Jan 26, 2021 City Council on 2021-01-26 2:00 PM (Special Called Meeting)

Good afternoon and welcome to this meeting of the Denton City Council. Today's date is January 26th, 2021. It is 2.02 PM and we do have a quorum for this special call meeting. We will begin with noting that there are no calls for consent agenda items. That's the first point on our work session. Taking us to the second note request for clarification on agenda items for this agenda. Questions? Council Member Meltzer. You're muted. I'm sorry. Yeah. Thanks. I'd like to have a brief presentation on E this evening, just so people get to hear about the great new things the library will be doing. And on G, I'd like to pull that up for a separate vote. I don't need a presentation on it. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions on the consent agenda items? Council Member Armitter. I too wanted to pull G, so that's great. And B, I would like to pull as well. I don't need a presentation on that either. Great. Okay. Any other questions for staff? All right. Seeing none. So for the record for staff, we will pull B, E, and G with only E requiring a presentation. All right. That concludes item two. That'll take us to item three, work session reports. I'll call the first item A, ID 202117, receive report, hold discussion, and give staff direction regarding update to the City of Denton's COVID-19 response. Good afternoon, Mayor, City Council, Sarah Baker, Chief of Staff. This is our standing work session item to provide an update to the city's response to COVID-19. As way of reminder, we do have a local disaster declaration and an order in effect for the City of Denton until March 31st of this year. So for today, it'll be kind of a quick informational update. We do have three sections of updates for you. The first, we'll hear from Dr. Matt Richardson with the Denton County Public Health Department. He'll provide a brief update and answer a couple of questions. And then the second two sections, we'll touch on some business assistance and eviction prevention assistance that was made available largely through the Consolidated Appropriations Act that was approved by the federal government at the end of December. So we'll jump right into the first part of the presentation, which is introducing Matt Richardson with the Denton County Public Health Department. So I'll bring this screen down and welcome him in. Dr. Richardson? - Good afternoon, Mr. Mayor, Council members. Thank you so much for your time. - Good afternoon. - I'm happy to just give a very brief, brief status on our COVID-19 transmission in the county. And then I can describe the vaccine rollout, the hodgepodge process that's been the federal state and certainly our local response for vaccine rollout. We'll talk about timelines and volumes of that vaccine. And then I'll, I think one of the most important parts is the Q&A. So then I'll open it up for Council members for questions. So Mr. Mayor, if you agree, I'll share my screen. - Yes, that sounds great. And yeah, I think we will, Council will have, we'll allow a couple, we'll work in a couple of questions, but we'll try to pull those best we can for time constraints. But by all means, Dr. Richardson, thank you. - Thank you, Mr. Mayor. All right, real quickly, just wanna hit the highlights. This is DentonCounty.gov/COVID19Stats. I wanna highlight for the council, I wanna highlight at the very top, we've got our ISD dashboard. So you can always see with the participating districts, the COVID-19 status for each district by day, by campus. Then we have our COVID-19 testing. So we are partnering with the Texas Department of Emergency Management. They have taken over our testing. So we can focus on COVID-19 vaccination, which is another tab at the top. So we've got the ISD dashboard, COVID-19 testing, COVID-19 vaccine. And then with our COVID-19 tracking efforts, you see the splash page here, 14,768 active cases, 294 deaths. I regret to say that today we'll be adding 10 deaths. So we will be at 304 at four o'clock today. And I'm unaware of how many cases we're gonna be adding today, but my guess is we're gonna eclipse 51,000 cases, total cases of COVID-19. I do wanna highlight hospital capacity. Still, we are at only six ICU beds. We'll be updating that again at the end of the day. But if we're looking for some good news, and we are, I'm gonna stop this screen share, and I'm going to go to another, but I'm looking for good news, and I'm sure you are as well as families, friends, and neighbors. COVID-19 hospitalizations. This is important because the very top graph, and Mr. Mayor, can you see that graph? - Yes, sir. - Excellent. So this is the DSHS, the Department of State Health Services, TSAE, Region E. This is the Metroplex. This is the COVID-19 capacity in hospitals. And the governor, Governor Abbott, set an executive order, GA32, at 15%. That's the threshold in which there were additional restrictions on Texas businesses. And you see that that restriction began really right before Thanksgiving, and has continued ever since. Good news, though, and I'm looking for good news, I'm sure you are as well, is that it is trending down. It had a high of almost 26% for the region, and it's below 23% yesterday. So we are trending down. You see that by day and by seven-day moving average. And then Denton County, we're even doing a little better than that. So Denton County tapped out at 26%, 27%, but we actually, yesterday, went under 20% for the first time in a long time. So again, hospitalization and COVID-19 capacity in hospitals, the numbers of patients with COVID-19 in Denton County hospitals is trending down. Really, really, really good news. So I wanted to hit the highlights. That's what's happening with COVID-19. So before I get to vaccine, any questions about current transmission, any specifics about COVID-19 in Denton County before we get to vaccines? - Any questions on the transmission component? Great, thank you. And Dr. Richardson's side note, I need you to train me how to toggle between screens on presentations. I'll get with you offline, go ahead. - Okay, did I mess it up or do you want coaching? - No, I want coaching, that was well done. - I've got a 16-year-old, we'll make her available for tutoring. Excellent, all right. So to the more complex portion of the presentation is really the discussion of vaccine rollout. So at the beginning, there were providers, and I'm even gonna back up and talk about how vaccine rollout was described last summer. So July, August, September, there was a national discussion of, there's going to be an environment of scarcity, not gonna be a lot of vaccine available in the months of January, February, March. And so there was gonna be a tiered approach, a phased approach to vaccination with priority. That priority was set by the Centers of Disease Control, the CDC, and by the state of Texas. Those prioritizations were very, very similar, but not exact. So there's a little context for how January rolled out. So at the very end of December, actually the week between Christmas and New Year's, Denton County, we were notified very quickly, we had a 48-hour turn that we were going to be given some doses of vaccine. So we did follow the CDC and the DSHS guidelines of phase 1A distribution. That was healthcare workers who were not already providers. So hospitals, you may recall, got initial doses. And so we were attempting to vaccinate healthcare workers under 1A that were not providers or did not have access to vaccine through their organization. Mostly hospital, but it did include hospice, and home health. And so we focused on those providers for that very first allocation. Very quickly, we got a few more doses, and we expanded that 1A. And then at the beginning of January, the governor and the commissioner of health did pivot, and the state of Texas broadened the recommendations and guidelines to phase 1B. That very much broadened who was able to be vaccinated. In fact, the state of Texas, our generalization at Denton County Public Health was we estimate roughly 300,000 Denton County residents qualify under 1B. 300,000 Denton County residents qualify under 1B. The state of Texas, on their website, estimate 278,000 Denton County residents qualify under 1B. So lots of people, no vaccine. We were getting just minuscule amounts of vaccine. To date, we have received 21,650 doses as of this morning. We know that 18,600 will be vaccinated by the end of the week with their first dose. This is just to Denton County Public Health as a hub, okay? And so we do have 1,100 doses that were given to us for second doses. For remember, the phase 1A people we vaccinated at the beginning of January, we do have second dose allocations for them. We did not hold doses. Those were actually shipped to us in anticipation of that due date of a second dose. So we're not holding vaccine. We're actually giving all our vaccine and trusting that the federal manufacturing system and the allocations will follow. So we don't have a ton of vaccine on the shelves in our fridges. All right, I think that is the discussion. I will note this week we have two clinics for our drive-in. By the way, we have done this a little differently than other counties because COVID-19 transmission has been so high and because our hospitals were being hammered. We did select to do mobile drive-through clinics. There are pros and cons to that. The pros are that it is very safe for the clinic participant. It's also very safe for our staff. Physical distancing is easy and wearing masks is easy and we don't have group congregations of people. So that has been really, really a plus. Also, I think that gives a piece of mind to the participants. I think people sense not only are they safer, we would argue they sense being safer. It's been very positive for us, we believe. We have a vaccine interest portal, a wait list and that wait list, we quickly cobbled that together with an internal process at the beginning of January and we started taking reservations. Those were 1A and 1B and they are not prioritized between the two because once we had the wait list activated, the governor and his staff selected us with the commissioner of health as a hub. Once you are a hub, you can no longer segregate any cohort of patient based on zip code, based on ethnicity, based on 1A status or 1B. Both 1A and 1B are given equal footing. We can debate that if you'd like, but that is a statewide decision and once we signed up as a hub, we have agreed to those guidelines. I think you've seen press and you've seen where other hubs did not necessarily follow those guidelines and there's been some friction with the state regarding that. We selected just to agree to those terms as a hub and we're allocated vaccine accordingly. So on our vaccine wait list, I think we have over 140,000 registrants. There's some good news, bad news there. The bad news is there's a lot of people. The good news is as a hub, people have registered in Collin and Denton and in Dallas and so what that means is we've got a lot of double and triple dipping, but as we basically assign you a day and an appointment slot, we have lots of cancellations, which we then backfill, but those cancellations mean that someone has gotten a vaccine elsewhere, meaning our wait list likely is overestimated. So we think that, in fact, I think I heard a number earlier today in another meeting that we've had 10,000 cancellations. So I think we were at 143 registrants, but 10,000 of those have canceled. So we really have a wait list of 133 to 135,000. We plan to give 10,000 this week. So we are hoping to get even more doses next week. I know the county judge and some of our legislative delegation have been working with the governor's office, working with commissioner of health to get more vaccine to Denton County, both as private providers and as a hub. So Denton County Public Health will pivot and we will try to do as many as we can. In fact, our mantra has been, we'll give them when we get them. So that is the plan. Okay, that was a lot of information in a short amount of time. Mr. Mayor, I'm happy to answer questions. - Okay, take a couple of questions. And then of course, all the other questions we don't get to, we can email the staff, get answers that way. So no one's prohibited from questions, but council member Meltzer. - Thank you. Dr. Richardson, the county is acting as a hub, but do you also have visibility into the sort of totality of what's being provided versus the 300,000 that are qualified? - Yeah, you mean provided outside of our hub, provided by the providers? Yeah, so the state health department, DSHS, does have a website and they are attempting to keep up with the doses given. It's a little bit complicated, much like everything in life. So the allocations happen, the state health department notifies the public of those allocations. The doses given and doses received by the public is reported a different way. It's reported by the M-TRAC system, that is the statewide vaccine registry, and it requires an upload of data. In fact, our own computer systems, I have to say this carefully, we have had to engineer our software very precisely to download into the statewide database. The statewide database has been around since I was a baby practitioner in public health. The statewide system is not as modern as our technology for vaccine management. So we have had to reverse engineer our data linkage. That's been more complex than it sounds. And so I think today we're uploading a lot of information that we've already given the doses, but that's going to be more visible. So the long answer is there is some visibility in Denton County of the doses given, but that's requiring every provider to go in and data enter every patient into the statewide database or integrate their software to do the data dump. Both of those things are technologically challenging. And so I think the state is reporting those. I've been shadow reporting to the state to tell them how many doses we are accomplishing as we wait for the interface for the computer system. - You know, if I can clarify, my intention was so much to understand how the visibility or wherever cloudy it is works, but more to get your sense of there's 300,000 folks that qualify. - Yeah. - What do you think is the force of supply that's being put against that demand in total? - Yeah, it's too many people and not enough vaccine. So I'm not sure again, because of the lag, right? My long answer is back to the short answer now is I'm not sure. And the reason is because I'm not sure how many, oh, hang on just a second. I'm not sure how many providers have done that upload. So I think Denton County, it shows maybe 22,000 doses given. I very much hope it's more than that and that there's a data lag. - All right, thank you. And Council Member Davis. - Very brief comment and then a question. So I had the pleasure of taking a loved one through the drive-through vaccination clinic. I wanna say the operation was seamless. I'm sure it wasn't flawless. I'm sure there's something behind the scenes we don't know about. But from a, I guess a patient point of view, it was excellent. Another pro that you didn't mention to the drive-through is a lot of people have mobility issues, especially folks that are in those vulnerable groups and being able to stay in your seat in your car where you're comfortable is a lot easier. And then you even had folks being held for the 15 minute or even 30 minute waiting period to look for allergic reactions. Are there any, my question is after all that good and how much I enjoyed the process of going through the drive-through, are there any cons that we need to let people know about if they're debating? Do I get on the county list and wait for the drive-through clinic or do I look everywhere? I've been telling folks look everywhere you can for a vaccine. But are there any cons specific to the drive-through process or the county process that people should be aware of? - The only con is a very obvious one. It does require transportation. Now you can have someone bring you, you don't have to have your own car. Someone can bring you, but coordinating transportation for an appointment time is a con. That is the downside to the entire process as a hub. So we have to centralize. And so there are going to be some cohorts of patients that are marginalized. A great example is the homeless. A great example is someone without any transportation, someone that's homebound. That's the struggle. And we hope that as more and more vaccine is available and as access points really start to increase, then we can take ourselves out of a hub situation and then highlight the underserved areas, a place where public health has excelled for decades. Unfortunately, in the race to get to herd immunity, we have to do as many as possible, as quickly as possible, as safely as possible. So that means that we cannot divide and conquer. I can't split my very limited staff. We're trying to give 5,500 tomorrow. I can't go to the Salvation Army or Monsignor King and do 20 and take three hours. I have to scale up to give 5,600 tomorrow instead of 38. And that's a struggle. We really regret that as a process. I would much prefer that the providers were ubiquitous, that we had countless providers and countless vaccine, but it's January the 26th. And nationally, we've known that providers are not gonna have enough vaccine for the general public until the late spring or even the early summer. And so as much news as this is getting, this is rolling out how we expected it to roll out six months ago. It's not fun, but it's been pretty predictable. And so we're in an environment of scarcity. The con is not everybody is getting it as quickly as they want it. The pro is it's been safe, it's been fairly efficient, and we're working through that 1A and 1B priority. So like you mentioned, not perfect, but it's the best we can do in this environment of scarcity. - Got it, thank you. And we'll take this last question and then we'll take notes for staff to pass along. So, Councilor Arrometer. - Yeah, so I've had a couple of constituents ask me how they can help out informing seniors, people with disabilities, people who don't necessarily have internet access to both inform them about vaccination opportunities and to transport them to the county mobile site. Can you speak to, is there something already in place or have other cities to your knowledge within the county set up some sort of service outside of public transportation or maybe as part of public transportation? - So the first part of your question, if I understood, you can call our call center and you can register, you don't have to have the internet. So our call center can register you and we communicate by telephone as well. We have an automated phone system to remind people of their upcoming appointment and to notify them of their time. So the phone system does work and we don't have a formal system for transportation yet. I know the county is discussing that with DCTA, but I don't know of a formal enrollment process. And yet, again, whatever process individuals use to go to the doctor, to get groceries, whatever is their common way, again, outside of the DCA specifically, but DCTA. But that's the idea is to engage DCTA moving forward. That's complex. That hasn't happened to my knowledge yet, but there's discussions of that at the county level. But again, they can call the call center. You don't have to have the internet and then we can use your telephone as the primary means of communication, either by text or by robocall. And then of course, with everyone with the internet, we also include email. - Great, well, thank you very much. And brief followup, Council Member Marmotor. - Oh yes, thank you. I was just gonna ask as a followup, do you know, have you heard from any of the operators if they've heard from people over the phone or on the internet? You don't have a ride who have asked for about information regarding transportation. - And I'm gonna interject there, Dr. Richardson, if you could follow up with that, obviously you don't have firsthand knowledge of that. So I wanna give you an opportunity to answer that answer completely so that we can disseminate that information and have valid numbers. So if you could follow up with that, that'd be fantastic. And then that way staff can send that to everyone and we can all help and get that messaging out and raise that awareness. And in addition to that, Dr., I'll just note my question for staff to note to forward to you would be understanding the history of the testigui, sorry, testigui. Yes, syphilis study and kind of that historical look at it, just understanding. So I know Dr. Fauci and Bishop Jakes tackled that conversation yesterday, very well done. But I would advocate for the County, if you give us some direction or guidance that we can pass on links, kind of studies or anything similar along that vein to get people, if they have questions, concerns in the, as you touched on the underserved communities that may have questions, concerns, a way for us to give them access to data for them to look at and kind of get some comfort as this process goes on and allows them to kind of study and do their own due diligence and make a decision. But we can use this downtime. - I would highlight that in both the Moderna and the Pfizer studies, there were individuals of different race, ethnicity, individuals of color that were included in those studies. And I think that is, that's pretty transparent on both the NIH and the CDC websites. And I'm happy to share those links afterwards. Maybe, Sarah, we can touch base and get some of those links. And I do want to say, if I can take a moment, that Tuskegee, I have a master's degree and a doctorate in public health. And the Tuskegee experimentation and really even some Johns Hopkins work in the city of Baltimore, retrospectively, I think were really abhorrent to scientists. And I think in my generation of public health practitioner, they really represented what's worst about science and what can happen in other cohorts of people can be punished through the scientific exploration. And that was something that is, that's pretty important to me and my staff, is the discussion of equity, the discussion of the validity of these new vaccines and to be sensitive to history and really be transparent about what happened and yet be able to contrast that with what's happening today. So Mayor, maybe I can enlist your help and other council members and certainly the staff in both being very transparent about what happened in the '30s and '40s and '50s across America with different studies and really how people of color were abused in some of these instances and yet highlight the difference and the new protections that have happened because of that. The human subject protections really since the late '60s and early '70s that are required for every scientific study with human experimentation. And I'm gonna say human studies like vaccine studies, that's really important and I appreciate the question. It's not one we get a lot and yet it's probably a foundational concept for us that the Hippocratic oath is important, first do no harm. And we do that even in a public health intervention. And so these vaccines safe, effective and did include people of every, not every, but many races and ethnicities and they were included in these studies and we have the data to show outcomes. And I think being very transparent about that hyper critical. And so I appreciate the question. We can work with your staff to provide links for the data and then it's up to us as leaders, up to us as public health leaders, up to you as civic leaders to really champion the fact-based nature of these links, right? It's the National Institutes of Health, it is the CDC. There's a rededication to science and fact finding and that is something that we hold dear, an air of neutrality, it didn't count in public health. We don't see color of red or blue. We simply are champions of the science and of the facts and again, of equity. And that's whether we're counting cases, reviewing deaths, offering vaccines, signing up women for WIC services, that's important. So I hate to pull out the soap box, but that's important for me to say and I appreciate the question. We wanna help clarify, be transparent about that concept of equity and how that we really walk that talk. - Great, thank you. I appreciate your words, they mean a lot and we're honored to have you serve in our community. So thank you very much for your time today. We'll take a look at those links and those other follow-up answers and I'll schedule time if need be and see how I can help in that way. So excited about it. - Thanks council members. - Thank you, have a great day. - I'll jump back into the presentation and share my screen again. - Thank you. - Okay, so the next part of the presentation, I'm gonna introduce Jessica Rogers, our economic development director and she'll give you a brief overview of some of the business assistance programs that were initiated or extended with the Consolidated Appropriations Act at the end of December. So I'll introduce her at this time. - Hey, good afternoon, mayor and council members. Jessica Rogers, director of economic development. I'm gonna give a quick overview over the changes that were signed in the Consolidated Appropriations Act. Know that the bill included $900 billion in federal stimulus money in addition to some programmatic changes. So many of the programs created in the CARES Act were changed or impacted by the additional stimulus bill and those included program expansions, clarifications, additional funding being allocated and the creation of new projects. Major changes related to the business programs are outlined on this slide. I'm only gonna focus on a few of these because there is a lot of information and changes that occurred in the bill. We are actively working to update our COVID-19 business resource web page. So I encourage everyone to check that later this week. We're getting as much information as we can posted as it's made available. So one of the largest programs and most well-known programs that came out of the CARES Act was the Paycheck Protection Program or the PPP. In the new stimulus bill, we saw an expanded list of qualifying expenses. That's the list of what funds can be used for. It expanded to various reclassifying what are payroll expenses as well as just general eligible expenses. However, the requirement remains that no more than 40% of the loan could be used on non-payroll expenses so that to achieve forgiveness. So that stayed the same in the