Jul 27, 2021 City Council on 2021-07-27 2:00 PM

Good afternoon and welcome to this meeting of the Denton City Council. We do have a quorum, so I will call the meeting to order. Today is July 27th, 2021. It is 2 o' 1 p.m. And the first, I do not believe we have any callers for the Consent Agenda, just to confirm. No, sir. There are no callers for the Consent Agenda. Thank you, Siri. And so that will take us to questions for staff regarding the Consent Agenda. And you can, yeah, there we go. Councilmember Bet. Thank you, Mayor. I'd like to have a discussion and poll 1B, the Bond Oversight Committee item. Okay. Is there anything in particular that staff should prepare for presentation? If we could have a slide or two about the rationale for the exact wording of the motion, my concerns go to ability to serve on multiple committees. So if the staff want to address that concept, that is my only concern. Councilmember Armitage. Yes, I had a question about B and also F. Since B has been pulled, would it be preferable for me to save my question? No, so that they can prepare for that as well, if you could state. So my question was just simply about the application deadline. It mentions in the backup that there was one application received, so I assume that applications are still open. I just wanted to confirm that. And then for F, I was just wondering if somebody could explain a little bit more. I'm happy now. Just about why the Development Services Center parking lot improvements have costed so much, why the costs have increased. I'd be happy for that to be answered now. I don't need for it to be pulled. If I have further questions, then it could be pulled. Okay. Good afternoon, Trevor Crane. I'm the public works inspections manager, but I'm also the project manager, excuse me, over this project. So this change order specifically is really to deal with a couple of items that were left off from this project. So the building itself and the parking lot were two separate projects. So when you kind of design projects like that that are separate, there's always going to be kind of items that were left off from one of the other. So this change order really addresses some of those main issues. There was a stairwell in the back that needed to be fixed that was left off of the original building project. And then there was also some changes made after design, some compact parking spaces that were added, just some items like that. Okay, so this is a stairwell that's attached to the building. Correct. Yes, ma'am. And it's lumped in with this under the parking lots improvement. Correct. Yes. So originally it was not included in the building renovation itself. So after that project was completed, we were still out there doing work, realized that that stairwell needed to be fixed. And so we added it into this project to fix it. Okay. Okay. That explains the cost. Thank you. Yes, ma'am. Thank you. Seeing no other questions. Okay, that takes us to our first work session. Thank you, staff. So that takes us to work session A, ID 21982, receive report, hold discussion, give staff direction regarding audit project 021, water system operations distribution. Hello, Mayor and Council, to share the presentation. I'm Madison Rorschach, Denton City Auditor. I'm going to present our findings from phase two of our audit of the city's water system operations, which focuses on distribution infrastructure projects and maintenance activities. So this audit generally evaluated the effectiveness of the city's water distribution line maintenance activities. The city currently maintains about 630 miles of water lines that distribute treated water to its customers in order to ensure water is effectively distributed. These water lines must be adequately maintained, replaced, and repaired to minimize water losses and ensure continual service. So specifically, this audit evaluated the replacement projects for small water lines and water line leak repairs. So I'll begin by discussing small water line replacement projects. The Water Department currently utilizes a geographic-based asset management and capital planning software to identify water lines for replacement. This software recommends rehabilitation actions for sections of water line based on predefined parameters, including break rate and condition score. These asset management replacement activities generally align with the Environmental Protection Agency's best practices on asset management, with the exception of having a formal financial and strategic plan. Instead, the amount of water line to be replaced is determined annually and is generally paid for by water revenues. So adopting a comprehensive asset management plan with clear financial and strategic objectives would help increase the effectiveness of the department's asset management plan in the long term. So we recommended that they do that, and based on their management response, they plan to develop that plan. That includes strategic goals and financial planning objectives. Furthermore, safety activities for water distribution projects are guided by the City's Safety Department. This department helps ensure safety training requirements are established and met and that department-specific safety meetings are held regularly. In addition, the department performs weekly on-site safety inspections, during which they complete an inspection checklist and discuss any identified discrepancies with the on-site crew leader. These activities generally appear to be appropriate for promoting job site safety. That being said, Water Utilities has not developed a comprehensive safety practices and standards manual, and we believe that development and distribution of this type of manual would provide clear and consistent guidance to water crews on how to comply with the department's safety standards. And based on their management response, Water and Safety Departments plan to work together to establish this kind of manual for the department. Next, Water Utilities has established a capital improvement process guide for small water line replacement projects, as shown in the figure on the slide. Based on a comparison of this guide to the project management body of knowledge's best practices, this process appears to be designed effectively. However, based on a review of six completed replacement projects, some project step documentation needed for quality and monitoring assurance was missing. In particular, documentation of the 30, 60, and 90 design steps were not found for all projects, and in addition, there was no documentation of the project's final walkthrough or any punch list items that needed to be completed before the project was actually completed. So while the replacement project management process does appear to follow best practices, without this documentation, it's difficult to determine if the process was actually followed. According to Water Utilities staff, they believe these steps are generally followed, however the documentation has not been centrally retained in the past. Based on their management response, the department is currently in the process of implementing a new project management software, which should help to ensure that all critical project steps are appropriately documented and then centrally retained. In addition, based on a review of 21 replacement projects, we found that two were at locations that were under a construction moratorium due to street improvements being made. Construction moratoriums are generally placed on their newly improved streets in an effort to preserve their useful life, as any excavation weakens the pavement's integrity. However, it's sometimes necessary for water utilities to perform work at locations under a moratorium if there's an emergency. However, in these cases, water should obtain documented approval from the streets division in order to ensure that all stakeholders are informed that the moratorium has been broken and the street has been weakened. According to their management response, Water Utilities plans to use their new project management software to document moratorium approvals in the future. Similarly, we found Water Utilities does not obtain right-of-way permits for small water line replacement projects. Based on a review of the city's right-of-way ordinance, it's unclear why these projects would be exempt from this requirement. Right-of-way permits are generally required to ensure construction work on or under the city's streets and sidewalks do not endanger residents' safety and to ensure that these assets are properly restored. For this reason, we recommended the department clarify this issue with the Public Works Inspections Division, which administers right-of-way permits. Based on their management response, Water Utilities plans to discuss right-of-way permit requirements with that division and as well as the city attorney's office. Next, Water Utilities costs for small water line replacement projects are recorded individually for each project and are ultimately capitalized as infrastructure assets in the city's accounting system. Project costs generally include materials, labor hours, equipment, and restoration costs. And then in general, we found that equipment usage and restoration costs are adequately recorded to each project. That being said, based on discussions with water staff, materials needed for each project are generally picked up by water crews from the city's warehouse during construction as needed. Based on this system, materials should not be collected until they are used for the project, which does provide some assurance that materials are not wasted. That being said, it does not completely ensure that all materials collected are needed and recorded for each project. Similarly, each day, water crew leaders record labor hours in the work order of their active project. Separately, each crew member completes a physical timesheet that is then used by the Water Utilities admin assistant to record labor hours in the city's timekeeping system. Water Utilities does have a process to reconcile these two systems to ensure labor hours are recorded accurately. However, it did not appear to be an effective process based on a review of 20 water crew member pay stubs. So, inaccurately recording material and labor costs may lead to inaccurate project cost estimations and reporting. So, for this reason, we recommended that Water Utilities consider implementing a reconciliation process to verify that materials obtained from the warehouse were used and recorded for the correct project, and to ensure that any unused materials obtained from the warehouse were returned appropriately. We also recommended that Water Utilities evaluate opportunities to streamline the process for recording and allocating water crew labor hours to minimize discrepancies between the work order and timekeeping systems. And Water Utilities generally concurred with these two recommendations. Finally, closure and capitalization are the final steps for small water line replacement projects. Ideally, assets should be capitalized as soon as possible after they are placed into service. In order to initiate this process, a water department project manager must submit a project closure request form to the accounting division. Based on a review of 21 replacement projects that were completed since November of 2018, the actual water line completion of six projects, six water line projects have been completed, but closure requests have not been submitted yet. In addition, for the 15 projects where a closure request was submitted, it took an average of eight months for the request to be submitted after the replacement line was placed in service. It should be noted that while capitalization of these assets appears to take some time, all costs are reported as construction work in progress before being capitalized, and the city's fixed asset system calculates depreciation beginning when the asset was placed in service instead of the date it was actually capitalized. That being said, without guidelines for how quickly a project closure should be requested after the water line is replaced, the capitalization process may be delayed as project managers shift their focus to other active projects. Based on their management response, the water department plans to develop guidelines to address how quickly replacement projects should generally be closed. In addition, water and finance will work together to streamline the communication process during asset capitalization. Moving on to leak repairs, over the past three years the water department has completed about 800 work orders relating to water main breaks or cuts. In general, water leaks are reported by Denton residents by phone or through the city's Engage Denton web portal. According to water department staff, a work order should be created for all reported leaks. Based on discussion with their staff as well, leaks are repaired as quickly as possible on a first-come, first-serve basis. Formal parameters for how quickly these leaks should be repaired have not been developed after being reported. In addition, guidelines for categorizing work orders as emergency or general have not been established. Instead, work orders are automatically categorized by the work order system based on type. This has led to about 93 percent of leak repairs being categorized as emergencies. Based on review of a statistical sample of work orders, almost one-fourth of the work orders were created after the repair was complete, which indicates that the work order is not always created the day the leak was reported. So this is a data limitation that prevents us from determining how quickly a leak was repaired after it was reported. Establishing guidelines for how quickly leaks should be repaired and how they should be categorized would allow water department staff to systematically prioritize leak repair work, helping to minimize the city's real water losses. Similarly, the department has developed some standard operating procedures for leak repairs. However, they generally do not address the process for creating and closing work orders and which documentation should be included with those work orders and how to perform utility line locates. Ensuring that the requirements for work order supporting documentation are clear is particularly important as they provide assurance that the repair was completed per the city's established practices. Based on their management response, Water Utilities plans on developing these guidelines and procedures for leak repair work orders. So in summary, we issued a total of 12 recommendations, all of which the department concurred. Based on this response, we believe the identified risks will be appropriately addressed and plan to conduct a follow-up review in 18 to 36 months. Thank you. Questions for staff? Council Member Bet. Thank you, Mayor. Madison, does each department use its own asset inventory software that's different or are we using a city-wide asset inventory system? I believe we have multiple asset management software. So Water has one, Streets has another. We don't have one for the whole city. For the assets that we have, is there cross-talk between them? Between the systems? The inventory systems. I couldn't speak for all of the systems, but not for all of them. I don't know. That might be something that would be beneficial to look into. One of the things, the recommendations were the data limits. I was a little unclear, I don't even know what that word means, unclear which specific data was limiting. So if you could just give me a couple sentences explaining that. So when we were looking at leak repairs, we found that there's a date when the work is started and a date when the work is complete, but the date when the work is started isn't the date that the leak is reported. So we don't know how long the leak was reported after, the leak was still going after being reported. And to that, do we have any, I know some of our meters are automated at this point and we're expanding into more and more automated meters. Are there automated spot checks that we do where we like shut the valve for 30 seconds, check the meter and see if it's moving and then turn it back on? I mean I know that would be challenging for some residents so it would have to be carefully done, but do we have something like that where we spot for leaks? My understanding is that we do not have like a proactive leak detection program. Instead we just react to reports that we receive and then as far as meters are concerned, I don't believe we do that where we go to people's houses and turn off meters and see if it's still going. I don't think we do that, but Stephen might be able to correct me. All right, thank you. Councilmember Armitage? Yes, so two questions. One, will the new software address this disparity between the time of the work and the time of reporting, or is it just a matter of changing procedure? The new project management software won't, I don't think will be involved in the leak repair process at all, so no, it will not address that data issue. So is this issue something that could be, that might require new automation or kind of different use of current programs available? I can imagine, in other words, that there's a way to, not knowing exactly how it's done at the boots on the ground level, how the reporting is done, that there must be an automated way to make it simpler? I know that there is a way to add fields to the work orders, but I don't know how to do that myself, so perhaps that's my best answer. As long as, I'm happy that, just that there's concurrence on, you know, part of staff, and I'm confident that they'll address it, you know, if they agree it's an issue. We'll go back and look, too. Let's see, and my second question was, you know, addressed something that doesn't appear to have been covered in this audit, but I'm just wondering if you encountered it. Did you encounter any reports about the process or practice in situations where there's a disagreement about the cause of a leak? You know, whether the cause was due to, you know, some misuse on the part of a property owner or somebody else, you know, et cetera, and I know that those issues tend to come up. We didn't review that as part of the audit, and we didn't come across that, because we were just looking at the, basically, the correction side of it, yeah. Council Member McGuire. Thank you, Mayor. So Council Member Beck touched on this, but I'm noticing a running theme among a lot of departments that they're working to improve documentation, improve communication, and kind of streamline their use of technology to facilitate that. So I just kind of want to echo the suggestion that perhaps water could explore, you know, using technology in a way that aligns with what other departments are doing to facilitate that documentation and communication, both within the department and across departments. Okay. City Manager. Council Member McGuire and Council Member Beck, we are actually having discussions on a citywide asset management program that would be connected so that we would be able to look across all departments. All right. Any other questions for staff? Seeing none. Thank you, Madison. Thank you. Okay, that takes us to item B, which is ID 21456 Receive Report, Hold Discussion, Give Staff Direction Regarding FY 2021-22, Departmental Budget Presentation, Starting with Fleet. Good afternoon, Mayor, City Council Members, Nick Benson, Assistant Director of Finance. I have several presentations for you today. I won't go through and read every one of them. I will tell you the utilities we'll present to you today, they are joint presentations. So the first half of the presentation, the director will talk about the operational information. The second half of the presentation, I'll return to the podium in Cassie Ogden to talk about electric. So I just want to kind of give you an overview. With that, we'll kick it off. The first presentation is the fleet presentation. Thank you. Mayor, members of council, city manager. My name is Terry Kader. I'm the fleet superintendent, and it's my pleasure to present the fleet services budget to you this afternoon. This is a very brief presentation, and I'd like to take just a few minutes at the beginning of the presentation to kind of give you an overview of what some of the responsibilities are of the fleet department and the staffing that we have there. This is a snapshot of the organizational chart and how fleet is laid out. We have 19 technicians that are divided between heavy equipment, light equipment, emergency vehicles, and solid waste landfill group of units out there. We have four supervisors. We run two shops. One of those shops have two shifts that run from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. And I want to draw your attention to the contracted parts. The NAPA operation is a contracted operation. They provide a turnkey parts operation for fleet. Those four individuals are not a part of the fleet services group of employees, but they are contracted. But they're an integral part of our operation and work very closely with us on a daily basis. So fleet services, as you imagine, we're responsible for preventative maintenance and maintenance of equipment, but we do a lot more than that. At the very beginning of an asset's life, we're responsible for specifications, for acquisition. We work with departments closely on those two issues. We also, of course, the preventative maintenance and repair. Then at the end of the asset's useful life, we're involved with the decommissioning and subsequent auction of that piece of equipment. We're also responsible for all the fuel, for purchasing, tracking, and dispensing of all the fuel that is used on city vehicles. So that's another part of our operation that's pretty extensive. Like I said, we have 26 total FTEs in the fleet services department, and that hasn't changed much over the past few years. It remains pretty steady. I want to talk a little bit about our 2021 accomplishments, and as you read through this list here, a lot of this stuff was geared to working through the pandemic and some issues we had with keeping our employees safe and making sure the vehicles were clean and safe for operators to use. So we expended some effort towards that. We did have an unusual winter event this year that was another week and a half of anything but normal operations, but we were able to make it through that as well and keep all of the city equipment running to the best of our ability. And then when we weren't actively engaged in purchasing vehicles themselves, we were working on contracts to get these purchases in place to make it easier to purchase equipment. As you know, the pandemic has greatly affected the supply chain, so we've had some issues to work through on that. Our goals for the coming year, this list is a list of things that are the continuation from some recommendations that were made when a complete fleet audit was done by an outside consultant, and some of these are things from that audit review, and we've already put a lot of things in place already, but this is a continuation of the list that we're working on to work through. And you'll see a lot of this has really to do with efficiencies in the department and how we can better serve our customers. We're always looking at those to you. So this is a slide that's showing our revenue. This year we've broken out the fuel separate and we've done internal and external. That's something that you might not have seen before. It's to avoid some confusion. The internal fuel is fuel that's used by city equipment. The external fuel sales is fuel that we purchase for the DCTA, and it's a pass-through cost to them. We purchase the fuel and we bill them for that fuel, so that's the reason those are broken out like that. The parts maintenance, everything is pretty steady from year to year. The only thing that really affects our budget is when we add people to our budget and equipment. You can see the difference in the estimate for this year and the preliminary for next year is mostly due to fuel, and the fuel prices that we've predicted here, we use the EIA figures, which is the Energy Information Administration. They provide all the data on what they think the fuel prices will be over the next 12 months, and they're pretty accurate typically. They have a lot of better tools than we do, so we use their figures, and that's what those costs are based on, what they predict the fuel costs will be over the next year. Of course, this is only spending authority. If we don't use the fuel or if the prices don't go up, we certainly won't be using the money that's allocated here for that. On the expense side of the budget, it's pretty typical. Like I said, unless we add personnel or we do something that's really unusual, these costs remain pretty much the same. Again, the difference here is the fuel purchasing, internal and external, and you'll see that's the biggest reason for the change in the budget. Like I said, it was very brief. I'll entertain any questions that you might have, hopefully. Could you briefly describe the vehicle sharing? You had that element on the slide. Can you just describe what that is so I understand it better? We've been working with our customers, our customer base, to eliminate underutilized vehicles, and so what we've done is we have some pooled vehicles at Fleet, and we're trying to add more to that pool of vehicles, but it's basically a group of vehicles that any department can come and share. They can go online and reserve a vehicle if it's just needed for a day or for a week. We have some small pieces of equipment that we do the same thing with, and we're trying to grow that program a little bit so that every department doesn't need a vehicle for a specific use when it's not being used. That makes a lot of sense. Similarly, I know that many of our facilities are close by but not necessarily within walking distance. Do we have any bicycles on our fleet? We do not. I know if you're in a suit and tie, you're not going to be biking from one building to another. I recognize that, but I know that some of our staff could under reasonably upbringing conditions, and so we do not have any bicycles. Are there any plans to include that? Pardon? Are there any concept plans to include that in the future? Not at the present, but certainly something we could take under consideration. All right, thank you. Councilmember Armitage? Yes, two questions. One, you mentioned GPS installation in all fleet. I was wondering if backup cameras are included in all fleet, and if not, if you know off the top of your head, what percentage of fleet have backup cameras? So I don't know the percentage per se, but I know that every new vehicle that we get, whether it's a heavy truck or an automobile or a sedan or an SUV, is going to have a backup camera in it. That's part of the specifications. Backup cameras for light duty vehicles are standard equipment now from the dealers, and for heavy trucks it's not necessarily standard, but that's always in our fleet spec, and so we're purchasing that. I would hate to estimate the number of vehicles that have cameras, but it's increasing every time that we purchase a group of vehicles. Yeah, okay, that's good to know. And so retroactively fitting a backup camera is more complicated than -- It is more complicated. We have done it on occasion, and we will at the department's request if there's a real issue with backing. We will do aftermarket cameras. We've done it. Okay, thank you. And my second question had to do with the cost of fuel, and I realize that it's all projection because it's variable, but looking backwards at past costs and looking forwards at future projected costs, what in your sense would be the comparable cost of continuing to pay these millions of dollars for fuel versus expanding the plan to invest in more electric vehicles? Obviously, I understand electric vehicles comes at an environmental cost, too, but just wondering if a cost analysis has been done either formally or if you have a sense? I haven't done a formal cost analysis on the actual fuel consumption between the two. I know the maintenance costs are much less on an electric vehicle, and that's the reason that we're trying to get more of those in the fleet at every opportunity. And over the next two years, as you're aware of, there's going to be a lot more platforms available in the electric vehicle market, and we're certainly going to be looking at every one of those that come out. But the key is to find the right fit for the department. It has to meet the application, and then the technology has to be proven and reliable to us, which they're getting there on a lot of different platforms. Exactly. As an electric car owner myself, I fully understand that it's wonderful for some purposes and, you know, for other purposes not yet. Yeah, I was wondering, and I'm not sure if you can answer this now, but if it would be helpful to have some sort of resolution, you know, from Council, you know, supporting, you know, replacing outdated vehicles with electric vehicles, or if you already feel a sense that there's this kind of understanding on Council. Yeah, at some point, and I understand that Council is very interested in electric technology, and as a fleet superintendent, I am as well. We have currently four electric vehicles in the fleet, and we loan those out as much as we can to other departments so they can get behind the wheel, because unless you've been behind the wheel, such as yourself, you know what they're like to drive, and they're just extremely nice vehicles. Okay. Councilman McGuire. Thank you, Mayor, I was actually also going to ask about electric vehicles and you answered most of my questions. Is there a particular action plan or roadmap in place for how your department is planning to move toward electric vehicles, or is it just sort of on a case-by-case basis? Well, we do have a committee that looks at the vehicle purchases that are coming up, and we look at the platforms that are available to fit those applications, and then we work with each department, but it is on a case-by-case basis. I can't just arbitrarily say there's a vehicle available here. It has to work for the department as well, but the other thing is, and this is going to be something that will need to be addressed as infrastructure, so I could buy ten electric vehicles tomorrow, but if we can't charge them, then those two have to be pretty well coordinated and go hand-in-hand to make the program a success. