located are surrounded by moderate single family residential on most sides with one property on the west side being undeveloped.
 This property is also located on the boundary of the city of Denton and city of Corinth. As you can see, and I'll have a zoomed in a screenshot later to presentation. This property has some tree clustering on the southeast portion.
 And then just to let you know that the applicant intends to or the purpose of the rezoning is so that they could subdivide the property into four single family estate lots.
 This is just a brief or conceptual plan of what they intend to do.
 This is not a something final they will move on after this step to the planning process, which they'll finalize the lot boundaries of proposed lot boundaries, based on the district that is, or if it is approved as requested today.
 And just before I go deeper into the criteria for approval. I just wanted to give a brief history on the site and the zoning that's currently in place.
 So, existing today is the plan development zoning district. This was established in 1986. This is a legacy PD.
 As I mentioned, it was approved in the 80s. So tied with that is some older development standards for this particular property, you can see boxed in red.
 That is designated for single family detached dwellings only with a maximum density of three to five dwelling units per acre. So that would come out to approximately or a maximum of 18 units.
 Like I mentioned, tied with the PD, any development on here that's not specifically called out in the PD standards would have to follow the 1969 zoning ordinance.
 That includes the process for how they move forward.
 That process basically states that if they were going to move forward with any type of development, they would have to come before this body for approval before any other steps.
 So very briefly, the PD standards related to this, you can see that the minimum lot area is 7700 square feet. That's roughly similar to what our district is today.
 You'll see that the lot width is a minimum of 70 feet, a lot depth of 110 feet, and I'll show a comparison here in just a second.
 So the current zoning map here shown in green is the part of the PD or what they're looking to rezone out of, and they're proposing an R1 district, which is a down zoning in the area, which would be a more restrictive zoning.
 So the general approval criteria for zoning are shown below. I won't go into every one. There's more detail in your packet under Exhibit 2. I'll just briefly highlight a few of these items.
 So first off, just looking at Denton Plan 2030 and how the request does comply with this. Looking at the future land use, this area is designated for low density residential, so that designation is intended for single family neighborhoods up to four dwelling units per acre.
 Lot sizes in this area are typically between one acre in that rural, more fringe area, and then in the more suburban areas, it would be up to that four dwelling units per acre gross density.
 So this request would be again zoning out of that PD, and with that request, if approved, that would just ensure that any current standards that we have today, so the current 2019 DD standards, would then be applied and would also contribute to meeting the current goals of our comprehensive plan.
 So next I'll just briefly talk about how this request minimizes any adverse environmental impacts. So as I mentioned, the request to zone out of the PD ensures that this development on this site would comply with any current development standards, including the 2019 tree protection standards.
 So as you can see, there's a lot of canopy in this area. So as they move forward in the planning process, this is something that they would need to make sure that they comply with is making sure that they maintain that minimum tree preservation of 30% of any heritage or quality trees on the site.
 Criteria eight talks about minimizing any adverse impacts on the surrounding property. So again, looking at that comparison between what the PD standards call for today, and then what a proposed R1 zoning would look like.
 The most significant difference is the change in lot area. So the R1 district increases the minimum lot size to approximately 0.7 acres. So you can see that, you know, going from an R, what would look like an R4 district all the way down to an R1 would just ensure that there's more open space.
 It's more restrictive on how much building coverage there is on the lot, and just ensuring that it's more compatible with the area.
 In terms of the intensity of the development and how it impacts the surrounding properties. We looked at transportation with the proposal for single family homes. This would generate approximately 40 daily trips in a 24 hour period.
 The property is located off of State School Road, which is currently classified as a local street and can accommodate any additional traffic related to this site. And just for some kind of background or some point of reference, a local street has a capacity of a maximum of 5,500 trips in a 24 hour period.
 Any wastewater are available to this site, but any specific impact to this will be looked at at the planning process. But as it stands today, they're likely to need to extend wastewater services but do have access to public water.
 And any improvements again, related to sidewalks or State School Road improvements would be looked at at the planning stage.
 So we did reach out to the public, those within 200 feet and within 500 feet as a courtesy notice.
 In response, as of today, we've had three responses in favor and then four in opposition. So the opposition, as you can see on the map, is largely from the property owner to the west, which currently has an MN zoning district and would allow for commercial development. All the other remaining opposition residents within the area.
 A lot of the concerns that they brought up were related to traffic onto State School Road and some had a misunderstanding of the request that has since been clarified regarding the site being potentially for multifamily.
 And so with the 25% opposition, any approval would require a three fourths vote or a super majority moving forward tonight. And then there was no neighborhood meetings held for this property. However, the applicant did reach out to individual property owners.
 At the planning and zoning commission meeting that was held last Wednesday, this item was voted 7-0 in approval. Staff also recommends approval of this request as it complies with section 2.45E of the 2019 Debt and Development Code.
 And the next steps after this would be, again, the platting phases and any permits related to the site. The applicant is on the line to answer any questions after this, but I can take any questions that you might have.
 Okay, thank you. Before we get to questions, I will open the public hearing, then ask, are there questions for staff?
 Seeing none, any questions for staff?
 Okay. So, and then, any calls? So no calls. So I will, one more pass, questions for staff, then I'll close the public hearing. Okay. No action. Seeing none, I'll close the public hearing and I will take a motion.
 Mayor Pro Tem.
 I'll move approval of the item.