bill. In addition, businesses now have the opportunity to choose their own forgiveness period. So it's an eight to 24 week period that they actually initiate with their bank. It also simplified the application process for loans under $150,000. So for our smallest borrowers, our small businesses, they now have a much more simplified forgiveness process. It also created a first draw and second draw pathway. So in the first draw pathway, those now include 501(c)(6) organizations. Those were not included in the original bill. Those are things like chambers of commerce and your business support organizations. They fall under the 501(c)(6) category. And then businesses can also, that didn't receive a grant in the first round can now pursue a first grant under this program. And then there is also a second draw pathway. So if you're a business that received the grant in the first round and you've exhausted your loan and you meet some certain other eligibility criteria, you could be eligible to make a second application for a PPP forgivable loan. I will add, again, this is not a comprehensive list of the changes even of this program. However, all of the programs managed by the SBA, by the Small Business Administration are outlined on their website. It's recently been updated. It gets updated about every day. We're checking it, but go to sba.gov/coronavirus and you'll have access to any of the programs that are managed through the SBA. One of the new programs created in the stimulus bill was the Shuttered Venue Operator Grants. This is a program specifically created in the Economic Aid to Hard-Hit Businesses Nonprofits and Venues Act. It allocated $15 billion in grants to shuttered venues. This grant will be administered by the SBA's Office of Disaster Assistance. So that website that I just told you sba.gov/coronavirus is where you will find this information. Eligible applicants could qualify for these SBO grants equal to 45% of their gross earned revenue with a maximum amount of 10 million. Two billion is reserved for eligible applications that have 50 or less employees. Eligible entities for this grant is gonna be your live venue operators, promoters, theatrical producers, performing arts organization operators, museums use aquariums that meet specific criteria, motion picture theaters, rep talent representatives, or business entities owned by an eligible entity that meets all of the criteria. Businesses have to have been in operation by February 29th of 2020 and you cannot have received a PPP loan on or after December 27th of 2020. The SBA, as I said, is operating this program directly and they are not yet accepting applications. Applications will be processed under a very specific priority schedule that's posted on the SBA website. So it's important for any of our venues that are interested in this program that they start looking at that priority schedule and getting materials ready to submit. Turning to unemployment insurance. So under the new act, the federal government continued the change in unemployment assistance eligibility under what's called the Pandemic Unemployment Assistance Program. That means that individuals who don't regularly qualify for unemployment, excuse me, for unemployment insurance may qualify under this program. They also changed the additional weekly benefit, which is the Federal Pandemic Unemployment Compensation. That was continued through March of 2021. However, it was reduced from $600 to $300. And just as a reminder that all unemployment benefits in Texas are administered by the Texas Workforce Commission. And there's a number of pathways and programs that individuals may qualify under now. It's gotten very complicated as things have been added and changed. And so we do encourage everyone to reach out directly to the Texas Workforce Commission for those questions. And that is the end of mine. So I can stop sharing and take any questions on those before I turn it back over to Sarah. - Any questions for Jessica? Council Member Meltzer. - Thank you. On the PPP where now the businesses can pick the forgiveness period made to 24 weeks, is that attached to different interest rates or why wouldn't everyone just take the longest forgiveness period? - I think there's a lot of circumstances that individual businesses have to consider. And so they're allowed to kind of set what makes sense for them. It would be my answer. There's just so many individual circumstances. They should speak directly with their banker about what makes the most sense for their needs. However, the loans are completely forgivable as long as they meet all of those criteria. That hasn't changed. They just need a period of time. - Yeah, and I think that's important to know that they always talk about them as loans, but they can effectively be grants. - Yes. - And then if I could ask a second one, Mayor. - Yes, sir. - On the shuttered venue program, which could be relevant to a limited number of operations and then do you have any sense of whether those operators are aware that this exists or is this something that, I mean, maybe they're very super actively looking for something like this, but it's kind of unusual. And is it something that the chamber might be actively reaching out to make sure that they are aware that this exists? - Yeah, council member, my office, the chamber of commerce, the mainstream association, our cultural district, our connections through arts organizations, there've been lots of conversations about this. And so we are continuing to push the messaging out that this will become available and this program exists. - Super, thank you. - All right, any other questions for Jessica? Seeing none, thank you very much. - Okay, let me bring back up the presentation, just two more slides. Okay, so wanted to provide a quick update for council on eviction prevention assistance. And so this is a chart that we reviewed in December and it kind of outlines the programs that are available to assist residents with eviction prevention. So just going to run through this really quick and then I'm going to go ahead and get started. So I'm going to go ahead and start with this one. Eviction prevention, so just gonna run through this really quick and have some great news to share with council today. So this first line item was the program that you're familiar with. This was the United Way of Denton County's program that operated beginning in March through the end of the calendar year. This was funded by CRF federal funds through the county. What happened at the end of the calendar year is that Congress passed that Consolidated Appropriations Act and it allowed for CRF funds to be extended, the use of CRF funds to be extended past December 31st. So what Denton County did is they approved an extension of the United Way's program for three weeks. So that has been taking place since the end of December until the end of last week with an additional over 700,000 allocated and those funds have been spent and assisted residents here in Denton County. Currently, the city has ESG funds that have been allocated to four agencies in Denton County and they are currently taking applications and there's funding available for those in need. That program is going on and funds are available and I'll show you on the next slide some of the communications we've done to help make that known in the community that there is assistance available. The new information is the program that United Way will be starting up sometime next week we're expecting. I apologize, I shouldn't say February 1st. We're just anticipating that first week of February United Way's program. We'll restart with the funds from the Consolidated Appropriations Act. So this act allowed for our local governments that are over 200,000 in population size to apply for funds through the treasury. So Denton County did go through that process. They got, I think, close to $24 million and over $20 million will be in direct assistance. So that amount and above, this allows for staffing and administration of the program. So that is a considerable amount of funds that will be available in Denton County to assist residents with rents and utilities. So these are the program parameters that we're expecting United Way to announce shortly and this has been approved by Denton County. So for eligibility, you have to be 80% area median income or below, it will reset. So for households that received assistance previously through United Way of Denton County CRF program, they will be eligible to receive assistance again. They're not subject to that previous limit of months in the prior program. So if they had received three months of assistance, they will go back to zero months and are eligible for up to six months of assistance. And this is again for rent and utilities, but you cannot be receiving assistance from another source for the same month. So that program and more details will be announced shortly, but very exciting news to share. We're also expecting some funds that the city of Denton and the cities of Louisville are expecting to receive from the state, from TDHCA to become available in the next month. And that's outlined here on the screen. And then in addition to the program that United Way of Denton County has with ESG CB2 funds, expecting that to start sometime in March with over $2.5 million in direct assistance available. So that's kind of the outline of what we're expecting. We have been working on communications to share this information with our residents, including a flyer by social media on our website in our resident newsletter. And then once we get more information from United Way on their program that's anticipated to start next week, we will share that with the community as well. So happy to answer any questions you may have. - All right, questions for that. Mayor Pro Tem Davis. - Just kind of want to quickly point out too, in case anybody at home is following along who may be facing eviction in the near future or council members that communicate with those, the JP courts in Denton are now participating starting in the 1st of February in the eviction diversion program, which is not money assistance, but it's a way to get on a plan where you can avoid getting kicked out of your home and the landlord eventually does get their rent money. So if you're facing an eviction process, that's the first thing you should be asking about is, am I eligible for the eviction diversion process? - Thank you for that. Any other questions for council member Armitter? - Yes, that's wonderful news about that additional 20 million for the county in assistance. Will that be facilitated through the same nonprofits that are facilitating under the county right now? - It will be through the United Way of Denton County in partnership with all of the agencies that were working with them previously in the CRF funds. - Okay, any other questions for staff? - Oh, so just to follow up, so people apply for that funding through the same means by which they would apply for the other funding facilitated by United Way and these nonprofits? - Yes, I believe that will be the case. And again, we're expecting some more details on that to be announced shortly from the United Way of Denton County. And we will share those as soon as we have them. - Okay, any other questions for staff? Great, thank you, Sarah. And that concludes item one? - Yes, that does. - Okay, thank you. Okay, so that concludes work session A. We will move forward to work session item B, which is ID 21668, receive, report, hold discussion, and give staff direction on cities, extraterritorial jurisdiction, and possible updates to the interlocal agreement with Denton County. - Good afternoon, Mayor of Council Richard Canone, Deputy Director of Development Services and Planning Director. What I have prepared for this afternoon is an in-depth look at how we regulate within our ETJ, but also some of the challenges that we currently are facing as a result of some legislative changes and how that affects the interlocal agreement that's been in effect for almost 18 years and probably in need of a fresh look and update, as well as some policy direction on those items. And just to, I'm not gonna go deep into this, but just wanted to give just a quick snapshot of sort of the regulatory framework that we work with staff, at least, almost on a daily basis with respect to reviewing plaques. So there's a number of layers of regulation in addition to our codes, but also the county, again, the interlocal, Texas local government code, and to some extent, the agricultural code. The current regulatory documents in the city, for the most part, the foundation is laid through our comprehensive plan. That sets the overall future land use and establishes those goals, policies, and objectives as far as carrying out land use. Kind of layering on top of that would be our zoning and development standards, in addition to our platting and subdivision regulations. Many times you'll hear folks refer to a subdivision ordinance or zoning ordinance. What we've done with the 2019 DDC is really created a streamlined code that incorporates all of those into one unified code. From those, platting and zoning and development standards, the next would be the building codes, and that's when you're ready to get building permits for your home, commercial building or structure, and that really looks at the structural electrical fire to some extent, mechanical and plumbing. Some of the major development applications, just wanted to give a quick snapshot of what's currently goes in front of city council, requires planning and zoning review and recommendation, to some extent, HLC, depending where that property is located, but anytime there's a change to the comprehensive plan map, zoning map, a specific use permit or an alternative ESA, those are all items that are reviewed and approved by council, again, with recommendation from the planning and zoning commission. The planning and zoning commission is the final authority for platts, both in the city and ETJ. Any variance requests that's handled by the board of adjustment and site plans, which are essentially what we call our zoning compliance plan, those are approved at a staff level. The only difference with platting, there are some two types of platts that can be approved administratively. Again, those are minor platts or amending final platts, anything that's really four lots or less, but for the most part, those are the sort of the major development applications. And just wanted to kind of put forward just the overall process. And while we don't have this on every application, some of you may recall we've had in the last year some annexations that have come forward. And then shortly thereafter that annexation is the designation of a future land use. A lot of times the properties that have annexed were rural areas. And so we need to properly apply a future land use and ultimately zoning. Once those are in place, then they can move forward with platting and then the building permits. And so the common denominator here is platting both in the city and ETJ, and kind of give you a little bit of what's involved in platting. There's a preliminary plat that kind of gives that general phasing lot configuration on where the streets are gonna be laid out. And once that is approved, they then go into the engineering plans. And that's where we really look at a full drainage study, traffic impact analysis, and any other of the infrastructure plans associated with that subdivision. Once those plans are approved, it goes back to P&Z for final plat approval. In conjunction with that, there's a construction agreement or what we call a three-way agreement. Two major components of that are a performance bond and maintenance bond. Performance bond covers both the city, the contractor and their subs, making sure that they will perform and get paid. And then there's a maintenance bond that covers that work that was done, making sure if there's any imperfections or issues with those improvements, there's a maintenance bond that's in place to cover that. And then once that is all approved, there's obviously the construction and inspection of those public improvements. And then finally, once they are inspected and signed off, there's the acceptance and dedication of those public improvements. And that's kind of a high level platting in a nutshell. And how that relates to our ETJ. And so the purpose of the ETJ was set out by the Texas legislature to again, promote that general health safety and welfare, kind of the standard terms that you'll hear a lot of times with respect to zoning and the police power that's granted to municipalities with respect to health safety welfare. The ETJ is established statutorily. So any city that's between 50,999,999, it establishes your ETJ at three and a half miles. And then any municipality with more than 100,000, it sets that at five miles. And for the most part, what really what the ETJ used to really function as, it really limited sort of the geographic area in which your county or which a city can annex. And a couple of questions, does the city's ETJ expand? Yes, it does, it could. Ours did when we jumped from obviously when we hit that 100,000 mark. And then can it be reduced? Yes, but it does require a written consent by ordinance or resolution by council. And so the authority to regulate in the ETJ, there's really two main ways that a city can regulate within the ETJ. Obviously the first being platting that's granted through 212. However, there are limitations in what the city can do. So we cannot regulate the use of a building, bulk height, the number of buildings, the size of buildings, number of residential units within the ETJ. So if somebody comes in for a plat that wants to do a residential plat for say lots at a thousand square feet, we could not turn them down with respect to lot size. We don't have that zoning authority in the ETJ. The other way to regulate within the ETJ where the city's been granted authority is through a development agreement. As you know, we have a number of non-annexation agreements that falls under that 212.172 development agreement. The only other development agreements that you may be familiar with or recall from our discussion with the mud policy as part of a consent agreement, there is an associate development agreement that would go along with that, that establishes those municipal ordinances that then would apply to a mud or in our case, a non-annexation agreement that we currently have. And just a quick snapshot, a little bit of the legislative history of our division one, division two. This started back in '93. A lot of it had to do with our CCN or certificate of convenience and necessity. This relates to our water, where we provide water and wastewater service. As you can see on the two maps, they're just about identical where we provide water and wastewater. And that essentially established our ETJ one. In 2003, there was a change in the local government code that authorized an interlocal agreement. And the city then entered into the existing agreement that we have today, which essentially followed where we are permitted to provide water and wastewater service. And then in 2017, we had a peripheral development annexation section to our DDC that really looked at if you were gonna develop a large subdivision in the ETJ and we were gonna provide water and wastewater, at that time, you would need to annex into the city. And then the interlocal agreement that was provided, again, 18 years ago, right when we were close to that 100,000 mark. And what it does is it establishes what the city is responsible for in ETJ division one and what the county is responsible for in division two. There's provisions in there about, except if the county standard is more stringent. It was pretty vague, obviously, when that was written. And there's been some disagreement as of recent between city and county staff as to what more stringent means. In addition, there was a section in the interlocal about maintenance of county roads. The county contends that that did not apply to new roads, only the roads that were existing at the time the agreement was in place. And then there's some language in there regarding the city's requirement that we would review and issue culvert permits in ETJ one, which I don't believe we have done since, at least I haven't found any indication where we've done that. The county does do those culvert permits as well as floodplain. And with respect to floodplain, a lot of times they are, we are noticed many times when it comes up though, it is already tied to a plat. But in that case, we have not really done individual culvert permits in ETJ one. Some of the legislative game changers that I mentioned earlier was the annexation changes in 2019. Again, it essentially invalidated our Peripheral Development Ordinance that we repealed in 2019. But what it's done is it's really, while in the past we've had subdivisions that were approved in the ETJ, most were for one, two, three, maybe four lots. Subdivisions on large lots. What we've done, what we're starting to see now are subdivisions coming into the ETJ on our municipal, at our municipal boundary, in some instances, connecting to city streets. Local streets, that is. In addition, in 2019 there was House Bill 3167, the 30 day shot clock bill. This has caused us to really rework a lot of what we've been, what we've been working on through the years, the last few years. But there are very specific requirements for how we can disapprove or deny a plat. And the only way that we can do that is if there's adopted standards in the code. And so if it's not clear what some of those requirements would be in the ETJ, particularly as it relates to the interlocal where there are some inconsistencies, if you will, it would be hard for staff to deny a plat based on those reasons because we, they have not been formally adopted or aren't very clear cut as that House Bill sort of laid out the intent. And then there was obviously the tree preservation standards in 2017. We have updated our, have updated our codes that we believe to be consistent with that bill. But there has been some questions as to whether or not we are enforcing tree preservation in the ETJ. I know there's, we've indicated to County staff that we are not. There's been some confusion where individuals have come in for permits through the County. And the County was unclear whether or not we were, we were in fact enforcing that or not. And then just causing confusion when with them, with a property owner then needing to come to the city for a tree removal permit. So those are some game changes again. We are not enforcing that right now in the ETJ because the code just is not set up that way. Some of our current challenges, the first being that really brought it to light is Stuart Ridge. As you can see, there's Stark Farms, which is to the east. This is off a long road and 426. So as you can see here, these roads connect right into city maintained streets. However, they are using our standard, our standard street detail, which is concrete with curb and gutter. This is a 565 lot subdivision. I think the lots are just over 5,000 square feet. So this is more akin to our, an R7 zoning district. Stark Farms is R6, but their density is probably more at four units an acre. I wanna say this one's just under four, given the large open space and easements that cut through that, that traversed this property. But this is one where, while we can analyze it for roadway improvements, we cannot collect roadway impact fees, but obviously we'll have a huge impact on our network, given that it's immediately adjacent and essentially connects to the city. Part of the other challenge is the dedication of those streets while they're dedicated to the public. Dedication and acceptance are two different things. And so the county would still have to accept these streets. They do not maintain curb and gutter. And so whether or not the commissioner's court votes to accept those streets, we'll see. But this could cause potential issues in the future if those streets then are not accepted by the county. And when maintenance comes in 10, 15 years, it's sort of whose responsibility it is, is sort of left up in the air, at least at this time. Part of the other challenge with respect to this, what's really proliferated some of these is within the 2019 DDC, prior to that, you could not do a preliminary plat in the ETJ. 2019 DDC, we did allow for that, something we may want to look at as part of our DCRC. But what the preliminary plat essentially does is allows it to establish phasing. So they could phase one, phase two, phase three. If these phases were not included, then all of that infrastructure would need to be done upfront, which puts a huge financial burden and most likely probably we would not see this type of development given the ability to do a phased approach. So again, kind of touching on some of our current challenges, of course, roadway standards, the county of roadway standard is what you typically see in rural areas, a bar ditch, which is essentially your two lane road with a drainage ditch on either side and culverts at driveways versus what the city standard curb and gutter. Again, issuing culvert permits in the city, we don't believe, at least staff doesn't, that this should really be a responsibility. The county currently does it now and it's just not necessary at least to have that in the inner local. Again, going to the maintenance of the roads, given the city's detail, standard detail of our roads and the county's not really being equipped to maintain those or having the manpower to do that has caused a serious challenge as well as the dedication of those roads. And essentially if the county, if the commissioner's court does not accept those, again, 15, 20 years, if the concrete buckles or something needs to be replaced or a pothole patched, it's sort of left up in the air at least who will be responsible for that. Some of the other issues that we have is the transfer of that maintenance bond that I mentioned as part of the three-way agreement. There's no mechanism currently in place. Once we would inspect those roads, they would then be turned over to Denton County to formally accept them. And we would just need to make sure we have a mechanism in place to then transfer that maintenance bond or should that maintenance bond be directly to or with the county. Part of the other challenge is the county does not permit water and sewer within the right of way. And so that's another challenge with accepting the roads while this is within our water and