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Any other questions? Seeing none, thank you very much. Thank you. That will take us to capital projects and engineering budgets. Good afternoon, Mayor and Council. I'm here today to talk about the capital projects and engineering department budget presentation. Here's a slideshow of my team. Rachel Wood is the Deputy Director of Capital Projects, and Trevor Crane, who you just heard from, is the Public Works Inspections Manager. To dive a little bit deeper into this, our entire department is considered engineering services. You can see the three divisions, and I will go over the org chart in just a minute that show engineering design, capital project delivery, and public works inspection. Also a part of the engineering services is real estate and development review. To go into the actual org chart, you can see the three separate divisions. The engineering division will be supported by that deputy city engineer, which we are currently on the search for. Within that group, we have seven individuals that are a part of our design team. Those are our stormwater transportation engineers, water wastewater engineers, and our design technicians. We also have three traffic transportation positions, and that also includes our new senior ADA bicycle pedestrian coordinator, who joined us on the 19th. The second division you will see is the capital project delivery division, of which Rachel Wood leaves. She has eight project manager FTEs within that team, one program manager, also four individuals that are a part of her administration team. And then the third division is the public works inspection division, which is led by Trevor Crane. There are ten public works inspectors and four individuals that will make up the right-of-way and utility coordination division. Two of the key hires, and you heard me mention their names, are both Trevor Crane, for the public works inspection manager, and then Nathan George, that senior planner, of which we introduced to the mobility committee last Wednesday. Just to give you a couple of highlights of the accomplishments, I won't read all of these. You can see them on the screen. Our team is very proud of several of the accomplishments that we have done this year. A couple of them that I will bring to your attention specifically are related to the adoption of the specifications and standard details for use on capital projects. Also, that alternative delivery method, of which we're using the construction manager at risk for the Southeast Denton project. We also have OCMI on board to do those estimates at completion, which is an overview of all of the estimates for the capital projects. And then you heard already the talk about the project management software, and that is the Procore software that was mentioned by Madison. And then also just really that overall communication and coordination between change board with change orders, and then also with internal and external stakeholders. Some of the goals of the new year is an enhanced focus on bicycle and pedestrian mobility, and that improved integration with capital projects. Also, the finalization of the project manager manual after the Procore is completely enacted. We want to take that and put that all in a manual. Trevor is currently working on the right-of-way process, the permitting, and actually working on automating that and working through that process to help all the other departments with more of an automation to that program. Also working with hiring a utility coordinator who can coordinate with not only internal folks, but also the external franchise utilities. Finally, we'd like to work to adopt the standard details and specifications for development projects. And then, of course, we want to complete the 2012 and 2014 bond program towards the end of December, and then really work through that 2019 street reconstruction bond program that we've already began. I won't go through this slide. I have budget friends here to help me if you have any particular questions. But as you can see on the slide is the estimated forecast and the preliminary estimate along with the projected. I will mention that those two different divisions of development review and also real estate are included in the overall budget. And last, I will show you the engineering summary FTE slide. And so, what you can see, and I will mention that the big difference between the capital projects division and the engineering division, you can see those numbers change. That's really to put that in alignment with the Maran study that was performed earlier this year and put that in alignment with those three divisions of public works inspection, capital project, and the actual engineering division. And with that, I will be happy to answer any questions. Thank you. Questions for staff. Seeing none. Well, all right, Councilman Beck. My apologies, the software takes a split second to catch up. Thank you. So, I know a lot of the budget that you gave was sort of the overall arching budget, but you have, you know, sort of an extremely large number of projects and your fingers are in everything. And I don't mean that in an untoward way. There's just a lot for your department to do. And so, I guess for making budget decisions, for me personally, I don't know about the others, but there's a little bit of a gap between your 50,000 foot overview budget versus sort of on a per project, per effort, sort of. So, if we had a roadmap that sort of was ballpark, what various projects costs, and it doesn't need to be to the dollar, but it's, you know, sort of, you know, this is this much, this is this much, this is this much for, you know, sort of sub budgets. That would help me understand what all your department is in a little better. That was sort of a comment. But it goes to my next question, and that is, I got a little confused because you mentioned yourself, you're moving elements from one division to another. So, your department is taking on inspection and real estate, is that correct? Actually, our department, the real estate component is within the overall division, but the real estate department actually reports to development services, which is Mr. Scott McDonald. The Public Works Inspection Division, Capital Projects Division, and Engineering Division have always been a part of this overall actual department. All I did was reorganize those folks where we have three specific divisions. So, Capital Projects Delivery, Engineering, where they're doing in-house engineering. Also, when the requests come in, whether it's a traffic study or something to do with drainage, or there's an expertise that's needed from a development review perspective, those folks are involved in those items. And then inspections is truly that inspection of not only the development review projects, the capital improvement projects, but then also the right-of-way permits. And then we're adding some additional folks to that team to actually have someone who's specifically related to utility coordination with the capital projects. So that helps a little bit, but if you could help me understand, who does the supervision between you and Mr. McDonald in terms of real estate and inspection, and then who owns the budget for those two divisions as well? Sure. So as far as the Public Works Inspection, that team reports directly to me. As far as the building inspectors, those report directly to Mr. McDonald and also does the real estate department. They are just housed in this HBU. Okay. But your budget does not include the real estate budget? Actually, the budget does include the real estate budget. They're just not a reporting structure. So they report to Mr. McDonald, but you have their budget? Yes, sir. Okay. That's not confusing at all. All right. That's the extent of my questions. Thank you. Sure. Councilmember Beck, if I can make just one point to that. So engineering is an internal service fund. So it does encompass a little bit more than just the divisions that Becky's over as the director of capital projects. Real estate makes a lot of sense to be in an internal service fund because it's mainly working with projects and things like that that we can charge out to capital projects or charge out as appropriate where it has a special revenue coming in. So we just changed that reporting structure in the past six months or so where real estate is reporting up to development services, but it makes a lot of sense for it to be in an internal service fund. At some point, we could create a real estate internal service fund, really small fund, separately, but that's why we kept it in engineering up to this point. And that makes sense, and I'm not really criticizing. It's just if I'm trying to line up the columns and numbers and do my due diligence as counsel and what matches and what doesn't match and where do I see trends, I'm like, okay, Becky's in charge of this number, but Scott's in charge of these people. It complicates the math a little bit is all I was saying. Absolutely. Thank you. Thank you. And one other question, Councilmember Davis. Thank you, Mary, and this may be a David or Nick question, whoever can best answer it. I'm curious about fund balance, and that we have right now about the same fund balance that we projected to have in 1920 and what our 2021 adopted budget was. And then also what we estimate for this fiscal year, and then we start drawing that down. Can you tell me why we had that fund balance or what change that we needed to start drawing that down and using it for some of our other items that are increasing over the years. Sure, Cassie Ogden, Director of Finance. So, you may recall we had a discussion about fund balances a couple of months ago. As a city, kind of our policy direction has been internal service funds don't necessarily need to have a large fund balance because that is funded through other departments. So this year we've made a conscious effort to try to bring some of those fund balances down through the next five years in the five-year forecast. As to why it had a fund balance in the past, it's always a moving target with internal service funds because we project something in the budget, but it doesn't necessarily always happen by the end of the year, so we usually try to true those up. If we charge more time to capital projects or less time than we budgeted, that can roll into the fund balance. So trying to be very intentional in using that fund balance so that our internal service funds aren't paying more than they should for those services. Good deal. Thank you. All right. Thank you. I don't see any other questions. Thank you very much. No problem. Thank you. That takes us to development services and real estate. Mayor, if you don't mind, I'm going to do environmental services. Environmental environmental services first, you know, sure. Yes. David Gaines, assistant city manager. I have a very short presentation on environmental services and have very capable staff from from the department to answer any specific questions. So environmental. Here we go. So this environmental services has not been a separate department up until this point up until the FY 22 budget. Environmental services has always been within water and wastewater and then some functions within solid waste of sustainability function as a city, knowing the emphasis that we want to place on environmental services moving forward and understanding the complexity and the issues that we're going to continue to face with environmental services made the decision to move forward with an environmental services director we were able to. Reallocate a position that already existed within those budgets moving forward. So what you see here is a new department, a new environmental services department. We're currently have a recruitment for an environmental services director that should the recruitment piece should should wrap up in the next week or so. And then we'll start interviews very soon and we're going to take the environmental services group under Deborah Vieira, who's in water right now and Catherine Burnett, the state sustainability manager that's in solid waste and put them under one umbrella with an environmental services director so you can see what that work chart will look like as we progress with this process. So the budget that you see in the water budget later will encompass all of these expenses that you see that are associated with the work chart and the rest of the expenses in this in this presentation so I'll walk forward. The rest of the presentation fairly quickly but again, if there's any questions on the on the change in structure, or on the specific slides moving forward we have plenty of staff to answer those questions. So here's what that looks like as we bring all of those divisions together it totals 33 employees from sustainability down through public outreach you can see each of those, those groups there and the progression in FTS over the past couple of years. So some of the goals and we've kept this separate, as we look at the the goals accomplishments over the past year in the next slide the goals for the next year won't read every one of those bullet points, each of those groups have done quite a bit. I think is notable to point out that that simply sustainable framework that was adopted by sustainability over the past year, a huge accomplishment for them. And then on the environmental services side you can see some of those accomplishments including approval of that TCEQ industrial pre treatment permit which was a big accomplishment as well. So looking forward to the next year as we create this department and find a leader for the for the group sustainability, obviously implementing that sustainability framework is going to be a primary goal next year and into future years has that framework has been established. And then on environmental services you can see a number of those of those goals that we have in the next year, including just kind of that overall we want to expand the offerings of our environmental programs, I think bringing in an expertise at that director level is going to help us lead that charge. So budget highlights again bringing all these all those all those divisions together under one umbrella. You can see that the budget has slightly increased, mainly because due to personnel, since the prior year. And we do have one budget supplemental request that we're moving forward with at this time. It's one FTE for stormwater inspection. Currently we have to stormwater inspectors, and we have a three week goal for all of our projects that are outstanding that they inspect. And with only two of them and the number of projects we've added it's been tough for them to meet that goal. So one more inspector to help meet that three week goal that we have to do all of our inspections of ongoing projects. Again have staff here for any questions you have on the supplemental request or anything else in the presentation, and happy to discuss our thought process with bringing a director on board as well. Okay. Thank you, Councilmember Archer. Two questions and a comment first the comment. I really like the new autonomy of environmental services for the reasons you stated they apply to many departments, hypothetically, any and all. So I think that's a really great move. I was wondering if the newly formed sustainability advisory committee will be having any input on the new director, you know, talking to finalists, you know, going through applications, etc. We haven't finalized the process yet, but certainly we'll take that into account and think about the best way to incorporate them. Yeah, I would love that you know I'm thinking of, you know, the, the, the public utility boards involvement as a, not only as an advisory committee to council, you know, but also being involved with the various departments so I could imagine a kind of a similar relationship. And when I was in the public utility board we were involved in, you know, we were allowed to be present in interviews and ask questions, etc. And I think that's really great for the public. So, my second question is about the laboratory item in the itemized budget. Does that include kind of what I guess if you could just speak a little bit to kind of what what that, what that includes, you know, what that includes say, if the city wanted to get, you know, Dino dirt tested to see what what's in it that's not already tested for in. You know, under the EPA or FDA federal regulations with that would that appear if council agreed to it with something like that appear in this budget. You know that's primarily for water but I'll see if anyone. Oh, jump up for a diner dirt question. I knew Deborah. Good afternoon Deborah VR environmental services about any testing that labs perform at this point. Those are tests that we are certified to do that. And we have the equipment and the expertise to do that. Any other lab that we don't routinely performed those labs are being sent to a third party. So, so, like, so the example I gave of testing for Dino dirt or another example soil testing soil near gas wells, as I understand it, we know we don't have the capacity to do that in house. So if council wanted to do something like that it would show up under the this under the new environmental services department budget. The lab is funded by water and wastewater so any expenses that we would perform as the request would come from through those fonts. Okay, so even if the testing is not testing of water testing of wastewater it would still correct come through. So, if, for example, it come for Dino dairy, which is the wastewater side of things, we will take the samples, we will, we will need to outsources we will identify which labs are capable of doing such things and so forth. And then we will have, we will charge that testing to that specific account for, for example, wastewater. If, if this were to be any other testing for drinking water, for example, then that testing will be charged against that account for the drinking water funds. Okay, so for soil testing your gas, testing soil near gas wells, for instance, which doesn't apply to, you know, water or wastewater. With that, with that you're in the budget. Anything that would be coming from gas wells, there is a fund allocated for gas wells through the gas well inspection fees, and then that any testing would probably be used through those funds. Okay, I see. So, so based on your answers, it sounds like there's there's no one, you know, funding mechanism for any kind of environmental testing that's external to the city depends on what kind it is and it would go into that. Correct. It's depending which department generates the request, then we will charge that department for those services. Okay. Okay, thank you. Councilmember Beck. Thank you, Mayor. So, David, when you may have said because you indicated 2021, 21, 22 rather, for the director to be hired but do you have a sort of more, are we, are we early, are we the end of the year for the director or are we. It should be at the end, the posting closes August 2nd. So we'll start the interview process and then, you know, so maybe a month until a month and the longest for the interview process and then a couple weeks obviously for the person to get on board. So before the end of the fiscal year, I would think. Great because, you know, you, we can all understand that handle how the director is going to set vision and that's going to be necessary to set the tone for going forward. And, and, and similar question to Councilor Armentor is, is this going to come before COE for the director or. I think we get look, I mean obviously the director is going to be involved with with each of those departments and, I mean, each of those committees and other committees as well so we'll take that into advisement along with the sustainable community and think about the best way. I think those are great suggestions so. And my last question might be a Deborah question I'm not sure but it's related to if Council wanted to, I think, if I can sort of pull to a 10,000 foot view of some of Councilor Armentor's questions and if we wanted to implement various kinds of monitoring. Whether that's soil gas well water that that's not already in these line item budgets, it would be the recommendation of staff that we establish a monitoring line item, or would staff prefer that it be kept to individual divisions, I guess is my question. So, this department would would do whatever we need to do as far as monitoring. So, stepping back from who would do it if we're talking about the funding source which is your question, if it's not with water wastewater because that's utility, we would, and if it's general fun then yeah we would just, if that was Council's desire we would kind of budget something in the general fund and that would be, if that's the most appropriate place for it where we would fund that from. So, really just really depends on the purpose and then we would find the funding if that was Council's or budget the funding that was Council's desire in whichever fund made the most sense was most appropriate. Thank you very much. Other questions. Thank you. And so with that take us to development services real estate I think is that right. Yeah. Thank you. Good afternoon mayor and city council my name is Charlie Rosendahl with the development services department. As Becky and David stated earlier, real estate is recently transitioned under our department and so we've included them in our budget here. Our organizational chart as you can see here is divided between planning building safety, building safety and then other areas of our department. We also have development facilitation, real estate administrative services and transportation planning. Some of the accomplishments that we have to date. I'll highlight a couple here. We've completed construction on the development services center and that's now open as a one stop shop for development, come get building permits and apply for projects there. We've also got a number of other departments in that building that can also assist and then we've also just last week completed our single software solution. We went live with a new software last week that is going to help the development community go to a single spot and residents also to apply for permits and submit plans rather than directing them to two different software solutions. Some of our major goals for next year are really documents and planning related and that's to complete the comprehensive plan. As you know we're doing meetings over the comprehensive plan at the at the moment and we're gaining input there and then also adoption of the 2021 building fire and health codes. And then some of the accomplishments of real estate over the last year. So they've acquired over 60 land rights to date and they've also got a pre qualified list of appraisers and other firms to help them be more dynamic in the acquisition of these properties. Some of the goals for the real estate division in the coming year. One of the main ones I wanted to highlight is they're going through an audit to identify surplus property that the city has and they're going to establish a procedure to bring that forward to city council for consideration in the coming year. Some of the performance of the division permits over the last three years. We did see a slight decline last year from a permitting perspective. We expect to see that rebound again by the end of this fiscal year and then development project counts any development applications that come in. We expect to see an increase of 1% over the next year. I do want to highlight the two charts on the bottom. We've kept relatively stable or slightly decreasing in our in our average review days as we've seen an increase in projects over this year. Budget highlights here. You can see in the the top bar there we've got a revenue for planning and building safety and then in the lower part you can see the expenses. We expect to see a cost recovery of 92% this year in our estimating cost recovery of 92% for next fiscal year. Here's the budget highlights for real estate as they discussed previously. Those budgets are in the engineering HBU but we wanted to bring them out here and highlight some of these. Engineering's budget has stayed relatively flat over the last few years and they have not had many changes at all. And then finally here's our position summary. You can see that we have real estate and transportation planning included in here. Those are two new additions to the development services department but we've kept everything else relatively flat over the last few years are exactly flat. We do have a development services administration HBU that was opened up and we've moved those positions that are more administrative in nature over into that HBU. And with that I'll take any questions. Okay, thank you. Just an HBU stands for. Oh, sorry, home business unit. Thank you. Yeah. All right. And I'm seeing no questions. Well. Again, sorry about that, Mary. It takes a split second. So first a comment. I'm really excited about the fiscal impact model that you guys are rolling out and I really think that's going to have a dramatic effect on our operations in a real positive way. Do you know when we're going to start using that? Yes, sir. So we've actually we're meeting with the consultant tomorrow and they're going to present staff with the first draft of the model. They've been collecting all of our data and our inputs and building the model out and then hopefully once we get through that we can bring the council of the model in the next few months. Okay, so we expected this calendar year kind of thing. Okay, great. And then I was a little unsure maybe you could educate me exactly what the land management services. Can you give me a little bit more details about what what goes on in that division or that service? Are you talking about the land management software? Yeah, I'm sorry. Yes. So the land management software is our permitting and project application software. It's the single solution that we use. Now it's a single solution that we use for people that want to apply for permits online. We go and do building inspections. Those results are in there and viewable for the public after those are completed. So that's really our software and our repository that we use for housing project reviews and doing anything in our department is within that software. And this software is just primarily though development items. It doesn't include other characteristics for the characteristics of the land itself. So like for instance, I don't mean to interrupt, but like if Deborah wanted to include, I mean if you had a parcel that was both an