 Okay.
 Councilmember Ryan.
 I'll second.
 Okay, we have a first and a second. Any other comment? Any other discussion?
 Okay. Mayor Pro Tem Davis.
 I'll just, I guess, for my colleague's benefit, point out why I moved approval of the item. First of all, it kind of looks like it's only a supermajority requirement because we've got the big commercial property to the west that occupies a lot of the property line there and they're able to almost unilaterally push it into a supermajority.
 About an equal number of neighbors supported it as opposed it. And I'm not really, not really sure why they're opposing it if the traffic concerns aren't really there because you hardly ever get R1, right? Nobody ever asks for R1.
 I always ask for R4, R6, R7, and under the new, if we rezone them today, they come under and come in under our new tree standards. So we save more trees. There are fewer houses and they could build, it looks like, by right.
 It just really seems like a win-win for a kind of tight infill space.
 Great. Thank you.
 Councilmember Armitage.
 Actually, I have a question for staff that I just thought of, just kind of scrolling through again, the responses to the notification.
 You mentioned that there was a misunderstanding about multifamily and that there were concerns about traffic related to that.
 I see that there's some concern also for density. And it's my understanding, just wanted staff confirmation that R1 is not a denser use of this property than a plan development. Is that correct?
 Correct. So with the current plan development that had a higher density, which kind of contributes to the reason why this particular parcel did not develop, and then the R1 request would, at a minimum, would require larger lot sizes so the density would be reduced significantly.
 Exactly. So thank you. I wanted to make sure I was understanding. Yeah, so this is great.
 Did you say that the people who submitted those concerns and complaints were informed of that?
 Yes. For those that did submit opposition related to the misunderstanding of a multifamily project, we reached out individually, made sure that they were informed of the request.
 Unfortunately, one of them did continue with the opposition, but it was in relation to traffic. While staff feels that an additional 40 trips would not significantly impact the capacity of State School Road, the resident was still concerned about existing traffic on State School Road from their perspective.
 So that particular resident maintained an opposition. But in terms of multifamily, that was clarified individually with two residents.
 Great. Thank you so much for that. And yet, you know, my response to that concern about the traffic is, again, like you mentioned, you know, 40 trips for, you know, residential development, but also, you know, any planned development that would come there would also involve traffic under the old zone, the current zoning.
 So, anyway, thank you so much. That's very helpful.
 Thank you. So any other discussion. Okay, Mayor Pro Tem, I'll say you.
 Aye. Councilmember Ryan. Aye. Councilmember Meltzer.
 You know, I have a question forming in my mind.
 And is it too late to ask it now that the voting is underway.
 Mr. City Attorney, do I have that.
 Typically when this once the vote has started you continue going forward I mean I know that you gave ample time for questions so it's your discretion if you want to continue to vote that's fine or if not you can retract the vote and start again after Councilmember Meltzer
 asks this question. Okay. Yeah, I'll, we'll, we'll hold the vote and take a motion in a bit for the record. Councilmember Meltzer.
 Thank you.
 It looks like the last big stand of trees in that whole neighborhood.
 And I just like to understand what the implications of a yes vote or a no vote would be on that.
 That's a question to staff.
 So, so a yes vote would just ensure that the applicant moving forward would have that entitlement in place. And the next step after that would include platting where they would be subject to any tree preservation requirements so the approval today wouldn't necessarily approve the actual development, it would just approve the zoning that would lead to a development that they're intending.
 So they would still have to come back and make sure that they meet all development standards, but with a no vote.
 You would refer to the current status. Yes, for that last remaining grove of trees in the neighborhood.
 The status. So if.
 So I apologize, I need to speak over you.
 A vote of no would just ensure that the current PD remains in place. As I mentioned, the current PD is tied to the 1969 zoning ordinance, which does not I failed to mention does not include any tree preservation requirements or landscape requirements so they would be able to develop by right.
 In the standards of that PD for that district area, but they wouldn't have to preserve any trees on that property. Okay, I very much appreciate that clarification. Thank you for the combination wasn't straight.
 And I'm happy to pick up the vote from here or start again whatever, you know, you're.
 Yeah, no, we'll just mayor pro tem, you still move approval.
 And councilman Ryan you still second day. Okay, further discussion.
 Okay. Mayor pro tem I say you. Aye. Okay, Councilmember Ryan.
 Aye. Councilmember Melzer. Aye.
 Councilmember Baker.
 Councilmember Johnson. Aye.
 Then, Councilmember armature.
 Yes. And Mayor Hudson says yes passes seven zero. Thank you, Karina.
 That'll take us to our second item and before in our last item before concluding items so it's item B DC a 20 0005 hold public hearing and consider adoption of ordinance of the city of Denton amending the Denton Development Code subchapter
 three zoning districts related to the minimum size yard set back for the residential three are three zoning district.
 And I'll read this so for item three B DC a 20 0005 a for this item we had two people make comments using our online forum, there were zero in support of this item to against all of these comment forms were emailed to the entire council and city
 secretary to be recorded.
 Finally, there are two who have requested to speak on the phone on this item staff currently is loading up those phone lines but we will have the presentation.
 And then first up would be Eric Pruitt after the presentation.
 The next would be a Doug Shanahan.
 Julie.
 Good evening, I'm Julie Wyatt, and let me pull up my presentation.
 Good evening. This is DC a 20 0005 are three setbacks.