wastewater CCN, but then forces additional large easements throughout the front yards of properties, particularly if there would need to be new mains and just has caused an issue with respect to that, particularly how and if those roads are accepted again. And then Lake Ray Roberts planning area, there are certain lot size requirements. Given the limitations in 212, we cannot enforce those lot size requirements. This has only happened on one occasion where we did approve a plat. They came in to pull a permit at Denton County. Denton County could not approve the permit because it didn't meet the minimum lot size. So they had to go to the commissioner's court for a variance and it just caused a lot of unnecessary steps. We've since worked out sort of an administrative process. But again, in order for us to truly enforce these lot size requirements, they should be memorialized as part of that ILA. And then of course, our non-annexation agreements, making sure that while everyone seems to understand, at least from the city and county, those non-annexation agreements are stretched out for 20 years. And we just wanna make sure that there's a component of the ILA that at least mentions those so that legacy remains given the 20 year timeframe of those agreements. Some of the other non-ILA challenges, while we're not seeking policy direction at this time, at least wanted to bring this up. We have a lot of split parcels that are within the city and the ETJ. Now, through annexation, these uses can continue. But the only way that we can annex, in the past, we've annexed these areas involuntarily. Given that we can only now annex voluntarily, it causes an issue with respect to how these properties develop, how they place signs on their property, outdoor display. This is one in particular on the far Eastern end of the city along 380, where it developed primarily with a commercial and even maybe some light industrial. We've land use this as a rural area, and then the zoning applied to it is R1. And so that's our residential district. And so no commercial uses are permitted. And so it just causes an issue for these property owners. But again, this is something that we'll come back as we look at updating the comprehensive plan, as well as updating the DDC through the DCRC. And then the other is exchanging areas with adjacent municipalities. In the past, I think we've exchanged some of the ETJ with Sanger, and there's been this no formal policy, but we've been working off this sort of acre for acre exchange. So if you're gonna give us, we'll give you five if you give us five. And staff thought we probably need to get to a point where we have a formal policy adopted to at least go from when adjacent municipalities do approach us. The most recent being PilotPoint. They're seeking to have the Ray Roberts State Park area both in Denton County and the portion of our ETJ that extends all the way to Cook County released to them. They're looking to bring that into the city, tie that Lake Jordan unit into their park system, as well as take over the concessionaires agreement at those state parks, and to provide some eventual sales tax, at least that's what's being proposed by them, and that I'll touch on here shortly. And so again, as I indicated, the request from PilotPoint, again, rather than doing a land swap, there's not much I think that we would really want or need in our future, even up to Cook County. But this is something that they've asked us to consider. Staff does not necessarily have an issue with this. And instead of a land swap, they've proposed either a sales tax and or a hotel, the hot tax, part of the challenge with the hot tax would be obviously spending it in this area. And in discussing it with legal, felt that it would be more of a challenge with the hot tax than sales tax. But that is what's being proposed. I did reach out to PilotPoint, again, to see if they had any projections on sales tax. And given that, again, this is in the ETJ, so it's not in the city, they're unable to really garner how much of the sales tax is generated in those areas. But they are working on that, again, given the direction today. Whenever this comes back, hopefully we'll have a better handle on what they're projecting that sales tax to be, both from the concessions within the park, as well as the marina that's out there. And which brings us to the policy direction that we're seeking and really the first one is, should the city continue to regulate plats and subdivisions in division one of the ETJ? Or should the city regulate all plats in the ETJ? That would be division one and division two. Staff really looked at this and again, we don't have an issue with continuing to regulate plats in the ETJ. I think of the plats we've reviewed the last year, I think we had about 13 that were in the ETJ. And I wanna say 10 of those were minor plats. The other thing I wanted to point out, in the 2019 DDC, we did include an exemption for properties in the ETJ. If you're building a single family home or reconstructing a single family home, you are exempt from platting. And so I suspect if we continue to do plat, regulate plats in division one, this coming year and future years, we will probably see a reduction in overall applications. Again, the majority of the plats that we reviewed were for single family homes on one lot, maybe two lots. And Mr. Mayor, would you prefer that I, do we want, should I continue to go through or do we want to get direction as I finish each of these? - Yeah, question, if you can pull that down just briefly. Thank you. Are they tied together in that, are they all kind of each decision stand independent of each other? - For the most, some kind of parlay into the other. So I could easily just go through it and then I can come back to the slides. - Okay, Mayor Pro Tem Davis. - Mayor, I just wanted to point out, I'm gonna recuse from the policy questions or direction questions that have to do with the county ILA, but then I'm gonna jump back in for the pilot point. I think that's the only one that's not directly tied to a county agreement, but the pilot point one I'll come back on for. - Okay, thank you. So let's do this then. Let's focus on those other, I think there's three decisions there from memory, but let's focus on those other decisions. We'll note that Council Member Davis has recused, well, yeah, well, let's take up the one, better said. So we'll take up the one, or pardon me, the three, I'm right, the three that deal with the county or four, whatever the number is, and then we'll come back to the one that doesn't involve the county. So does that, do you concur, Richard? - That works for me, I can go through, it's probably easier for me to just go through them and then I can just come back and go slide by slide. - Perfect. Then you can pull it back up and we'll do that. - All right, and so the second question is, if we are gonna continue to regulate plats, should we have specific roadway standards as part of the interlocal or should the city just adopt the county's roadway standards for ETJ Division One? Again, this is something that depending where the county ultimately lands on wanting to accept these roads, we just don't wanna get into a situation or have future homeowners in a situation where the county is not willing to accept those roads because they cannot maintain them, given that we can no longer require annexation through the extension of water and sewer. It just makes sense to us to include those specific standards that would apply in the area that we're going to regulate plats. If the county is gonna ultimately maintain those, then to me, it would make sense at least to use their standard so we don't get into a situation where we may get a request for voluntary annexation in the future from those subdivisions and I think it could put us in a negative spot with respect to annexing an area and then having to maintain or rebuild those roadways immediately. And so this is just something that we wanted to bring forward as a consideration. - Okay. - The next item has to do with Lake Ray Roberts planning area, again, making sure that those standards are written. The first policy question is should Denton County handle platting in the Lake Ray Roberts planning area or should those standards be referenced as part of the ILA? Again, for us, I think it would be fairly easy as long as we have those standards within the ILA. Most of the plats would be exempt again, if they're just building on a single family, or I'm sorry, a single family lot on a one acre tract. They would be exempt from platting regardless, except if they're extending water and wastewater, which most of these are still on well and septic. So given the few number of plats and to avoid any confusion with applicants having to go to the county for this or the city for that, our recommendation is just to continue to handle those. They are within our division one, but make sure that those standards are referenced or memorialized as part of that, as part of the ILA. Again, third would be permitting within the ETJ. There's that provision about permitting culverts in the ETJ. This is handled by the county now. And so for us, it seems to just make sense that the county continue to do that. The only exception would be if we are gonna do plats and that is the standard, obviously, we would inspect that as part of that subdivision and then ultimately turn that roadway over to county. The fourth is with respect to tree preservation in the ETJ. Well, it has been codified in 212, which is sort of the subdivision land development component of the Texas Local Government Code. There was a circuit court case out of San Antonio where they were challenged for enforcing their tree preservation ordinance in the ETJ. And it was decided that they could, again, this has not been attested at the courts, any higher courts, but again, given that most of the lands in the ETJ are ranches or would qualify as agricultural operation, in addition to them being single family, most would be exempt regardless. And so there wouldn't be much to enforce if at all any. And so as far as our opinion is, it would not be worth our while to really have to regulate tree preservation or mitigation in the ETJ, particularly if someone would not be platting where you would have this dual permitting process then where they would need to go to Denton County for a permit and then go to the city for tree removal permit and mitigation. And it just seems like overly cumbersome for a few lots, if any at all. - And then these other two really, I guess I'll hold since they would not be ILA. - Okay. So if you can, is this, this is where we pick up the first of the decision points that involve the county to some degree that Mayor Pro Tem recused from? - Yes, sir, these would all be related to the ILA. - Great, so let me see how we can summarize this and at the same time pull the slide down. Great, okay, got it. Okay, so you can pull that down, I'm with you and I'll just kind of navigate. So questions for staff, so we'll take them one at a time. This is regarding the policy question if you have in your backup is, should the city continue to regulate plat subdivisions in a division one or of the ETJ or in all the ETJ, division one and two. And then just so that everyone has it, SAS recommendations regulate plats within division one and ensure it include all areas within the CCN. Questions for staff or thoughts? Council member Ryan. - Yeah, just a quick question for staff. Just kind of, there was a case here a few years ago of somebody that was on a non-annexation agreement wanted to put everything together before they annexed in. They were wanting to do the county level and then come into the city, is that correct on that? Do you remember that case off of Ryan Road? - Yes, that was, if I'm not mistaken, I think that was one that was, we had a development agreement an annexation development agreement with. - Right, that's what it was, it was a development agreement. How does that compare with some of these others in ETJ one that are right on the edge of town or do we anticipate any of them deciding shortly after they get done, if they're going to annex in or I know you can't ever really anticipate that type of thing for sure, but. - Yeah, it would be hard, it would be hard to determine. Again, as those subdivisions build out, again, you obviously have shared EMS 911, depending who's the closest to reach them. So whether or not, once that subdivision is built, turned over to the homeowners, whether there's a decision to then petition the city, at that point in time, it would then be brought, obviously, to council for consideration. The one off of Ryan, at least with that one, there was that development agreement that included the city's development standards. So it was built to our standards for the most part. - Yeah, that's kind of what I'd like to see a little, I think Aaron wants to make comment on. - No, I just wanted to add to, Mayor, if I may, I just wanted to add to what Richard said, that even under that PIDA agreement, pre-acquisition agreement of home completion, they would be annexed into the city, they would file a voluntary petition, so, that probably will come into the city at some future date. - Okay, thank you. And then Councilman Ryan, did you have anything to say, and then we'll go to Councilman Baker. - Yeah, I guess it's probably, Richard or the city attorney can answer this one. It's my understanding that any property in the ETJ has to be continuous with city property, with already annexed property or already city, we can't go out to the outside edge of ETJ 1 and annex something in even by voluntary. It has already touched some current city property, is that correct? - I understand annexation law, it has to either be bordered, existing city-limit property or a property that's covered by an NAA annexation agreement. Under the state law, an NAA-covered property access for future annexations, it accesses as if it's part of the city. - Okay. - For annexation purposes, yes. - Okay. - So either one of those scenarios is how we could expand, whether it's touching city limits or it's touching an NAA-covered property. - Okay, and the reason I ask that question is I think of any property in the ETJ that currently couldn't even annex in voluntarily because they don't meet those criteria that may down the road as the property between them annexes in could at that point petition. So it's important to keep up those city standards on those properties, in my opinion. - Okay, thank you, Council Member Baker. My question would be to the city attorney. I know I'm retired from the county. This doesn't have anything to do with me voting or anything, does it? - No, it doesn't, sir. You're not actively employed and you're not receiving income from the county directly. You may have a retirement account, but that's not directly from the county that comes from the actual retirement system. - All right, thank you, sir, very much. - Okay, any other questions for staff? - Council Member Meltzer. - I'm finding this a little challenging to parse. It seems like the core issue is who ends up having to maintain the roads. And it seems like there's a little bit of a game of keep away. We would feel that the county ought to because they're not in the city and the county is kind of finding reasons why they shouldn't if it's not built, if it's built to city standards. Is that a fair restatement? - Correct, that the county does not maintain, they don't have curb and gutter nor do they have, I think, the manpower to handle that type of roadway maintenance. I think most of their roadways are asphalt as opposed to concrete. - Okay, so it's a technical limitation. It's not just not wanting to take on a responsibility or something like that. I mean, I'm just trying to understand what would really resolve the issue. Is that when I was going through it on my own, it was having a flavor of like, do we need mediation or something? The clear path that works for now and the future just frankly isn't that obvious to me. I mean, I'm basically willing to go by staff's recommendation because you feel it will be workable, but it's not obvious to me that you've really resolved it. - Mr. City Manager? - Yeah, we've been having conversations with the county. This issue has been basically being discussed between staff for the last 15 or 20 years and the county certainly does not have the equipment to maintain roads up to city standards. That being said, I think it's still a question to remain with the county and city attorney to work out whether or not they can turn down streets that are in the county. And we have started having those discussions with the administration of the county. I think the important thing here is regardless of whether we choose to enforce the county standards or the city standards, it needs to be memorialized. We started seeing more of these types of developments in the ETJ when the city passed the gas well ordinance and the tree preservation ordinance. And these developers are being very, some of them are being very candid with us that their intention is to flatten the county and get their entitlements and then ask for annexation in the city and possibly put a mud or something like that in place to bring the infrastructure up to our standards. So the reason that you would do this is to have everything memorialized in the process for a future negotiation when that takes place because we've had developers flat out tell us that their intention is once they get that plan approved to start pressuring the city council to annex them in. And if you don't have that history as often as our council turns over, it makes these discussions very challenging. So that's the reason you would do it. I think some of them are hoping that the tree preservation or the gas well ordinance might get backed off on, but we can never make a promise that those things are gonna change. But that is what's precipitated the changes. We have had developers be that candid with Richard and me about why they're developing there. But if they're going to use the political route later, you need a legislative record of why they made these decisions for a future negotiation. - And why will they ultimately want to press to be annexed in? - Because their residents, as they develop, their residents want city police services, city fire services. Those can be negotiated in. We are seeing some developments on the edge as Council Ryan is talking about, but ETJ 1 and 2 that are negotiating deals with Chrome, offering to build some stations out there. But that's really the crux of the issue is having a Denton address and wanting to see a Denton police officer in their subdivision. It's not always readily obvious to people who buy out in the county areas and just assume that they're in the city. So that has at least been very openly shared with both of us in certain development meetings. I think it's something that the council just needs to think about is having that conversation memorialized. - Okay. - If I may, the path that leads to the best memorialization is just including things in the ILA? - Yeah, that's the way. And we have had a couple, we have talked to a couple of developers recently who have entered into pre-annexation agreements with us. Most recently, the one down on 377 and Richard, I can't remember the name of that subdivision, but we encourage them to head that direction if that is their ultimate intention. Save us some negotiation down the road, but really it's a chess match. I don't know any other way to put it and having that paper trail there for all of you down the road is important. - I appreciate the candor. That's very helpful. - Thank you. Council Member Armitage, question for staff. - Yeah, so first of all, I really appreciate this presentation is very dense and I learned a lot from it that I did not know before about the details of ETJs, as well as from staff's answers to my many questions in writing. I'm wondering if you can answer this question. So my main concern is the cost to the city, the future costs of maintaining roads of new subdivisions that end up getting annexed into this city or that would, as the city manager was just explaining, kind of build in the ETJ with the intention of building under county standards and then getting annexed in. Can you speak to, as I weigh my decision on some of these choices, can you speak to the cost, future costs to the city of additional subdivisions that are built to county standards with the intention of getting annexed into the city? - It's obviously more expensive and we face this issue frequently with folks that are out in the county wanting to annex and part of our policy has been that they need to bring either a, it's a two or three home subdivision or a full subdivision, they need to bring their infrastructure up to our standards to not burden our current residents. And frequently the council will get complaints about having to bring that infrastructure up to our standards because of the cost of it and that is really the key issue. When you have a subdivision developed out there in the ETJ and the residents or the HOA eventually wants to try to annex it in, that is the reason that you have these agreements and that you have this memorialized is before you annex them in, you're going to want either some kind of an escrow or some way to ensure that those streets are brought up to our standards and that the city residents aren't in essence going in rebuilding their streets to our subdivision standards. That's why you do this. And once the developer is gone, the only tools they generally have are special assessments or MUDs. So it's important at least to get the thinking at the time legislatively recorded so we can go back and that's where you start negotiations and the conversation. But I made no mistake, that's kind of where some of these subdivisions are heading is the builders will go in, turn them over to an HOA and then eventually you're going to get knocked on the door. - Thank you so much. And yeah, that's something I'm really concerned about. And I want to make the choice personally, and for the people that I represent, I want to make the decision that puts the smallest burden, cost burden on the city of maintaining subdivisions. And more generally, I want to prevent, to do what can be done to prevent the proliferation of these subdivisions that they're not affordable housing, they pose the conservation issues and cost issues and can end up costing our taxpayers more in the long run. So that's where I'm focused and I'm paying close attention and still learning about some of the details and implications of this. - Great, and so thank you, Mr. City Manager and Richard. Just one quick question for me. So the plats, if we're platting in division one, that's going to include curbs and gutters. Am I tracking with you right? - Under the current standard, the city's adopted standard, correct? - Yes, and then am I correct? I did a little due diligence on my own and talked to some people and did some searching. So the difference in the curves and gutters from a functionality component is that one, you have an erosion concern if you just have a ditch, and then also you end up actually taking more land, right? Because you have to have more land on either side of that kind of to have it to flow and it's a wider kind of, well, by its very nature, just the ditch is wider than if you had a gutter that ran and you could, basically probably you could abut the street so they save more land in that way as well. - Correct, and then a lot of times you'll also see an easement on the other side to maintain and mow those areas if need be or stabilize it again if there is some erosion. - Sure, okay, great. So any other questions for staff on this first one and then we'll move to the next or give direction and move to the next or give an indication, better said. So any other questions for Richard on should the city continue to regulate plats subdivisions in division one of the ETGA? Councilor Armitage. - Yeah, can you speak to the difference that zoning makes at the city level in thinking through, because these are questions for direction that kind of project into the future and make us think about a possible annexation in the future, whether we want that or not, thinking about the fact that the possibility that that might happen. Can you speak to the difference that zoning at the city level would make in what would be, what would end up coming in terms or not coming in terms of future subdivisions in the ETGA one and two? - And make sure, does that apply to the, right? How does that apply to this, Richard, is really what I wanna, I don't wanna get outside. If we're gonna take them independently, I need to kind of narrow whatever answer you're gonna provide specifically to this question. - I'll just provide maybe this is to try to simplify it. I think the biggest change or biggest difference in applying zone, one, it would need to be consistent with obviously the land use plan. Take the one that is currently being developed, that is a rural area land use plan or future land use designation, even if it was low residential, that usually covers our R4 and below R3 or an R3, R4, R3, R2, R4 minimum lot size is 7,000 square feet. I think these are five. And so the biggest difference is lot size, which would equate to density if zoning were to apply on to, if we were to apply zoning to that, if that helps. - Thank you so much. Yes, that does help a lot. Yeah, and I want to, I think it's important to think of, of zoning and these ETJ questions simultaneously, even though we're not deciding on zoning now, because I see how keeping it rural, does keeping these areas rural and conservation zoned and lower density prevent some of these cause problems that we're looking at preventing and solving some of these questions today? - Thank you. Oh, okay, so the question that we're gonna, that I put before you is should the city continue to regulate plat subdivisions in division one of the ETJ? So is there kind of, Aaron, help me. I'm simply polling, we're not, we're just giving staff direction, am I correct? Okay, so- - That is correct, that is correct, Mayor. - Thank you, appreciate it. So those that would, Council Member Ryan. - I wasn't sure if you were going for the poll or just for individual comments. I'm, I believe our current standard where we're not requiring platting on single family structures on an acre or more and we're rebuilding single family structures is to continue with that same manner of handling platting. - Okay, and does that, Richard, let me make sure