environmentally related parcel and a development related parcel, this is not something that would cross talk between your two departments. We use the city's GIS layer within and within our software. So we do have a way of knowing that within the software and putting restrictions on it. But this is primarily permit and project related applications. So we do have other departments that use it. Fire prevention, for example, does permits through there. We're working on doing right of way permitting through the software. But it's more permit and application focused and less like land management, land acquisition. >> Okay. Thank you. >> All right. Seeing no other questions, I do have one really quick. So Charlie, how long have you been with the city? >> Since 2007. >> Yeah. No, because our first match you were doing something different. So you've had quite the ascension. So I appreciate you being here. Great presentation. Thank you very much. Appreciate your work. >> Okay. That takes us to solid waste. Is that right? Thanks. >> Well, good afternoon, Mr. Mayor, members of council, Brian Burner, solid waste director for the city of Denton. Appreciate the opportunity to present what could be the most exciting budget presentation you've set through this entire day. So a lot of really good things I want to share with you today. So give me just a second to find it here. >> Thank you. >> Here we go. So I want to start off with our leadership team. These are probably some of the hardest working people we have in the city of Denton. You know, throughout COVID, throughout the snow storm, these people were reporting to work, doing the job they needed to do to serve the citizens of the city of Denton to ensure that they have not only safe and reliable, but also compliant solid waste services. You'll notice that we have not only Eugene McKinney, Tammy Klausen, and Jane's tips, but also Katherine Barnett, who is our sustainability manager, currently funded out through solid waste. Interval part of our team. So even though she will be reporting in under a new department, we're still connected at a hip. And it's represented in our organizational chart in a way. Really, you know, one leg cannot perform without the other. We're an integrated unit supporting the services that we provide for this city. Residents and businesses. Throughout the last few years, we operate with about 123, 126 folks. You'll notice that in the next budget year, we'll lose the three solid waste outreach sustainability educators, but again, they will continue to provide the services to the city of Denton. We're proposing to add five additional persons to help support both the city of Denton and the city of Denton. Both the outreach, the growth, but also safety concerns that are happening here within the city. We'll discuss those here in a little bit. From a metric standpoint, one of the things that we're really proud of is our reduction in both accidents and injuries over this past year to date. Solid waste industry is the fifth most dangerous industry in the United States of America, according to the Department of Labor. As a solid waste professional, you are more likely to be injured or killed in the line of duty as opposed to a policeman or firefighter. We're only exceeded by roofers and lumberjacks. But again, being around the equipment that we do, and again, the job that we have, it's important for us to keep our people safe and ensure that they get home in the same way that they came to work each day. They've got families who want to support them in their quality of life. From a residential service standpoint, we're seeing a net growth, or in this year we're seeing a net growth of about 286 service stops or homes, about 1%. That's kind of the four-letter word from a garbage standpoint is that growth. You're always behind this curve. You're trying to determine how much people, how many trucks you need on the road because you don't want to be behind that curve. Every minute you start missing trucks, you're starting slowing down, you start accounting for overtime, it's extremely hard to catch up. So currently we've had a 1% growth this year, but we anticipate having over 2% by the end of this fiscal year. And again, this data is dated just a bit because of the time that we had to submit it to get it into the presentations. From a commercial standpoint, we've seen a net growth of about 419 yards. And what does that mean from a dumpster standpoint? I really can't tell from a dumpster standpoint. What I can tell you is this is a truck and a person, a commercial truck and a commercial person on the road this year that we've had to add. So again, this growth was 71% over what we've -- of the yardage that we started with in this year. So again, we continue to grow from a commercial standpoint. That's a really good thing from a COVID recovery standpoint. We saw the shutdown of all the businesses. This dropped significantly. And as we look at the additions and decreases, the growth is there. So we continue that recovery effort. When we look at roll-off services, this is really the key for the construction industry. This is the people that go out and set the dumpsters at the construction sites, the renovation sites. Currently we're tending at about 16% growth in this year alone, anticipating a 35% growth in this service sector by the end of the year. So again, not only are the businesses opening back up, but new people are constructing things to build here in the city of Denton. So good news on both those fronts. From a waste diversion standpoint, currently we're diverting about 20% of everything that comes into the landfill. This does not account for those things that we may sell at a garage sale, may give to Goodwill, may recycle in other way, shape or form. That's stuff that we actually have control over. So the things that people put in their carts on the curb, things that commercial entities or apartments may put in their recycling dumpsters, metals that come in, appliances we collect, anything that does not go into the landfill, but comes across the scale that we divert back out. So right now we have about a 20% diversion rate in everything that we collect. So again, our focus and goal is in this next year as part of the implementation of the comprehensive solid waste management strategy is to significantly increase that over time and over the next few years. So again, going from 20% to 40% to 50%, some goal which has yet to be set, but again, aggressive in that way. One of the numbers that I'm extremely disappointed in right now, and I'll take the hit on this one, is our recycling contamination number. Right now we have a 64% contamination rate. This is down from the end of the year, or the beginning of this year, which it was 68%, and again, given the time that we had to turn this data in to create the presentation, that number right now is actually 62%. We're currently driving that number down using technology, using the Rubicon system. A couple of weeks ago there was a Friday report, which showed a lot of those efforts that are making some significant strides. But again, a lot of material that we're seeing that's contaminating, you know, you wouldn't think is a contaminant. First of all, wet material. You know, the water gets in it, it weighs it down. The MRF does not want to pay for water. They want to pay for recyclables, so anything that's wet goes out the back door. Non-programmed material, even though it's got those chasing triangles on it, we don't need it in our system. We take programmatic material only. That's the only thing that we can manage through the MRF. Metals, like brake shoes, car parts, things that we really can't handle in the MRF. That goes, you know, out the back of the MRF and into the landfill. Textiles, shirts, rugs, clothing, send those to Goodwill. We don't need them. Goodwill or something like that, some other company like that, can manage that material. Unfortunately, we've got a significant amount of population right now that's using the recycle can as an additional garbage can. Once the garbage gets in there, it contaminates the load, we can't take it. And then just bags, film. So again, we're doing a significant effort right now, driving that down. I want to thank our auditors that are out on the streets day in, day out, looking at those, lifting the lids, making it happen. But we're going to get this under control. We'll commit to that. So from a budget overview standpoint, we've had several things that we're really proud of in this past fiscal year. First of all, during the COVID epidemic, every day we were out there servicing both the business and the residential community. So again, thank you, thank you, thank you to our drivers, our supervisors, our crew leaders, fleet services for making sure we had the equipment out there and everybody else who made this commitment. We continue to service the residents and the businesses of the community. We rolled out our Rubicon Smart Routing System. Again, you know, we can track trucks, we can track drivers. There's a level of accountability now between the city and the customer. We know where contamination is. We can spotlight what's happening. We've gone and we've completed our acquisition of the Strong Data Scalehouse software system, and we're currently working to finalize the expansion of our 1590B landfill expansion permit. Looking forward into '21-'22, again, the landfill permit, our comprehensive solid waste management strategy, the Strong Data implementation, again, improvement optimization is going to be our goal as we go through this next year. From a budget standpoint, I'm going to hand this over to Nick, and between the two of us, we'll answer any questions you might have. Thank you, Brian. Nick Vinson, Assistant Director of Finance. I just want to say thank you to Brian and all the solid waste team. They've been great during the budgeting process. So what we'll do is go through the financial assumptions as included in the financial forecast. These will be consistent across the utilities, so probably won't go through each bullet point, each of the utilities, but I'll reveal them with you in detail here. So from a revenue standpoint, the 2% growth that Brian had mentioned earlier in those different services within solid waste is included in this forecast. We do have the anticipated wholesale agreements that are ending in fiscal year 2023, and we'll talk about that here shortly on the pro forma. And then the Hunter Coal Ranch development is included starting in fiscal year 2023, so really looking forward and looking at that growth that's coming up in the community. Cell construction was recently under construction currently. That cell was funded in 2021. We did want to point it out in the upcoming year. So revenue detail, these are revenues by different operational areas within solid waste. I'll use my mouse here if you can see it. So in fiscal year 2021, this is the current budget that we're in. You can see we have adopted revenues of $39.8 million. It is made up of different revenue sources or fees that are charged to customers within the community. So residential is $4.8 million. This is the refuse service of residential. Residential recycling, you can see $5.1 million. Some of the larger ones you see on the page at the front load and side load, these are commercial cans that you see at businesses around the community of that $9.4 million. End of your estimate of what we're estimating, so we're estimating $38.6 million in expense or revenue. Made up of different categories, most of them fairly close to budget, front load and side load coming in right below about $9.1 million. In the preliminary 2022 budget column, you can see total revenues are forecasted at $39.8 million, and they're divided into the same categories as the adopted budget. Expenses, same thing 2021, the current adopted budget won't walk you through all the expenses, but these are different categories within the solid waste fund. So you can see personal services, materials and supplies, maintenance and repair, operations, transfers and so forth going down the page. Total expenses about $44.1 million. End of your estimate, we are estimating to come in a little bit below what the adopted budget was about $43.4. The preliminary is currently $37.1 million. I did want to point out this is a substantial decrease, about $6 million, and that decrease is the revenue funded capital. For council members that recall in fiscal year 2021, we did cash fund the current cell development, so $6 million was set aside for that cell development cost. That's simply going away in fiscal year 2022. These are expenditures by operational areas, so Brian did review several of these operational areas with you already. You can see solid waste administration, residential collection and so forth. So those expenses match the previous slide that we saw, so the preliminary budget fiscal year 2022, $37.1 million in expenses. This is the five-year forecast. Take a little bit of time to walk you through this slide, and please let me know if you have any questions. I'd be happy to answer them. There was someone else here that can help us too. So the adopted fiscal year 2021 budget, you can see that here in this column. We reviewed the revenues shortly ago. You can see we have the $39.8 million in revenue. The adopted budget included $44.1 million, which included that $6 million for cell development, the cash funding of that cell. One thing I will point out for the new council members, the current year adopted budget included use of reserves of $4.3 million. All this was accomplished by offering a 5% rate decrease for residential customers. So if you remember last year in the adopted budget, we did a 5% decrease for solid waste customers, and that equated to about $1.07 a month. So I wanted to be sure to point that out for all the council members. End of year estimate coming in really close to the budget, so using about $4.8 million in reserves instead of the adopted budget of $4.3. So great things with this one. They've been doing a great job. Preliminary budget is here in this dotted column that you can see is $39.8 million. Before I move down the page, I do want to point out the wholesale agreements, and we'll talk a little bit more about these in the rate conversation coming up next. So in the preliminary budget, the wholesale agreements make up about $6.2 million. As you can notice, they do go away in fiscal year 2023 through the future years. These agreements are set to expire next fiscal year. You know, a discussion will come back to city council and the PUB to see if you want to renew those. So currently we are taking the conservative approach, saying those agreements will not renew. They are not included in this pro forma. Preliminary expenses for the upcoming fiscal year are $37.2 million. That number we reviewed shortly ago, leaving net income about $2.7 million. No rate increases or decreases currently being proposed for solid waste customers. We do have a few rate changes, but the holistic look and the entire rate for refuse and recycling services is not planned to change or proposed to change currently. Moving down the page a little bit, you can see the operating reserve. So in the preliminary budget, you can see we have the ending operating reserve of $8.9 million. And if you want to know how this weighs up to the current reserve policy at the very bottom of the page, you can see the minimum reserve and the maximum reserve. So the minimum being $5.2 million, with the maximum being $6.7 million. So we are well within that reserve requirement in each of the five years. And we can come back to this in just a second if someone has questions. I know there is a lot of data on here. Five-year capital plan. So what we do for each of the utilities, and I know you saw this in electric, is we do divide the capital plan over a five-year period. We look at the funding source of how those projects will be funded, debt funded, revenue funded, and vehicle replacement in this instance. So you can see on the top table in fiscal year 2022, we have some 20-year debt plan to be issued, about $2 million. Some five-year debt, about $483,000. Some revenue funding coming from the budget for some cart replacements, and then some vehicle replacement. Vehicle replacement being the largest capital plan in this utility, hence the collection trucks driving around the community. So it was definitely their biggest expense. In the bottom table, you can see how those capital projects fit into the different categories that we have selected. So there are some street projects. There are some structural projects going on. The vehicle replacement that I had mentioned, and then the building construction for some administrative building construction or improvements that need to do that building out there. So that makes up the 2022 capital plan. And then I'm going to walk you through the supplemental packages. If you have detailed questions of why these positions are needed, Brian can return to the podium and address your questions. So in total, five positions are being requested in the solid-based utility this fiscal year. You can see, starting at the top, they're made up of a field service worker, an HEO2, a roll-off truck driver, a field service worker, and then an intern, about $31,200. So all in total, five positions equate to about $282,000. The financial picture you saw several slides ago include these positions, these supplemental packages. All this being included with no additional rate increases to customers this year. So that's the entire presentation. I will pull this down to address questions. Okay. Thank you. Councilmember Meltzer. Thank you. Thank you for the presentation. You pointed out that there was the significant reduction in the revenue funded capital items, so we see the total go down. But there's also a $2 million reduction in vehicle replacement expense that kind of masks the impact of about a one-third increase in operations. So what's that about? The one -- let me go back to the performer really quick, Councilmember Meltzer. Hang on just a second. It would be easier to address it from the presentation here. Pull this up. Sorry, I didn't ask about advance. No, that's a great question, and we can address that. No, hang on just a second. Okay. So let me walk you through the performance. That's a great question. So you're absolutely correct. So in fiscal year 2021, we did have that revenue funded capital, 6.4 million. As you can see, in fiscal year 2022, it does go down 40,000. So really reducing that about $6 million for that revenue funding, that cell development. So to your question, where is that being made up or where is that money going? Well, no, no, I underscored that you pointed that out. Okay. But that doesn't account for all the big shifts because there's two other sort of offsetting shifts, and one sort of masks the impact of the other. And I'll see if I can spot it again. Yeah, toward the bottom, vehicle replacement fund transfers is down by about 2 million. Correct. But then you get an increase on the operations line of about 2 million. Correct. But that's a significant increase in operations. So that's what I'm asking. What's that about? No, and that's a great question, Councilmember Meltzer. So this year, and I should have brought this up, in fiscal year 2022, we do plan to cash fund 100% of vehicles. We're making less of a contribution to that fund, and we can still accommodate this year. That's not sustainable into the future. So one thing this five-year forecast does is as we get there in the future years, I think in year five, we're actually cash funding like 60%. So this pro forma is built on that premise. This year, we would fund 100%. When you get out there in year four and five, that cash funding of those vehicles becomes 60% or 70%. Now, if the direction is given that we want to continue those contributions, we would probably need to have a conversation about the rates within this fund. Currently, there are no proposed rate increases in the future, but that's definitely something we can consider if we get that direction. No, I'm, you know, I'm content that we've managed this thing, you know, the vehicle thing kind of opportunistically, but it's the increase in the operations line, just, you know, it's not necessarily a bad thing. I just don't know what it is. It seems like a large change in operations. Maybe it's not in the scope of everything, but, you know, it seems like a lot, $2 million. On a base of, you know, of five, of five, seven, so that, you know, it's like about a third more. So what has, what are we doing differently now in our operations? Maybe it's nothing. I mean, I just, actually curious. We probably have to follow up with you on that question. That's fine. Follow up with you on that. I had a couple of other questions as well. It's a 2 million increase in reserves. Yeah, maybe that's what you're talking about. So Brian, what he's saying is that the reserves on the operating fund is going from 3.2 to 5.9 million. Right. Is that the increase you're talking about? No. Here, let me count. Well, all right. You see the total revenue line. Then you get the expenditures, right? Right. So now count down one, two, three, four, five, six. I don't mean to make a big deal out of this, but it's a six line down. It's operations, right? And it's going from 5.760 to 7.755. Well, that's a great question. So yeah, I can tell you, I can speak to what the majority of that is. So not 100%, but the majority of that is fuel cost. So earlier in the fleet presentation, you heard Terry talk about the increased fuel cost that carries through to the utilities. So a lot of that operations line is fuel cost. So hopefully that answers your question. It was just tickling my brain. Thank you for helping. Yeah, it's actually fuel cost. Absolutely. Perhaps more substantive question now coming, but thank you for responding to that. On a previous slide, I must not have understood this correctly. When you're talking about the increase, this is probably for Brian, in the yardage associated with commercial that is up 70%. That's a lot, right? What is the base? What are we talking about? Is it an increase in the increase? Nothing goes up by 70% except fuel cost. It's an increase basically from the beginning of the year, not in the overall. So we look where the increase started this year versus where we were when we made the slide. So it's not a 73% increase in the entire commercial, but where we were from the increased start, it's probably a bad representation, but it's a significant amount in what we're doing from a COVID recovery point of view. In a portion of the year, is that what we're talking about? Correct. Like a kind of season over season kind of thing? Correct. Okay. So when it was at a dead stop versus back in business. Yes. Okay. That makes sense. And I've just got one last one for you, if I may, Mayor. You mentioned that -- well, actually, first of all, let me preface what I'm about to say by saying thank you so much for your really inventive and aggressive efforts to try to crack the problem on contamination, because you crack that and it opens up many other opportunities. But in the contamination discussion, you mentioned that there are things that are chasing arrows. I have chasing arrows on them, but they aren't programmatic. I wonder if there's anybody in the general public listening, but even for me, what's a leading example of -- because I think that's legit. It's got the chasing arrows. I think I can put it in recycling. Can you give a leading example of what's not okay? Plastic bags. You go to your local grocery store, you get a plastic bag, it's got those blue chasing arrows all over it. That is probably one of the worst things you can put in your recycle bin. And also bagging your recyclables to drop them in, because, again, that creates a contaminant and an inability to manage that material. Okay. I was aware of the plastic bag issue. I didn't realize that they have the chasing arrows on them. Correct. Everybody's listening, the bags don't go in the recycling. Loose material. Loose material. Not a budget point, but bears repeating. Thank you. All right. Councilmember Archer. So several interrelated questions. I'll start with the one that had to do with contamination, since Mayor Pro Tem brought that up. First of all, I realize, as you mentioned, that the contamination is still high, but it's going down. And I know that that's a lot of work. Would you say that the majority of contamination comes from the larger dumpsters at apartment complexes and businesses versus individual home recycling bins? Or is it a mix or hard to say? That's almost an apples and oranges question. From a residential point, we can see sectors of the city who have higher versus lower, and we're trying to sort of hone in on what the characteristic is so we can focus in those areas, special outreach opportunities, face-to-face conversations. Looking at the commercial sector, though, by and large, apartment complex dumpsters are the most contaminated. And at the end of the day, it's an important storm. If I have to take 50 or 75 more steps to go here, you know, to the garbage can as opposed to the one that's next to my car as I'm leaving, well, guess where it gets tossed. And unfortunately, we find that even though apartment complexes are intermingled with the rest of the commercial route, they tend to contaminate entire loads. So what we're looking at developing is an apartment-only route to determine, you know, exactly how bad that impact is so that we can create that outreach that we need in those units as well as installing some special locks and lids and restrictors and things of those nature that we found successes in our drop-off stations and trying to apply that technology and that mindset to cracking that nut, so to speak. I really like that idea, and I know that, you know, a lot of times just when the recycling bin is left open, you know, and it rains, that can be a problem. I wonder if, you know, automated dumpster lids where someone would, if they have something individually to put in, they could press a button, it could open up and close. You know, I don't know if there's anything like that, but I know that also for people who have, you know, who are restricted in various ways, if there's a trash bin that has a closed lid and a recycling bin with an open lid, some people will just, you know, kind of any port in a storm, as you mentioned. I was wondering also about the possibility of, you know, a city ordinance that would require apartment recycling dumpsters to be located right next to the trash recycling dumpsters, so it wouldn't be a matter of, you know, recycling's over here and trash is over here, and you'll go to whichever one's closer. Yeah, I think it's something that we can look at, but really that would only affect any new construction, and a lot of our apartment units right now is older construction and they're very, very space constrained, so trying to put a, you know, an extra dumpster or co-locate dumpsters in that parking lot, you know, takes up parking and makes it almost impossible for us to service based on where it's located. So I think it's opportunities that we can look at and try to become innovative with, kind of like we've done with the valet service downtown, you know, it was a service that didn't exist and, you know, we've been able to tweak it and make it a success, so it's something that we can look at, but it's not just sort of a pin stroke and we can make it happen. Yeah, no silver bullet one size fits all. Correct. Well, I definitely appreciate the innovative approach and I really like the idea of an apartments only route to get just a better sense of the data, and we'll be eager to hear more about that. I'm wondering also about the plan to, or the trend of, you know, rolling back the amount of other cities and other entities trash that we take in at our landfill, you know, this is something that the previous council, you know, had discussed and it was, I believe, had been a goal. Where are we headed with that or is that due for another, and this might be more of a city manager question, I don't know, another conversation, you know, coming soon before council on that. We pointed out that we have this next year is the last year in this three year contract so sometime within the next year probably the next six months we will have a specific discussion related third party waste coming to and, you know, and as we look at implementing the solid waste management strategy and other funding opportunities how all of these