 For you is a city initiated text amendment to the Denton Development Code subchapter three related to minimum side yard setbacks in our three district. Some of you may remember that this was discussed at a recent DC RC meeting.
 The map on your screen shows all of the areas within the city of Denton that are governed by the art district. The areas in blue are those are three areas that are developed with generally single family homes.
 And then the areas in red are those undeveloped lots and land. So, so as you can see the overwhelming majority of our three within the city of Denton is already developed in fact about 95% of the argument is developed.
 This came about due to some concerns with existing lots and those side yards.
 So before we get in the details of the proposal, I want to just take a snapshot of what the request is.
 So under the 2002 DDC, this zoning district was generally known as neighborhood residential three in our three and had a minimum lot area of 10 000 square feet, a minimum lot width of 60 feet, and that side yard setback was six feet.
 With the, with the adoption of the 2019 didn't development code that in our three transition to our three, and those lot sizes stayed the same that 10 000 square feet, but the side yard setback was increased to 10 feet.
 So, and this is causing some challenges with the implementation and some of those existing property owners. So staff is proposing to amend that side yard setback, go back to close to what it was before just kind of take it back to what it was, and have that five foot side yard setback.
 So just some background on the dimensional requirements for that are three district we talked about that the minimum the minimum lot size is 10 000 square feet and that minimum lot width is 60 feet are three also has a front yard setback of 20 feet corner lots are are treated a little
 differently than interior lots.
 Each frontage of those corner lots is considered a front yard so each frontage on those corner lots has to comply with that 20 foot front yard setback.
 Are three also has a 10 foot rear yard setback. And, and as I said stated before that 10 foot side yard setback shown here in red.
 So when staff was analyzing this proposal and looking at this amendment, we really looked at two categories related to the side yard setback and how it affects those properties.
 We looked at those established neighborhoods and those those developed lots, and then we looked at that greenfield developed developed areas that would be emerging that would be newly planted lots.
 Because the overwhelming amount of our three within the city is is developed we're going to talk about that first.
 So in established neighborhoods redevelopment of existing lots or additions to existing dwellings can be challenging due to that 10 foot side yard setback.
 So chapter one of the Denton Development Code includes a provision that the adoption of that 2019 code did not cause any existing single family lot that was legally established to become non conforming so even if that those lots weren't
 10,000 square feet, or were narrower than that 60 foot width minimum, they would still be considered legal lots. However, any new development on those lots must comply with those current setback regulations.
 As we stated that 2019 DDC did increase that side yard setback from six feet to 10 feet so it changed those regulations that have been in place when a lot of those properties were developed.
 So as you can see in the graphic on the screen. It's a kind of a representation of what that are three lot looks like for those existing dwellings, you've got the property lines surrounding it.
 The blue box would be that existing dwelling that that comply with those previous side yard setbacks. But then when you apply that 10 foot side yard setback you see that that house does encroach into that setback.
 And then any additions to that property if they wanted to add another bedroom or a bathroom or covered patio would have to comply with that 10 foot setback kind of restricting the the homeowners flexibility and ability to make improvements to the property.
 And then the variety of those development regulations which those Denton's established neighborhoods were developed and many of them have developed over over decades. And the variability in those conforming lot sizes, the 10 foot side yard setback really kind of impedes that that investment into some of those lots.
 Let's take a look at a couple examples. So, so they're here, we have a an infill project that it was a new, a new home built in under the 2002 didn't development code it's actually a duplex, and it was built with that six foot side yard setback provisions
 The, the, the property line, this is actually the north property line and it has a seven foot setback. The south property line has a little bit larger setback because it does have that sheer driveway with the adjacent property and under the 2019 didn't development code this couldn't be developed in
 this configuration. We have another neighborhood here that was developed under those previous setbacks and a lot of those homes do conform to those older setbacks.
 And then we have a neighborhood that was plotted. This is just south of university it was plotted in 1955. A lot of the lots are the majority, the average lot width is about 63 feet wide.
 The homes that were built in there have varied architecture and those wellings range from about 50 to 55 feet wide applying current setback standards, it would reduce the buildable area for those lots to 50 to 43 feet wide, which could limit additions
 or improvements to those properties so you can see how those those that affects those infill areas.
 The second category we looked at and this is a smaller category there's not not many lots that could be developed under our three.
 But, but they.
 This, this setback this 10 foot setback makes it difficult to to develop a variety of architectural types or dwelling sizes.
 So, for example, that typical lot for our three has that is 60 feet wide. When you apply those 10 foot setbacks, it reduces the buildable buildable area for that 60 foot wide lot to 40 feet for those interior lots.
 If you compare that to the other districts, residential districts within the city of Denton, particularly our for our six and our seven. All of those districts have a 40 foot wide building pad so it really kind of creates a similar building pad across those
 zoning district kind of reducing that variability within those districts.
 The setback reduces a property owners ability to play a place a larger or maybe a more architecturally distinctive structure on the site kind of encourages more homogenous development throughout the city.
 Other considerations we looked at didn't plan 2030, particularly element for talks about our community character and urban design, and it does encourage architectural diversity and creativity and that we want to avoid homogenous areas.
 The proposed modification would not would not conflict with other provisions within the didn't development code. And this proposed change is is really just consistent with the with the setbacks that were in place prior to the, the, the, the implementation of the
 2019 code and would allow for a variety of building building sizes. Of course, a reduced setback wouldn't necessarily require a property owner to build a 50 foot wide home on these lots they could have anywhere.