that that's in line with staff's recommendation that's captured in that. - Correct, that was part of our rationale with continuing to review plats in the ETJ. Again, with the change in fee structure going to sort of a cost neutral, but then again, allowing for those exemptions for property owners wanting to build a single family home on their lot, not requiring them to platting. Again, the only time they would be required to plat would be the extension of water, water sewer, or roadway dedication. But again, I wanna say 99% of the time, these are large lot properties that are on well and septic. - Perfect, and that's an administrative decision? - Correct, it's not, those standards are just built right into the DDC that was built. - Thank you, okay. And so I'll go to Council Member Johnson. Do you agree kind of with that, what Richard just laid out? - Yes. - Yes. - Thank you, perfect. Council Member Baker? - Yes. - Okay, so I got a feel there and Council Member Meltzer, do you have a thought to give staff direction? - You know, I accept the objectives, the way that the city manager laid them out. And so, you know, I'm comfortable with the recommendation that I'm still, I can't say this is all like incredibly clear to me, one question I have in my mind, if you don't mind my going a little further. - By all means. - At what point is it in the planning that the roads are determined? So, you know, it's the situation in terms of who accepts the roads, is the situation that the city is initiating the, you know, the determination of where the roads will be and then the county is later saying, yeah, we don't know if we wanna accept them. Or is the county involved in saying where the roads will be as well? - The county is not involved. Again, because it is incumbent upon us essentially to do the review. If there is a connection, like the example I showed, we do require roads to continue, not to just stop, but allow them to connect to a future subdivision. But it's really the local streets. Many times, if there's an extension of an existing road or a change, I would say again, we really have not had this issue with the, at least the three years that I've been here, with the exception of this past year with, again, the changes, those legislative changes that really kinda put us in a bind with allowing what you would call a typical suburban subdivision in the ETJ. - Is there something, and this might be naive, but is there an alteration to the process that could be a little more collaborative where the county is kind of, even though I guess one or the other has got the basic responsibility for planning, but is there some way that they're in on it as well so that it's less of a situation of, "Hey, we have nothing to do with this," as far as including the county? - And that's what we've been working over the last two years is really improving that communication and coordination. Part of the challenge though is given House Bill 3167, where as we are reviewing these plots or subdivisions where something may make sense, common sense, unless we have that specifically spelled out, and adopted in an ordinance, we're kind of hamstrung in what we can do unless it is adopted formally. - Okay, well, I'm not opposing accepting any recommendation, which is the basic question from the Mayor, so. - Okay, very good. And then Council Member Armer, so direction for staff. - Yeah, and so I'm in favor of the staff recommendation on this one in the hope that we'll kind of continue, in fact, expand even more into defining these as rural areas. - Okay, and I think I take Council Member Meltzer's point, Mr. City Manager and Mr. City Attorney, I don't know if it's a closed session, kind of work session or a luncheon, but kind of just a scenario-based walkthrough or kind of we could review correspondence between the city and county or just kind of real life scenarios. And I say closed session just because I don't think it's something we wanna tip our hand unnecessarily so and give a guide how to circumvent the city. But at the same time, I think it's important for us to better understand these type decisions and also kind of the scenarios, Mr. City Manager, you pointed out that you're seeing and kind of have a snapshot of that in the back of our minds. Because those questions will arise and we're gonna be in close company with the county and wanna understand their approach to it as well, but we'll have a better knowledge base. Obviously the county commissioners maintain roads, that sort of thing, so they have that knowledge base. And so it puts us on par with that. And Richard, thank you for pointing out the fact that the materials are absolutely separate, right? So our components and our street maintenance are polar opposite from the county's maintenance and so there's a cost associated with that and I've always heard that concern from those of the county. So it's important just to level the knowledge base in a future day, future work session, wherever it fits. Council Member Meltzer. - Yeah, just to comment before sort of politely accepting the statement that a little bit of the equipment, if it were like the right thing, whether mediated or legislated that roads in the county need to be maintained by the county, wouldn't they have the same ability we do to get contractors that have the right equipment? - Those are the conversations that we're currently having with the county judge and his staff is, how do we get a little bit more obvious resolution on this issue because it's continuing to, I think right now we've probably got five or six, Richard, of these subdivisions being developed in the county and MUD's going in. And so it's gonna continue to be a major issue. And we've got a lot of cooperation from Judge Eads, at least opening the conversation up and, but Richard's right, there's definitely different levels of interpretation based on who you're talking to. So we're trying to get one document, one policy document that we can all agree on and make sure that we're operating on the same rules. - As long as it's nice and simple and not thorny at all. - Okay. Okay, and so that takes us to the next policy direction staff's looking for. So Richard, you have what you need on the first one, yes? - Yes, sir. - Perfect. So this question before us is should the city and the county adopt specific roadway standards as part of the interlocal agreement? And should the city adopt the county's roadway standard in ETJ division one? Is part of that discussion captured in the first one or is this standalone? - It seems like we, I think somewhat captured, captured that as part of that discussion on point one. But again, this is, we anticipate bringing this back given where, you know, the ultimate direction, but it seemed like at least I think we kind of captured in that first item. - I agree specifically with respect to the roadway standard, but it bring that back before us and we'll take another look at it in that new form. Then that takes us to a policy direction, Lake Ray Roberts. And the question before us is should Denton County handle planting in the Lake Ray Roberts planting area, or should those standards be referenced as part of the ILA? And I'm looking at slide 21 by way of reference for those following along. And the staff recommendation is to include standards within the ILA. So questions for staff, Council Member Meltzer. - Yeah, thank you. So now on this one, that land is primarily, it just flew out of my head, Army Corps. It's Army Corps property, right? - Directly around the lake, bordering the lake, yes, that's Army Corps. But then as you tear back, there is land within the Lake Ray Roberts. That's governed by the other way. - So it's either Army Corps or within the State Park, correct? - Correct, but there's also residential lots. - Okay, that's, that's, it's a much broader planning, you know. - Yeah, but the planting area is much, much, much wider. So if you look at the map on slide 21, and I can pull it up if that helps. - Yes, let's do that. So you can pull it up and speak to it, and then that'll help guide the discussion. - So if you see the, if you can kind of follow the area that are sort of highlighted here in various different colors, those are the areas designated within, within the, again, it does go up, I think even into Cook County, where the Planning and Zoning, Lake Ray Roberts Planning and Zoning Commission have authority, but at least in Denton County, it's the green area obviously is all of that area with the, this area actually is within the city of Denton, where we extend up through the Elm Fork. But for the most part, this is all core land. There are some residential properties, and that's where they have those minimum lot standards. And really we looked at this as, we already have two sub, almost subdivisions, lack of a better way to put it, between division one, division two, but just avoid creating another layer of, if you're on this side of the street, you're division one, you go to the county, if you're on the other, you go to the city. So again, we do so very few, it was just to avoid any confusion for those property owners. - Okay, and this decision has no impact at all on, preservation of core or park land, nothing to do with that. - No, sir, it's really just allows us to the ability, for the most part, we've developed a sort of administrative process, again, trying to work with the county and improve that collaboration. But if somebody were to push back, there's nothing that we could do to force them to meet those minimum lot sizes, which would then push it back to having to go through a variance and the like within county. And so it's just to avoid those issues in the future. - And so the basic ideas, capture everything in the ILA? - At least reference that document. Again, it may change, but at least include those standards and reference that as a component of the ILA. - Yeah, I'm fine with that. - Okay, and then wanna summarize that for everyone. So what I heard was that in essence, we make the approach to this specific property uniform to the other properties in division one so that they're all treated equal. We don't have to go in and kind of micromanage where a piece of property is and if it falls two inches too far to the left, two inches to the right. Am I summarizing right there? - Correct. - Okay, great, thank you. Council Member Armitage. - Yes, as far as direction, I'm in favor of memorializing that in the ILA. - Thank you. Council Member Johnson, your thoughts? Or direction for staff? - I'm in favor as well. - Okay, great, Council Member Baker? - I'm in favor. - Thank you, and then Council Member Ryan, your thoughts? - I'm in favor as well. - Okay, great, so Rich, you have your direction on those and then we'll bring back in, am I right? Do we bring back in Council Member, or do we have another one that involves a count? - Correct, we have two more. In fact, we technically have three more, so the last one we'll have to jump to 'cause that involves the expansion of division one. - Okay, so then that brings us to policy direction. Should the city permit culverts in the ETJ, division one? And so I kind of touched on that. That's gonna go with the current curbing gutters that, am I correct there? That's the variable between if you have a ditch, then you need a culvert? - Correct, some of that will get addressed through the standard of platting, but where we wanna sort of relinquish our charge to do that is if somebody's redoing their driveway or they're exempt from platting and putting in a single family home, they could get that driveway and culvert permit, which they're currently doing now through the county. It just doesn't make sense that if we're gonna exempt you from platting a single family home, then require you to come back and go through our process to put a culvert and driveway in. To me, if they're already getting that development permit through the county, it just makes sense that they continue to issue those and handle that permitting. - Okay, and now help me there. Is it something we would permit and just adopt our standard to the county in that way, or would we direct them to the county for that permit? - In fact, the county's doing it now. I think this was something written in the agreement, again, 18 years ago, and at least I can't find any evidence over the last five, maybe even 10 years that we've actually done it. The county is currently issuing those permits. It just takes that liability or requirement of us having to do it out of the ILA. - Okay. So in summary, is there anyone that would be against allowing the county to maintain providing those permits and for the culvert, ditch and culvert that they currently have? Is there anyone against that, that would stash proposed? Okay, seeing none. So you have your direction, Richard, for that? - Yes, sir. - Okay, thank you. And then, so policy direction, this is regarding tree preservation in the ETJ. Should the city enforce tree preservation mitigation in the ETJ? And staff's recommendation is not to enforce tree, the tree preservation mitigation in the ETJ. And just for those tracking along, this is slide 23. Council Member Armitage. - Yes, this is something I feel very strongly about. And so do a number of people in Denton who are concerned about tree preservation and also people in the ETJ concerned with tree preservation. I think we should enforce tree preservation in the ETJ. I think that San Antonio case shows that we can back that up. And I understand the point that there's not all that much. That applies necessarily to tree preservation compared to other areas. I also understand that it could be burdensome on developers, but when it comes to tree preservation, I want to be burdensome on developers that would raise old tree trees. I think it's important both for the people who live in the city and for the people in the ETJ and in neighboring areas that we do what we can to preserve our trees. It is not all that much that it applies to, as you said, so it should not be much of a burden to us. And there's some legal precedent, even though I do understand that it's not entirely clear, but there's some legal precedent that shows that we can. - Thanks. Richard, do you wanna, I don't know if there's not an express question, but do you wanna speak to that? - Yeah, the only other thing I would add is just, again, I think platting is one thing, where this is, you know, unfortunately, you can't kind of parcel out how you enforce it or do this sort of selective enforcement. The only concern I have, or at least staff has, is when you have these, you know, two-acre tracts, let's say, or three-acre tracts, it's vacant land. And they do wanna build a home or build a house or whatever it is. And unless they have that agricultural operation, if they meet, they would then have to go through almost a dual permitting process. So they would go to the county for their development permit and then it would be required then to come to the city for their tree preservation mitigation. And so it would just be a little cumbersome, could be cumbersome on a, on an individual lot owner wanting to build, wanting to build a single-family home. - Got it. - The only exemption that we have in the code is if there's an existing home there, but if they're gonna demolish it or the land is vacant, then the provisions would still apply. - Got it. So any other questions for staff, again, around? And so, Council Member Armitage touches on the San Antonio case and the kind of existing legislations. It's been a bit since you touched on that earlier in the presentation. Can you resummarize that for the council so that we're all kind of working from the same information? - Correct. And I don't know if Aaron wants to add anything to it. There was a case out of San Antonio where they were enforcing their tree ordinance in their ETJ and it was challenged. I believe it only went to circuit court and the circuit court upheld that the city could enforce it. But I would defer to Aaron as far as all of the sort of the legal details associated with that case. - Certainly. Aaron? - With respect, it was a San Antonio Court of Appeals decision and it's valid within that Court of Appeals area, the sort of Court of Appeals area. It's not binding in the Fort Worth Court of Appeals where the city of Denton falls under. It certainly is persuasive. And so, I mean, it is something that we would use if the council decided to enact tree preservation for developments, as Richard mentioned earlier, many of the smaller properties would probably be exempt under if they have an ag operation or under the state law, be exempt from these requirements for a single family house. For those larger developments the council wishes to do that, to impose and enforce that, then we can certainly draft those rules. Note with the understanding that there's always a possibility that our district and Court of Appeals may rule differently than San Antonio. And this does happen throughout Texas and the Court of Appeals are split in different legal decisions. So with that said, it's just, it's something that we could do if the council wanted to go forward, but it's ultimately your responsibility or your decision and we will enforce either way. - Thank you, I appreciate that. Council Member Meltzer? - Yeah, I would say our reasons for having the ordinance apply, there's nothing that would make it fundamentally different and not apply and that is encouraging if not binding that another court that doesn't apply here felt that that authority could extend. So I'm aligned with Council Member Armitage's comments on that. - Okay, thoughts, comments from anyone else? Council Member Ryan? - I guess I've got a question for staff on this 'cause part of mitigation is to pay into the tree fund and we only plant trees within the city limits. Would this mean that we would, if this was enforced this way, we would have to expand and revisit that area? If you're paying in from anywhere within the city limits or the ETJ, that means we could spend that money within the ETJ as well. And that's the confusing part for me as to why I kind of would go with staff's recommendation. I think that there's just, as shown in the report, most of the land is already exempt or in floodplains and FEMA areas. So I guess it's kind of one of those. If y'all wanna answer it, great, if not, I'll just say I'm with staff. - Richard, your thoughts on the, or have you given that a thought? If you haven't, that's fine. - I have not, but if that is the direction, depending the direction given, that would be something we would have to work out and work through with legal. - Got it. I guess I do have a question if no one else does and it's around the kind of the spirit, I think is what I hear. And I think I absolutely am on board with the city being part of that discussion, right? So there's, is there a path between having to pull two permits from the county and the city and a county kind of notice requirement that then the city could reach out to the person planning to develop, right? So I think in practice, the way I would see that is the county's contacted, they say they wanna build a single family home, that then triggers a notice for the city, here's this area in ETJ, it's treed in such a way, or at least we can pull it up and look at it and say, is this something we wanna reach out and see if we can have a discussion with the developer or the homeowner, et cetera. Does that make sense? Is there anything between two regulatory bodies having two different opinions and one regulatory body giving the city notice and us trying to work with the property owner? - No, I think as long as we have it sort of detailed in the ILA, it's just one of those items we have to work through. It would be probably a lot more cumbersome for some of the individual single lot developers, custom home builders, as opposed to a large scale subdivision that has a slew of consultants. To do a tree survey, they are very time-consuming and depending on the size of the lot, it could take some time in reviewing that and obviously then having to permit and whether we do this dual inspection, we would have to go out and look at the tree, making sure that the fence protection is up, it would just, obviously there's coordination that we would just need to do with Denton County if it is something we wanna enforce in the ETJ. - Well, and so speak to Council Member Johnson, yes, by all means. - My question is, am I to understand that there is no plan already set up with the county for preserving trees? And with that being said, I would think the attraction for me living out in the country would be because of the environment, the trees, so forth. So is that my understanding that the county has no plan at all in preserving trees? - Yeah, the county does not have a tree, they do not do tree preservation or mitigation similar to what the city does. For the most part, it is part of our zoning or land development regulations and the county does not enforce that. - Okay, great question. Well, Richard, let me follow up with one last thing and then we're gonna give some direction, the rest of us. I guess the final question, or my follow-up question to that would be, so concerned about people just clear cutting, I take Council Member Johnson's point that that's probably, in all, not the desired outcome that maybe the existing property owner is, but I know people that maintain a residence in the city of Denton, in the core of the city, that maintain a residence just so they could clear cut the trees and then they take the house down, right? And so there's those people out there that would work the system that way. And so my question is, is there a way to kind of have in the policy, a administrative level and then a council level to then make it less onerous on the property owners in the scenario you've outlined? So for example, in the agreement, it could be, city staff has contacted, there's an administrative review of the project, you go out, Haywood goes out, they say, okay, looks great, we understand your plan, administratively this is approved, or this is more cumbersome than whatever those triggers are, then we would have to go to council for that and it becomes a bigger situation, I understand the cost, but is there something there that gives administrative authority that then before it would have to get into a full-blown council decision? - It, and maybe this is something I would need to just discuss further with legal, perhaps an option if the direction is to enforce it, it might make sense if there's a threshold of number of lots. Again, I think if you're developing a, say, a three acre lot that's treed, I've seen some in the city where they've only wanna remove two or three trees because that's where they have to put the driveway. And I just think it is, it could be overly cumbersome for an individual to have to do a full tree survey on three acres to go through this dual permitting process to remove three trees. It might be, again, that's one example, but it might be a matter of if you are gonna subdivide and plat individual, if it's more than 20 lots, I don't know what that, we'd have to look at that, but if there's a threshold and whether we can have this sort of dual system in the city or not, that might be one way that we could look at this. - Okay, Council Member Armitage. - Yeah, I guess to that, I would just make the point and be curious to know what you would say to it. It would seem to me that in the kind of areas we're talking about, when you've got more than one acre, say, you've got a number of different areas where you could put a driveway. And so I don't have a problem with letting existing trees determine where a driveway or some part of a structure is going to be or not. There's enough land there that if somebody buys it, they can build on it. So can you think of it, is there an example, are there examples where maybe because of floodplains or something like that, it's so constrained where a home or accessories to a home could be on a site like that in the ETJ? - Well, I don't know that Richard could speak to the preferences of some future potential builder, right? I think there's people that have preferences about where their driveway goes. And I think to Richard's point, we can't micromanage that to that degree, that we don't have the tools to do that. Even if we had a tree ordinance, I don't know that the tree ordinance would dictate whether they could put the driveway, it would just dictate which trees have to be maintained and if they're not maintained, the punitive nature of that decision, but it doesn't dictate where it goes. - Well, sure, sure, but it would make it more costly if you wanted to put a driveway where there's a tree. So if you wanted to save money, you would put the driveway somewhere else. That's the kind of micromanaging that I do think we should be doing. And if somebody wants to pay the price to do that, they can, but it's easier to just build around the trees. - Sure, and in your points noted, I don't think Richard can speak to that. The home owner's propensity to build or willingness to pay into the tree ordinance to work around a tree fund. I just don't think that's something he can speak to, but great question. So I have council member Armitter and council member Melter that have shown support for the enforcing the tree ordinance there in ETJ to give direction to do so. I think Richard, for me, I'm going to join that number in saying, I would like to enforce a tree ordinance only for this reason. I want to go back and find something that works between that. But I, so I don't want to, I don't support not enforcing it. And I think there's something in the middle, but for the purpose of papering up this, then I'm going to support it. And then I'm hoping we can come back and bring back something that's in the middle. Or I'll meet with staff and get a better understanding if I'm missing something and then we can bring it back and revisit council. Unless someone tells me something I'm missing. Mr. City Manager. - Yeah, Mayor, I think Richard's probably onto something and I'd like to, unless when I'd like to come back to you again at a different meeting, after we have a chance to talk to the city attorney, I know that what I'm hearing, but the more onerous you are, the smaller parcels, the more likely you're going to see legislation stripping our ability to enforce this as my guess. We've been dealing with the Home Builders Associations and it's going to take a micro look at this for them to be right down in Austin. So I really want to understand what we're doing and what we're recommending to you. It