will work together to create success here in the city of Denver. Okay, excellent. I look forward to that and thanks for letting me know that about the timeline. Then, you know, finally, about waste diversion you mentioned that this year 20% place was, you know, that we took in was diverted. Can you just kind of break that down a little bit in terms of what that means, does that mean, you know, 20%. Does that 20% include recyclable waste that people are already putting in recycling bins or does that mean waste that was, you know, put in, that was set to go towards the landfill, you know, that was extracted from that and diverted. That's net. We look at everything we collect, whether it's putting a recycle bin or not, yard waste cart, whatever, and then we back out the material that we actually divert for reuse. So, you know, the yard waste goes into down order. That's diverted the material that separate out at the Murph that actually goes to be recycled into a new can a new model whatever that's diverted the material we send to the metal recycling facility that's diverted but anything that goes into the hill itself and is compacted and buried. That is not diverted. Okay, okay. Excellent. Thank you. Thanks for clarifying that that's what I thought, but it's helpful that to have that explained. With that in mind, kind of looking at 20% diversion and what you mentioned, which is really awesome goal, you know, the goal to just to increase that. I was just wondering if you could speak to you know how that maybe, or maybe you could kind of answer my concern, I should say, my concern that that might be at odds with, you know, the view that, that growth in commercial waste is good. You know, and the one hand we're saying growth in commercial ways is, is good. And then we want to divert more waste, you know how. It's not, it's not an either or question it's a both end. And the reason being is we have, you know, dedicated staff that are going out and talking with these these commercial opportunity commercial customers to really determine what's in their way stream and either. First of all, either diverting from the front end, because I mean we can't handle it's like the tail wagging the dog we can't manage it all on our end. But if we can work with these companies to make the proper purchasing decisions to divert, you know, have returnable containers things of that nature. By the time that it gets to us, we have a much smaller segment of material to manage. And then from that, whether it be food waste that we're not maybe that, you know, we're managing in some other way. I'm not going to say composting because I think we've got an innovative and cost effective way that we don't have to set up a separate composting operation. Or, but we can still enhance down order, you know, capture methane do all the really good things and positive things, you know, related to that, which we'll talk about a little bit later. But, you know, working with some of these third party, you know, maybe private sectors to divert textiles, windows, building supplies, things of this nature. So, and most importantly, you know, using our Rubicon system, actually capturing that data. Because part, you know, one of our issues right now is, you know, we don't know what's been diverted on the front end before it even gets to us. So, you know, you may have a person that took, you know, 50 tons to the metal recycle facility. We only see 10 tons. We're having to report 10 tons, but we don't get to capture that 50 tons is diverted. So, you know, that's part of what this is, is us figuring out how to manage that data so it can report a true diversion number for the City of Denton, when we look at it holistically. Thank you. Okay, Council Member Beck. So, Brian, I'll lead off with you and Danny are now in competition for the most creative org charts. The rest of you, the rest of the departments, you're all falling really far behind. Oh yeah, I'm doubling down on that org chart item. The other thing is that, so following on from Councilor Armitage's issue of commercial versus residential diversion, that was really educational. I really appreciate those five points that you two discussed. So, as part of that, of that 18 to 20 percent that you're discussing, if you separated down, how much residential diversion is there versus commercial diversion? Because that chart was just sort of overall diversion. It was, and because a large chunk of that diversion is yard waste, a majority of that is going to come from our residential customers. So majority of that 18 percent would be related to residential activity. So it would only be a little glib to say that the residences are carrying the load on that, the overall bar chart. That would be correct. But again, they have the larger opportunity. And again, you know, places like Tetra Pak, who have a tremendous recycling program, but we never see part of that. They're doing it on the front end and that's what a lot of our commercial community is doing is they're managing this and we never see that. We only see the waste that comes out the back door. So again, as I explained earlier, part of this whole strategy situation explaining this is being able to capture that data and creating those relationships so we can report that number more accurately for the city of Denton. Yeah, no, I think that auditing kind of concept is quintessentially important. Otherwise, you won't be able to tackle your goals. Two other items. One, I believe that was on I don't know if it's a Nick or Brian question. What's in miss on slide 19 in terms of the expenses? You had 14 million dollars in miscellaneous and I'm just trying to understand. Can you help me understand what what what that entails, what that describes? Slide 19 or at least like 19 in the back. Oh, so great question. Councillor Becker. The majority of that is cost allocation transfers and debt service. So those numbers are included within the miscellaneous fund. Okay. Yeah. All right. And then again, I'm not sure there's a Brian or Nick question. What's the lifetime of our trucks? Currently, we have a material, correct me if I'm wrong here, but we have about a five year replacement rate on the on the trucks. So we keep keep them rolling. Some we've been carrying a little bit longer only because they've been extremely reliable. But, you know, when that maintenance number and the usage number reached that magic score, we get it out of the system. You know, we drive every street in the city of Denton every week on the I mean, these are some of the highest mileage vehicles we have in our fleet and in five year period, they're ready to be be turned over. And do you have a feel for what the atrophy is per year in terms of trucks? Are are we are we bursting out to 10 new trucks every five years or we kind of doing one or two trucks every year? We're looking probably at about two or three new trucks. And again, or excuse me, we're looking at about a route to a route and a half every year, which equates to approximately three to five trucks. And each truck has a driver. So again, a lot of that depends on our growth factor. We're looking at 2% growth. So we're looking at adding a couple of new trucks this year with a couple of new drivers. All right. Thank you. That's very informative. Appreciate it. Councilmember Gwar. Thank you. I just have a couple of clarification questions to return to the commercial services slide. You referred to yardage. Can you clarify what we're talking about when we talk about yardage? Is that like a volume of a yard is a cubic yard. So you're three feet by three feet by three feet. And if we have a three yard dumpster, it holds, you know, three cubic yards of eight yard dumpster. But because every commercial customer has has a little bit different setting, we report total yardage growth as opposed to number of dumpsters or this or that. Okay. So that's a measure of the capacity of the dumpsters, not the volume of trash coming in. Correct. Okay. All right. That that clarifies that for me. Thank you. I also had a question about net recycling on the waste diversion chart. Are are we talking about only that recycling that actually gets recycled and and is have have you removed kind of contaminated correct loads from that? Okay. Yes. All right. Thank you. That was that's where my council member. I put my recycle in another bag to recycle. Sorry. I won't do it anymore. Thank you. I learned something today. I thought I was being helpful. My question about recycling is recycling designed to save money or maintain or make money, you know, increase funds. There is revenue that is associated with the sale of recyclables, but it is not sufficient to cover the cost of the operation. What we're trying to do is to save landfill space, which is where the where the cost is, you know, landfill space only goes up and up and up. So the more that we can save by compacting trash, by minimizing the amount that we're sending there, by how much we're recycling. That is where the saving the quote unquote savings occurs. So if you're just looking at it from a recycling with with a set of recycling binders on, it will always cost money. You know, we have one of the last, for lack of a better term, unicorn contracts where you actually receive net revenue in the nation. Most cities out there right now are paying between seventy five and ninety dollars a ton to actually process this material and getting almost nothing in return. So, again, as you know, we've got a contract renewal coming up, I think in about five, six years with our Murph operator. And that's going to be a significant point of discussion about how we go about managing this material, why and why it's extremely important for us now to manage this contamination, but also create those opportunities that we can grow the amount of material, the type of material that we're going to be collecting. You're using the term Murph in your materials recovery facility that is that what didn't the landfill is considered or it's a separate it's at the landfill, but it's a separate building. And that's where you dump all the material. They sort out the cans and the plastic and, you know, it's it's industry speaking. I apologize for that, but it's the recycle center at the recycle center. Is that the location where citizens can go to not get recycled things for free? No, you cannot pick anything up from there. And we salvaging is prohibited by state law and by our operating procedures. That's probably the most dangerous thing you can do at a landfill is try to scavenge or pull something out. More people die because of that. So again, we strictly prohibit it. And so if there's material that you want, talk to your neighbors, if they've got it, go to garage sales support, you know, one of our local reuse stores. But but right now there is no place that you can go to get something for free. That may be something that flows out of our comprehensive solid waste management strategy. But right now that does not exist. Councilmember Davis. Thank you, Mayor. You've been keeping us pretty well abreast of the contamination situation. You've been very forthcoming with information and also pretty good communication coming out of the shop and out of the PR shop with the things the interns are doing, the audits, the curbside audits and all that that are going on. What are we next to do for a pretty good update on council on you told us that already the information in the slide is already a little bit dated. We're already doing a little bit better. What do we next do for a big Friday report update from y'all? Probably within the next month on that, we'll hit the end of the quarter. It'll allow us to comprehend squash all that data down and we can we can provide you updated information on that. Thank you. About five years ago, I got a new cart and it had a nice graphic on the top of it. That's, of course, worn away. But we we saw it every single week. So we memorized what's on the cart. We know what to put in there. Is there any plan for either folks who never had the good sticker on there that told them what not to put in the cart or heard their stickers worn away? A previous tenant saw the sticker and now it's long gone. Something big red letters that says no bags ever, no matter what. Is there any plan for something like that, like at point of service, point of delivery reminders for folks? Whenever we go out and either we refurbish or replace a cart, that that information is there. But it's it's almost impossible for us to try to touch every cart on a given week. So really what we rely on is when you set up an account, we will send you sort of a welcome packet that contains this information. It's in brochure. You put it on your refrigerator, do whatever you need to do. But right now we're not planning on putting anything specifically on the carpet is something we can can research and look into. And as you do that, if there are things that I mean, certainly are being very creative with the problem already. But if there are things that we can do to help make it possible for you to touch every cart or something we can do to mail citizens something they stick on their cart, anything that we can do to assist you in that effort. I think that's pretty key. Thank you. Councilman Beck. Thank you. Brian, Councilor Davis is ETA question sparked. When can we see the what are we expecting to see the consultation thing that I got to participate on before I was on council? Yeah, as part of the conference, it's always management strategy. We actually have an update on the draft coming to September 14, I believe. And what that will do is we'll tell you where we what we've done. So the results that we're at, the next steps, the whole strategy will not be completed until the end of this calendar year. And at that point, we'll start working on the implementation plan and the work forward. But we'll we'll have an opportunity on that date to roll out the information that you participated on as well as over a thousand members of the community and the impact that they had there, as well as some of the things we've seen from a legislative standpoint and a national and global standpoint to help us make those decisions as we start moving forward in the finalization of that plan. All right. Excellent. Council's in for a treat. OK, I've seen no other questions. Just a couple of things to touch on. So the only acronym that I think we needed to touch on and it's not an acronym, but just an explanation Rubicon is that is our smart routing system. So basically, and we hope to have some information back to you here in the near future, but is our smart routing system. Basically, it's an iPad and a little dongle that fits in the in the compute in the truck. You track it. It's our electronic workforce management system. Drivers going down the road. If you know that the car can't be collected for whatever reason, he hits a button on the computer. It takes it. The supervisor sees it. You know, it gives us so much power from a technology standpoint that we can really manage what's going on in the route. You know, somebody calls in and says, you know, you missed my car. Well, we can pull it up and say, well, we were there 15 minutes ago and there was nothing out. You know, you want to see the picture? You know, that that shuts down a lot of arguments that we have with with customers real quick sometimes. And as a result, you know, it's making our job and our driver's job a whole lot easier, a whole lot more efficient. But it's also adding value to the customers and that they can ensure that that their routes are being run and run and the services being provided as we've promised. So I think as we go into our next presentation with regarding to the rates, the Rubicon system is going to be extremely important as we roll out some of the improvements that we've identified in our rate presentation. Right. And giving credit where credit's due, that process was tested recently. So I thank you for your due diligence and your driver's due diligence. That's important. And I'll say this as well, because I heard about the after the holiday, there was a backup at the at the landfill for recycle. And I heard it from a couple of people. But to to staff's credit to management credit, whatever that is, that was immediately preceded by the fact that they said, hey, they opened a second lane. They got us going pretty quick. And so unprompted. I appreciate you empowering whoever that needs to kind of make those on the ground decisions split at the at the at that moment in time and kind of make sure we take care of those that that are the right payers and kind of users of our facility. So we appreciate that. You're welcome. All right. All right. The next presentation is the rate presentation. So happy to report you have me for three more presentations. So definitely get familiar with my face today. So let me pull this up really quick. And then definitely Brian can speak to some of these changes if we have detailed questions. Share my screen. Okay. Before we get started, just want to say the rate changes that you see today and we discuss and these are included in the five year forecast that you just saw. So these will not change that financial picture unless you give us direction is different than what's being proposed. So please just keep that in mind. Some of the rate discussions that will cover and involve the residential rate structure commercial landfill outside city didn't customer rates that we're looking to establish this fiscal year and then those contracted agreements we talked about shortly ago. So I know there's a lot on the side and we'll take some time to go through and we definitely can come back to it if you have questions. The first thing I want to reassure Council is that the refuse and recycling rate for residential customers will not change this year. We're not proposing to change the refuse and recycling cart rate. We are looking to make some changes to other fees within the residential rate structure. The first one being to discontinue the subscription fee for calling yard waste and brush service. So for Council members that were here a couple fiscal years ago, you do remember that we introduced a subscription fee for yard waste service really trying to promote people participating in that program getting those yard carts out there to customers. It's been very successful. And so we are looking to discontinue this fee and cut down some of some of those calls coming into the customer service department. One thing I do want to say this came up to PB yesterday this presentation was presented to them. The question that came up, are we doing away with the actual cart purchase fee that he would actually stay in place. So if you're a new customer within the community, you need a card to do your yard waste with you'd still be responsible for purchasing that card. And that's $20 so I just want to make sure I stated that to Council. The second bold or the third bullet point you see down there is to initiate a bag outside the cart fee. This is an issue that Brian and staff is currently having we talked about this a little bit he can come back to the podium and address it, but we are looking to do a $5 per bag fee if that waste is outside those carts. So I wanted to communicate that to Council get your direction on that little bit different this year we put some operational changes that we're proposing in this always fun so for bulk waste. We just want to reiterate with customers this must be called in, and then the material be collected from the curb of those residents so bulk waste is something that is commonly picked up the residents commercial rate structure so we are looking to make changes to the way the rate structure currently is. This is being driven by a cost of service study that was completed in solid waste a couple fiscal years ago, moving us closer to this cost of service rates, and then helping us implement some new software within this always fun for billion purposes and we'll talk about that on the next slide. These adjustments will impact about 104 dumpster so actually see a decrease if we implement this new rate structure and we'll talk about that shortly and just give you some demographics How does that break down so 34% be in retail 33% be in school, 19% be in restaurant bars 9% multifamily and 5% hospital so I just want to point that out that those customers 104 dumpsters would see a decrease. There are three different tables on this graph can be a little confusing at first I want to draw your attention to the left hand side of the tables first. So what we're looking to do is implement a common multiplier, and I say common multipliers basically what is the per cubic yardage rate for customers. And so in the top table, you can see the very first rate for a three cubic yard was that three cubic yards of capacity is currently costing $74 and 16 cents. But as you move out to say three times a week, and that rates to 2248, and you go to four times a week it goes to 311 52. The issue we have is if you return to this table and draw your attention to earlier you can see 7416 times three is 228 48 so it's consistent in the first table, there is no issue there. When you start getting to the four times a week five time a week and six times a week customers, those frequencies start increasing that common multiplier no longer works. So for example 7416 times four is actually 296 64 and the rate currently in place is 311 52. So what we're looking to do is implement that common multiplier 7416 for the refuse service. At the bottom table you can see what customers can expect for a monthly rate decrease for doing this this is consistent with the cost of service study that was completed a couple fiscal years ago. The cost of service study with the results were as the customers from a one time a week to a three time a week collection service were actually under recovering anybody from four times a week to six times a week were over recovering. So this takes us in a step in the right direction of getting close to cost of service rates in those higher collection frequency cans. So just wanted to point that out. I mean you can see what those rate changes would be for those customers there in the top tier of the chart. Refuse recycling won't walk you through it in quite as much detail same concept here and these rates are less of course from a cost of service standpoint from the finance perspective. This excludes the refuse component and the cost of service rate so the rates are less. So for example a three cubic yard one time a week recycling card is 6378. What we're doing is trying to implement a common denominator is 6378 across the board. On the very bottom table you can see what those customers would see as far as an increase or decrease. I'll note the ones seeing an increase are seeing an increase of a penny a month. I'm not significant but we didn't note it here. And then you can see there are some that are getting collected six times a week on an eight cubic yard which not quite as many of those customers on the recycling side would see a decrease of $161 a month. So rate recommendations for the landfill we talked a little about this in the last presentation but we are looking to increase the sludge disposal rate and this does come up usually throughout the budgeting process. Each year this is a hard material to handle within this fund so we are looking to increase this rate from $50 a ton to $60 a ton and this increase will do about $82,000 in increased revenue. On the first slide if you remember us discontinuing the subscription fee for yard waste and brush collection that was a decrease about $80,000 so this actually will offset that revenue decrease we were seeing with that discontinuing that subscription fee. Looking to establish a new brush rate of $35 a ton for non-cited end customers and then change the unbacked brush rate from 20 to 25. And what this change will do this make it consistent with the minimum charge within the landfill so if you come to the landfill and you have trash to dispose of or refuse I mean you don't have a ton of material you pay what they call a minimum rate. That minimum rate is $25 what this does this aligns this rate with that rate so just want to make things consistent across the utility. Operational changes and Brian can talk this a little bit more if you have questions we are looking to implement a resident basically approved for residency so really encouraging those customers that come to the landfill to provide a utility bill or something similar. Really just a utility bill to prove they live within the city limits, so we get quite a few customers that are outside the city, they live in surrounding cities or outside I mean the TGA so looking to implement that. This is something that currently does not exist, so we are looking to establish an outside city and rate for residential customers. These are customers within the TGA live outside the city limits that have city city didn't service. So currently those customers are paying the same rate as someone that lives inside the city limits, you can see that rate for a 64 gallon card is $20 and 51 cents for 96 gallon card is 2504. And for an additional 96 gallon card is 1657. So the, the increase is based on the cost of service model residential customers are currently for a 64 gallon cart under recovering about $10 a month. So when you see that $30 and 69 cents for a 64 gallon cart. That is what that number is based off of the 96 gallon cart is 32 same premise. And the 96 gallon cart stand consistent at 1657 and a question that may come up a council how many customers fit into this category. We have about 214 customers that fit into this category. So just to give you a point of reference. Rate recommendations counselor armature you asked this question earlier those are these contracted agreements. And just draw your attention to the second bullet point, they will end fiscal year 2023 so as Brian had mentioned solid waste department the finance department bring those conversations back forward to you for your consideration of those agreements need to be renewed or allow them to expire. We are doing adjustment in these agreements for the upcoming fiscal year in accordance with the contract. So that adjustment is 4.5%, which is a CPI adjuster. Draw your attention to the table you can see who those agreements are with you can see wise county frontier waste little lamb waste connections Republican CWD what the contracted tons are which is the minimum tons will bring into the facility each year. And then what the current rate is and what the proposed rate is. So this is to keep us consistent with those contracts until they expire in fiscal year 2023. Next step so this presentation did go forward to PB yesterday they did not have any, you know, recommendations other than staff so everything staff was proposing they were fine with. And they did have a little bit of concern about the resident verification at the landfill about utility bills and maybe using drivers license instead so that conversation was discussed. And then Brian can speak a little bit more to you about that. So this will come back to you on August the 2nd next to next Monday. Excuse me, we're excited. That's the budget workshop. And then also we get in pubs approval in late August. With that that concludes the presentation I'll pull down for questions. Questions you have. Councilmember Davis. Thank you, Mayor. So this is kind of an operational question so whoever wants to hit that on the brush call in. Now I know a lot of people will be very happy to find out that they no longer have to call in when they put out their normal appropriately sized brush pile on their trash day but if I remember correctly one of the reasons we were having them call in was operational expenses you know that we had the claw truck just driving around looking for whoever might have brush out. Is this an adjustment were able to make because of the Rubicon system because somebody can tag up in the system that there's a brush file to be to be picked up or are we picking up that operational costs somewhere else. Yes, yes, yes and yes. Now, first and foremost that the original. The reason we originally started the whole cart and bag program was we were like you said we're running up and down every street. The issue was we only found waste on less than 50% of streets that were out there. The program has been so successful right now we're running up and down 100% of streets anyway, so it doesn't make sense for us to require you to call in and drive past, even though we're on the street so again by