 They could go down to a 40 foot wide building width, it's just, it would provide that variability.
 The proposal is just a part of the further refinement of the 2019 development code.
 You know, as you're aware the the implementation and the creation of the 2019 DDC was was a massive undertaking we we combined some zoning districts we added new uses.
 And as we've implemented the code, we found areas that we need to tweak and areas that have created challenges. And so this is just a part of that that tweaking and making sure that we provide property owners with that flexibility and and appropriate
 development standards.
 The housing and zoning commission did recommend approval of the request six to one and staff also recommends approval of the request based upon the considerations, and I will be happy to answer any questions.
 Okay, thank you. I will open the public hearing and I'll take questions for staff, then we'll take the calls. So questions for staff Councilmember Meltzer.
 Can you remind me a little reflection I used to work for the pepper farm company.
 And on the cookies.
 Every once in a while someone would say, you know, if we make the cookies bigger, it'll be a product improvement, and that was looked at as a good management decision.
 And then in alternate years, someone would say you know if we make the cookies just a little bit smaller.
 People won't really notice and that'll be cost savings. Now it's considered a good management decision. So the cookies would kind of go back and forth.
 Can you help me understand why was it a good decision to go from six feet up to 10.
 You know that is a really good question and I have not really discerned why it went to that level.
 I think it probably has to do with that the 2002 code didn't necessarily have specific lot sizes for subdivisions over two acres. So it really went for any subdivision over two acres it deferred to a maximum density.
 And, and with the adoption of the 2019 code we we went to more strict lot sizes that those are three lots needed to needed to conform to that 60 foot width.
 And so I think it just had to do with that more structured lot sizes within that 2019 didn't development code, but you know as for for why that why they went all the way to 10 I just, I haven't been able to determine.
 Okay, we'll be listening to the discussion maybe it'll maybe it'll come out it may or may I ask a second one. Yes, sir.
 Thank you.
 The first point was made that that a restriction restricts you know that it restricts creativity or ability to make housing different what why are there. Why is there a setback at all, right, if there were no setbacks restrict even less so what is the purpose of a side yard setback.
 The purpose of a side in terms from a planning standpoint, and the purpose of any setback is just to create uniformity within a neighborhood to ensure that it's that it, you know that there's adequate room on on a lot and that it just provides appropriate
 separation between buildings.
 I think it has something to do with privacy and ability to enjoy your lot about somebody building right up next to your window or next to your yard but I'm going to listen to the rest of the discussion in the public comment.
 Think about it.
 Okay, count may approach him Davis.
 I have a couple questions I think one I'll ask now before the caller and maybe a follow up.
 So, under the current code our minimum lot width is 60 feet.
 We had different standards under different iterations of the development code, leading up to where we are now.
 Even knowing that our minimum currently is 60 feet do we know what about the averages because really what we're talking about is these infill lots you know house burns down or houses torn down or whatever happens and then somebody comes into infill later.
 Do we know the average width of those lots that we're dealing with or anywhere close to that number.
 I don't know, you know, we applied that are three district throughout our kind of our interior of our of our city it really was kind of used to protect our, our existing established neighborhoods, and they developed over decades and so I don't have that average size of what
 the width of those lots. I can. I don't know if I can figure it out while I'm here but I can certainly try to make a stab at it while y'all are talking, see if I can come up with some sort of average.
 Not necessarily, you know, an exact mathematical certainty just. I grew up in an older home, some houses had wide lot somehow, how's that narrow lots just depended on the street you're on so I didn't know if we had any kind of idea of where most of these, these lots are my kind of follow
 up to that is really what we're talking about today, the biggest concern seems to be the infill lots you know do somebody need to have a bigger setback.
 Because you might be building right up on top of another home that's already there, or in these older tend to be narrower lots.
 Is there been any consideration to treating the existing infill are three differently than a big 200 lot are three subdivision that may come down the pipe later on I realized we have very much are three right now available, but that doesn't mean that we couldn't pull something
 out of the future and zone and are three we just did that north of town with one development I can think of, I can think of another one we kind of talked about it to the south.
 I can think of a number of another number of developments to the south that are good candidates for are three if not the are for that they end up going with so you see where I'm going with that is there a way to balance that differently.
 I'm not aware of a provision that would have different standards for that infill setback versus sort of that greenfield development setback within just that basic zoning district of are three, you know we have had quite a few projects come forward as
 part of the plan developments, and that could certainly allow decision makers or developers to modify that side yard setback for maybe, maybe a development on the urban fringe.
 But in terms of that basic zoning district, I'm not aware of a way to kind of bifurcate that that setback.
 Thanks.
 Okay, thank you.
 Any other questions for staff.
 Councilman Johnson and Councilmember armature.
 I wanted to know just in case just just to clarify, I'm not sure.
 Does this affect the people that are there now in any kind of negative fashion. And is that the reason for the, is that the problem here and if it does and how does it affect them and is there.
 What's the value, what are we talking about since the implementation of the 2019 code staff has received several calls from property owners who wanted to build onto their home or add up at a covered patio, or maybe even develop an infill lot.
 And because of those increased side yard setbacks, they are able to make those improvements to their home. So it has kind of came to our attention from those existing property owners who have been who have challenges in in making improvements either to their
 lots or their homes related to this side yard setback.