may feel good to, you know, to get down to those one acre parcels, but if it means we lose the ability to regulate the tree ordinance out in the ETJ, similar to how we've done with building materials and other things they haven't liked, I don't think, I think it's a pyrrhic victory. So we probably need to sit down and talk to Aaron and just as well as outside attorneys and just get their take on it. And he may be onto something in terms of when to enforce it and in what situations. - Okay. Do you have any disagreement with that? - No, no, yeah. So let's bring this one back, if you will. And if there's some language in there that serves as a placeholder that helps close a gap, then let's do that when you bring it back. Is that agreeable? Okay, Council Member Marmotor. - Yes, I was just wondering before we move on, if there's, since we've heard from three people who are interested in this, if there is a fourth, I'm just curious to know if some of the council members who haven't spoken yet would be in support of pursuing this. I understand we're gonna be looking into it more extensively from a legal perspective now that we're talking about it. - Sure, well, they can follow up with you. If those interested that have not spoken, if you could follow up with Council Member Marmotor. - I mean, follow up with the public right now. - Certainly, and the public is welcome to contact them directly, but we're gonna move forward. And so that takes us to policy direction on the ETJ. - I don't understand, point of order. Why are we treating this item differently than the other items in terms of polling consensus? - Because it's not complete and staff's gonna bring it back and it's not a vote, so we're not voting on anything, so there's no votes absent. And staff's gonna rework it and bring it back. So why would we take the time to discuss something that's not finally baked? We don't do that. And so I think it's consistent. It's not fully baked. They're gonna bring it back. They've heard the comments and we'll make a decision at that point. I don't understand discussing something that's not fully finalized. - Let's just, I'm not really asking about discussing it. The point of order raising is ordinarily, you'd wanna see if there's a consensus to bring it back. You know, which obviously I agree with. I mean, I already spoke, but it just seems a little out of order to then say they're gonna bring it back without seeing if there's a consensus to bring it back. - I understand, but that's the city manager's suggestion. And so he sets the work session agendas, et cetera. And so this is one where the city, those instances are where the staff has not, is guarding the extra work. In this instance, staff is saying we need the extra time and I'm going to allow that extra time for them to bring work on it and bring it back. It's their request in essence. And it's our questions that will bring back a better option. So I don't think that's a bad thing. I'm gonna move forward. Councilor Armitage, I called on you. - Yeah, I just wanna sustain that point of order because I still believe we're not done hearing from everyone on council. Maybe others don't want to speak, but I do think that they should be afforded that opportunity. - Certain, and if there's someone that wants to speak, I'm happy to acknowledge them, but I've not seen anyone move forward to speak, but I'm happy to acknowledge them if they do, but that's their prerogative and they can follow up with you offline. And if so, Mr. City Attorney, if there's anything preventing me from moving forward, let me know. Otherwise, we're gonna move forward. - There's not anything preventing me from moving forward. - Perfect, thank you. Thank you for your concerns and great discussion. Next. So looking at the policy direction, exchange of the ETJ policy, making sure I'm at the right place. Would staff prepare a draft policy for the City Council considering all on requests for modifying ETJ boundaries between adjacent municipalities? And so this is slide 24, staff's recommendation bring back a formal policy for City Council adopting that includes land areas, exchange, revenue share, direct payment or other options. So Richard, is there anything to add here before we discuss? - If I may, we may need to jump to slide 25. I know this item as well as the second slide wouldn't necessarily be written into the ILA, but the expansion of the boundary would be a component of the ILA since that map is included, which delineates division one, division two. - Okay, so that I'm tracking with you, could you say that again? - Yep, let me, it might be if I pull this back up, sorry. So the exchange, the policy, as well as the ETJ request from pilot point, those would not necessarily be a component of the ILA, but the question about should the ILA be amended, if you look at our ETJ, sorry. You can kind of see how we're area, the area in blue is our division one. This is Aubrey's ETJ. And while this is all within the city of Denton as it follows the stream and then this area where we pull water from the lake, this side of the Elm Fork, as well as this area is within our ETJ two. And so the question is posed is should we amend the ILA to include these areas as part of division one as opposed to division two? That would grant us plotting authority on both, essentially on both sides of the Elm Fork, as well as lend the ability to potentially include the two remaining units of the state park and potentially within our city. Part of the thought behind that is as we continue to plan parks and trails, just making sure that it is coordinated, that is essentially the very reason that pilot point has requested that. But our recommendation, it is within that, the statutory boundaries, it's essentially abutting the city limits. But our recommendation is just to include that area within our division one. - Okay, thank you. And that was helpful. Thank you for the reminder. - And I'll let you, okay, direction for staff or questions, Council Member Meltzer. - Yeah, this is another one, right? It's just not 100% crystal clear to me. I have no objection, but I'm not sure I understand the benefit. If it's controlled by the state now, they're not vulnerable to, they're not subject to our rules and laws anyway. So I'm not quite sure what we get out of it. But I'm willing to listen, and I'm willing to support the direction if you think there is something we get out of it. - Again, just thinking long-term, if we ever wanted to have any sort of coordination or whether the state decides, they don't wanna maintain that state park. Or I'll look at ways to, again, to partner with the city. Some of that land is not owned by the Corps. So some of the land on that, call it the Eastern Bank, is private property. And so part of it is just looking at, if we have the land on, do we wanna have that planning authority on either side of the Yom Fork, as well as look at what we're doing with our parks and trails system. - Well, if you are asserting that in the long run it could improve the preservation potential there under some circumstances, sure. - I don't know that there's a direct great benefit right now, but I also don't believe that there's anything real negative. It just, I think, puts us in a, in the future, it just allows us, if we were or had the ability to do something, at least it's within our division one. And there's no real downside, right? - Not that I foresee. - Mild upside, no downside. I support that. - And I think from that conversation and great question and conversation, I think, Richard, I take also that, at least we're the first phone call, right? And so we're not having to pivot. If something does change, now we're having to try to negotiate with another city to get in line to control that next steps. We're the first phone call to kind of then make, make a, you know, kind of see how it proceeds or changes. - Correct. - Great, thank you. Council member Armitage, you have a question? - No, just to say, as far as direction, yeah, I think it's important that it stay in, that it be an EDJ one. - Okay, thank you. And so those that, so to make it simple, is there anyone that doesn't support the staff's recommendation include Ray Roberts Lake State, Park Isle, Du Bois, and Trail Quarter within ETJ division one? Is there anyone that does not support staff's recommendation? Okay, seeing none, that gives you the direction you need, Richard, I believe. Does that, and so by my slides, that's everything except for what we need to go back to with respect to, or is that the last, that's pilot point, that's the last one? - Correct, it's the establishment of the policy for exchanging or swapping ETJ, and then the second one, the pilot point request. - Okay, so I'll bring in, yes, thank you, Mayor Pro Tem. Is there anything you wanna add to the discussion with respect to pilot points request? - Just that I like the, I like the idea of a policy, a formal policy, as we get closer and closer to our other jurisdictions, an acre for acre doesn't always make the most sense, especially when there's a lake there in between us and all sorts of strange things come up. So I like the idea of bringing back a formal policy. - Okay, thank you. Is there anything else, Richard, that we need to discuss? If not, I'll take final kind of comments for staff or direction, and then we'll close out item B. Is there anything else, Richard, we need to discuss? - Just the second question, kind of the follow-up to the policy was whether or not we want to entertain the request from pilot point with respect to that, exchanging that ETJ in exchange for potential sales tax or some other maybe revenue share. - Okay, Council Member Armitage? - Yeah, I don't think we should exchange it for anything. And I also, I do think that we should have a policy on hand. I agree with Council Member Davis that, you know, just acreage for acreage doesn't, that is not good. But it's hard for me to imagine, you know, what kind of circumstances we would want to do that. But in this case, definitely not from my point of view. - Okay, other comments for staff. Council, I mean, Mayor Pro Tem Davis. - So I guess the current question is, do we prepare an agenda item on the pilot point request? I think it's worthwhile to have that conversation. You know, there's ETJ that we're not gonna do, that we don't want necessarily the responsibility for on the other side of the lake, that's mostly core land and then adjacent to another town. I think it's worth having the conversation. How do we get involved in an exchange? Is it beneficial for everybody or is it better just to stand pat? So I think an agenda item's worthwhile there. - Okay, and Richard, your thought on, what staff's thought process behind the recommendation or holistically? - Our thought was that it is, again, it wasn't, really the policy question was to bring back that agenda item for discussion. I think there's a lot more details that we need to work out with pilot point, but since we were discussing this, I just thought it was, do we even wanna entertain that, the option to, instead of doing the acre for acre, do we wanna explore what they're proposing and bring that back for a more formal consideration with obviously a lot more details worked out with respect to their request. - Okay, so again, so to the council, the question is this, should staff prepare an agenda item releasing a portion of ETDA division two within Denton and Cook County to pilot point in exchange for revenue? And Richard, again, if you could speak to the rearrangement is to keep, it's to keep the properties closer to each individual city or kind of what's the thought behind that just so we can remember? - Correct, so this is the city of pilot point now. This area is all within their CCN, so they provide, they're currently providing water already out here. They're looking to take over the concessionaires agreement at the park, at least this, my understanding is this unit. Whether or not the city as part of that negotiations, whether or not they would annex this land, again, I think in order to have the sales tax most likely, unless there was some other agreement worked out. But again, they're looking to at least have that within their ETJ one, which kind of sets that up for annexation if that was the case, if the core agreed to that. But again, they're looking at taking over that concessionaires license and bringing that into the city. Again, they do provide water already as well as a small area here for, I think there's some large lot, I think it goes from one to maybe 10 acre single family lots in there. I believe they're on septic, but I do believe pilot point provides them with water. - Okay, got it. And so the question becomes to my colleagues is, do we allow staff to research that, bring that back on an agenda item for us to discuss their recommendation in greater detail? So it allows them to go out, get details, come back, have a work session and then make a decision at that point. So they need direction on, do we support that as a council or not? And so if there's, let me hear from you, if you do not support that recommendation. Council Member Arbiter, I've heard your comments. Council Member Meltzer. - Yeah, I mean, just on the limited amount of information we have so far, I'm not compelled. But if others are, I don't mind having a more detailed conversation. Obviously it's staff time, but I can be not compelled after the conversation too. - Certainly. - I'm not opposed to having a deeper discussion. - Fair point. Okay, so anyone else? I kind of echo those sentiments. I do want to hear the detailed information, do want to hear what they have to bring back or kind of what staff's able to elicit from those conversations. So that's why I lean towards at least putting it on an agenda item to have to come back and discuss with a greater detail. Anyone else that does not support staff's recommendation? Okay, there you go. So it looks like you have your direction there to proceed with the agenda item and guess the due diligence and bring that back to us in the form of a work session. Did I touch on everything? It's a lot of moving parts. - Yes, it was a robust conversation. Thank you. - Yeah, I dare not try to summarize that. Mr. City Manager, do we, let me see. Yes, so let's take a break. We have a couple of things on the work session, but I think the CEO go quickly. I want to give plenty of time for Dee. We've been at it for a couple of hours and a half. So let's do this. It is 4.30, let's come back at 4.35 and we'll pick back up at item C. So we'll adjourn at 4.30 on the 26th, 2021. We'll be back at 4.35, thank you. Good afternoon and welcome back to this special call meeting of the Denton City Council. It is still Tuesday, 26th, 2021. It is 4.40. We are back with the quorum and we're in the work session portion of our agenda and I'll call the next item, which is 3CID 20-2399, receive report and hold discussion and give staff direction regarding the May 1st, 2021 general election and any runoff election if applicable. - Thank you, Mr. Mayor. My name is Rosa Rios and I am your city secretary and I'm going to go ahead and come over here and share my screen. - Thank you. - Thank you. Thank you. So I'm here to present polling locations and times for our May and June, 2021 elections. So city council had asked for the polling voting location information prior and well in advance to any upcoming election. So this item is scheduled to achieve that. We do have two uniform election dates in any given year and that is according to state law. For May, that is typically when we hold our general election and maybe any special elections we might need to, just like we did last year. There is a resulting June runoff election if applicable. And of course in November that normally we reserve those for any special elections. Again, there were special circumstances last year. So for the general election, election day is May 1st, 2021 for the purpose of electing council members to districts one, two, three, and four. And we are scheduled to order the election on February 9th and the last day to order the election is Friday, February 12th. And we will canvas those results on May 11 and then order a runoff election should the need be necessary. The Denton County has advised that they want all information including polling locations, ballot wording, things of that sort by March 1st. So we'll certainly make sure we do what we need to do to meet that deadline. The runoff election if anywhere to be needed would be on June 5 and that would be for the purpose of electing council members to any district where a candidate on the general election did not receive a majority of the votes cast for that seat. And of course we would canvas the results on June 15. And all of the dates noted here are scheduled meeting dates. So there's no special meeting that's required specifically outside of the standard meeting calendar. So the process for selecting polling locations, a polling location once is communicated to staff is provided to Denton County and it is incorporated into the final polling locations. There are a lot of participating jurisdictions. Those won't really be known until the February 12th deadline to order any election and the city. And again, the Denton County will make sure to incorporate what location city council decides they would like to use along with all of the others. And the ordinance ordering the election does state that the polling locations shall be designated by Denton County elections administrator in accordance with the provisions of a joint election agreement contract, et cetera. And again, we do provide the exhibit. And of course that is always subject to change based on all of the participating jurisdictions. And we will bring forward another action item for that contract. So the criteria for polling locations for the May uniform election date, and this also carries to any runoff that may be needed is participants select the location desired again within their jurisdictions. Those locations have to meet accessibility requirements for early voting. We can have as many locations anywhere in the city. We note here in any precinct because voters can go anywhere. So it's not really a precinct based location. For election day, there can only be one location per precinct because voters are required to go to the location that is assigned to their precinct. And Denton County does assign the precincts to the location. And they typically try to do that in a geographic proximity to try to make the anticipated voter turn out as equal as possible at those locations. And of course, ensure proper staff is available. And some district may use the same location, again, based on the geographic location of final locations from all participating jurisdictions. One of the big differing practices of Denton ISD is on the ballot, which this year so far they will be. So you can see here the voting schedule, it's broken out by our general election early voting. And of course, general election for the election day. This past Thursday, Denton County did advise that they did add the April 25th from 11 a.m. to 4 p.m. deadline. So that was one moderate change that occurred earlier today based on that notification. You can see here again, the runoff early voting hours and then the runoff election date, of course, are always seven to seven. And under state law, we must have two days that provide for a 12 hour voting period and that is accomplished by the schedule. And we typically will follow the voting schedules that are set by the county who follows the state guidelines for setting those schedules. So the options being presented to you to identify locations to be used for the May 21, 2021 and general and June runoff election, if anywhere to be held, both for early voting and election day. Identify possibly other desired alternate locations for staff to research for potential use. And again, we're scheduled to order the election Tuesday, February 9th. And that is not to say that you have to have all the qualifications firm by there, but by then, but we will certainly do what we need to to try to accomplish that. And of course, the last day to order the election is Friday, February 9th with everything the county would need by March 1st. So I will take any questions. I do however, just want to briefly kind of go over the potential locations, which are on the next slide. As you can see here for election day, we have depicted the locations that we have used basically between 2017 through 2020 and what locations per district for election day, and then what elections that they were, those locations were used for. As you can see, pretty much we have identified and confirmed that all of the locations are available with the exception for district two. Denton ISD has authorized that we use the Denton ISD six service center annex rather than Billy Ryan High School. So that does allow two polling locations at that location within that district. There are several options here for district three. However, the only issue here is that UNT has confirmed that the gateway center is not available because it is going to be a COVID side and they feel that that takes priority over anything else. They did notify us late today that we could, they feel comfortable that they may be able to find a location for election day for both our general and runoff election if any, but not for early voting. So one of the things that you may want to consider is when you select the location in lieu of the UNT location or in that vicinity is to whether or not you're going to want to split where voters go on early voting compared to election day or keep everything at one location. And then for, of course, you can see here district four, there's again three alternate, three possible locations that you can choose. So noted here again, within district three, the alternate locations in lieu of UNT. These were, we consulted with Denton County and so they kind of prioritize those for us based on how they've used the facility and then whether or not it could or would or does meet all of the requirements to be a polling location. First, they prioritize Waisley Foundation. Again, they have been used by Denton County before. The only issue with that one location is that they may not be available on that Sunday early voting period, but our election notice and our media outreach would indicate that early voting would not be available on that one Sunday. Burtman's Campus Bookstores, that was one of the locations that was presented a couple of years ago. Although at that time, it's a little bit late in the process. We attempted to reach out to them, but we haven't been able to get through, but we would also coordinate with them if need be. Council, the Denton County would actually still need to vet that location. By talking just to individuals via phone, again, a couple of years ago, it appeared to meet all of the necessary requirements, but again, it would need to be required on-site visit before we could confirm whether or not we could use that location. The next in line would be the Spring Hill Suites by Marriott and the Embassy Suites, both of which have been used by Denton County before. I should note that for Spring Hill Suites by Marriott and then the Embassy Suites, it doesn't really assist with the pedestrian voter traffic that City Council has tried to accommodate when selecting UNT some years back. Here for early voting, as you can see, even though again, it's not really a precinct-based early voting period, we have noted what district those locations are in. It is sometimes difficult to find a location, another location in District 2, and Denton ISD does not like to use their schools for an early voting period because of the length of time, of course, in schools and some other restrictions that they have. Also noted here, you'll see that we kind of noted the election types for the given year that are noted for the elections that the polling locations were used for. And I do have a couple of maps that we can look at if you desire that one will outline the election day locations kind of where they are within a given district. And then Denton County did provide us a map that depicts the alternate locations in lieu of UNT that I think you'll find very helpful when possibly trying to determine alternate locations and possibly ranking the order that you want us to look at their availability. And that is my presentation at this time, and I'll take any questions. - Okay, and so let me understand. So the direction you need is, one, you need to, we need to give you our thoughts on the dates, times, are those solidified? But then also the follow-up to that is each individual council member needs to provide alternate locations if they have those for you for staff to vet, or do we need to work from what the county suggested as the additional locations? - Well, the dates and times are pretty much set by the by state law, so we are stuck to those. But we would want hopefully each council member or the council as a whole to identify the locations, possibly just maybe for the May, but also for June, for runoff if any anywhere needed so that we don't run into the issue that we did last year on the short timeframe to turn around and identify locations for any potential runoff. So it's really identifying the locations both for election day and early voting. And keep in mind too that for early voting because of all of the other participating jurisdictions, while we may, let's just say, if you only select, you know, three or four locations, I mean, we're gonna have multiple because of all of the participating jurisdictions, but we really won't know who those are until February 12th when everybody has ordered their election. - Okay, so notes for staff on alternative locations council member Meltzer, then council member Armitter. - Well, before you finish the question, my question was about hours, about hours. Is the state law that there must be two days that are seven to seven, no less, no more, or that there must be at least two days? - There has to be at least two days where there is a 12 hour voting period. - Okay, I mean, I would in general be inclined to add, you know, as many seven to seven days as we can, 'cause basically the most available hours for a lot of people are seven to nine and five to seven. - Well, we would need to approach the county to see if that is, you know, the potential for us requesting additional hours outside of the two required by state law. I'm not sure whether or not we would have to bear the cost of all of those and how it would affect other entities, but we could certainly- - Yeah, I