eliminating that the subscription, requiring everything to be either in a cart or paper bag. Basically we sweep the streets clean of the brush. Again we eliminate 600 or more calls customer service every week giving them more capacity what they need to be doing. End of the day, you know everybody's happy from operational standpoint we're there we're spending the money we might as well do the work. Very good well I'm glad to hear it's been as successful as it sounds like it's been that that's kind of anecdotally what I hear people are really enjoying the service and being able to get that stuff out of the curb in a manageable way every week. Any questions about the residential gate rate and utility bill verification. I understand we have to verify residency absolutely but is there a technology that can help us do that, so that somebody doesn't show up on a Saturday morning they waited in the whole long line to take their, their trailer full of stuff from their, their big truck or whatever, and they don't have their utility bill paper utility bill with them. Is there a way to sync systems up where somebody at the gate can can look them up in a system rather than. Do you have your paper utility bill with you or go back home and get it and come back. Yeah, I mean, and a lot of people, this is a discussion that came up yesterday a lot of people are on automated billing anyway and they get a PDF on their phone if they show up at the end of the day we're not going to turn anybody away because you know we do have two rates it's $4 a ton more, you're paying a little bit more but the end of the day you still be able to dump your waste but we can look at other opportunities maybe to try to recapture to ensure a person is actually a city of didn't resident. Sure I appreciate that $4 difference is exactly the kind of thing I get emails about so I would I would expect that somebody at least would appreciate the convenience. Mayor potential. Yeah, thank you. First comment. Yeah, that's a good learning for us that sometimes, you know, to be to be thinking about whether when you kind of want to nickel and dime. If there's, if the way you do it has a cost associated with it that may wipe out the nickel or the dime. So I think that's kind of a good object lesson on the, but related to that on the brush. I'm a little unclear on the rationale for saying that we want the gate, the minimum gate charge to equal the minimum sub ton pickup. Are we saying that the cost is less is the same to us whether we come to your house or you come to us, my misunderstanding. Yeah, a little misunderstanding. Okay, what happens at the curb stays at the curb. What we're talking about with that raising the minimum from 20 to 25 that is a landfill only expense so if you drive it across the scale. You're gonna pay $25 anyway so right so the minimum rate might as well be $25. But does it does it cost the city last one way or the other for picking it up when you cross the scale versus if we pick it up at your door. Well, most of the people that bring it to the landfill anyway are either you'll have have trim massive amounts and they don't want to put it on the curb, or it's a landscaper or some third party operator so those are the people who are actually affecting. Okay. Okay, so you get a landscaper who's going to bring up nearly a ton of stuff across the scale, up to a ton. Yeah. Take the example of nearly a ton. 25 bucks. If he puts the same nearly a ton at the curb. We want to charge the same amount at the curb versus what we pay if you brought it across the scale, we get a landscaper who's doing commercial work for a customer should not be putting stuff at the curb. Okay, okay. However, if they do put it at the curb. They're, they're allowed to put whatever they can in a plastic cart or a paper bag and we will pick that up with guys as part of what your weekly collection is if it's in a plastic bag or exceeds that the, the, the size limitations from a brush standpoint, then we will charge you the, the $75 an hour, or the $5 a bag to pick it up. So when does the $25. What's that going to happen now. That happens when it comes across when a when I load up my truck with yard waste and I drive across the scale at the landfill. Oh, okay, so the thing that you're chewing up is in both cases it's it's across the scale. That's my armature. Not turning up. There we go. Thank you. Okay, so several things. Number one, I'm really pleased that the subscription fee and the, the column requirements being discontinued for the yard waste so that's great. I have a question about the proposed $5 fee for a bag out of cart as you're seeking counsel direction on that. You know that people could get I don't know maybe you feel like we've been through a year of warnings and now it's time, you know, so but I'm curious to know you know how you'd respond to that. So as part of your monthly fee, we give you a certain volume of material of capacity. What you're doing is buying extra capacity in that given month. So again, you know, 95% of the time, it's not going to bother you. You got a good relationship with your neighbor you take that best, you know, with his permission, his or her permission, go put it in their trash can. But you have a Fourth of July party at Thanksgiving party somebody graduates, you just generated a little too much garbage that weekend, I want to make sure that I get it off the curb, but that cost is covered in as the person that generated that material. You know you're accountable for for that cost of service so that's where that $5 per bag. Again, it is a little little hefty but again it's it's it covers the cost but also serves a little bit of a deterrent and allows you to make that decision whether you want to put it there or not. Okay, that that's fair. So someone would find out by it just showing up on their, their bill and it would be marked as it would be as you know this is why. Okay, great. Thirdly, what about so this is about me the part of the presentation about commercial dumpsters and I like the sound, by the way, the new you know cost recovery process for you know front and inside load I think that that sounds great. What about, you know, commercial at smaller commercial entities who might be assigned a dumpster, but who would prefer to have just, you know, regular trash bins I know of one business, you know, that this applies to maybe it's the only one but usually, you know, if there's, if there's one, or at least more than one. If there's two that then there then there are others so I'm wondering if that's a larger problem and might that might addressing that issue be be able to help save some money for the city. Yeah, that's a that's a really good question one of our issues though is every time we put a non put it put a unique cart or unique device in the middle of something that we're trying to standardize. That's a truck offer out so a residential truck would have to come by and or something with a tipper would have to come and pick up that so again, that's additional wear and tear on the street by an additional truck extra fuel. As we go down, but again I agree that, you know, there, there probably are opportunities in some of these other unique situations to possibly provide, you know, additional type of service so as we move forward with our strategy and implementation. There could be another level of service put in there that's less something less than the three yard, but it's not a traditional type dumpster. Okay, or, you know, I also wonder if these, you know, businesses are in primarily residential areas or you know these mixed use areas where there are residential trucks going there anyway. Then, you know, it could be presumably just included on that residential route. I think it's an opportunity for us to look at. Okay, okay. Excellent. And then finally, about those 214 customers outside of city limits with the increase in fees. So are these, these are people who are these residents or you know commercial entities who have recently been annexed into the city now can they are in our extraterritorial jurisdiction. And they do not live within the city limits. And as a result, you know we that as Nick pointed out, you know residential rates are subsidized to the tune of almost $10 a month by the excess, you know $5 of it comes from the waste hauler agreements and then the other five comes from revenues that we collect, you know, in other ways shapes or forms, not being city of Denton residents. The question is, should they enjoy the same benefit as city of Denton residents. And that's why you know we want them to pay the full cost of us having being able to go out the cost of correct and being being being that they are not in the city limits. They are not required by state law to use the city and then there are other opportunities for them to have their garbage serviced by other contractors, we are not the sole providers out there so not that we want to lose them as customers but again we want to be more towards a full cost of service. And sure I'm just just wanting to know a little bit more about them so are these are these, is it a mix of commercial and residential and are they primarily under these non annexation agreements you know the part of the EPJ that is covered by these non annexation agreements. Most of these are outside of the city limits so they're not they don't live within, quote unquote the donut holes so to speak that are within our city. They are out you know up towards the lake up towards Aubrey down south most of them are residential type units we've got a few that have commercial dumpster services that support farms and things of that nature. But again, you know there are other opportunities out there if they wish if they don't wish to continue services with the city of Denton. Thank you, that makes absolute sense I just want to know a little more about those customers think a counselor back. Thank you, Brian. You have a nonlinear differential problem that's that's making want to dig out my diff EQ, because you've got linear frequency multipliers in terms of number of days, you have volume multipliers, you have commercial multipliers you have residential multipliers. And, and I know and understand that some of the goals or policy goals like you want to de incentivize certain behaviors you want to incentivize certain behaviors. I guess, one of the things is, we often make the argument that we're looking at a cost recovery effort that's that seems to be the bulk of the argument for one thing or the other is a cost recovery and that's fair enough you know it costs you a certain amount to do business, the city has to pay for that. Is our cost recovery linear per day, is it linear per volume. And now you may be earlier in your presentation you said things like, you know, it's not that much more painful to send a truck out for two yard or to two carts than one cart for a given month. So I can I can see how it's sort of nonlinear in that regard, but I feel like we're mixing a lot of nonlinearities. If we're, we're, if, if we're really trying to just get at linear cost recovery. So can you help me sort of understand how these are fitting together wire, at least those the volume and time ones let's let's just address those. Well, the first goal that we have from a solid waste standpoint is health and safety. So a lot of our collections that we do on a more frequent basis revolve around food waste and the attraction of vector. revolve around the attractiveness to people who may be dumpster diving on material that shouldn't be consumed so we want to be getting that material out and hopefully I'm answering the question. It is actually okay. But you know there are other places that are more secure have more construction demolition type of, you know, inert type waste. So those will be on a less frequent basis but they may have a larger can, a larger dumpster at the at their business. So part of our consultation when a person comes to request service, we have to find out, you know, what type of material are you putting in there, but also have to evaluate how much capacity we have on a given route. We have so many commercial trucks that are running the route. So if it makes more sense from a loading standpoint to give you two fours or four that service twice a week as opposed to an eight that service once a week, then we will counsel you in that direction. So again, as you said, you know, it is nonlinear. There's a lot of moving parts in here and if you're located further out from where our point of service is, which means it takes longer to get back, which means we have to service less than a day. There's a lot of moving parts, but again, you know, with help from finance and our internal customer service and billing folks were able to make sort of, you know, hay from this and create a system that we, first of all, we are fiscally responsible and secondarily we provide the best service at possibly the lowest price for residents and commercial customers in the area. That helped a lot and I just will say as a final comment on the separate item that the PEB and other counselors made, I do think we want to be somewhat flexible on our identification system. I don't think we want to be, I don't want to be draconian on our ID system and it sounds like maybe others that are advising you also don't want to be draconian, so I would take that under advisement. We will, we will, and again, you know, one of our issues though is that, you know, zip code lines and, you know, Denton service, Denton Post Office don't service exclusively the City of Denton. We estimate there's anywhere from about 15 to 25% of people who live in the City of Denton zip codes that are not City of Denton residents and those are the persons that are enjoying the, sort of, the benefit of using the landfill at the lower rate and that's what we want to try to capture. I might posit that this is one of Pro Tem's examples of Pennywise and Pound Foolish to worry too much about exactly which side of the street somebody's on and maybe we can block and chunk it out. And maybe we have a little waste, haha, pun intended, but that's, that, you know, maybe we just absorb that because it's cheaper overall. Thank you. All right, Councilman Burke. I'm looking at slide number eight, the rate recommendations outside city limits. And I'm recognizing that on the car type the inside city limits $20.51 outside limits $30.69. And then you go to a higher rate of a 96 gallon cart, $25, but it only goes up a couple of dollars, a little less than a couple of dollars here on the outside city limits. How do you all make that determination to give those folks a break. Councilmember heard I think what your reference it is a 96 from the 2504 to the 32. It's just simply so in the cost of service model that we've updated this year as part of the budgeting process. The 96 gallon cart was not under recovering as much. A lot of that has to do with the trip fee that's built in there and the capacity charge is a trip. So there is so there's right with driving there's cost with driving to the residents to pick up the can. And then there's costs related to collections right the capacity the can, how much the refuse costs to dispose of that material within the can so I think it has to do with a lot of factors but I think the simple answer is is that it's just not simply under recovering as much as the 64 gallon cart. Okay, hopefully that answers your question. It does. Thank you very much. Also on slide number nine rate recommendation contracts. It's no, I see where you have a forecast of a 4.5 consumer price index adjustment, but I was looking at these numbers. The FY 2021 rates. Why are there different rates for different entities. I can, I can speak to that right okay. For those that were on council time you may remember that these were individual contracts that were negotiated specifically with each of these so we asked them to basically say what's this space worth to you. There's a negotiation back and forth so with with places like with company like frontier they were a little more aggressive in their their pricing back to us, whereas waste connections or republic they were a little less aggressive. Should we be fortunate enough to move forward with a similar contracts in the future, you know, I would see us doing a little higher floor, possibly including some incentives for recycling or, you know, to help create you know that that benefit so we can create you know we can show exactly what that that full diversion is, and really you know use this as the tool that helps not only city of Denton but the entire region that brings ways to us to really increase the diversion, increase the recycling, increase the benefit to the area. Okay. And this is going to be a very basic question I just don't even, I can't imagine even as asking it but I feel like it needs to be asked about. Since we know that the city is growing. And the landfill is not necessarily there for profitability is just providing the service. Since we're going to have more homes and customers. You know, the cost of service goes down operating a landfill is a fixed cost venture, whether you take in one ton of waste where you take 1000 tons of waste it's going to cost basically the same to manage that material. So you can aggregate that cost over more tons over more people, the cost per unit will will go down. But the other is you know exactly how much of that other ways do you want to bring in I think that you know, like the old farmer you know the sustenance farmer you'd grow enough for your family you'd grow your seed corn but then you always grew a little bit extra either sell or barter trade with. And that's what we're doing with this. So, from a direction standpoint. What do you need to know before you come back to us. Mayor, we formally don't. If you have direction to give us regarding these recommendations for against you can give that to us. Otherwise, it'll come back to you as part of the budget workshop on August the second, it'll be included in that conversation so definitely future conversations to come, we don't need final direction today. Okay, so yeah, I'll just I'll just kind of touch on that to say what will let me give you my thoughts on, we absolutely should should ask for utility bills, or you shouldn't be driving without your driver's license so as a check. So it's almost like if you don't have your utility bill great you have your driver's license that lease will forego the extra charge, let's say, because I think to affect, let's say we affect 85% that numbers bantered about times, I think the 85% effectiveness of that is important because we do have a fiduciary duty to those citizens to keep their cost as low as possible and that's what I truly enjoy about the product y'all commoditize and that's space, you know, it's very simple we're trying to save space. And it's everywhere right and so it just really makes it easy for me to process, and I think that's that's important so and I think we have that duty to, and it's uniform right I mean it's if you're going to someone else's library you're going to someone else's swimming pool, it just normalizes that process for no other reason than on paper, it, it's representative of everything else we do in the city, versus a carve out for this particular city service, you know, so I think for to keep that uniformity I think that's important. And then I'll just say that others should should get with you get with staff email the city manager, rather, on questions or schedule meetings, if they have questions concerns before that comes around so hopefully, when that rolls around you have those questions have answers, and we can just move through that pretty quickly so we'll, we'll use that as a as an opportunity, so this is a preview will get with you individually, if we have questions get those answered, so that when you come back, we're ready, yes or no and can move forward, so let's take a break before your next one so it's 430 so let's take 15 minutes, be back at 445 to pick up where we left off, thanks. Welcome back to this meeting of the Denton City Council, it is 508pm, we are back on the record, and still on item B which is ID 21456. And we're going through the budget presentations, and we'll take our next presentation. Mayor city council members next presentation is water so I'll turn it over to Stephen to do an operational discussion I return to the podium to the financials. Thank you. Let me get this pulled up. Though I'm new to the city of Denton I'm not new to water utilities I've actually got just about 30 years in the industry. I started in 1993 for the city of North Las Vegas as a meter reader shortly after the military. And when I left, North Las Vegas we when I started we had a population service population 63,000 and when I left, it was over 300,000 in 2010. So I've seen a lot of growth within water utilities. After that I went to the city of Long Beach, California, and I was the manager security and emergency preparedness they're really responsible for strategic planning continuity of operations continuity of business and emergency response recovery plans. Then in 2013 I had the operation, the opportunity to return back to operations with the city of Westminster, Colorado, and there I led the team that was responsible for the maintenance and operations of a water utility very similarly sized to the one we have here in Denton. And now I'm your new director of water utilities. Education it's in front of you masters of science in executive master of science in crisis and emergency management business. I'm certified professional water operator in the states of Colorado and Nevada. And I have several certifications through FEMA or the Federal Emergency Management Institute and I'm very involved in the water sector. I'm on the board, the national board of the American Water Works Association. And I'm also the chair of the emergency preparedness practices committee for the American Water Works Association. So that's just a little bit about me, my background. I'm very happy to be here. And I'll move into the oh, forgot to tell you, when I worked for North Las Vegas, I also was a lighting technician for Cirque du Soleil for 17 years. So now who gets the prize for the most cool slide presentation? Well, thank you for your service very much. That's important. Thank you for that. You're very welcome. Thank you. So leadership team, myself, we have a vacant assistant director of operations. Preetem Dishmukh is our assistant director of asset management and infrastructure. And then Kim Menken is our administrative manager, administration manager. She kind of keeps us all in line. The organizational chart, we're broken up into two functional areas, operations and infrastructure and asset management. Under the operations team, we have water production, which takes care of all of our raw water and does the raw water treatment. Delivers it to the distribution system, which is the field operations and deals with all of our distribution and collections. And then once our customers are finished using the water, we send it over to our water reclamation facility for treatment and return back into the environment. The team that Preetem is leading is our asset management and infrastructure team. And that is very strategic. We put this team together, I would say, within the last three months. And it's to focus on asset management and mostly assets within the vertical plane. So the distinction, vertical plane, if you think of a water treatment facility, you think of a lift station, a pump station. Those are vertical assets, and that's more what my team focuses on. The capital project team really focuses on those horizontal assets like the large pipes, the wastewater collection system, and the water distribution system. Though there is some bleed over on the smaller lines where the in-house team works on that. We'll talk about that a little bit later. So FTE count in 2020-21, we had 104.5. That number was increased to 106.5. It will be increased to 106.5 in 2021-22. And that is from -- those are just transfers, internal transfers from solid waste into sustainability. Our key areas of focus, I'm going to highlight just a couple things here for our achievements. We've got the upgrades to the Lake Louisville treatment facility, which will be completed this year. And then the Lake Ray Roberts treatment plant rerate. So essentially what we're doing is we're improving the facility and then we'll be petitioning the state to rerate our capacity at that plant. So currently it's rated to treat 20 million gallons of water a day. And we're going to increase that up to the 26 million gallons of water a day. And then we're also finishing up a study with advanced metering infrastructure, AMI systems, to see if it's a viable solution for our utility. Our goals for '21-'22 is to complete the construction of the Ray Roberts, the rerate. That's a very big deal for us to get that project completed this next fiscal year. And to -- again, I'm just going to highlight some of these. The survey, our distribution system, because the lead and copper rule is coming up on us where we're going to have to replace those lead service lines that we have in our system. So we need to survey the service area to identify what risk, how many do we have, and then develop a plan to replace them. And then we're going to be implementing the recommendations of the AMI study if those are applicable. So a little operational data. This slide represents our production for fiscal year 2020, 2021. If you can see, the red line is the 2020-2021 year. And we're tracking right alongside with our five-year average. You notice there's a little -- we highlighted February where we had a little incident in Texas that caused a significant demand on the system, about 31 million gallons a day. This slide represents our max daily water demand. So the blue line is kind of our baseline demand and the light blue line. And the darker blue line represents the growth, the additional capacity needs within the system. The dash line represents our current capacity. And then that black line shows the increase in capacity through the years up to 2053. If you notice, I mentioned that rerate project a little bit earlier, and we'll -- we anticipate having that completed in 2022. That puts us right on track for our anticipated growth. Some additional operational information. Just looking at some matrix, looking at, you know, the number of hydrants we flush a year and the numbers of meters that we replace a year. This -- the number -- the year-to-date number is a little old. It's about two months old. We are on track to hit that 9,000 hydrants flushed and the 1,500 meters replaced. And our goal for 2021-22 is the 9,000 flushed hydrants. And we put an asterisk with the meter replacement because depending on the results of the AMI study, the advanced metering infrastructure, that could dictate whether that number is a little bit more aggressive or not. And then I want to spend a little bit of time on this slide. In 2000 -- I want to say 2019, the organization made a decision to align the replacement of our utilities with our street rehabilitation program. And if you look at this graph, it's really telling you. Look at 2018-2019, collectively between our in-house crews and our capital team, we only replaced about 17,000 linear feet of pipe. Once they made that change, you can see how the numbers have exploded. And that's a great story that the alignment of those two projects. And so we're on track for 2020-2021 to replace over 40,000 linear feet of pipe, so roughly 20 miles of pipe. And same goal for 2021-22. And I believe at this point I'm going to turn it over to Nick, but I'll still be here if you have some questions for me. All right. Thank you. >> Thank you, Stephen. Just want to say thank you to Stephen and his staff. Been great putting the budget together. Been good working with them. So great group of people out there. So we'll look at the water financial assumptions. Very similar across the utilities. If you remember in the solid waste presentation I mentioned, we do keep these consistent. So we do have that 2% growth forecasted on that volume forecast or water consumption. The 100 coal range development shows up in fiscal year 2023. It's consistent with all the utilities. We start seeing that development come along. And expenses, we have a 3% forecast in the out years for the utilities. Revenues, these are my service category. So you can see water sales for residential customers for the adopted budget, which is in the second column from the right -- or left, excuse