 Okay, thank you. Councilmember armature.
 So, if, if, under the current setback, if a property owner wanted to build an addition that that violated the the current setback.
 Could they just, could they go before a ZBA and make the case there and get an adjustment for their property.
 Yes, they can seek a variance from the zoning Board of Adjustment. The criteria for a variance is a little different than than a zoning case, there has to be something unique to the property that restricts their ability for their, the use and enjoyment of the property.
 And, you know, often when we're talking about a, a lot block subdivision there's there's rarely a unique circumstance that rises to the criteria for approval for a, a reduction in that that setback.
 So, so while yes, property owners could seek a variance. It, it's unlikely that staff would be able to support that and that, of course, it would be up to the zoning Board of Adjustment, but it would be generally probably wouldn't meet the criteria for approval if it's kind of just a standard lot and block within the city of Denton.
 Okay, thank you.
 Any other questions for staff.
 I have a couple just to clarify and then we'll take the caller. So, listening to the conversation before and having too much downtime, I watched the planning and zoning conversation and I think one of the things you mentioned there.
 Julie is important. When you talk about the setback you want to talk about the setback distance, being on the older deeds, you want to touch on that that I thought that was noteworthy when you mentioned that in the planning and zoning that people would bring in their deed and it says I have 6000 or whatever foot setback
 and then we're, we have to tell them, no, we change that.
 That does come up. Yes. So, um, in our, in some of our older plotted areas, they did add setbacks to those flats. And, and so, you know, it will say six feet or five feet or, or it would have a front yard setback of 20 feet or so.
 And they they use that as a basis for their decisions when they're making, making decisions for improvements for their property so they probably got a survey when they bought their house and that survey showed those setback lines that were that were shown on the flat.
 However, when they come to the city, we have to tell them, well, actually, that setback is increased. And, and what you thought were the rules are no longer the rules, and you would have to comply with those increased setbacks.
 So that does happen from time to time as well.
 Okay, and then also I want to pick up on the ZBA discussion because you have that as well. So first, is there a cost for the homeowner to go to the ZBA.
 Yes, there is. Yes, sir. Right. And then is, so I'm assuming staff is recommending approval of the adjustment tonight. Is that right. Yes, sir. So that would put staff in the odd situation.
 If someone goes to the ZBA first staff, not staff but generally the council change the setback rules, then staff supported that generally and presented that then staff now moves to correct that saying hey we need to modify this to correct it.
 But then we would ask a citizen to pay for the ZBA hearing, knowing that we're going to contest, and most likely, we're going to contest what they're requesting so the answer for me tonight is not to.
 Right now, is not to ask our citizens to pay a fee to go against the city who made the change in the first place. It just, it just seems kind of difficult to ask the citizens to shoulder that burden of paying for the staff to oppose their request
 when staff is trying to make the correction. Now, and then I will note on on the staffs on that on page three. The only thing that changed across the 2002 the existing and proposed, or the proposed is is what you know that's different but from 2002 and existing.
 Is that one item everything else was married so it almost seems like not an error, but definitely a miss.
 So anyway, that's just my thoughts. I will will get ready we'll listen to the callers and then we will see if there's additional questions so first caller is Eric Pruitt. Once he comes online, he'll have four minutes.
 Okay.
 Are you there.
 Eric Are you already on the line.
 I'm here. Okay, very good. Okay, Mr Pruitt. If you could give your name and address please, and then you will have four minutes to address the Council and staff.
 Thank you. This is Eric Pruitt 2111 Westwood Drive. Our three zoning district in my estimation is the most diverse single family zoning district in Denton. It covers land that was settled and developed over more than a century.
 Almost every R3 neighborhood in Denton has a different character and many of those neighbors understandably like where they live and they don't want to see abrupt or fast change. I get that the R3 is diverse.
 Is it wise for our code to impose the look of a minority of our three neighborhoods onto others curtailing the ability of residents in other are three neighborhoods to invest in them by improving their property.
 I don't think so, which is why I'm in favor of this amendment to the code.
 We have R3 zoned parcels in Denton as small as 3400 square feet and as large as 135,000 square feet. Appraisal district valuations range from $75,000 to $1.3 million for a single family home in this district.
 Some of these homes were built before side setbacks even existed when social trust and community norms obviated the need for regulatory controls. But for most of the time, these neighborhoods developed side setbacks were six feet.
 When we established a 10 foot side setback for the R3 zoning district two years ago, we effectively made a large portion of these homes nonconforming such that homeowners no longer have the legal right to make certain improvements to the property.
 Many of our most cherished R3 neighborhoods are loved for their diversity and uniqueness, which has been achieved through decades of gradually building, updating and incremental development one lot at a time.
 That is precisely the type of activity which is not possible for homeowners whose homes are spaced less than 10 feet from their lot line right now.
 When we shut down the ability for families to adapt their homes to serve their families changing needs, we risk instigating a disinvestment spiral causing very decline of property values and aesthetic that many hope we can stave off for maintaining setback requirements larger than the built environment within these neighborhoods today.
 Much of the opposition in the backup appears to be clustered around the Galway Ranch, but that development is actually under the 2002 R3 zoning district, which has six foot side backs regardless of the action tonight.
 Other feedback is concerned about the profit motive of large developers, but there isn't enough vacant R3 zone land for that to be an issue and no large developers are asking for R3.