don't know what the cost is or anything, but that would be a preference. And I would also be interested in another topic on the topic you asked me, in seeing the map, because here we have multiple polling locations in some districts, and I know why, best acquainted with district three, but, you know, I'm not quite sure if, I seem to recall the district two might also have an issue with a sort of a piece of it that's far from the rest, but I don't have the district maps, you know, kind of memorized in my head. So if we have maps that have where the polling locations are, superimposed over the district boundaries, that'd be helpful to me. - And I do have that if council, if you would like for me to display it either now or maybe after additional comments are received. - Yeah, let's get comments, and then we'll come back to it to wrap up. So councilmemorature. - Yes, several things. So first of all, I was gonna ask also about those two days of 12 hours, if that was a minimum. I too would like to look into expanding that. I also agree that we should have as many 12 hour days as possible both on the early part of the workday before the workday and at the end of the workday. So seven to seven, every single day of early and general voting will be my ideal. As far as a district two, TWU is in district two, correct? Or only parts of it? - District one. - TWU is in the number one district in Denton. - Is district one, okay. And that's for the whole campus, is district one? - That is correct. It runs right up to University Drive. - Okay, but did they express any interest in having a polling location for their campus this year? - Right, when we talked with Denton County, TWU had pretty much said that they did not want or desire to be used as a polling location due to the entire COVID situation. - Okay, thank you. And then my other comment is as far as the district three UNT location, I think it's important to have the same location for early and general voting if we can. And I think that a location that accommodates that pedestrian traffic, as you mentioned, and that is very close to campus while also accessible, close to or on campus, while also accessible to the community. So I like the idea of Burtmans. There's also a parking lot there. That would be, you know, of those options, I think that would be the most accessible, assuming it meets the guidelines and ADA guidelines to both the campus community and the community that lives off campus, but nearby. - Okay, so any other questions for staff? Great, Council Member Meltzer. - Just a comment, really to amplify what Council Member Arbacher just said. While the perfectly nice places, and I think you pretty much made this point, Madam City Secretary, that the Spring Hill suites and the embassy suites, you know, don't really meet the need that you're trying to address. So, and I concur that of the options presented, that would be great if Burtmans turns out to meet the requirements. - Okay, and so Council Member Baker. - I just wanted to ask the question, how come the annex of the Civic Center is not being used? - For election, well, we would- - Yeah, for election. - For election day? So for election day, you're only able to have it in one location, within a precinct. And so typically UNT and the Civic Center are in the same district and the same precinct, I mean. - Thank you very much. - Okay, Council Member Ryan. - Now, I'll just point out what I've said in the past with South Branch Library. There's not a traffic signal in that area. And with that being under construction as well right now, at least going in and out of LA Nelson on the day of makes more sense since there is a traffic control signal at that location. - Okay, thank you. So Rosa, just to compare notes. So I have the follow-up questions to be the hours and how that affects the city if we wanna try to expand those evaluation abortions and to see if it meets the requisite guidelines and I'm assuming the county has to participate in that conversation. And then South Branch Library in exchange for LA Nelson evaluation of that. And then lastly, you are going to pull up the map so that we can take a look at District 2. - Yes, sir. So just real quick. So for District 4, so again, all of these facilities are available. So it's just a matter of basically choosing if you want to use. I know the city council had decided back in early '19 that they wanted at least two locations per district. If you choose, if you want more, obviously, that's certainly your prerogative. So just to confirm for District 4, you would look at is it Denia and LA Nelson versus South Branch? - Yes, I would support that. And just deferring to Council Member Ryan's expertise. - Okay, thank you. All right, I'm gonna go ahead and share my screen. So the first one I'm gonna share are those for, let's just look at election day first since, and let me share my screen. - And let me, before you do that, let me just be clear. Is there anyone that is adverse to LA Nelson per Council Member Ryan's suggestion? Just wanna make sure. Great, thank you. Okay. - Mayor, it'd be helpful if maybe that location's pointed out when we look at the map. - Excellent, great point. - All right, so I'm gonna have to enlarge this a little bit depending on, okay, hold on a moment, please. - And we don't see it. Whenever you share it, we'll... - This one and then that one. Just say okay. - Okay. - And so why are you doing that? And then, so I guess we need the same in district one. We'll need to pair that down to two for the election day. Is that right? - Yes. - Okay. - Well, I mean, obviously you can go for more, but I know the previous, the desire was to have at least two locations. - Okay, great. - Thank you. - Okay, so when we look at, I'm gonna probably have to bear with me a moment. So here you can see district one. So you can see here where the Civic Center is located, and then we have the MLK, and here's Denton County elections, although technically that's really only an early voting site. So we have the Civic Center, MLK, and then Pecan Creek is- - Bottom right. - Yes, right. Thank you. - Yeah. - Right, there we go. Right here. - Okay, thank you. And so we'll discuss that when we, so make a mental note there for district one and then district two. - So for district two, just minimize. Here you can see where we have the CISC Service Center here. Again, the Denton ISD said that they would, they authorized use of the ISD annex, and then of course we would have the Pecan, I'm sorry, Milk Branch Library for district two. It's right up here. So there's really only those two locations available right now. We can certainly look at some others, but for district two, so it would be North Branch here, and then the Civic Center. I'm sorry. The Dent, oh shoot, I got lost. The Denton ISD right here, since Billy Ryan would not be an option. - Okay. - It's just these two right here. Okay. - So Paul, I'm assuming your question is maybe the residence bottom, Pecan Creek, basically other half of Pecan Creek, but that's. - Exactly. - Yeah, but there's nothing else out there. Unless, yeah, so. - Well, I mean, I guess is that the fact, Madam City Secretary, that there are no facilities down there? - That's correct. When we talked to, we had actually talked to Denton County last year, and then revisited the issue again recently, and district two is just very hard to find a polling location that would meet it, and they even have that problem historically within district two. The key again, it's always that, we be able to use a school facility. I will let you know that district two historically has typically always gone to other locations that fall within another district. - Not election day, obviously. - No. Actually, even on election day, it's a matter of where the precinct has gone to. It's just a really odd circumstance. For example, I have the locations here, let me. Bear with me a moment. (silence) So just as an example for the November election, obviously their special circumstances were those. For district two, there were some other locations where individuals went to, they also went to the North Branch Library, they went to the North Texas Fairgrounds. Again, Pecan Creek Elementary was used. So the Denton, and again, as I mentioned, Denton County kind of assigned those precincts and then the location, two-way location. So sometimes there is a district crossover, but only that can be determined by Denton County. - And you gotta vote in your- - On election day. - The polling place has to be in your precinct so you couldn't have district one Pecan Creek people go into, excuse me, you couldn't have district two Pecan Creek voters go to a place in district one Pecan Creek. - Right, but you could have district one, possibly the lower side there go to Pecan Creek, but that would be for Denton County, even on election day. - I'm sorry, Mayor, I hope you don't mind if I persist a little, you lost me a bit. I mean, the sort of, if there isn't a rule against- - No. - In district two Pecan Creek, be able to go to the polling site that's in district one, but I guess that's a question, that can't be done, is that right? - There are some slight crossovers within a district, like for the outskirts, for example- - But can you cross a district boundary? - You actually could. Depending on where the locations are located, and then the participating jurisdictions. So you actually could. - Okay, so, and we'll pick up that conversation. Is there, so district three looks like it's just a pairing down, so we don't need the map for that. Is there anything else, anyone else that needs to see a location on the map before we pull this down for discussion? - Well, what was the district four one that Council Member Ryan proposed? You know where Dena is, I just said, I don't know where the other one is. - Right, so here's Dena, and then we were looking at L.A. Nelson over here. - Oh, great. - Here to here. - Okay, any other questions on the map? Council Member Malmertor, and then Council Member Baker. - Yep, I do think that we need another location for district two. - Okay. - And there were concerns the last time, in the last election. - Is there something specific to the map? So that we can pull that down? - Oh, no, no. - Okay, thank you. Council Member Baker, anything related to the map? - Well, I don't know if it's about the map, but did they reach out to Pecan Creek on using that facility again? - Okay, Rose, I think we're good with the map. - Okay, Rose, I think we're good with the map. Thank you. And then we'll get you, we'll get you, I'll circle back, Council Member Baker, we're gonna go to Council Member Malmertor for her question after we stop sharing the screen. - Which one? Thank you. - Perfect, okay, Council Member Malmertor briefly, and then Council Member Baker. - So as far as District 2 locations, again, I think that there should be a third location for District 2, and there were, in the last election, there were concerns about poll workers at North Branch Library, a lot of reports about poll workers are not wearing masks. And I'm wondering if that-- - I don't know that that is our purview. Erin, can you help me with that? - Well, one moment. - They're not our, they're not our-- - Oh, just to finish, just because it is in the City of Denton. - Well, well, just a second, let me be clear. Mr. City Attorney, poll workers, are they, do they fall under our purview? - I would have to have Rosa verify that, but I think that they are actually contracted directly by the County Elections Department, but Rosa can confirm that. - Yes, sir, they are. - And so-- - They are contracted through the contract that we approve. Now, I know that for last year, that Denton County did, they could not require their workers to wear masks, but they did highly encourage. - Okay. - And I think that's the issue. - That is correct, that was part of Governor Abbott's order that we couldn't, they couldn't be required to wear a mask. That is correct, thank you, Rosa. - Okay, but I don't wanna derail this conversation with that. - No, no, no, but I would like to finish my question. My question was because this was a serious concern of residents in the district who felt unsafe there. And so I was wondering if we could check with the county to make sure that the poll workers who were there, if we do use that location, are encouraged the same way to wear masks. Again, I understand that they can't be forced to wear masks, but so that we don't create that same feel of voter suppression and endangerment that a lot of people felt at North Branch Library as a voting location. - Okay, so to answer to your question is yes, you can email the city secretary and ask her to do that. She will then get it to the county, and/or you'll have a paper trail for your records that you made that request. - Oh, sorry, I mean, as far as getting consensus from council to give direction. If there is anybody else on council who would like to put in a word on that, if we could get consensus, I think it would be a good statement. - Yes, having not given notice on the agenda for that conversation and not my account, my peers are not prepared to have that conversation, there's no notice, I'm going to forego that polling of the council. And we're gonna move forward. - Point of order, point of order, sorry. - Certainly, state your point of order. - I believe that it is covered under the agenda. We're discussing the voting locations, and that's a concern about the voting locations, about one of the ones that is listed. - Mr. City Attorney. Mr. Mayor, you've decided on that, a point of order has been made. You can reiterate your position as to whether or not this is part of the caption. And if you do, then any council member has a right to appeal that decision to the full council. - Got it. No, I do not believe that a employee contracted by the county falls under cities under this agenda item and I will state that furthermore, in agreement with the governor of the state of Texas, that this case, that very point was litigated and clarified during the last election, November 3rd. So I think there's clear case, there's clear legal support for that finding. So that, okay, Council Member Armitter. - Yes, I would like to appeal that decision to the full council, according to procedure on the grounds that that was actually not the point that I was making that we interfere with the hiring process, but that we just put a word in to the county, much like we put in word and questions about our concern about other polling locations. - Okay, let's. - We express our concern about that issue and ask that it not repeat itself this next time. - Perfect. Mr. City Attorney, now, just, do I just poll? - It requires a second. - Okay, is there a second for that? Council Member Meltzer? - Yeah, I'll second. - Okay, now. - Debate is allowed after that, if there is debate. - Okay. - Or discussion. - Discussion. - Well, I-- - Well, Council Member Parmy, Mayor Pro Tem Davis, and then Council Member Meltzer. - The question's been stated a couple different ways, a couple different times. The question is, does it fall within posting? Then the question was restated by Council Member Armenter or something kind of different a moment ago, based on what the mayor said about his ruling. You know, Rosa already said and nodded her head, visible for all of us, that she's gonna put in a word with the county. The city council has an order in place, the governor has an order in place. The city is on record, what we're doing with masks, what we think about masks. This is a pretty nakedly political attempt to get council members on record how they feel about masks and our relationship with the county and whether we're gonna ask for masks. We already said we would, Rosa said she would. So I think the real question is not whether it's in posting or not, or whether it has anything to do with this discussion after it's already been resolved. So for that reason, I don't think it is in posting any longer. I think we've had a conversation about locations. Council Member Armenter raised her concerns, the constituent concerns. They've been addressed, conversation's over. - Any other discussions? - Well, yeah. - Yes, Council Member Mensal. - If the question is whether it's in posting, it's potentially a component of our contract with the county. And the fact that it is a contract with the county, I know from extensive personal experience going through another city body, that doesn't exclude the city's role. It's our contract with the county. So in fact, it may even suggest contract language that as long as it's permitted by law, addressing that issue. So anyway, to the point of, is it within posting? My opinion is yes. - Okay, any other comments? Okay, so help me phrase the question so that I'm not biasing the polling of the council, if you would please, Mr. City Attorney. So the question is? - The question is whether the request to include, if I understood the question correctly, the request to include a recommendation to the county for their poll workers to have, to wear masks, or to encourage them to wear masks during operations, the election operations should be communicated to them. And whether that recommendation is within posting, your decision was no, that it was going outside of posting. - Okay, great. So was that- - I understood that process. - Yes, sir. So that's the question, was it in posting? Council Member Johnson, how say you? I'm sorry, you're muted. - Myself, we've had several statements here. I'm not even quite sure what we're voting on. Do they need to wear a mask? Or we're gonna recommend that they wear a mask? Absolutely. - No, the question is, is it in posting? Is the posting of item C, and I'll read it for everyone, and just in case you don't have it in front of you, receive report, hold discussion, and give staff direction regarding May 1st, 2021, general election, and any runoff election, if applicable, including locations, dates, and times. So the question is, is the question about poll workers and mask requirement within posting to have that discussion? And so that's what we're voting on. And so how say you? - No. - Council Member Baker? - I say no. - Mayor Pro Tem Davis, one more time. - No, not in posting. - Council Member Melter, one more time. - Yes, in posting. - Thank you. Council Member Ryan? - Outside of posting. - Council Member Armitter? - Yes, on posting, and notice that the language of that posting said-- - Okay. - Not, it did not say limited. - Well, okay. - And also my question was specifically about North Bay. - Point of order. Point of order. We're, discussion's closed, we're voting. Please respect that process. And then I would say-- - Actually, we're not voting. It's a work session. We're taking consensus. - Well, you've put forth a challenge to my decision, ruling that it was out of posting. So we are voting to, so I think, correct me if I'm wrong. - If I may, this is an actual procedural motion that's being made. It is not an action on the underlying item, which is a work session. This is an actual procedural motion, which a vote would be taken under Robert Sholes of order when the council is to proceed. - I appreciate that. Thank you for the clarification. And I affirm that no, it is not. So that pass, it isn't, the question of, is it on, does it fall under the agenda is, the answer is no. And that is a five to two result in that vote. So we will move forward from that to locations and we're gonna wrap this up. So let's get back to, we've seen the map. Let's take them by district and work through this. So we'll start with district one. There's two, and I'll defer to you, council member Johnson. So there's early voting to start the conversation, if there's any sort of early voting locations of the civic center and the Denton County elections office. And then there's election day voting, civic center, MLK and Pecan Creek and Rosa correct me. Can we leave the three locations and have that uniform or are we pairing that election day down to two locations? That's what I wasn't sure about. - Well, I know that in previous elections, the desire of city council was to have two locations per district, but certainly you can increase it should you choose. - Perfect, okay. So looking at that, is there, what are the primary two? Let's start with what we've done in the past. So what are the, which of those three civic center, MLK, Pecan Creek, council member Johnson, would you, what are the top two, I guess, in those locations, if you will. So this is election day voting for the May election, civic center is one location, MLK is a second and Pecan Creek is a third, but traditionally there's been two locations. The question is, which two would you prioritize? - Civic center and the MLK. - Okay, thank you. - I'm sorry, Mr. Mayor, could you repeat that please? - Yes, so civic center and the MLK center. And then to that end, I'll open that district one conversation up to, for discussion. Council member Meltzer. - Yeah, thank you. Did we establish, 'cause I was about to propose that, that Pecan Creek is usable for district one on election day? 'Cause that, so I think that's a good idea. I didn't know that we had established that. - It is, it's been used the past couple of years in district one, but, I actually, I didn't remember that, so. - Yeah. - And it just, you know, most districts have some area that's remote and that's the one for district one. - Yeah. - So I think it's good. - Okay, got it. Rosa, we. - Sorry, I think I made my point backwards. - District two. - Used for district two, so I'll wait. - Yes. - Yeah, right, right. Okay, so looking at, looking at district two, so let's, so early voting location, there's North Branch Library and election day, there's Billy Ryan, there's the, no, no, pardon me, Billy Ryan's not, it's off the list. It's the NX service center, NX and North Branch as far as the election day. So just looking at early voting locations for district two need to identify a second location. So I don't know if Council Member Baker, do you have a thought or Rosa, do you wanna give some guidance on options for early voting location district two, another option? - Well, we would need to get with Denton County again. We have discussed the issue the last couple of elections to try to find another early voting location in that district, but it's been very difficult, but we can certainly consult with them again to try to have them assist because they would know better what the areas are around the city. But I know in the past they've also had a very hard time because the school district will not allow us to use their facilities for early voting. - Certainly, okay. Council Member Armitage. - Yeah, what about one of the churches? There are a number of churches in D2. I assume you can ask them, but we could put a word in to ask. - Okay, yeah, so if you'll bring those back, we'll take a look at those. Looking at district three, pardon me. Any thoughts on election day? Those, I mean, we have two to pick from, so worst case, we have two and they're pretty well spaced to service the best possible. And then Council Member Meltzer, if you wanna speak to that, by all means. - Yeah, would it make sense and is it doable to allow district two Pecan Creek voters to vote at Pecan Creek school in district one on election day? - In the school, the school splits both. It's right in the middle, so it's really in both. So Rosa, your thoughts? - Yeah, so again, because of where their location is, they actually would not keep in mind that it would not be for us to provide the direction to say that these voters are going to go, these district voters are going to go to this district location. However, the county historically, for example, in like the runoff election, the voters, we did use the North Branch Library for district two, but the voters, the way that the county assigned the precincts and the registered voters within those precincts, people did go, and this is again, for the runoff election day, they did go to the Denton Civic Center. They also went to the MLK and they also went to the North Lakes Recreation Center. - Okay, I take it. - It's a matter of-- - Assigns the precincts. - Yes. And then again, the precincts to a given location. - Yeah, that's what I mean. - Okay, so with that understanding, any suggestions on locations for district three? Any guidance or conversations for roads to take back to district three? Okay, district four. Councilor Armitage. - Just the recommendations that I had made previously, but those have been noted, correct? - Yes. - Okay. - Great, okay. Any other thoughts to share with staff to take back to the county? Mayor Pro Tem Davis? - I say this for the end, so it's more for going forward in future elections. There's been lots of conversation at the state and local levels about voting centers and that this division between, on election day, you've got to go to your place is largely, I'm gonna do it by computer now, it doesn't necessarily have to happen 'cause you're not delivering printed ballots, you're printing them on site. In future contracts, I'd like to know if it's possible for us to just let folks vote where they wanna vote, even on election day, or if that's something that Denton County has carried over from the more complex elections here to our municipal and school board elections. Not for this year's contract, things are, wheels are already in motion, but just putting a pin in that for the future. - If I may, Mr. Mayor, we did broach that subject last year and actually it even came up, I believe in maybe 2018, where Denton County has had recently purchased new equipment, so they do ballot by demand and to be a vote center, it all has to be electronic and Denton County is not equipped at this point in time to allow that. What they reported was that it would take a legislative change for them to allow ballot on, basically paper ballots, ballot on demand that when the voter goes to go vote, you give them your voter registration and then they print the ballot as you're set to vote it, whereas voting electronically. So, and in order for them to try to become a vote center, they would literally need like new equipment and that's a big funding issue. However, they did encourage, that if we really wanted it, wanted to have vote centers for even election day, just to vote at large, was the that, would take a legislative change or we could potentially put that on our legislative agenda. But I can certainly have them put in a more formal notice and provide that to you from their perspective. - Okay, Mayor Pro Tem Davis and then Council Member Meltzer. - Okay, I don't wanna run the