me, in this column right here. You can see residential sales, about 20.5 million, with commercial being the second biggest category is 17.7. I will point out towards the bottom of the page, we do pull in some impact fee revenue to fund impact fee eligible projects within this fund. So really decreasing that debt issuance and that relying so much on debt for eligible projects. And we'll talk a little bit more about that in a second. End of year estimates, so we're forecasting about 48.7 or 48.8 million in revenue for this utility. So coming in close to budget, I'm a little bit under just some of the wet weather we've had this year. So we'll continue to monitor that as we go through the summer months. Fiscal year 2022, the preliminary budget, we are forecasting 52.2 million in revenue. You can see that number in the very far right column. Expenses, very similar to solid waste. These are expenses by category. So you can see personal services, of course, materials and supplies. We have some return on investment and franchise fees listed down there in operation. So in the current budget that we're in, we have 52.9 million in expenses. We are estimated to come in a little bit below budget, about 51.6, with the preliminary being 50.9 million. These are expenses for the different operational areas within water. In the adopted budget, the current fiscal year is 52.9, so we do have a balanced budget in this utility. Estimates about 51.5 with the adopted or proposed preliminary expenses to be 50.9 million. So I will note that utility administration is not budgeted for in the upcoming budget, and that is because last year we actually consolidated this fund with -- or this HBU, which is the Home Business Unit, with the administrative function. So it simply moved up a line if you were looking at this pro forma. So I just wanted to point that out for the group. So in the water utility, we do a 10-year forecast, a little bit longer look than we do for the solid waste utility. So there are a lot of numbers on this page, and I'm sorry if the print is relatively small. We can come back to it, or I can answer your questions if you have them. So I'll walk you through here and kind of give you the lay of the land. So fiscal year 2021, this is the adopted budget. Currently, 49 million in revenue, as we mentioned on the previous slide, 52.9 million in expenses. As I mentioned, that budget is balanced. We did use some reserves to balance that budget, about 3.9 million. The council did give us direction last year to do a 2% rate decrease for water customers, resulted in a dollar decrease for the average residential customer. So I just wanted to point that out to the city council. End of your estimate, we are forecasting to come in a little bit better on that reserve usage, only using about 2.8 million. This is not due to increased revenue. This is reduced expenses, so the fund looking within their operation and having some reduced operation expenses as a result of less water sales. Preliminary fiscal year 2022 budget, you can see that here in this column. This is what we're talking to you about today, so 52.2 million in revenue. And there's that 6.6 million in impact fee funding that I mentioned earlier, that is from the developments in the community paying those impact fees, and we utilize that money for eligible projects. So just wanted to mention that. Moving down to the expenses, you can see the biggest category is operating expenses, about 16.8 million, with the next being that revenue funded capital of 10 million, basically. And we'll point that out to you on the capital side. Debt service is the next biggest one, 10.8 million, for total expenses of 50.9. So finishing the year about $1.3 million positive. If you move down the page a little bit more, you can see what the ending fund balance is. So how much do we have in reserves for the water utility is 20.9 million. Not forecasting rate increases or decreases this year. And then you can see the revenue requirements. So minimum being 16.5, with the maximum being 24.8. And if you remember a couple months ago, we did come forward to the PBN city council to talk about the reserve requirements for the utilities. We did dive into these and did a survey across the industry, and we're not recommending any changes to that reserve policy. So just wanted to point that out to the council. That will likely come back to you as we move forward through the budgeting process. A couple things down the page here. You can see we have $9 million in what we're calling an impact fee capital reserve. That money doesn't go away in fiscal year 2023. It's at the very bottom of the page. The thought process behind that is the lake expansion of Lake Ray Roberts that will need to be designed starting in fiscal year 2024. So we'd use that 9 million to cash fund the design of that plant. So instead of issuing debt, we do plan to cash fund that using the impact fee reserve. So wanted to point that out. A couple other things council members may be wondering. So starting in fiscal year 2025, we do have a revenue of $5.4 million. The next year we have revenue of $4 million, and then in 2027, $1.7 million. This is intentional. This is to build the fund balance up within this fund before the debt service hits us in fiscal year 2028. So our focus is building up that reserve for that increased debt service that will hit us about $5 million in additional debt service in 2028. So wanted to point that out when you see that net income out there. We are intentionally trying to build that reserve up for that increased debt service. As a reminder, that's a $90 million project that's going to come up in fiscal year 2027. So a lot of numbers. I'd be happy to come back to this if you all want to see this perform a little bit more. Five-year forecast for the capital plan within water. This will come forward to you in the citywide capital budget. It will be presented during the budget workshop next Monday on the 2nd. But we wanted to give you a glimpse into it today. So very similar to solid waste. We divide these by the way the projects are funded. So in this utility, there's $34.5 million in debt-funded projects, $9.3 million in revenue-funded projects, a little bit of aid in construction. So those developments helping us out with that infrastructure and those different developments. And then impact fee funding, about $3.5 million. So total capital plan for fiscal year 2022 is $47.8 million. One thing I will say is one thing we do through the fiscal year is we do work with departments to pin down exactly how much we need to issue. So some of these projects, including this plan, get delayed. We will not issue that money just to issue it. So we'll look at that and reduce that debt issuance amounts accordingly. So I just wanted to state that for the group as something new we started several fiscal years ago. Major capital plan. We did not want to put an extensive list on here for space purposes. If council would like to see that, we'll definitely be happy to provide it. So these are the major capital projects within water, accounting about $35.3 million. So you can see at the top the Northwest transmission line, about $14.9 million, with the other big project being the Lake Ray Roberts capacity rerate that Stephen had mentioned earlier in the presentation. Budget request. So these are the supplemental packages that are included within the proposed budget. These are in the financials in the proposed budget that I just showed you. So the very first one you can see, for example, we have some system repair materials, about $25,000. Moving down the page a little bit, some bigger ones, line location services, and then some street rehab money to really help out with the street department and doing some different utility cuts and stuff in the streets. So looking to outsource some of that stuff in this utility. Next steps. So the budget workshop, I do apologize, it should be August the 2nd. So please show up on August the 2nd, not August the 3rd, to be here for that workshop. I definitely have a lot of good conversations. With that, I will pull the presentation down, Mayor, for questions. Thank you. Councilmember Archer? Yes, so in that slide 20 where you listed projected expenses five years out, if we were to take the, and by the way, I should say, about the Lake Ray Roberts treatment center and the expansion of that, I'm totally in favor of that. Not that that's up for debate, but my questions are about that. I just wanted to be clear, it's not because I object to it in any way. I'm just trying to kind of separate that, since that's such a major expense, from these other expenses to kind of bracket it. If we were to take those costs out, what would the difference be year to year? For instance, for the next, the fiscal year after this one, there's a projected increase. Is that coming primarily from Lake Ray Roberts expenses? So great question. There's a projected increase in the expenses. This pro forma does not anticipate any future rate increases. So I think that's your question, so in that future year, when that Lake expansion debt starts hitting this fund, that equates to about $5 million annually. So if you look at it over a five-year period, it'd be $25 million total. So it's about $5 million annually is what that debt service cost is. Okay, thank you. And then my next question is very similar. And again, I'm just trying to figure out how the Lake Ray Roberts expansion works in this framework. I'm totally in favor of it. It's very much necessary. So in the one slide where you show that there is a 2% increase in both growth and revenue, and I believe it's slide number 14, 2% increase in both volume and revenue growth, and then there's a 3% increase in expenses. So is that extra 1% coming primarily from Lake Ray Roberts expenses? Or if you could just kind of speak to that difference and where that's primarily coming from. So where it's coming from, we'd have to dive into it. It would probably be a combination of maybe some increased operation expenses associated with that plan and maybe some increased debt service, but really the 1%, right? Because if you think about it, if you have 2% growth in revenue and 3% growth in expenses, how is it sustainable? So that 1% is made up in non-rate revenue. When I say, well, non-rate revenue, non-city debt and revenue. So it's other revenue, interest income. It's wholesale revenue. It's other things other than residential and commercial revenue. So I think that it's kind of part of your question probably is that 1% extra expenses, how do we sustain that? And that's the answer. It's being made up by non-city debt and residential. Okay. Thank you. That's very helpful. Thanks. Okay. Council Member Davis. Thank you, Mayor. I have a question on slide 15. Yes, sir. Can you help me understand the other water line? And I see kind of some bigger swings in that than we do in some of the other lines. And I'm wondering if we're recategorizing. I know we have some raw water contracts. We have some obligations and pass-through kind of things going on. Can you help me understand what that line is? Yes, absolutely. So your great point in the rate presentation, we will talk about the wholesale rate agreements that we have in place for water. Those are accounted for here to some degree. But a lot of that increase we're seeing in fiscal year 2022 is for tapping fees. So as the community continues to grow and we do we charge tapping fees as we establish that service, that's what a lot of this revenue increases accounting for. So really the end of your estimate will likely come in below or above the $6.54, but we've already made the adjustment in the preliminary budget or the proposed budget. So I think it's a combination. It's your question. Wholesale revenue and tapping fees. So when the line says other water, that's other water revenue, not necessarily other gallons of actual water that we're selling, because we've got water for resale, water sells commercial. And then that line is labeled other water. That's other fees besides just selling water. Correct. Yeah, there's ever other fees within water in the fee schedule itself. So tapping fees being some of those, it could be, you know, replacement fees of meters. It could be all types of things. Absolutely. Thank you. Okay, Councilmember McGuire. Thank you, Mayor Hatsbeth. So just a couple questions. We've talked about Lake Ray Roberts and that facility expanding its its capacity. Is the Lake Louisville facility going to remain at 28.9 million gallons per day? Let me let me ask Stephen to come answer that question. Stephen, come on down. You're the next. And by the way, welcome. We're happy to have you. Thank you. Thank you. I'm happy to be here. Yeah, the Lake Louisville is pretty much built out. It's in the heart of our city. So we don't have any room to expand there. Our expansion opportunities are at Ray Roberts and we can expand up to 100 million gallons of water a day at that facility. Okay, thank you. That answers my question on that. On slide 17, water expenses. I'm seeing a line item for sustainability. Could you elaborate on what is involved with that? Let me get to the right slide. Hang on just a second. Yes. So great question. If you remember earlier the David Gaines presentation, he came up and presented sustainability, which in environmental services, same thing. So it's accounted for in this fund. I will say that the other utilities that have involvement with environmental services, we show revenue into this fund from those funds. So for example, wastewater transfers into water to cover a portion of environmental services instead of solid waste. So sustainability is nothing more than environmental services or it is environmental services. Okay, thank you. Yes, that does answer my question. And then I was looking at the franchise fees that are, you know, unlike the 10-year forecast, they kind of hover in the neighborhood of 2 million mostly. Can you explain to me what that means? I mean, are we paying franchise fees to the city? We do. Great question. So each utility pays franchise fees to the general fund for the use of the right-of-ways within the city. So the franchise fees for the utilities is 5%. So every utility pays franchise fees into the general fund. Those franchise fees go to fund, you know, different operations within the general fund and also the streets fund. So just hopefully that answers your question is getting transferred to the general fund. Okay, yes, that does answer my question. My first thought was why is one department paying a fee to another department? But yeah, if that gives us flexibility budget-wise, then that makes sense. Thank you. You're welcome. Mayor, President Meltzer. Thank you. My question is for Stephen. I can give you a little more exercise. And welcome. I guess my first question is do we now have to move our operations to either Colorado or Nevada because of you, your -- never mind. On the consumption slide or the demand slide where you're showing, you know, the bump in February, but am I understanding right where it looks like since then we've been tracking below the five-year average? Slightly below, but that's due to weather. Okay. Because that was my question. What's going on there? I mean, obviously the macro story is growth. But what we're actually seeing with the increased growth, there is a reduction actually in consumption due to conservation efforts. Yeah, and on the past, I was led to understand that the majority of that was the migration to the more efficient toilets. Part of it. And education and landscaping. Sorry, go ahead. I spoke over you. I didn't hear the last part of what you said. So you said that and landscaping? Landscaping, well, improvements in the plumbing code and development code, which are requiring those low-flow fixtures. So it's not just the toilet. It's the actual low-flow faucets inside the homes and public awareness as well. Yeah. I mean, I imagine at some point that conversion is done and you don't get the continuing improvements on per household rate. But I don't know if we know, like, how much is left on that curve, you know? I'm not quite sure. Yeah. I mean, it's just a point of interest. You don't have to answer now. I think that's a great introduction into the next presentation, which is the rate conversation, because you will see that average consumption start to decrease for residential customers. So we'll talk about that in just a second. I'll hold the thought until then. Yeah. Thanks very much for that. Thank you. Oh, Stephen, this is for you and Nick both. First of all, Stephen, I spent time in Reno, so please educate Mayor Pro Tem how we say that state. Oh, Nevada. It's Nevada. It's Nevada. Yeah, no wonder my questions are clear. Yeah. Yeah, I apologize. No, I'm just teasing. Stephen and I are probably some of the few people that know that it's Nevada. Why they say it the way I don't know. My question goes to first, I want to praise you guys for doing a much better job for capital project alignment with the other departments that we get constant feedback from the citizen or like, why are you tearing it up and building it and tearing it up and building it and tearing it up and building it? That's a that's a common weekly refrain. So the less you can do that, the happier all of them is. So we're really appreciative. For the following on from Mayor Pro Tem's question, how much is the change that we're seeing below the line? I had a similar question. Is any of that climate for the last couple years we've been wetter? Are we actually using less irrigation? And this goes to some of the questions about irrigation metering that we might encounter in the next talk. Well, I would say that I have just recently relocated to South Central Texas, so I might not be the most well equipped to answer that question. What I would say is that from the trends that I've looked at, it appears to be weather related. So with the with the wetter weather, people are just they're not watering their lawn. So therefore, they're conserving more water. Therefore, we're producing less water. Okay, so that that I mean, I was guessing, but I guess I was asking if that was accurate. And you're saying you think it's so as well. I believe so. Okay. Then then I had to and I don't know this is a Stephen or Nick question. One was about looking at the maintenance and repair costs and the reserves. It looks like is I mean, some of the explanation was there already for why we're doing reserves increases. But it is that indicative of aging infrastructure that we are modeling into the equations that we're having to replace or that sort of general increase in maintenance and repair and that general increase in reserves is I'm misinterpreting that. I think I could probably answer part of that as far as agent infrastructure by a Stephen question. So on slide, it's my side 17 and maybe different on your presentation, but maintenance and repair is increasing from fiscal year 2021 from 1.8 million to 2.2. A lot of that increase or is that supplemental packages that we saw towards the end of the presentation for street cuts and street repairs. I think there was some line relocation stuff in there. That's where that's buried. So that stuff is included in this pro forma. It's included in that category. Okay. And those costs could be a direct relation to agent infrastructure Stephen can talk to. But that's why the financials look the way they do. Okay. And then before I let him answer on that one, back to the reserves, Roy, I have you and that is why are we decreasing our impact fees and then raising them again to go into reserves? And why are we oscillating rather than sort of keeping sort of a more consistent growth? What are we doing with the ups and downs and the impact fees? And I guess it's going to reserves. I'm not clear. It's a great question. So I think I think you're talking about the expenditure side, but I'll just both the revenue and expenses. So we currently budget 6.6 million a year and impact fee transfers into this fund. Those are coming from the impact fee reserve. So a couple years ago, two or three fiscal years ago, we completed an impact fee study for the water utility. That study identified 66 million and impact the eligible project recovery. So we could recover 66 million and eligible project costs over a 10 year period. So we took that study and we carried it forward into this forecast. The expenses that you see year to year do fluctuate. They fluctuate based on eligible projects. So as part of the budgeting process, we have to go in, look at the study, look at the capital plan and compare the two. In some years, there's a lot of eligible projects and some years there's not. Okay. So it does vary year to year. Absolutely. It does fluctuate. Okay. And it's, Stephen, if you wouldn't mind, like, briefly, like, discussing how aging infrastructure figures into the budget. Well, it definitely the age of the infrastructure does impact the budget. Obviously, the older the infrastructure gets, the more care it requires. And that could be mainline replacement programs and or, you know, the capital program that actually replaces the budget. That actually replaces significant pieces of the larger assets. And so what we're doing is we're actually launching some very comprehensive condition assessment projects that are going to look at these assets and so we can have a better picture of their health and the remaining useful life to help us plan out in the future. It does, the age and condition definitely do drive the costs. Thank you. And the reason I ask is because we often see these assessments where we've done a five-year projection or a seven-year projection or something, but the reality is that, you know, these are on a 30-year cycle and we get to 30 years and we didn't budget for 30 years. We budgeted for 10 or 15 or something. We're out of alignment with the replacement cycle. That's a common refrain that previous councils, this council have seen. Yeah, and it's a little bit challenging and more complicated than that because it does depend, especially with horizontal assets. Soil conditions can impact the life of the asset. Pressures can impact the life of the asset. Pressure fluctuations in the area can affect the life of the asset. So there's a lot of different variables to look at. So if you look historically, you can say a typical utility, a water line could last up to 30 to 75 years, but you have to factor in the other variables to really get a good idea of what its useful life is. Does that help? It does help. I appreciate that. I do have one last question and that was on the lab fees line item on, I guess it's old page 17. It might be 18 now. And earlier we had a discussion that water analysis was in that budget. Is this the same water analysis? Let me see if I can find that slide Council Member Beck. I'm trying to see, what were we looking for? It is 17 plus or minus one. And then what category? Under metering, distribution, water expense, detailed by division. We have lab fees of about half a million. Oh, yeah, great question. Is that the same lab fees that we saw earlier? It's the expenditure budget for the laboratory. So the laboratory is housed in the water fund. It does fund a portion of the expenses. Now wastewater accounts for some of the laboratory expenses also in transfers. But to answer your question, that's why that shows up here. That is the budget that Debra and everybody had talked to earlier about laboratory testing. That's where this is housed. Okay. So I guess my question is, is this the same half a million dollars or is it two half a million dollars? Or I don't remember what Debra's was. I have to go back and look at it. But whatever it was. It's the same. It's the same. It's the same. Thank you. That clarifies. Thank you. All right. See no other questions. Go ahead. Okay. I think, Mayor, that's the rest of this presentation. The next one is actually the water rate presentation. I can pull that up. You have me for the entire presentation in this one. Before we get started, I do want to tell council. So we provided a memo as backup. So if you remember a couple weeks ago, two or three weeks ago, Madison had given an audit on the water rate structure. A lot of what you're seeing today is a follow-up to that audit. We followed up a lot of your questions in that memo. So hopefully it helped address a lot of your questions and help in today's conversation. So I wanted to say that before we get started. Okay. So water terms. I won't read every one of these to you, but I do think it's important for us to understand the basic terms in the water rate structure. So the first one is a facility charge. This charge is charged to every water customer within the city of Denton. This is simply the meter fee. So if a customer has a three-quarter inch meter, it's charged a facility charge for that meter. It's billed monthly. It's the flat rate. The second one being a volume charge is the volume metric charge based on usage and be the focus of today's conversation about the water rate structure. And you can see more abbreviations, WRWC and WFH. So just a couple others. Cost of service. We have one slide on the cost of service model. This study was completed last year. We do have a draft report. As soon as that's finalized, we'll bring that forward to the PB and city council regarding the cost of service results. So prior to the one we just updated, the last study was completed in 2014. And it was time to update that in 2019. We did update it with RefTelus as a consultant, a cost allocation consultant or cost of service consultant. And then they are updated every five years, hence the 2014 to 2019. And then simply the goals of these studies is to establish cost of service based rates, understand those rates, and have those conversations with council regarding policy discussion and policy about rates. Really important conversation. We do these for every utility frequently. So cost of service results. This is a simplified view of it. Just one slide that summarizes the report that will eventually come forward to you. It is summarized by different service areas. You can see residential, commercial, irrigation, and fire hydrants. What you can see in this column here is the cost of service, so the cost of providing service to those customers. This third column is the current revenue that that category is recovering. So for example, you can see the difference, and you can see the percent difference. So residential is currently under recovering 6.6%. Commercial is over recovering 26.2%. Irrigation is under recovering about 23.5%. And then fire hydrants are just about breaking about 6% or 30,000 under. But we'll say if we move on this slide, it is common in the water industry for residential to be under recovering and commercial to be over recovering. So I just want to put that out there that this is common across the water utilities, but definitely something we want to be transparent about and bring forward to council. So this is a graphic. I know Mayor Pro Tem Meltzer had mentioned a tool at flushing earlier, so I thought this was kind of funny. We got it in our presentation. So I want to kind of give perspective about what things cost through the water utility and our rates that are currently in place. Everything is here in cents. I'd hate for people to think that flushing utility costs 65 cents. It actually is in cents, so it's 6.65 cents. So that's why we put the image there. I'm taking a shower, an eight minute shower is about seven cents, and that you can see there at the bottom picture. So I'm going to phrase the conversation. So really quick, the current rate structure that's in place for residential customers. There's that facility and volume charge that we talked about a couple slides ago. Currently, the residential rate structures are seasonal. They're based into two blocks, a winter block and a summer block, and you can see that in the table at the bottom of the slide. We talked a little bit about consumption during the budget presentation, but we have seen that consumption come down from 9,200 gallons to 7,600. The question did come up, PB, how long did that take to occur? Based on the data I could go back and look at from 2008 until now, back in 2008, 2014 time period, which is a little bit of variance, it was about 9,000 gallons. So I would say about 2014 until 2021, it's come down about 7,600 over that amount of time. So that's probably a question people had. But the average customer, so in that 7,600 gallons, currently fits into tier 1, which is 0 to 15,000 gallons, which was a focus of that audit I mentioned a couple weeks ago. So this is really important for understanding the rate recommendations we're putting forward to you today, so I want to take some time to go through this. This was something our cost allocation consultant put together, so you can see a few different tables here. You can see the current table and how the bill distribution is made up among the current rate structure. 