 All the zoning requests for new subdivisions in the last couple of years have been for R4, R6 or PDs with smaller lots because they can't make any money on R3 lots anyway.
 More generally though, people are afraid that their neighbor might build closer to their property line and they don't want that. I get that.
 But as long as the R3 zoning district is this diverse, we can't use the zoning regulation to prevent infill development that would encroach closer than some neighbors would like without choking off other neighborhoods from gradual investment, which would be compatible with that neighborhood.
 Please do the fair thing by passing this amendment to make effectively non-conforming properties conforming and restore individual property rights to where they historically were. Thank you.
 Okay, thank you. And Eric, if you'll hold any questions for the caller, Mr. Pruitt. Councilmember Meltzer. So Mr. Pruitt, you're saying to restore them to where they were, which was six feet. So is that what you're advocating?
 You know, to me, honestly, the difference between five and six feet, I can't tell you how many non-conforming properties that would leave by going to six feet instead of five feet. But maybe that would get us over the hump of the majority of the issue. Yeah.
 Okay. Any other questions for the caller? Great. Thank you, Mr. Pruitt.
 Thank you. Yes. And so we'll let staff get the next call on the line, which is Doug Shanahan.
 Hello. Hello, Doug. This is Mayor Hutzpeth and you're on with the Denton City Council and staff. If you could please give me your first and last name and address and then you can begin straight away and you'll have four minutes.
 Great. Thank you very much. My name is Doug Shanahan and my address is 928 Pioneer Circle East in Argyle, Texas. And I'm a property owner of an R3 lot at 507 Amarillo Street, which is just north of Oak Street in the Mount's second edition.
 And I am in favor of the amendment. My wife and I purchased our Amarillo Street property in late February of 2018 with the thought of moving our home from Southern Denton County to the downtown area of Denton.
 And we really love the, you know, the city of Denton and the idea of living within a half mile of the downtown square, just for obvious reasons. In late 2019, we contacted an architect to design a 2300 square foot house, relatively small house, I think, in this day and age,
 with the idea of a mostly one-story dwelling with an additional living space above the garage. And our thoughts were to build a mid-century property reminiscent of architecture of Mount Miller and O'Neill Ford, if y'all are familiar with them.
 Great architecture or possibly even a craftsman-style house. We're still kind of undecided on that, which would be reminiscent of a house built in the late 1800s through the 1920s.
 And when we presented the initial floor plan to the city of Denton planning in early 2020, we were advised that NR3 had changed to R3 zoning, and so we were kind of stuck in the middle.
 The revised Denton development code and now the side yard setback was 10 feet rather than what we had designed on our floor plan, which would have been six feet.
 And this was a big issue for us because our architect had designed everything to fit up to the pre-existing setback. So it really threw a wrench in our design and what we wanted to do.
 And so we've been waiting on this amendment to be revised back to a smaller setback from decades of use, and we even like the five-foot setback even more.
 And then to complete, I think that there's a lot of the people who opposed it. This, we're talking about smaller setback would be an issue for developers, but we're not developers, we're husband and wife who's wanting to move to the downtown area.
 I think it's a great, just a neat vibe, and that's why we don't want to have it changed back to, or we do want to change back to the smaller setback.
 Got it. Thank you very much. I appreciate that. And if you'll give me just one moment, any questions for Mr. Shanahan from the council?
 Any questions? Okay. Thank you, Mr. Shanahan.
 Thank you. Yes, have a great evening.
 Let me check, Steph, any other calls? Okay, so no other caller, so I'm going to close the public hearing and then open it back up for discussion before, so I, so, any questions for staff, additional comments, Councilmember Ryan?
 Yeah, I don't have questions for staff, but I did want to make a few comments and since I'm the only one currently on council that was on the DCRC when the decision was made and the discussion took place.
 And I'm going to start out by going back to when the error took place. And originally, we had cut the number of residential zoning districts dramatically in the first draft.
 And as we went through there and we looked at the uniqueness of each one, and at that time, basically, in our three and in our four, we're going to become one single zoning district. And as we looked at the difference between them, we realized, no, we really need to keep that character of both.
 We did have discussion trying to figure out where six foot came from, as far as a setback, and the best that we could come up with was that five made more sense because fire code requires 10 foot between buildings, so you would always meet the fire code by having the five foot setback.
 As we rediscussed this issue last week or last month, we couldn't figure out how we ended up going from five to 10. It had to have been something just in the process of three and four being combined and then being split back apart, and it just didn't get caught.
 That was never our intention to make things more restrictive than the six foot that was there before. So all in all, it makes sense to go back to a five foot, six foot, really, since staff has brought forward a five foot, that makes sense.
 The six foot really doesn't seem like a standardized number. I don't know if staff wants to shed some light on where that difference would be.
 I'm in support of this amendment.
 The rest of the committee was in support of this amendment, and if there's any questions as far as what our thoughts were behind it, feel free to direct any questions towards me as well.
 Okay, great point. Any other questions about the process? If not, I'll take a motion.
 So,
 Council Member Meltzer. Yeah, I would just like a better background on where six foot came from, where 10 foot came from, and why five foot is a good idea. It is striking me as more or less without foundation.
 The most solid thing I've heard so far is Council Member Ryan saying the fire department requires a minimum of five. Until that comment, I had no idea why it shouldn't be zero, if you're a proponent of not having people be restricted.