risk of getting off posting, but for next year, getting ready for next year, I'm not sure that we in the county are talking about the same, quite the same issue, 'cause it can be done in early voting, the same equipment is used in on election day. I'm not sure we're quite talking about the same hurdle or legislative hoops that we'd have to jump through. - Okay. - Okay with them. - All right, Council Member Meltzer. - I think that's so off posting, but talking about this year, which is on posting, I sure wish we could do voting centers, hearing that we have to change either equipment or the law, I would certainly support adding that to the legislative agenda. I think it's a great idea. - Great, all right, I won't say it. Okay, very good. Rosa, do you have everything you need for us? - Just one question, so when we're talking about, are we talking about just these locations for general, but then will revisit for the runoff election in the event we have one? - No, I take your point that we need to have that conversation upfront. And so runoff locations, are you saying, can we not use the same as a general rule, the same locations as the election day, whatever's decided? - Yes, depending on what districts are on the ballot. - Yes. - Yes, sir, we certainly can, but just be advised that because the runoff election typically does not have as many participants, the cost will kind of skyrocket slightly because we would be bearing probably the majority of the costs, for example, if Dent and ISD, they don't typically have runoff elections. And so it would, we would bear a lot of the costs involved if we have a lot of locations then. - Got it. - And just one more thing too, understanding that the first option is Vertman's campus, if they say that they are not available, did you want me to go to maybe Wesley Foundation next? - Council, your thoughts? Mayor Pro Tem Davis. - I think that's probably the next best thing to meet that need in that area. It's not as ideal as Vortman doesn't have the same parking, all that kind of stuff, but it gets closer to meeting the stated need for a polling place in that area than some other places I could think of. - Thank you. I think they've done it before. - Okay. All right. Council Member Meltzer, Council Member Armitter. - Yeah, I concur with what Mayor Pro Tem said about that center. Although I think, and I might be wrong, I think there were questions with accessibility. So I think there might need to be some additional form of accommodation made to make sure it's fully accessible. I could be wrong about that. That's at least a hangover question in my mind. - Okay. Council Member Armitter. - Yeah, I concur with what has been said, that that would be a good second choice. I too remember that there were some, that there were questions about accessibility, but I hope the county will, actually I know the county will look into that and let us know. - Okay. Mayor Pro Tem. - Rosa, another one to throw in the mix. I believe at the Lifelong Learning Offices at Malone and Scripture, I think they've got a conference room or a classroom type space available there. There's hardly any cars there right now. They're not using that space a lot during COVID. So that might be a good option too. Not too far from campus, actually closer to where some of our voters live. - Okay. And so if you'll bring those back, we may revisit or we will revisit the runoff election options, but at least we'll have the other part nailed down and have the county's feedback to work from. Does that give you what you need? - It really does, yes. - Okay, great. Thank you very much. So that'll conclude item C. And so we'll take up briefly item D. I'll call it, we'll vote. Then we'll take a break for those that are here. Dinner's here for those that are not, allow you to grab dinner. So I'll call the last work session item, item D, 21.1-122, receive report, hold discussion, give staff direction regarding proposed plan for the annual council retreat. Is that right? Yeah. - Absolutely. Thank you, Mayor. Good evening, Mayor and City Council. I'm Stuart Birdseye, assistant to the city manager. I'm going to share my screen and talk to you about the 2021 council retreat. Stop, share. I apologize. (mouse clicking) There we go. Sorry about that. Today, I hope to go through pretty quickly about the goals of the annual city council retreat, review what we did in August, 2019, which was the last time that we held that retreat, and then the plan format for the upcoming 2021 retreat. So each year, the city council holds a retreat to determine the collective priorities for the upcoming year. These priorities influence the organization's major operations, the policy, and the budget development. In August, 2019, the council held their retreat at TWU, and they discussed a very broad range of topics for potential priorities. To kind of get into a little bit of detail, 'cause we tried to replicate that for this year in the virtual environment, they took all of those potential priorities and then grouped them, discussed them, and then each council member, and at the time each staff was given essentially eight dots where they could place it next to the ideas that they would like to see as priorities. And then from that, that helped to guide the discussion to get down to the seven priorities that were adopted for FY19-20. Those priorities are listed here. And as exhibit two, the progress toward those priorities are listed there if you would like some more detail. You'll notice that these priorities address specific broad topics, but they allow the flexibility for the details to be worked out, and these help to guide staff when opportunities might present themselves that fall within these areas. So what we're planning for 2021, just to give you some background on what staff is working on, exhibit three lists off some of the major projects and focus areas that staff is dedicating their time and resources towards. Those are, like I said, listed in exhibit three, and that's not necessarily given to you to sway you or your priorities or potential priorities at all. It's just so that you're kind of up to date with the major undertakings that the city's taking on right now. It's not all-inclusive of all the work that is going on, but it's just intended to kind of give you a high-level overview of those projects. So what we've tried to do is replicate what was done in 2019, kind of in a virtual format. Usually these are held in August, following the elections in May, June. Obviously that was delayed because of the delay in the election. So everybody has a hold on their calendars for the afternoon of February 12th. The staff is planning for a virtual meeting that will be streamed live on DTV and online, just as the council meetings are now. And we proposed just a little bit of pre-homework before the meeting that I'll talk about here in a second. And then there would be two two-hour sessions to allow plenty of room for the discussion. So the pre-homework, prior to the council retreat, staff would send out an electronic form and kind of a memo that outlines some questions that you can ask yourself as you're developing these priorities. But we would ask you to submit your priority items or headlines, as they were called in 2019. Using a three-tiered system, A, B, and C arrange from highest priority. Within each tier, there would be space for one to four items. And the tiers are simply meant to help guide the discussion. During the retreat, or we would take all of that information before the retreat, put it all together into one document and distribute it to the council members at the retreat. During the retreat, the council members, the first session would then each have five minutes to introduce their submitted items. And then following the introduction of their items, there would be an opportunity for council members to discuss their colleagues' ideas, refine the ideas, and ask for any clarification if needed. Following that discussion, staff would gather up all those comments that were made, refine any of the topics that need to be, and we would re-email out a survey to the council members so that virtually they can provide their eight dots to express their support for specific priorities. We would come back into the retreat, everybody would be there, and we would reveal the results of the support rankings and facilitate the discussion on the items until a consensus of elected officials agree on the set of council priorities. Following the retreat, on February 23rd, staff is placed an action item for your consideration for council to formally adopt these through a resolution. (mouse clicks) And so with this format that staff is recommending, we would email out the memo and initial priority listing link on February 1st. Staff is available to assist any council member if needed. Use that link or the online form. A week later, we would ask that council members enter their priorities by February 8th. This gives enough time to kind of thank them all the way through and talk to your constituents if you want to and be able to enter those. And then we will compile the list of priorities by tier and distribute those at the council retreat on February 12th. And so that's the basic outline. And like I said, there's a little bit more information provided in the backup. - All right, thank you, Stuart. And questions or, and so Stuart, you just need to, any notes, right? Just kind of that you need, don't really need direction at this point. - Yes, sir, that's correct. - Great, notes for staff regarding the retreat. Council member Meltzer, then council member Armitter. - Yeah, I really like what you've outlined. And I think it gets to the most important work that we need to do. It'll probably be the most important work we do over the year, 'cause it has so many implications as we go through the year. But there's another part of it that, of the retreat that I think has been helpful. It's not necessarily comfortable. And I would say should follow this most important work. But I would at least ask if there's interest in just talking about process openly from staff and from council, just little review. What seems to be working? What seems to not be working? And what do we wanna do differently? So I would still be interested in doing that temperature check. - Mr. City Manager Stewart, you're there. - We're happy to provide that with council. I know that we've got at least one topic that one of our directors wants to bring forward. And that is the idea of the process that we're using for one minute pitches. And should that apply to boards and commissions? 'Cause we're starting to get a number of those as well. So I think we've got a couple of things to talk to you about with process. - Okay, Council Member Armitage. - So yes, I agree that it would be good to talk about process. And I think that one minute pitches, including the question of the, just kind of looking at, are they okay under the Texas Open Meetings Act? The way we do those, do they need any modification? I'm wondering, also, before I ask my next question, I just wanna say how pleased I am that this is gonna be run by staff instead of a consultant. I know that that's new. But I agree with what was said in the backup that staff can do this. And so anyway, I think it is going to go well. I think it can be done in-house. So I'm very pleased with that. It's a good, also a good money-saving gesture at a time when we're really tight for funds under the pandemic. So my question is, and apologies if this was stated in the backup, but I couldn't find it. How many of these proposals of policy recommendations proposals or priority proposals can each council member put forward? I know you mentioned we each get to put eight dots on or select eight of the others. How many do we each put forward? - Yes, ma'am. Initially, there are three tiers, A, B, and C, and each of those have room for one to four to play. So you would have the potential of 12 if you wanted to use all of those slots. - Okay, any other questions for staff? Any other comments, suggestions? Okay, seeing none. So just to summarize, Stuart, what I have is adding the process question and with specificity to that, it's the city manager mentioned the one-minute pitch, board's commissions, the one-minute pitch is associated with there. Council member Armitage touches on the, looking at it from a Tomah perspective and getting that analysis as well. So that's the notes I have. Any other thoughts for the retreat process or questions, thoughts, suggestions? Seeing none, okay, yes. - City attorney and I can just get a little bit more clarity on the Tomah question with the one-minute pitch. I know that was constructed specifically around Tomah last year to make sure it comply. There's plenty of specificity given in how it's posted and what's being asked for. So what is the concern? - Just the concern that it requires a majority of council members to approve of an item in order to bring it forward for a work session. - Okay. - If that is a, and just be curious for an opinion on that, if that might be a straw vote or not, if what that would be considered, whether that would be considered appropriate under Texas Open Meetings Act. - Okay. - Thanks. - Thank you. Obviously defer to the city attorney. - Yeah. - I know I've answered this question in the past on more than one occasion. So I will, without, I guess we'll follow up with an LSR. I don't wanna go off posting, but I have answered this question as to whether, why this is, in my opinion, appropriate to do in the manner that we have designed it, but I'll put it in an LSR for the council. - Okay. And if you have those records, the other times you've answered it, that legacy information would be important to have, right? So that we can all be up to speed. So it sets that you have those notes, please include that. Okay, well, very good. Well, that'll conclude item D and that'll conclude our work session. I will call our closed session and then we'll go, we'll take a brief 10 minute break to grab food for us here and you there. So I will convene the closed session at 5.47 PM. We will consider the following items, consultation with attorneys under the Texas government code 551.071, deliberations regarding real property under Texas government code section 551.072, deliberations regarding personal matters under Texas government code section 551.051.074. And I'll call the first item, then we'll go to break. So it's a closed meeting. It's section A ID 21006, deliberation regarding real property under the Texas government code section 551, said that receive information from staff, discuss, deliberate and provide staff with direction pertaining to the potential disposal exchange sale or acquisition of certain real property interest located in the David Ho Hugh survey abstract, number 646, generally located in the 2100 block of South May Hill Road in city of Denton, Denton County, Texas, will be, it is now 5.49 PM. We will break until let's just come back at six. Thank you. Welcome back to the special call meeting of the Denton City Council. Today is still the 26th, 2021. It is 6.47 PM and we're just, we've returning to our consent agenda portion of the tonight's agenda. And I will take a motion on the consent agenda. It's A through G, but items B, E and G have been pulled. So I'll take a motion. (mouse clicks) Council member Ryan. - Move approval of the consent agenda, except for items B, E and G to be taken up individually. - Okay, council member Meltzer. - Second. - Thank you, we have a motion and a second, any discussion? Okay, council member Ryan, how say you? - Aye. - Council member Meltzer, how say you? - Aye. - Council member Johnson, how say you? - Aye. - Council member Armitage, how say you? - Yes. - Okay, council member Baker. - Yes. - Mayor Pro Tem Davis. - Aye. - Thank you, and mayor Hutzpeth has an aye, that passes seven, zero. So I'll call the first item that does not require presentation is item B, which is ID 21009, consider adoption of ordinance of the city of Denton, releasing, abandoning and vacating a 715.20 foot electric utility easement granted to the city of Denton by James H. Jones, H. M. Burgess, Billy R. Jones and J. Dan Harvey. Recorded as instrument number 1-9-7-8-2-3-4-8 in the deed of records of Denton County, Texas. So there's no presentation, I'll take a motion. Councilor Armitage. - Yeah, I just wanted to mention by way of discussion. - Well, let me get the, there's, let me get a motion in a second, please, and thank you real quick. So motion real quick, mayor Pro Tem Davis. - Move approval of the item. - Thank you, is there a second? Council member Ryan, thank you. Council member Armitage. - Yes, so I just wanted to say in discussion that although I voted for this the first time when there was the 19, we were voting on the 1976 abandonment of the easement instead of the 78 update. At the time, I had not realized that this was, this particular property where the neighborhood was, a number of people in the neighborhood were concerned about the amount of space that this development was taking up. And so for that reason, now that I understand that this is where it is, and the neighbor, and some people in the neighborhoods concerns about it, I'm going to vote no, even though we might not need that easement for utility, it is still, you know, public space that might be needed just to be public space. So for that reason, I'm going to vote no, but I wanted to explain why, thank you. - Okay, any other discussion? Mayor Pro Tem Davis. - Just to say that my general policy on this council is that when we hold encumbrances on private land that we no longer need, I think it's a good policy to turn those back to the private property owner. It's an easement just for electric utilities. It cannot be used for another public purpose. It's just for putting in electric infrastructure. So I'm going to vote aye. - Okay, any other discussion? Okay, Mayor Pro Tem, I say you. - Aye. - Council member Ryan. - Aye. - Council member Meltzer. - Aye. - Council member Johnson. - Aye. - Council member Armitter. - No. - Council member Baker. - Aye. - And Mayor Hutspeth is aye as well, that passes six to one. That takes us to item E. This one did ask for a presentation. I'll call it, it's item E ID 21092, consider adoption of a ordinance of the city of Denton authorizing the city manager or his designee to accept the TSLAC CARES grant program cycle two for state fiscal year 2021. I'm sorry, still muted. - I've been so good about that lately too. - Yes. - Thank you, Mayor and council. This is Jennifer Becker, director of libraries with the Denton public library. The item, item E is our TSLAC CARES grant program and TSLAC is our Texas state library and archives commission. They received money through the CARES act last summer that was filtered to them through the Institute of Museum and Library Services and the focus of that grant that they offered to Texas public libraries was for digital inclusion and COVID response for public library, well, libraries across the state. So we applied for cycle one and didn't receive that grant but they had a cycle two that they opened up this fall and we did, we have been awarded that grant for $20,929 and we are so excited because that's going to give us Wi-Fi access throughout all three library public parking lots, which right when COVID happened one of the issues that we discovered was our Wi-Fi access only goes about 10 to 15 feet outside the perimeter of the library buildings, which is pretty inconvenient even if we have it on 24/7. So this is gonna allow us to expand that Wi-Fi access. We're also getting Wi-Fi access in the Nook Park area behind the Emily Fowler central library. So wherever you're sitting in that area, relaxing outside you also get Wi-Fi access. We're adding at least 15 more mobile Wi-Fi hotspots. We currently have 30 that circulate. We're adding a few more and then there's $7,500 of that allocation will be going for additional eBooks and digital audio books for our digital collection that people can check out 24/7 on their smartphone, tablet or computer. - Very good. Thank you very much. That's a great presentation. Any questions for staff? Council member Meltzer. - Oh, not a question. Just thanks for staying into the evening tell the public about these cool additions and congratulations for persisting and I move approval. - Thank you. I agree. And do we have a second? Council member Armitter. - Yes, I second and congratulations. I was so excited to hear about this. It's a big deal for our community. - Okay, we have a motion and a second in the other discussion. Seeing none, council member Meltzer, how say you? - Aye. - Okay, council member Armitter. - Yes. - Council member Johnson. - Aye. - Council member Baker. - Aye. - Mayor Pro Tem Davis. - Aye. - Council member Ryan. - Aye. - And mayor Hutz puts an aye that passes seven zero. Thank you very much. And so that will take us to item G of the consent agenda. ID 21141 consider adoption of an ordinance approving a settlement agreement and release implementing the terms of the settlement in litigation styled stone town country view LLC, the city of Denton, Texas and board of adjustments for city of Denton, Texas case number one nine dash one zero six five three dash four four two. No presentation requested, so I'll take a motion. Mayor Pro Tem Davis. - I'll move approval. - Thank you. Is there a second? Council member Baker. - I'll second it. - Thank you. Okay, we have a motion and a second. Any discussion? Okay, council member Mayor Pro Tem Davis. - Aye. - Okay, council member Baker. - Aye. - Okay. Council member Armitter, yes ma'am. - Well, I had raised my hand for discussion, but I guess I missed it. I can make my point when I make my vote. It's okay, we don't need to have a discussion. - Okay. Council member Meltzer. - Nay. - Okay. And council member Johnson. - Aye. - Thank you. Council member Armitter. - Yeah, I'm voting no, because I think this is too close to a gas well to put any home, but especially when we put low income homes, let low income homes go so close to a gas well. I think it's a kind of environmental injustice. I do understand the reasons for the settlement for wanting to do that. And I understand the complications of the case, but I cannot vote yes to this. - Okay, thank you. And then, so council member Ryan. - Aye. - Thank you. Mayor Hutspeth has an aye as well. I think I got everybody yes, that passes five to two. That concludes the items that were pulled, takes us to item, I mean, it takes us to item A of individual considerations. And first item is ID 202507, consider adoption of ordinance adopted concurrently with the cities of Garland, Greenville, Bryan, and Denton, approving the execution by the Texas Municipal Power Agency of an asset purchase agreement for the sale of the agency's Gibbons Creek steam electric station and related assets in Grimes County, Texas. - Good evening, Mayor, Mayor Pro Tem, members of the council. - Good evening. I'm Terry Nolte, assistant general manager of DME and currently serving as interim director of water and wastewater. I'm gonna pull up this presentation, very brief presentation. But tonight we're here to seek approval for the proposed sale of the Gibbons Creek station that we've discussed with you over the last several weeks. Just a brief summary of the transaction. It's a sale of the power plant property and associated equipment, 6,200 acres to the Gibbons Creek Environmental Redevelopment Company, a subsidiary of Chara Corporation. That includes the coal combustion residual units, the reservoir, TMPA will maintain ownership of all of the transmission assets on the site and under the terms of the agreement, the new owner will decommission the power plant and remediate all of the coal combustion residual units to levels that meet the TCEQ and EPA guidelines and regulations. The land use for the parcels that will be eventually divided will restrict future use on the parcels that contain the CCR waste units. And importantly, this transaction provides independent financial security to TMPA and the member cities should the buyer default. Economically, a very good deal for the rate payers of Denton and the other three member cities. It's a $48 million savings as compared to the self-performance of the remediation and demolition activities. And for us, it's a $10.28 million savings against our budgeted five year costs for the remediation and decommissioning. Most importantly, the environmental risk profile is significantly reduced by selling the property. We are avoiding 30 years of ongoing monitoring and reporting that will be taken on by the new buyer. The adjoining 10,000 plus acres of mine land will ultimately likely be sold and that will be determined by the TMPA board of directors at some time in the future. And in order to accomplish this transaction, the out-of-pocket cost for Denton is about $7.75 million, which was budgeted for this year. And that's 1.8 million less than what we budgeted for in this fiscal year. So tonight we seek approval of the concurrent ordinance. The ordinance has been passed by Garland, Bryan and Greenville. We did provide information in response to requests from council in our 115-21 Friday report. Just in summary, the land use, future land use is governed by Grimes County regulations. There is no zoning in Grimes County like most counties in Texas, but there is a limited set of requirements for subdivisions that are developed. This action was presented to the PUB yesterday and the PUB recommended approval four to zero. With that, I'd be glad to answer any questions that you might have. And I do have Bob Kahn from TMPA on the line should you have questions for him. - Thank you, great presentation. And questions for staff once this transition, thank you. Council Member Armitter. - Yeah, so I wasn't able to watch the PUB meeting from yesterday. I was working, but were there only four members in attendance or did the other three not abstain from voting? I'm just curious. - My understanding, Council Member Armitter, is that there are a number of vacancies on the PUB and that the active members of the PUB were there with the exception, I believe, of one member. - Okay, okay, thank you. - Okay, any other questions for staff? Mayor Pro Tem Davis. - Terry, your slide mentioned that the 10,000 plus remaining acres, primarily the mine land would be, I think the words were ultimately sold, but our item tonight doesn't have anything to do with that decision, right? That's something that the board would cook up later on and that our city could make a decision about as a future agenda