0 to 15,000 gallons, there's currently 89% of the bills within this tier. 15 to 30, you can see there's 8%. 30 to 50,000, there's 2%, with only 1% of customers being over 50,000 gallons. It does say proposed 0 to 5,000. We actually have an additional option for you to consider today, which is 0 to 7,500. But in the 0 to 5,000 option, if you were to give us guidance to go with this one, 55% of the customers would go into the first tier, 34% would go into the second tier, and then 8%, 2%, and 1% accordingly. And then this orange table in the middle, this just tells you how many meters are out there, how many customers. So currently about 32,806 customers, with the majority of those being 3/4-inch meters. This bar chart that you see on here, this bar graph, shows the distribution per 1,000 gallons of usage. So the majority of those customers are under that 15,000-gallon usage per month. So these are the rate recommendations for council's consideration, and we will get your guidance today and bring this back to you as we continue the budgeted conversations through August and September. So option one is the current rate structure that you see on your very far, my left. It may be your right. I guess it is your left. So option one is the current rate structure. It's in place. You can see the seasonal rates for winter and summer that we talked about a couple slides ago. Option two is one option to consider, which is 0 to 7,500. In doing this, we would also recommend combining the winter and summer rate into one seasonal, just one blended rate throughout the year. That would avoid those customers' bill from changing, well, twice a year, once in May. So just really kind of creating stability in what they need to budget each month for their water bill. Option three would be a new tier at 0 to 5,000 gallons. So this is another option for council to consider, and you can see the rates accordingly for each of those tiers. I want to tell you that the reason the red box is around option two is originally this was staff's recommendation to establish a 0 to 7,500-gallon tier for the first tier. That was based on the average consumption of 7,600. PEB did give us guidance yesterday to go with option three, which establishes a 0 to 5,000-gallon tier. And the question is probably asked, well, where does 5,000-gallon comes from? That is the average winter usage without irrigation, so that's based on human consumption. That 5,000-gallon cutoff is that's where it's coming from. So they want to make that clear that option two was staff's recommendation, PEB, to give us the guidance to come forward with option three. And then if you went with option three, of course, probably the most exciting thing for people listening, this would give the average customer using 7,600 gallons a $2.10 decrease per month. One other important note, I'm sorry, is all of these options are revenue neutral, meaning that, yes, the lower tiers would see a rate decrease, but the higher tiers would see a rate increase. So what does that mean, right? Going back to the graph where we looked at the bill distribution, the 11% that fit over the 15,000-gallon tier would actually see a price increase. So I want to point that out to counsel, and we can talk about that a little bit more in the presentation, and we can go back to that graph if necessary. But 11% of the customers in Denton that were over 15,000 gallons of usage a month would see an increase. If you're under that 15,000 gallons, you'd actually see a decrease. Residential irrigation rate structure, very similar here, won't take you back through all the details, but kind of give you a summary of it. So you can see option one for irrigation customers is the same thing. They have a current seasonal block rate structure, so a winter and summer rate. We're looking to combine that and create a new tier for these irrigation customers. So same thing here. PEB did give us the direction to proceed with option three. I'm definitely looking for your direction today also. So residential rate recommendation, just to continue. So there's that 89% that popped up in the last few slides. So about 89% of the 32,000 customers that we saw would see a rate decrease. 11% of those customers with consumption over the 15,000 gallons would see a rate increase. So definitely important to point that out. In the table, we just simply wanted to show you what that looked like from a monthly perspective, a bill perspective. So option one, currently a customer using 7,600 gallons is paying $46.62. Under option two, it'd be $43.47. And then option three, it'd be $44.52. So option three, they see a $2.10 decrease. Commercial rate recommendations, this is for commercial regular water usage. There is no seasonal block structure currently in place, so we're not looking to make any changes. We just wanted to show you what the current rate was and what the recommendation was. So no changes for commercial regular water customers. Irrigation will be discussed on the next slide. Commercial irrigation customers, so they do have the block structure of winter and summer rates. So staying consistent with residential and really with advice we got from our consultants in combining those rates. We are looking to put an option two out there for council to consider of combining the winter and summer rate into one blended rate throughout the year. These are the wholesale rates. I think Councilmember Davis had mentioned these earlier. So these do come forward to you as part of the budgeting process each year. The first group won't spend much time on that. They aren't looking to change. The WW2 will actually stay the same as they're currently in place. The wholesale raw water sales, this is set at 85% of what the Dallas rate is. So that's not looking to increase. It's just going to stay consistent this upcoming year. And then we do have what we call a pass-through rate through Lake Chapman that we have an agreement on. This one adjusts with the June CPI adjuster. So this one is going to increase with some of the inflation and stuff that's going on. So this rate would go to 0.0282. Dino dirt sales, these adjustments are simply cost of service based. So the sales of dino soil have gone up. Happy to report. So great things, people working in their yard and buying dino soil. We're actually using more of this product and more sand involved in making it. So looking to adjust these rates just based on cost of service purposes, you can see the per cubic yard going from 30 to 35. If you want a discount, you want to buy more. So from 10 to 99 yards, you can get a 20% discount. The rate would go from 24 to 28 per cubic yard. And then if you wanted over 100 yards, you get a 40% discount. You go from 18 to 21. This is something we came up with a couple of fiscal years ago. It just really shows what the rate increases or decreases have been for the utilities over the last several fiscal years. You can see starting in fiscal year 2018, the utilities really haven't had a rate increase. Really rate decreases every year from fiscal year 2018 through 2021. We're not currently showing anything in 2022. Council gives us direction to change the water rate structure to option 3, and that results in a decrease in the average customer. We could add that to that column, but it's currently not showing. This is a summary of what we were originally proposing before this went to PEB yesterday. So for residential customers, originally staff was proposing option 2. PEB gave us a recommendation, as I mentioned, for option 3. Commercial for the regular water rate structure, no change. For the irrigation rate, option 2 would be to combine those rates. We're looking to do that. In the wholesale, just make those adjustments according with the contracts, and then increase those dinosul rates based on cost of service. And next steps, I don't need to repeat these. You've already seen these multiple times. And Mayor, that gets us through the presentation. I'm happy to address questions. Thank you. Council Member Arbiter? Yes, so addressing the option number 2 versus the PEB option number 3, so I haven't had the opportunity to watch the PEB meeting, so I don't know the reasons that were given. But looking at these two together, it seems to me, and correct me if I'm wrong, that option 2, from an environmental perspective, it seems to do more to incentivize big users to cut down on their water use. And it also seems to be saving the average resident more overall. So I'm strongly inclined towards number 2, but out of respect to PEB, I'd be curious to know if you or anyone else who was present at that meeting would want to say more for what their reasons were. Yeah, absolutely. So great question, and definitely can answer that, because we definitely had a detailed discussion with them. Their thought process was that the average consumption is currently 7,600 gallons. So to further incentivize those individuals or communities to conserve water is to set that first tier of 5,000. So ultimately establishing a new goal for customers to achieve over a period of time. They were concerned that the 7,600-gallon average usage now already fits into the first tier with an option 2. So we're already kind of within that first tier, and there's really not a lower spot to get to. That was my perception of what PEB told us yesterday. But to your point about higher usage and higher rates, you're absolutely correct, Councilmember Armitage. If you go up to, say, 15 to 30 in option 2, the rate's 761. Option 3 is 712. So there's more burden put on higher users in option 2 than there is option 3. Absolutely. I hope that answers your question. I think it's more about, you know, future conservation efforts and where we're going in the future and what that average consumption is. Okay. Yes, that helps me understand it better. I still am partial to option number 2, unless -- and maybe something, you know, one of my colleagues might say, you know, really intelligent, might make me change my mind, because it took a little more mental work for me to kind of work through the thinking of PEB. As you explained it, you know, it seems to me kind of a question of, you know, do we want to incentivize at the end of the -- towards the end of the higher end users or the lower end users? And I'm just, you know, I was more inclined to look at the higher end, because that has the kind of least cost burden on residents and seems to save us the most water. Let's see, yeah, so I get -- and also I just wanted to weigh in on the increase in irrigation, commercial irrigation rates. I strongly support that. I'm sorry, not just commercial irrigation rates, just irrigation in general, right? I strongly support that and I'm wondering if there's a way -- and now might not be the time to answer this question, so I'll just put this out there as a concern and, you know, you're welcome to answer it if it is appropriate. But there might be a way to kind of reach out to HOAs. I know we can't -- as a city, can't control what they require, but I know that what a lot of HOAs require in terms of residential irrigation, you know, uses a lot of water and tend to not be as open to zero-scaping methods as the city is. So I know we can't control them, but I'm wondering if there's a way for the city to, like, do some sort of outreach effort to HOAs and say, look, the -- our irrigation rates are going up. Could you, you know, be more open to zero-scaping? Just curious, you know. I think that'd probably be a pre-Tim or Steven question. We -- you can just -- you can bring it back. Follow-up, okay. Yeah, just know that that way you give your time to do your -- Yeah, I'm fine. Okay. I'm fine with that for later. I just wanted to mention that. Okay. And just to say that I do support it. Okay. Mayor, President Meltzer. Yeah, thank you. Do you need ultimately guidance tonight or -- We'd like guidance tonight if possible. Just get a consensus on what options you like for residential and if you're okay with the ones we're putting forward for commercial. Well, the reason I ask that is I wonder if there's, given conceptually, a hybrid possible that would have the benefits of three in terms of putting the break at 5,000, which if I heard you correctly before, the rationale was that's kind of the pre-irrigation rate for the average person. That's correct. So, you know, because ultimately, I'm not there yet. I mean, my house came with a lawn, you know. But it would create -- it would kind of create, at least optically, the incentive for zero-scaping. Incidentally, sidebar, I noticed Fort Worth and some of the communities have, like, zero-scaping beauty contests, you know, because they're really trying to shift the culture, and for climates like ours, it makes sense. So is there a way to have a hybrid that has that feature but that also has the feature of two, which is, you know, the higher rate on the very high tiers? Is there a way to get there that meets both those objectives? Well, if you could just -- if you could make your notes, and we'll see if anyone else -- if there's traction for it. I don't want -- I don't want -- Yeah, okay. Yeah, and that's fine with me. Let's see what the consensus is. I just want to put the question out there. And then if I can ask another -- it's really kind of more of an observation. The consultant slide where it's the percent of bills versus the percent of consumption. Yes, sir. Tell me if I'm -- what I'm missing. I think that can't possibly be right. And let me tell you why. If you use 50,000 gallons minimum, you're more than three times the tier one's maximum. So how is it possible for that tier to be both 1% of bills and 1% of consumption when it's more than 3 to 1, you know, ratio? I think that's a great point. With the 50,000 plus, I think with the 30 to 50, it does go from 2 to 3, and then 15 to 30 goes to 8 to 11. It's got to be disproportionate on that. My recommendation would be is I think the consumption is important, but we were looking at it more from the bill distribution standpoint and, you know, how did it impact the actual customer? I'd be interested in seeing the right numbers at some point. We can get the detail from that, Councilmember Meltzer. Absolutely. Councilmember Davis. Thank you, Mayor. I was looking at some of those numbers too, Mayor Pro Tem, and I didn't see it as a mathematical impossibility, but I would like to see maybe a little bit more detail there, a little bit more breakdown, because I have some -- that 11% of, you know, large residential users. I'm a little bit curious if we know demographically what that use is. I mean, these aren't homes with 20 toilets in them. Are they large -- is it primarily irrigation? Are we filling swimming pools a couple times a year? Like, that's a large amount of consumption. That's a big jump from that 89% of folks and 89% of bills up to those 11% of bills. Do we know what the behaviors are that they're undertaking that are different from the 89? So I think that's a great question, because that's one thing I tried to prepare for today's presentation, right, is who makes up the 11%? Is it someone with a one-acre, two-acre lot? And I think Councilmember Davis is -- we're continuing to look into that. I will tell you that some of the preliminary stuff I've looked at is you could be a household in a community and use over 30,000 gallons a month, but then you could have more people that fit into that 11% that have one-acre lots or half-acre lots. So we're continuing to work a customer service with that, but it varies. I will tell you it varies, because, you know, some individuals could do a lot more watering that live in town, and then of course you have some that own one-acre lots that just water around their house. So we can fully follow up with that as soon as we get the conclusion of our analysis, but it's something we started looking at, absolutely. Thank you. And I like that you're kind of challenging assumptions there, because just because somebody has an acre doesn't mean they water the whole acre. Exactly. It's very detailed, and it's a detailed analysis, because everybody's consistent. Some people use soaker hoses, some people don't. Some people use irrigation systems, some people don't, absolutely. So maybe some education opportunities there as well. That leads into, I think, ultimately when we're looking at the 89% of folks, the 89% of bills, we're talking dollars difference from month to month in their bills. So I lean towards option three that the PUB recommended, a little more granularity, a little bit more. It's okay to put a couple bucks pressure per bill on a segment of the population that makes up the largest amount of consumption. The 89% of folks, the 89% of consumption, or whatever the, let me get my, the 85% of consumption, we could all stand a little conservation pressure. And we're talking about, you know, dollars per month, not tens of dollars, not hundreds of dollars per month. So a little bit of extra pressure on that kind of middle, that extra tier. I like the granularity of that breakdown in option three, and I think I'm tracking what PUB was talking about there. My last question on this topic is Lake Ralph Hall. We talked a little bit about wholesale rates. Those are long-term contracts. They do not change often, if hardly ever. Do we know if any of the new water supply that will be coming on in future decades with some of the other cities is going to change some of our agreements? Is that going to end up changing some of our, certainly I don't expect we'd lose rights, but we might not be selling as much raw water to other places. Do we expect that to change the dynamic? I'm looking at Steve, and I don't, let me ask him to address that. He's probably involved in those conversations. I can find out. Thank you. I do know that Lake Ralph Hall, I just had a meeting with the folks over at Upper Trinity, and we do have opportunity to negotiate with them. I'm not sure with that facility specifically, but with our agreement with them. They're looking at an opportunity to leverage our resources a little bit more heavily. I don't have an exact answer for you, Councilor Davis, but I will research it and get back to you. My assumption is that the market dynamic is that that's intended to address growth and not necessarily to shake up the market as it stands now. My concern would be that we're in the best possible position. It sounds like you're putting us in the best possible position as some of those things are fleshed out. I am. I'm actually working very closely with them. I had a great lunch with them last week, and we're building that partnership. Good deal. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Councilmember Beck. Thank you, Mayor. So, yeah, I guess in terms of direction, I kind of lean towards where Mayor Pro Tem was, former Mayor Davis. I'm stumbling over that as well. And that is the sort of the 5,000 rate tier, but maybe some of the benefits of the higher rates at the higher levels. I think the incentives, you know, we can do the xeriscaping, we can do the irrigation, we can do all those, just a little bit of a push, a little bit of a nudge. I think I agree with PUB on that one. And so I guess my question is, a lot of these separations, and I asked this sort of last time, and this may be more of a Stephen question, but what's our rollout on the smarter water metering features and why not, because that's going to be really crucial to this breakdown of these different rate tiers. I'm trying to get my exercise right. The study hasn't been completed yet for the automated metering infrastructure. We anticipate that we'll want to move in that direction. From my experience, I've rolled out two of these systems in two different jurisdictions, and they've been highly beneficial. In your prior experience, it's totally going to depend on the size of the metroplex that you're referencing, but what sort of time frame are we looking at? Because if this is going to be in the next year, then we need to make these decisions in this decision. If it's going to be over the next two or three years, then we have time to sort of massage over the next couple budget cycles. Yeah, it's going to take a while. Once we'll have to get the assessment complete, we'll evaluate that internally. If it's something that we choose to pursue, then we're going to have to identify the funding. We'll have to prove the concept because there's different solutions that are out there, different platforms, so we'll want to know what type of platform we'll want to deploy. So you're looking, I would say, two to three years out before you're starting to really roll meters out. Okay, then I'll just stick with my current direction of option three with maybe some of the benefits of option two, if that's possible. Thank you. Councilmember Armitage. Yeah, so I just wanted to weigh in on Mayor Pro Tem Meltzer's suggestion, which if I'm understanding correctly, I think sounds somewhat like what Councilmember Beck is suggesting now, but I might be misunderstanding. But just to say I like the idea of having some sort of combination where the ceiling for that first tier would be kind of lowered to 5,000 while charging more for the higher users than is currently being proposed under the PUB's option three. And Councilmember Beck, I'm not sure if you wanted, okay, yeah, so that seems to, so that it seems to me then that that would be three for the so far. I'm not sure if Councilmember Davis, have Councilmember Davis weigh in on that, but just wanted to weigh in myself. So, staff, do you want to respond to the, are the requirements to justify those actions or not? I just want you to have an opportunity to respond the first time you're hearing it, right? If the policy decision, Mayor, that we get today, or Councilmember Armitage, is to go with option three, but take back something that looks at, you know, shifting more burden to the higher users from 15,000 and gallons and above, we can bring that back to you as part of the budgeting process. There's definitely a policy decision this Council can make. We can take back and look. All these options are revenue neutral, so we can shift it, you know, more from the lower users to the higher users if that's the direction we get from Council. Absolutely. Okay, then, then, just, well, let me see if there's, Councilmember Byrd, I've not heard from you. I am looking at option three. I think that pushing that burden a little further along the lines because it just seems like the option two is, you know, like you say, is revenue neutral. So, I think I would, if I were to go and make a decision at this point or make a suggestion, it would be option three. Listening to everyone else's conversations, that sounds like that is the more rational thought for me. Thank you. Councilmember Guara. Thank you, Mayor. I agree with my colleagues who have said that they prefer option three, but with a greater burden pushed on to those higher users. I would also love to see when you bring this back to us, if it's possible to break that 5,001 to 15,000 block, break that into smaller segments perhaps since we were talking about, you know, folks who are using perhaps somewhere in the neighborhood of the average amount or just north of the average amount and incentivizing those folks to reduce their usage. I imagine that breaking that second block into two blocks might be effective in incentivizing that. Does that make sense? It does. Basically narrowing down the 5,000 to 15,000 block, so maybe a 5 to 7,500, 7,500 to 15. Okay, I understand. Okay. Well, then the consensus, and I'm calling Councilmember Davis, hang tight. So the consensus is none of the above. It would be a hybrid of some sort, so I'll leave you to do those calculations and not do that, you know, back in the paper math here, just kind of, that's the desire, policy desire that I'm hearing. Yes, and I do want to put out Mayor, so a lot of this, right, depends on the cost of service model, so we go back and look at it and see what's possible from a rate structure standpoint, and I hate to tell you today what those rates will be, but we'll do as much as we can to get your policy down and everything. And I think you're spot on. I think it's, here's what we can do mathematically that's within our constructs and our regulations that we have to address. I will tell you, my concern is from an industrial user that's, you know, that use that's already carrying 26% of the load, I don't know what the regulation and rules are about, you know, burdening that group more, just from a regulation standpoint. I don't know what those, so look forward to having that conversation, but if you'll bring back just kind of that, your analysis with that underlying support, obviously you have to go back to PUB, and so we understand that. Council Member Davis. Thank you Mayor. It would be helpful for me. I don't know if it would be helpful for other council members, but as much as we can find out about that 11% that we're talking about, because before we have that conversation again, I think it's really easy in the abstract to say this tier of people ought to be paying much more of the overall burden, right? But I think it's also easy to forget that even though there are fewer people, and even though they're using a large amount of water, they're already increasing from their winter month, 405 a gallon, up to under the original option 3, 1179. So while most users, like my family, will have pennies, dollars difference in the average month, those users will have hundreds of dollars potentially in difference because of their consumption. Some of those may be urban farmers, they're not all folks with personal golf courses. I think we'd be very, I don't think we should make assumptions about who those presumably wealthy water users are as we're shifting burdens to them. I think we already have a very progressive rate structure. We shouldn't get, we should be careful not to go from being conservation minded to penalizing simply because of their situation. So it would be helpful for me to know who these folks are. Do they have personal golf courses and putting greens, or are they folks, you know, watering gardens that they provide to their neighbors? Absolutely, and we'll bring that back in that presentation, who the 11% is. Absolutely. Great. All right. Thank you. No other questions. So what is, what's next? So we have wastewater next. So that presentation, Stephen will present the operational and I'll come back up for the financials. All right. Let me get set up here. Awesome. Okay, so you don't get to hear my life story. You've seen the organization structure, so I'm just going to jump into our FTE summary. In wastewater 2021, we had 108.5 FTEs, that number is increasing by one. You saw that earlier in the environmental services budget as well. That's for that inspector for the watershed protection program. Some of the highlights and status updates and some areas of success. Hickory Creek old Alton lift station is going to be replaced this year. Pecan Creek water reclamation facility, the solids handling project, that's under design. And then thanks to our capital team, we've got Hickory Creek one and two that are currently under construction. Goals for 2021-22 is to bid and mobilize the construction for Hickory Creek phase three and to bid and mobilize construction for Pecan Creek plant expansion. We'll talk just a little bit about that in a minute. So this is the -- so the TCEQ, which is the Texas commission on environmental quality, requires that when a wastewater treatment facility reaches 75% of its design capacity, it must design additional capacity. We're at that point. And that's what I was talking about earlier, that we're designing those improvements to Pecan Creek phase one right now. At 90% of capacity, we must be under construction. And that's what this graph represents. So with regards to our wastewater operational data, so two matrix in the collection system, we clean and inspect that system. Inspections, the snapshot for 2021 is the snapshot, but we're on track to hit our projected numbers, which is 120,000 linear feet of line inspected and 675,000 linear feet of line cleaned. Again, good story with regards to our capital, you know, the alignment of the utility