 I haven't heard that confirmed, but I take his word for it. I just don't think a foundation has been laid for any particular number. If it is really just truly arbitrary, and it's just a matter of judgment, it sounds too dang close to me.
 Just in terms of, nobody has mentioned yet, just simple privacy, that somebody could put a window just five feet from, you know, from where you're enjoying your property.
 So, I would like more of a foundation for the particular recommendation.
 Mr. Mayor? Yes, sir, give me give me one second, Mr. Scott. So, okay, got it.
 Staff, Scott McDonald, McDonald.
 Yes, Scott McDonald, Director of Development Services, and thank you for allowing me to try to clarify. As Council Member Ryan had indicated, this was really an oversight, and this is correcting that oversight.
 Fundamentally, the six feet, we really had no idea where that number came from. Five foot is a standard number, as reference for maintaining a 10 foot clearance between buildings.
 So, looking at that and what you'll see commonly on zero lot line homes or those homes that could be built to a lot line, there's still a 10 foot clearance that's provided. And then at times there are privacy issues that are addressed, but it is very traditional to be a five foot at that minimum, and the fire code is a driving force within that.
 And this was was certainly not intended and it's correcting, you know, the, the error of where we're at and trying to ensure that we do not have non conformities. So the five foot versus six foot takes us to a point that it's that less restrictive than the six foot doesn't violate any other provisions of our code and
 we're really trying to keep that consistency as Julie has indicated within the neighborhoods within the R three zoning districts. So Mr.
 If I can just count some amounts are. Yeah, because everybody was responding to my question or comment. So, there was no staff presentation or rationale, given for the move to 10. And no public hearing, no process, thoughtful process, like, you know, the one tonight that was recommended, and at the time.
 Well, the entirety of the code as we were going through and as Council Member Ryan did indicated we were consolidating a lot of zoning districts.
 And as we did that there were a lot of nuances and for those that are not familiar with the 2019 Denton Development Code it's it's, you know, over 400 pages of text.
 We had rewritten the code to try to be more contemporary and and be as current as possible. Well, and in doing that that the sheer number of zoning designations that we had, we were attempting to reduce those, make sure we were consistent with really what other communities
 were doing in those best practices. And doing that, we were creating those, those setbacks trying to look at our conformities to make sure that we were staying consistent.
 And we started getting into those zoning classifications when we condense so far we expanded back. And that was truly an omission and error if you will, and oversight and staff is attempting to remedy that by virtue of looking at that the best consistent
 possible way to do it. And, you know, ultimately come to this conclusion vetted it through the Development Code Review Committee, and then our dual public hearing process PNC to council.
 Okay.
 Thank you. Any other questions for staff.
 Okay, again, I'll take a motion.
 Well, then I'll move that we approve.
 Item B as that per staffs recommendation.
 Councilman Ryan.
 I will second.
 Okay.
 And so we have a motion and a second further discussion.
 Mayor Pro Tem Davis.
 So I'll kind of put it out there I came into this discussion, kind of agnostic, you know I've had some people reach out to me and tell me all the reasons why they really preferred the 10 feet that we went to and the new DDC I had other folks, you heard from
 Eric already, who talked about making better use of private property, letting people have because we're talking about primarily small time.
 Small time builders, folks buying the empty lot next door, folks like we heard from buying a lot to build a single family home on the big developers the R threes that may happen somewhere else like I was asking Julie about are a little bit different.
 I think the moment the conversation where things really clarified for me though is when Julie pointed out that the house you can build on an R three today is the same size house you can build on an R for an R six or an R seven.
 And I don't think that's the intent. I think that the point of our three is to give you more flexibility, you can build a small house if you want to a lot of yard, you can build a bigger house with a little bit of side yard at only the five feet that we're talking about today.
 And I think that together with some of the good points that were made earlier about private property I understand Councilmember Melter's point about privacy.
 You know some of us have lived in those homes where you're kind of cheek by jowl with other folks or even in apartments where you're right next door to other folks.
 But there's a limit on how much a neighbor can constrain the property use of their next door neighbor and making good use of the property that they bought and paid for so.
 And I don't think that that's the intent of the motion. I don't think that's the intent of the motion.
 I don't think that's the intent of the motion. I don't think that's the intent of the motion. I don't think that's the intent of the motion. I don't think that's the intent of the motion.
 I don't think that's the intent of the motion. I don't think that that's the intent of the motion. I don't think that's the intent of the motion.
 I don't know that you can document peace of mind and preference as far as how far away.
 Your neighbor's house is. And so that's where it gets kind of ambiguous and hard to hard to sure up and then when you have the very people that put forward the, the, the change and the suggestions and put in the work to say, hey, we made an honest mistake.
 We don't want to compound that my mistake mistake by saying how I have some gotcha moment, and I think that really is is where it gets difficult for me as you have someone that's purchased a house purchase a home that has it on their plot on their
 plot potentially that says this is the rule and then we move the football on them, and, and it almost turns into a gotcha whether it's in, you know, and it's just an inadvertent it's a mistake.
 I understand the desire to keep it, but it's, it just seems wrong to say we made a mistake, and we're going to keep it.
 So, that's where I fall on it.
 Councilmember armature.
 Yeah, I just wanted to make a statement about where where I stand.
 I spent a lot of time going back and forth on this and I still I see and respect the arguments on both sides.