item, right? - That is correct. - All right, and for the record, we have no calls for this item, just so that's clear. Any other questions? Great, I'll take a motion. Mayor Pro Tem Davis. - I move approval. - Okay, is there a second? Mayor Hutsworth, a second. So we have a motion and a second. Is there a further discussion? Council Member Armitage. - So I, as I mentioned last time, I don't think we should sell it, not knowing the use it's going to be made of, but understanding that that's where the consensus is, I would like to make a friendly amendment to the motioner that we include a request that TNPA provide a report to the public on environmental remediation efforts at least once a year, that we require an environmental impact report on the buyer's use of the land from TNPA once Chara has found a buyer. And those are my two considerations that are coming from a letter that was sent to all of council and signed by a number of people. There's another item on there having to do with not selling the mine land. And I agree, but because we're not voting on that, I'm not going to include that in this item, but rest assured to those people who signed the letter, I agree with you that that land should be used for a regional park. - Great. Mayor Pro Tem Davis. - I appreciate those suggestions and suggested amendments. There are some reporting requirements for the buyer, both like statutory reporting requirements and per the contract reporting requirements already in the contract that we're voting on, but I would very much, so I won't accept those amendments. I would maybe like to see a request or something to our TNPA delegates at some point to see what form those reports are gonna take and how we get those distributed as they come out. - Okay. Mr. Terry, can you make a note of that request? - Yes, sir, Mayor. I've already discussed that request with TNPA and TNPA is willing to make that commitment to provide that annual report. We have a designated environmental representative that will be monitoring the remediation activities at the site and we'll be glad to provide an update on an annual basis to this council. - Okay. - I also just point out that the new owner will be obligated to fully adhere to all the coal combustion residual regulations of TCEQ and EPA, which require them to post information on their website that's currently on the TNPA website that documents any sampling, analysis results, the level of progression, periodic inspection reports and all the information that I think this council and also members of the community be interested in that's currently available and required by law. - Okay, thank you for that update. Mayor Pro Tem Davis. - Just a quick question by way of discussion. Terry, am I correct in remembering that in addition to some performance bonds and some bonds on the remediation happening that also there's a significant portion of the purchase money that the buyer doesn't, there's a significant portion of the deal that's tied to performance. Is that correct that this monitor that we through TNPA appoint has to okay release of funds and all this sort of stuff? - That is correct Mayor Pro Tem and at the end of the remediation activities that escrow fund can only be drawn down to a certain level. I believe it's right around $2 million. Until such time as the buyer posts the post closure bond which will ensure performance of the post closure activities for the 30 year period. So we do have that security again in independent security in place. And it will all the draws on the escrow will be authorized by the environmental representative. - Okay, thank you. Any other discussion? Council member Meltzer. - Council had a pretty thorough going discussion about this and work session. But I'd just like to say by way of a bit of recap of some points for members of the public who didn't follow that. There's no scenario contemplated where the coal plants restarted. There's no scenario contemplated where the environmental cleanup doesn't happen. I personally would still favor an economically equivalent deal structure that resulted in TMPA having control of the destiny of the land rather than using the land as part of the purchase. So I'll be voting no. But I do think it was nevertheless, I'd still say great effort by staff and complicated deal and not the exact deal structure that I would want. But I think some very important things are getting accomplished. - Okay, thank you. Any other comments, question for staff? Seeing none one more time. Okay, so we have a motion by Mayor Pro Tem Davis, second by Mayor Hutzpeth and so Mayor Pro Tem, how say you? - Aye. - Mayor Hutzpeth is an aye as well. Council Member Meltzer? - Nay. - Council Member Armitage? - No. - Council Member Johnson? - Aye. - Council Member Baker? - Aye. - Council Member Ryan? - Aye. - Thank you. That motion passes five to two. Thank you, Terri and et al for all your hard work on this very complex deal. That takes us to item B, ID 201898, consider nominations and appointments to the downtown Denton tax increment financing, reinvestment zone number one board, including appointment of a board chair. - Good evening, Mayor and council members. Jessica Rogers, director of economic development. I serve as the board liaison for the downtown tax increment reinvestment zone and we have a number of appointments that needs to be made tonight. So I'll walk you through those. So for background and the downtown TERS council will be considering appointments to the board and appointment of a chairperson. It's governed by section 311 of the taxes tax code, which is known as the tax increment financing act. It requires the governing body of the municipality, the county that created the zone to appoint one member of the board to serve as the chairperson. The authorizing ordinance, which is 2010-316 states that members of the board are appointed by city council. And then section 4B of the ordinance also states that city council has the authority to designate the member of the board to serve as chair of the board of directors. The board also has the ability to appoint their own vice chair, which is something that the board does each year after the appointment of the chair. So again, continuing on background and there are seven seats on the downtown TERS board and the requirements are set forth in the authorizing ordinance and the bylaws. Two members have to be city council members. Two members have to be property owners or residents from within the zone. Two members have to be business owners within the zone or members of the chamber of commerce. One member has no specific category but must be a qualified voter in the city of Denton. On the screen now is the current board members, including the vacancies and the individual that previously held the seat. Those in gold are actually unexpired terms. So they were vacated during the two-year term period. One was previously held by council member Gerard Hutsmith. So when council member Johnson was sworn in and there was a little bit of a period where council member Hutsmith, excuse me, Mayor Hutsmith was off the council. He stepped down from his seat. So that one's a little bit complicated. Council member Meltzer currently has the additional council member seat but he is up for reappointment. Mr. Ben Easley serves as one of our business owner representatives. That's a full-term appointment. And Mr. John Lenz, who's been a wonderful board member, asked to step down in an unexpired term so that he could focus on his business during the COVID-19 recovery. So we certainly wish him the best. And the same with board member Ken Gold, who's also been a wonderful board member who chose to respectively decline seeking reappointment. So for your consideration tonight are five separate appointments of the board. So for one council member seat, the unexpired term seat, on your January 5th council discussion, you indicated council member Baker as being your preferred nominee. And the second term or second council seat is council member Meltzer. He is eligible for reappointment. And the full term vacancy of the business owner, Mr. Easley has requested reappointment. The unexpired term for the business owners, we received three applications from members of the public. Those are listed on your screen from one from Mary Beth Rinke Doyle, who's the owner of Mulberry Street Cantina, one from Jimmy Meredith, who's the owner of Sweetwater Grill and Tavern, and one from Kevin Roden, who's the owner of Ready Rosie. For the full term qualified voter seat, we received four applications. So the three that you have above and then the addition of Eric Pruitt, who was also a qualified voter of the city of Denton. Just as a reminder, Melissa Lineberg currently serves as the board chair and has indicated her willingness to continue to serve in that role. So you'll be making that, considering that appointment tonight as well. And so just to summarize it, 'cause this is a little bit of a complicated board appointment, there are two actions. So one, the appointment of the board members into the appointment of the board chair. And I have all of the eligible applicants and nominees listed there on the screen for you. And with that, I will take this down, but I can pull it back up if at any time we need to reference the nominees. - Thank you. So I will take, well, questions for staff, or is there a suggestion for the, I guess basically it boils down to the two positions for people considering holistically for that. Councilor Armitage. - Yes, I think for the voter position, Eric Pruitt has been really helpful in making suggestions to council and being involved on all kinds of issues involving development in Denton and the downtown area. Specifically, so I think he'd be a great addition for the business owner. There are all excellent business owners. I know that Jimmy Meredith in Sweetwater have a really long standing place in Denton, and they're much beloved. So I'm not sure if nominate is the right word, but I recommend them. - Okay, is there any other suggestions? We'll take them, we'll vote on them in order. Mayor Pro Tem Davis. - I'll concur with that nomination of Eric Pruitt for the qualified voter. I think an added thing is that he's not, it specifically contemplates eligibility of someone who does not have a business downtown. Some of you might just go there as a consumer or as a resident and that their taxes get wrapped up in there too. And for the business owner unexpired term, I would nominate Kevin Roden. - Okay, got it. Council member Meltzer. - Yeah, not another suggestion, just a couple of comments. Well, it's about time we got Eric Pruitt on something. I mean, he puts in more work than most council members. And I nominated Jimmy Meredith and he'll have my vote. - Okay, thank you. - But we have an embarrassment of riches, really great candidates all around. - Agreed, okay, any other comments, suggestions? Okay, so Jessica, and then let's get it all one fatal swoop. And so thoughts on the chair, is there any appetite to change the chair or are we comfortable with Melissa? Okay, anyone opposed? Seeing none, okay, great. So can we, Mr. City Attorney, since it's one item, can we vote on everything at once or do we bifurcate them each seat? - Either way, I mean, however, since there's one member that seems to be the preference for each position, the available positions, you could do it in one motion. And that'd be the preference. - Okay, yes, so we'll take it all. We'll take the first nominations kind of in a row. And if for whatever reason one fails, we'll take that up individually. So just before us is to the, if you can put up the slide, Jessica, so that we briefly will see what we have a visual representation of what we're doing. - Okay, and for those following along, it's slide seven. And so fast forwarding to the bottom, it'll be the business owner nominee is the Jimmy Meredith in the middle and then the qualified voter at the bottom is Eric Pruitt and then Melissa Lindenburg would remain the chair. So thank you. - And reappointment of these three individuals as well. - That is correct. - Okay. - Yes. - Mayor? - Yes, sir. - All right, not to be contrary, but I did nominate Kevin Roden for the unexpired business. So if it pleases the council or if it fits your scheme, I would move adoption of all the other spots and I can do that in a motion. And then we can maybe come back and hit that last spot, the unexpired business owner where Jimmy Meredith and Kevin Roden have been nominated as a separate vote. - Agreed. - Can I make that motion now? - By all means. I move that the council appoint council member Connie Baker and council member Paul Meltzer to an unexpired term and a full term respectively, that we appoint Ben Easley to the full term business owner, that we appoint Eric Pruitt to the qualified voter full term and that we appoint Melissa Lindenburg as chair of the board. - Okay, thank you. Do I have a second? - Council member Ryan. - I second. - Thank you. So we have a motion and a second for all positions, but for the business owner member of the Denton chamber commerce board director position as Mayor Pro Tem has outlined them. So Mayor Pro Tem, how say you? - Aye. - Council member Ryan. - Aye. - Council member Meltzer. - Aye. - Council member Johnson. - Aye. - Council member Baker. - Aye. - Thank you. And then Mayor Hutzpeth is an aye and a missing one. Council member Armitter. - Yes. - Got it. That passes seven, zero. Thank you. Then we'll take up the one seat. There's two nominations. So if the first should fail, we will take up the second. And so this is business owner member of the Denton chamber of commerce board of director unexpired term. The first nominee is Jimmy Meredith. Do I have a motion? Council member Armitter. - Yes. - And do I have a second? Council member Meltzer. - I second. - Okay, so we have a motion and a second. Any discussion? Seeing none. Council member Armitter, I'll say you. - Yes. - Council member Meltzer. - Aye. - Thank you. Council member Johnson. - Aye. - Council member Baker. - Aye. - Council member Ryan. - Aye. - Thank you. And Mayor Hutzpeth is an aye. Although I like all the requests in... Mayor Pro Tem, it's disconnected or something, but that motion passes six to zero. Okay. Oh, there he is. We'll complete the record. Mayor Pro Tem, I'll say you. - I apologize. The computer I was on just restarted. - Are we voting on Jimmy Meredith still? - Yes, sir. - Nay. - Got it. Okay, so that passes six to one. Thank you. So he will fill that last position. That takes us... So that's everything you need, Jessica, for sure? - Yes, sir. I just have the next item. - Awesome, thank you. I'll call that. So this is item C, ID 202550. Consider nominations, appointments to the City Economic Development Partnership Board. So. - All right. Well, Mayor and council members, I have the great honor of also being the staff liaison to the Economic Development Partnership Board. And so we have a couple vacancies on this board as well. So as a reminder, this board serves as an advisory body to the city council on economic development related matters. Members fall into specific categories as outlined below. There are 12 members, two each from the city council and the Denton Chamber of Commerce Board of Directors and two top 20 taxpayers in the city of Denton, one representative from UNT, one from TWU, one from the Denton Black Chamber, one from the Denton Hispanic Chamber, one representing the aviation industry and one at large member. Terms are for two years and members can serve up to three terms. And this board has a slightly different process than many of our other boards in its authorizing ordinance. It outlines a nominating committee process. Council appoints that nominating committee made up of two council members and one chamber member. On January 12th, council appointed Mayor Gerard Hudspeth, Mayor Pritzker Jesse Davis and chamber member Marty Rivers as the 2021 nominating committee. Just as a reminder, these are the vacancies. So there are two unexpired term vacancies. So the first one is a council member seat for council member Keely Briggs and the other is a top 20 taxpayer seat vacated by Mr. Chris Davis formerly, still with Peterville, but he has been relocated to a plant outside of Texas. So the nominating committee met on January 14th and approved the two nominees you see on the screen for the council member seat. The nominating committee selected Mayor Gerard Hudspeth who would fill council member Keely Briggs's seat. And they also selected Tina Albert who is the new plant manager at the Peterbilt Denton plant. And just for the record, Ms. Albert has been with PACR for more than 20 years. She served in various roles in Texas, in Mississippi and at their corporate headquarters. And so she is a wonderful addition to the board as well. And with that, I will take down the screen and stand for questions. - Got it, questions for staff. Okay, council member Meltzer. - Well, I don't know if this is exactly the appropriate time. So tell me if it isn't, but the mayor's a very busy guy and very generous with his time and has served on this committee before. I would like to offer, I don't know if you were aware that I'd be interested, but I'll offer for your consideration myself as an alternative. This is my third year on council. I've expressed interest in this before. I haven't had the opportunity to serve on this group. I have relevant education. I have a master's in business administration from Dartmouth College. I have relevant work experience. A 30-year career, primarily successful because of successfully implementing competitive strategy in a number of industries. And lastly, I'll just give an example of where my approach would be, what kind of contribution I would make. Much of the discussion around economic development has, in my view, overly focused on financial incentives, which I would stipulate is certainly very likely price of poker in many situations, but it offers no sustainable competitive advantage. You know, the way you beat a million dollar offer is it's a million and one. We don't own a gold mine that nobody else owns. So, you know, I would be very much an advocate for identifying the benefits that our targets seek and seeing where strategic investments in making Denton more distinctive on those attributes could work to our advantage. That's the kind of thought process. So, with that, I offer myself as a candidate. - Appreciate that. Thank you. Any other questions for staff? Council Member Armitage? - Yeah, so anyway, I appreciate that. And I think Council Member Meltzer would be a good representative on this, but what it would be the process by which, I take it you have nominated yourself, Council Member Meltzer? So, what would be the process? - I guess I nominate myself. So, I guess you ultimately would need a second. - Okay, so if that's, if you've nominated yourself, then I would second that. - Yeah, and I would refer you back in Jessica, correct me, but the inner slide, the process is the nominating committee. Obviously, we're not holding to that. I think there's, but Jessica, correct me if I'm wrong. Is that the process or is there a method where if a member wanted to circumvent that, there's what's the avenue for that? - Mayor, the process is simply that we present the nominating committee selection to council, council is not required to accept the nominating committee's nominations. So, you could choose to select other members. It is only required under the ordinance that we present to you the nominating committee selections. - Perfect, so we will do it just as we did before. I think there's a lot of talented people just like in the item before. So, we have to get that down to a number to move forward with. So, we will start with the nominating committee's recommendation and if for whatever reason that should fail, then we'll come back and take up the next opportunity to appoint someone. So, I'll open it up for discussions around that point. Mayor Pro Tem Davis. - Mayor, I'll move appointment of the nominating committee's recommended nominees. Mayor Hudsworth to the unexpired term of council member Briggs and Tina Alpert as the top 20 taxpayer representative. That's also an unexpired term, excuse me. - Is there a second? Council member Ryan. - I'll second. - Okay, discussion. Mayor Pro Tem Davis. - Just to say as somebody who's on the nominating committee, I second what council member Meltzer and Mayor Hudsworth have both said tonight that we have kind of an embarrassment of riches. There are a lot of folks in town who can fill spots on these boards and I'm glad that we've had interest in them from very qualified people. - Thank you. Any other discussion? Seeing none, Mayor Pro Tem Davis, I'll say you. - Aye. - Council member Ryan. - Aye. - Council member Baker. - Aye. - Council member Johnson. Council member Meltzer. - Well, I have to say nay 'cause I'm hoping that it'll turn out differently than obviously it's going to, but I wish you well. - Certainly, thank you. And I don't think that precludes us from working together on that as an entire council and individually, but I respect that. And council member Armitter. - Nay. - Okay, and Mayor Husspeth is an aye. That passes five to two. Thank you, Jessica. - Thank you. - And that takes us to item D, ID 21029, consider nominations, appointments to the city boards, commissions and committees. Listed are airport advisory board, animal shelter advisory committee, board of ethics, a committee on persons with disability, community development advisory committee, health and building standards commission, human services advisory committee, library board, parks, recreation and beautification board, planning and zoning commission, public art committee, public utilities board, traffic safety commission and zoning board of adjustments. There is no presentation for this. We were provided the list. And so if there's nothing for staff to add, we will, we're just seeking a motion, a second and discussion and then we'll vote. Council member Armitter. - I move approval. Then I also have a question after that. - Certainly, thank you very much for that. Council member Baker. - I'll second it. - Thank you. Discussion. Council member Armitter. - Yeah, I have a question for staff. I got a message during the meeting from one of my appointees to the zoning board of adjustments, Jennifer Lane, who says that she is eligible for reappointment and she wanted to know if she could get in on this slate of nominees. I didn't know the answer to that. I do wish to reappoint her when she comes up, but I was wondering if staff could speak off the cuff to that. I didn't know the answer. - Yes, ma'am. My name is Rosa Rios and I'm your city secretary. I would need to verify the vetting process. However, the practice has been of, as far as the city council accepted process is that the individuals that are on the exhibit that the public has been informed about, that those be the ones considered for appointment at the time. However, it's should the city council wish to amend that list, then we could certainly do that. But my only concern would be is that I still need to confirm that she's fully vetted. - Okay. Any other questions for staff? We'll circle back to that. Questions for staff. Okay. And then just taking that up individually, is there someone would, I mean, is there a consensus to modify the process, the list for Ms. Lane? I don't wanna set that precedent, but I'm happy if there's a majority. Okay, seeing none. Council member Meltzer. - Yeah, just to make a comment. I think the outcome will be the same. - I agree. - I don't think there's any harm to just sticking with the current process. - Got it, okay. Yeah, and they can serve. It doesn't interrupt their service or anything. Am I, I'm correct. - That's correct, sir. - Okay, great. Thank you. So any other discussion? Okay. So council member Armitage, I'll say you. - Yes. - Okay. And the second was council member Baker, I'll say you. Okay, council member Meltzer. - Aye. - Council member Johnson. - Aye. - Council member Ryan. - Aye. - Okay, mayor Pro Tem Davis. - Aye. - Mayor Hutsbeth has an aye that passes seven to zero. That concludes item D, and that takes us to concluding items. Concluding items, council member Armitage. - Yes, a very bright light has gone out in Denton, Roland Vela, much beloved community member who has done so much for this city, so much for the community, so much for our government, and just our thoughts and prayers to the family. His spirit will always remain with us. He's just an unforgettable person. If anyone who has met him, I don't think we'll ever forget him, his personal charm, sense of humor, and commitment to the city of Denton are just one of a kind. So thoughts and condolences to the family. He will be missed and is irreplaceable. - Thank you. Any other concluding items? Say, seeing none, I want to echo that sentiment, and Mayor Watts had always spoke very highly of Mr. Vela, and then we were able to get the soccer park named at his honor up and running, and I was able to attend that with him. And if it's okay, council member Armitage, I know Diana Morrison sent you a brief bio, and so I want to read that if that's okay, or if you have it, you're more than welcome to. Okay, by all means. So it just reads, Dr. G. Roland Vela, professional Emirates at UNT, and longtime biology faculty member has died at the age 93 during his tenure at UNT. Dr. Vela served as an associate dean of science and technology in the College of Arts and Sciences. Dr. Vela joined the microbiology facility, pardon me, faculty in 1965. And let me make that bigger. He has supervised 20 PhD students, 40 master's students before retiring in 2000. He was the first Latino professor to be awarded tenure at UNT. He was active in the community serving on the Denton City Council, on the Texas Municipal Power Agency, and Denton Airport Board. In 2019, the city of Denton named the G. Roland Vela Athletic Soccer Complex on the north end of North Lakes Park in his honor. So I join you in offering our condolences to his family. I'm grateful for his service to our community and the legacy he leaves behind. So thank you for bringing that up. And thank you for working with Deanna Mason to get us that information. So any other thoughts or comments? Okay, Council Member Meltzer. - Just that it's a blessing that he was able to see in his lifetime how loved and appreciated and respected that he was for his dedication to the city. - Indeed, thank you. So I will conclude this meeting of the Denton City Council at 7.39 PM. Today is still January 26th, 2021. Have a great evening.