 I'm, I am glad that that current property owners are grandfathered in, you know, their structures as is, I'm, it's unfortunate that they cannot build onto the side.
 But when I think of it as Councilmember Meltzer said, you know, from the perspective of neighbors, it is their, their privacy and that space between properties that physical distancing.
 Preserve about the fire code, you know, with a five feet on each side you get that that 10 feet standard but that is just it is literally you know to the inch, you know the the the bare minimum of the required distance required by a fire department, I would prefer
 even six feet, because it gives us just a little bit more room.
 I don't like going to finally you know I will say that, although it restricts the 10 feet does restrict building to the side.
 It's just the side.
 The back. And you know a lot of people when they, they really want to make a significant addition to their property will be looking into building on to the back.
 I'm concerned about some of our older neighborhoods, and the kind of development that I see in in Austin in some older neighborhoods.
 And I think Austin has just tried to kind of respond to this belatedly, but you see older neighborhoods, the smaller homes and people buy them out and tear them down and then they create these these big expensive homes that stretch out to the property line
 and drive up the prices in the area and end up gentrifying people out of their neighborhoods.
 So I'm going to vote no, but but I vote no.
 Like I said, you know, understanding that there are arguments to be made on both sides and respecting quite a few of those arguments on the other side.
 Okay, any other comments.
 Councilmember Meltzer.
 If the argument is really driven by that it was a mistake.
 We didn't mean to change it with the, I don't remember who actually was the mover was the john.
 No, it was me. Okay, would you be open there to friendly amendment to refer to what it was.
 Quoting status quo ante to make it six. That's if the point is to, you know, restore the predictability to people who are in the middle of the project didn't mean to make a change. So don't make a change.
 Got it. No, I'm not because Scott, and I'll just to add clarity to that. Scott mentioned he didn't he didn't know where the six came from I want to make.
 I just want to be careful to follow the data and I could only imagine man you get to divide multiplying six too many times you forget to carry to one.
 I mean, I'm sure there's there's a there's a builders process to this.
 And so that's, that's, I'm going to err on the side of staff suggestion.
 So, discussion.
 Well, I just just like to reiterate that since 2000 from 2002 until 2019, the people that lived in our three had a six foot side setback.
 And then we changed it, whether it was intentional or accidental, my personal belief is more on the accidental side it was just the mashing of groups and, and then pulling them back apart.
 You know, to now after that many years, or even longer because it probably was how their code was written prior to the 2002 as well.
 You have to not allow them to go back to what they thought when most of them purchase these homes.
 That doesn't make sense. And so, and again, this has been stated the five has a data driven reason as to why we should go to that number.
 I mean that still gives you a minimum of 10 between them.
 And just depending on these neighborhoods, many of them won't redevelop, but if you wanted to add on a master bath on the side of your house.
 It gives you the ability to if you've got that space there, and I've run across residents on a regular basis who are trying to get something through the city, and they come to me to try and figure out, you know, why is this taking so long.
 What am I doing wrong. How can we fix this.
 And, you know, I have to go through and explain to them what staff has explained as well.
 But it's just, this is an easy fix in my mind.
 Further discussion.
 Councilmember Davis.
 Just one other thing I thought was important also are three as we've described as our most diverse and wide ranging residential designation, given the flexibility and giving people the flexibility to do what they need to with their, their private property.
 And, and the fact that we historically had something only slightly more restrictive than the five that we're talking about.
 And then finally, when you have something that when we did it a couple years ago made so many existing structures nonconforming that's kind of a red flag right that you've done something you need to re examine when you make so many structures nonconforming just in one fell sweep.
 So I will say I'm a I, and then Councilman Ryan you second. I'll say you are.
 Okay, Councilmember Meltzer.
 I don't think it's the best possible decision, but I will vote I understand. Thank you.
 Councilmember Baker.
 Okay. Mayor pro Tim Davis.
 I. Okay.
 Councilmember Johnson.
 Okay.
 And Councilmember armature.
 No.
 Thank you. And so that motion one two passes, six, one.
 Thank you very much for the discussion thank you for the insight Scott and Julie. That concludes item B that takes us to section four of our agenda concluding items.
 Concluding item.
 Councilmember armature.
 Yeah, just wanted just to extend my thoughts and concerns to those who people who are still thinking about the events that are been shaking up our nation concerns about things happening in other states and, you know, just to say that.
 That, hopefully, you know, we will all get get over this moment and and make it through together. It was really terrible.
 Scary incidents, these are difficult times but we will make it through this.
 Okay, thank you.
 Councilmember Johnson. Yes, I wanted to, I don't know how many of us remember Rick Barrera from the running or the election but he did his brother passed away this past weekend so it'll be nice to reach out and get notices.
 Okay, thank you for that update sorry to hear that. Thank you, Councilmember armature for your words, and then any other conclusion concluding items.
 Okay, well I will we won't have a meeting next week letting everyone know because of the MLK Martin Luther King Jr holiday I'd ask everyone to visit the city website and parks and rec has a virtual event plan.
 So please visit the site staff to speed on that it will be a little bit fluid I'm sure but you can get the details there.
 And then. So other than that, and I think there is there is some service days planned around that so please get out in the community and and take advantage of those service opportunities in a distanced way, be safe.
 So, okay, with that I will conclude our meeting. It is now 742pm on the 12th, and it's still 2021 have a great evening.

        
Back to Meeting