replacement with our street rehabilitation. You can see in 2018, we had 15,722 linear feet. And in 2021 and 2021-22, we're doubling that replacement. And I said that this was going to be pretty quick, so now I'm going to turn it over to Nick. Thanks. Thank you, Stephen. So we'll get to this as fast as possible. We'll read all these bullet points to you again. Wastewater is very similar to water, so 2% growth forecast in the out years for revenues, and there's that 3% in expenses we discussed during the water presentation. Wastewater revenues, so these are by wastewater service areas. You can see residential, commercial, wholesale, then other, some cost allocation transfers coming into the fund. So in fiscal year 2021, adopted revenues in this column here in the middle, 37.2 million. Coming in fairly close to budget on the revenue projection for the end of the year, 37.12, with the proposed being 38.6. Expenses by the different categories within wastewater, so you can see in 2021, we had adopted expenses of 36.9 million, the estimate of 36.4, with the proposed being 37.9. We'll point out that does include supplemental funding that we will review in a couple slides. Wastewater expense by division, so you can see the different divisions in the wastewater fund in the adopted budget 2021, we had 36.9 million expenses. End of year estimates, 35.4, so a little bit of cost reduction and cost savings within this fund. Fiscal year 2022 is about 37.9 million. One thing I will point out is administration did go to zero. Wastewater administration was combined with water administration in fiscal year 2021, so as I made that note in water, that's the reason administration went away. Ten-year forecast of the wastewater fund, very similar to water as far as layout, so in the fiscal year 2021 column, you can see it here, we had 37.1 million in revenue, 36.9 million dollars in expenses, so we had adopted budget, basically balanced about 292,000 positive. End of year estimate, just review these, I don't have to repeat it for you, expenses of 36.4 million, coming in a little bit below the budget, so we're planning to finish the year about $700,000 positive. Coming into the proposed budget, our preliminary budget, we have in 2022, $38.6 million in revenue. We do have some impact fee funding in the wastewater fund, very similar to water, except over the ten-year period, the recoverable cost for wastewater is $42 million, so we put about $4.2 million in there per year coming in from that impact fee reserve. In 2022, the expenses are $37.9 million, with net income being $740,000. In the blue, really quick, draw your attention to the wastewater fund balance, ending the year of 2022, we're projecting $15.8 million, with the minimum being $11.5 million and the maximum being $16.1 million. As we move out in the future years, we do have some rate increases plugged in, starting in fiscal year 2029 and 2030. Summit plan expansion, Steve and I talked to earlier, comes online. We probably would have to look at some future rate increases at some point, given that reserve, dropping below that reserve target that's currently in place. Other things, so in the wastewater fund, very similar to water and electric, we completed a fund balance analysis. There's no change to the current fund balance policy currently being forecast in this utility, just electric, so I'll point that out. I know I went through that quickly, so I'll definitely come back to it if you have questions. Drainage, so the drainage fund or the drainage department is part of the wastewater utility, so it was rolled up in the reforma that you just previously saw. In fiscal year 2022, the preliminary budget for revenue, so drainage fees around the community, you can see here in this column are $5.6 million, with expenses being $5.6, and the majority of their expenses are operating expenses and capital projects, so basically maintaining those drainage channels throughout the community. So, doing maintenance on those channels, mowing them and maintaining them and stuff like that. We do maintain a fund balance of drainage for $1 million for unseen instances or circumstances that may come up, and you can see that number right down here. Five-year capital plan for wastewater, so very similar to water, we group it by different funding sources. Debt funded is $44.2, revenue funded is $4.8, and then the next biggest one being some vehicle replacement with a few big vehicles that need to replace this upcoming fiscal year, so $50.7 million. Some of the major projects, I will not read all of these off for you, but I'll at least call out the big ones. Solids handling improvements of $14 million, and we're looking to debt fund that project, has a little bit of the status of it out there to the right-hand side. Next one being the Hickory Creek wastewater treatment plant land acquisition of $5.8 million, looking to debt fund that, and is expected to close soon, so that project is coming to an end soon. Middle of the page, you'll see the 2019 bond election. I don't think I pointed this out on water, but one thing we did do this year, I think Councilmember Beck mentioned this earlier, we did meet across the city with the engineering department, with Becky's group, with water, wastewater, and all the different players to make sure our CIPs were consistent. So that was something we did this year, did a great job of it, and want to make sure that we give the staff credit. This is a cash flow analysis, just really looking at the cash flow and utilizing the commercial paper program. I won't go through this in detail, I just wanted to tell the Council that we are utilizing the commercial paper program that you approved for several months ago to the best of our ability to minimize that debt issuance and stage it out over time, so just want to include this slide in here. Supplemental packages, of course Stephen can talk to these in detail, but very similar to water. The first one is $250,000 for the system repairs and materials, and the next one being the street cuts, so really looking to outsource some of those street cuts for utility replacements or fixes. The next one being the line location of $150,000 is another large one. So total supplemental packages for the upcoming fiscal year for wastewater is $700,000. These are included in the pro forma that you just saw, unless we get direction not to include them. And that is the presentation, and take any questions that you have. Questions for staff? Seeing none. Well, while he's presenting, if you had the question, you can go ahead and hit it, but okay, then I'm just saying, if you have it in advance, it'll queue up. Yeah, thank you. I was definitely trying to work ahead until now. Is David still here? No, no, not Stephen, David, I'm sorry. Well, you might be able to answer this. It's a finance question. Just, you know, I'm starting to be aware of the accumulation of the supplementals, and I'm like waiting in advance because I know we're going to see it all together in the workshop. But is your preliminary view that at this point, as far as we can tell, can I hedge this anymore, that the supplementals will all fit within the no new taxes rate? Is that kind of the concept where we don't really know yet? Well, I think to the city manager's point, I think, did you want to address that, Sarah? I think we are trying, to Sarah's point, I think that's something we'll definitely discuss with you then in the budget workshop. So the team, all the finance staff has been working very hard to get that budget prepared for you. Sure. Actually working a lot of late nights, so hopefully we'll finish that up today or tomorrow, get that to you by the end of the week, and then discuss in detail with you on Monday. At that time, we'll have that conversation. We can have that answer for you. Yeah, it's just more looking for like, you know, is that your thought process that you're trying to, yeah, yeah, okay, yeah, it's an amazingly impressive, you know, cross-departmental effort, so yeah, very much appreciated. Thank you. All right. Now, seeing no other questions. No, sir, I'm done presenting. That's all you have to see me today. Okay. I think, well, there's one more presentation, I think the next presentation is Danny Kramer will come up and then present streets. Thank you. Good evening, Mayor, Council, Danny Kramer, Deputy Director of Operations, Public Works. So, here's our organizational start for streets. We're kind of broken up into two major groups, which is our major maintenance and our minor maintenance. Our maintenance, minor maintenance area is really just our citizen concerns, potholes, micro seal, crack seal, and contracts are run through that. Major maintenance is really our reconstructions or milling overlays, and then any of our base failures will fall into some of both categories. Our FTE summary, as we're going through streets, we did have a little bit of reduction with our BSP over the past year, which through COVID. We are looking to replace one of those people when we come back to get another supervisor back in to help with the manager supervisor levels, so we can focus on a little bit more of our future planning and working forward on that, which is here are our supplementals for that. Some of our accomplishments that we've had over the past year, we've worked on our contracts that we've had for our maintenance, our minor maintenance, our crack seal, micro seal, and our asphalt overlay. We've brought all those, went through all the specs, everything, brought them back to council, and redid those. We will have another one with concrete repair coming up pretty shortly, so you'll be seeing that coming up. Also worked on our community improvement, our outreach, our response to this, Engage Denton. We've reduced our response time by almost two days down to a four day response, and that is going out, looking at it, and getting the repairs done on those. With that being, we have had a major increase from year to date as all these go through, so about a 28% that we've had over the years. We also had a citywide pavement study. If you've watched any of the YouTube channel that they've put out, you've probably seen some of them where they had the van driving around town. The study itself is complete. They're still finishing up the final report to give that back to us, but we do have the preliminary data, and it does look like we've been able to increase our overall OCI for the city to 68 from the 64, and we've also increased our backlog to 14%, which it was in the prior study right at 20%. So our goals for the next year will be to continue using the new data that we've got in for our pavement study to put a very solid five-year plan, working with capital projects, utilities, and everybody else going forward to make sure that we are looking at the holistic view of all the other utilities and all the issues so that we can not have the issues that all of you receive up here from our citizens about coordination. We're also looking, working with capital projects, on the visualization of all the projects going on in the city. They are working on maps so we can be able to see all this, where all the work's being done, how all the streets are laid out, how the OCIs are laid out, so it will actually help be able to let the citizens see what their streets are looking at and how everything is. And, as I said, we'll continue to work with all your utilities and all that. Well, it looks like Cassie's going to be taking over on this. It looks like one of the slides we had didn't get in here. We'll look for that here shortly. So the streets five-year forecast, you can see franchise fees are really the main source of revenue in the Streets Fund. That was, I'll give you a brief history on the next slide, but we're really trying to, of all the franchise fees that the General Fund brings in, we're trying to dedicate 80% to the Streets Improvement Fund with 20% going to the General Fund. The past history of the Streets Improvement Fund in practice has been really the majority of the budget is in the maintenance and repair line, and whatever the operations doesn't spend in that maintenance and repair line then gets transferred to capital to help assist with our reconstruction and rehab program. And so what we're asking for tonight is to really formalize that process. It's already been a practice historically, and you can see how I've laid it out in the performance. It's really that streets reconstruction program that's revenue funding going over to a specific streets capital fund that we're going to discuss in the budget workshop on August 2nd in much more detail. But tonight, as far as for the streets operating budget, this is what we are proposing for their five-year forecast. And so this allows them to continue the maintenance program as it has stood for the last several years, while also dedicating some revenue over to streets capital fund. And so to just give you a little bit of history on the Streets Improvement Fund, this was established by ordinance in 2011, and then that ordinance was updated again in 2013. It was effective, the fund as it's today, the Streets Improvement Fund was effective October 1st, 2012. The majority of the revenues that you saw are dedicated portion of franchise fees. So the current year is 77%. We're proposing to increase that to 80%, and I'll talk about that in a minute, as well as interest income generated from the fund and then the interest savings from utilities, because our utilities issue certificates of obligation instead of revenue bonds, and there is an interest saving component of that because they are using the bond rating of the city instead of the utility system. The utility system bond rating, and so that interest savings also goes to the Streets Improvement Fund. Just to give you an idea of maintenance versus rehabilitation. So maintenance includes patching, crack seal, micro sealing, and panel replacements, and that's all of the items that Danny's team does on a day-to-day basis. Rehabilitation is really base repairs and full street reconstructions, which is what you see in the bond programs. Those are full street reconstructions, and usually we fund those through bonds. So our current practice, like I said, is really to whatever operating money that they need is in that maintenance, and then at the end of the year when we true it up, we transfer part of that to capital. So tonight we're really asking council to formalize the current practice. So 60% would go to the Street Maintenance Fund and 40% go to the Streets Capital Fund, which we'll discuss next week. So I broke it down in a chart just to kind of show you what we're talking about. So General Fund maintains that 20%, which is a slight decrease from what our current practice is, but only about 3%, so nothing that General Fund can't do without. And then it would be broken out into streets. We're proposing to rename the fund to the Street Maintenance Fund to really reflect what the maintenance activities of that fund entail, versus a new Streets Capital Fund that we'll discuss next week. And so like I said, next week, the budget workshop, we get to discuss this in more detail, but right now this is what we're proposing for the streets operating budget. And with that, I'll stand for any questions. Council Member Meltzer. Yeah, I was actually just going to underscore when I flipped the switch, it was right before you mentioned the backlog. And what you're calling the backlog is streets that are rated poor or very poor. And I think, I don't know when the last measure was that you were referring to when it was 20, I could have sworn that at one point it was as high as 25, maybe around 2018. I'm just sort of highlighting it for the general public that for all the inconvenience you experience, you know, I don't know if there's anything you need to say necessarily other than correct me if I'm wrong, but that's, oh there you go. That's what you're getting for all the inconvenience with you, the general public is getting is the streets that are poor and very poor. That's a significant reduction from 25 down to, if I'm right about that, you know, down to 14 and we're going to keep going to below 10. And the focus, the roads that are in the worst shape, are the roads that you use the most, right, generally speaking. Some are neglected for 30 years, but generally like the ones beat to heck, like Hickory, so that the road miles, the trip miles that you are on are going to be, you know, disproportionately getting improved. I'm just underscoring that. And, you know, great work is my answer, even though, you know, it's a huge pain in the neck for everybody, but it's paying off. So that's what I have to say. And also appreciate the formalizing of the more reliable source of funding for street repair and street reconstruction, you know, goes back to something that Councilmember Davis said in a retreat long ago. So just appreciation. Thank you, Mayor. So, yeah, I'm going to follow on that comment as well. I think one of the things that you're dealing with, I mean, there's no doubt that, and I've been praising it all afternoon, that there's been improvement in overall coordination between departments. And I think there's two areas that we can work on that I would recommend, and that is, you know, I think you'll acknowledge there's still some more coordination, maybe now not so much between departments, but between projects. So because it ends up seeming like, okay, down the block and, you know, you have two projects adjacent to each other, you guys think that's a different project, but the neighbors just see they can't drive through there. Even though you're you much more coordinated so I think that's more of a education outreach and training and optics of feedback so I'm going to encourage you to do sort of what Mayor Pro Tem was doing just now is making sure that these sort of coordination elements are coordinated with customer service or whatever measure and communicated with the public because expectation management is the key. More than anything else, citizens want to know what to expect, even if it's bad. So, that's one thing and then I did have a question on the maybe so this is maybe a Cassie question. And that is, this the codification the 80 to 20. We probably need to do something like that. Is that that's based on all our current projects that that we have that we've seen sort of in the pipeline, or, you know, this is, we're expecting to codify this for all future projects everywhere all the time. So not every project involves road maintenance. Right, so the current practice. We did look at a 10 year 10 year outlook. And we believe this is sufficient for the current level of maintenance are required for the next 10 years. Obviously this is something that can be adjusted every year. It's up to council discretion. But we do feel like this will give us enough funding for the next 10 years on the maintenance side, and then we'll have that discussion about where that that streets capital fund that revenue is going and kind of our plan for that separate revenue fund to fund some of those reconstruction projects on August 2. So more to come on that. But yes, we do believe it will cover the maintenance for the next 10 years. Awesome. Thank you. Okay, seeing no other questions. I have one, you know, the cost per lane mile for construction by chance I know. So, cost per lane mile can be looked at multiple different ways. If you're looking at, I think we're roughly at 640,000 what we're looking at just for the street. When you start including a full lane mile if we're doing water wastewater sidewalks, and everything how we're looking at that cost actually does go up, and I'm thinking and I don't want to state wrong but I think the last thing we looked at it was over a million dollars for that. Perfect. Thank you. Okay, Council member. You say your decrease overall response time by 16 days to an average of four days per request. 1.6, sorry. Oh, that's what I was looking at 1.6. It looks like 16 days because I was gonna just wondering how in the world can that happen when you're having so many more requests. But with that said, thank you for that correction. What's the biggest complaint just is it potholes or. I would, I would say the biggest request that we get that come in are either potholes or. So we do get quite a few sidewalk requests for some trip hazards and stuff like that so when these requests come in, our goal is to have them replied back within 48 hours. So that means 48 working hours so if it comes in late Friday night we might not get it till Monday but our goal is to be out there, lay eyes on it. We can see what the issue is if we can easily put a temporary patch or do something to it temporarily reply back to the system. Let them know what's going on and then we'll put it on our schedule for the permanent patch or the permanent repair, or if it's part of a capital project will let them know that we temporarily patched it, it's going through and here's when the full schedule is when it will be repaired. So I'm just understanding that you are you all are also talking about sidewalks that's the first time I've heard sidewalks, you know as part of the street. With that being said, are you all coordinating with, we got a brand new ADA. The individual that just came aboard this week. Yes. Last week. So our job in the streets department is sidewalk repairs. So we will work on any trip hazards or issues like that that come up or cracking falling apart. The sidewalk full plan is that gaps and everything that is running the capital projects department. Thank you. Mayor but but the answer to that is yes, we will coordinate, and we will, we're going to do better coordination when it comes to any ADA development or redevelopment for sidewalks, multimodal or any of that. The answer is absolutely yes. Got another question customer back. Thank you, Mayor. Yeah, no, I just really real briefly just, you know, sort of align with those two statements and and with George is this lesson Nathan George with Nathan George coming online I hope we, we really don't neglect, you know, sort of pedestrian and mobility elements to our street street development I know we won't but I'm just sort of putting a little nudge to make sure that that we sort of, with the lack of coordinator not quite fall through on some of our bike goals and I'd, I'd like to see that come back to the, to the surface of a lot of the development projects again. And so, and so no other questions unless someone says correct me, I don't think anyone was in opposition to the fund allocation policy, as you presented so if there is anyone opposition you'll need to speak up. Great. Thank you. That concludes item B I think is there anyone else any other budget presentation. That's everyone. Great text item see ID 211054 review a report, hold a discussion give staff direction regarding a follow up of federal was that federal American rescue plan act of 2021. Good evening again Kathy Arden director of finance here to give you a follow up of the American rescue plan act funding. So just real briefly we're going to go over what the, the funding is the project interest, follow up of our citizen survey results, and then the proposed use of the funding. So just as a brief reminder, the American rescue act plan was enacted in March. And this did allow for state and local government assistance, the city of Denton has been allocated 23.29 million over the course of two years. So we have received our first installment of that funding of 11.645 million so we're here today to get your direction on how you would like us to spend that funding. Just a reminder, some of the parameters laid out in the interim guidance. The funding is intended to respond to coven 19 or its economic impacts. It's to replace revenue loss due to coven 19 provide premium pay to eligible essential workers and invest in water sewer storm water and broadband infrastructure, and just as a note the Treasury has released interim guidance but has not released the final guidance yet that is expected and later this fall. So we are still using the interim guidance so there are caveats in this as to if they do change the guidance on us then they may change our proposed projects. So again some of our goals for the ARP funding we really wanted to prioritize existing and one time program since this revenue stream is not ongoing it's only two years. We wanted to avoid any ongoing financial commitment for the general fund and so that you'll see that in our proposed projects. We're really trying to focus on solutions that have immediate impact, and then target those specific economic sectors that were hit the hardest by coven 19, as well as achieve long term goals and benefits by leveraging funding and partnering with other organizations. So you may recall this was our proposed project list and when we presented the first time in May. I've highlighted the projects that we felt like got Council consensus at that time to move forward with. We did tell Council then that we would put out a citizen survey and get citizen input and feedback on our proposed projects. And so we did that the survey was open from June 8 to June 18 we received 243 responses. 95% reported that they were didn't residents, and the majority were from from the zip code 76209 interestingly enough. So, we did get support high priority support for funding to address homelessness including the temporary and permanent shelters, and then grant assistance for behavioral health care services. And then you can see lower priorities for funding for vaccine clinic and outreach support and as well as the emergency management program manager. The negative economic and impacts high high priority support for grant assistant programs for small businesses, as well as financial support for to nonprofit organizations, less support for grant assistance programs for local music and arts. So taking all of the feedback that we received up to this point, we have put together the proposed projects for year one again. This is over a series of two years so we can make some changes in year two if we want to, you know, pivot and do some other things and we will come back to you at a later point. These are really our potential projects and are listed on the screen. You can see the costs have slightly increased from the last time that I presented these in May that is because I built in some program administration expenses. We are looking at bringing on outside council to help us go through the interim guidance to make sure that all the projects aligned with the interim guidance and then again when the final guidance is given, make sure that we're meeting all the requirements and that these projects are fully vetted and then as well as we're procuring grant software to be able to facilitate the grant programs listed on the slide. So the behavioral health care services, the nonprofit capacity support, as well as the lease and rent relief for small businesses. We have added the street outreach expansion and for FTEs as well as a vehicle that's two additional FTEs and we have programmed those in to be funded 50% from the general fund and then 50% from the ARP funding because we really don't want to be reliant on the ARP funding and then all of that expense hit the general fund in the third year. We're trying to phase this in to the general fund five-year forecast. So I'm here to get your direction on the proposed projects so we can move forward because we do have the funding already. It is sitting in a bank account ready to be spent and we would like to include the funding as part of your FY22 budget. So next steps we do have a number of grant programs that will need to start developing criteria and parameters and so we will bring those back to council for discussion. And then we will be building, if we get direction tonight, we'll be building the ARP funding into the proposed budget and then budget adoption is scheduled for September 21st. And with that, I will take any questions. Councilmember Davis. Thank you, Mayor. A few questions. So are all of these intended to be kind of spinning up new programs, new grant programs, that kind of thing, or are some of these intended to either offset or cover general fund expenditures, for instance, vaccine clinic support. Are we sending firefighters to be part of somebody else's vaccine clinic or be part of a larger program? Are we using vaccine clinic support dollars from this program to help cover their overtime or whatever it is? Or is vaccine clinic support a whole new program that needs administration and that kind of stuff? So it's a combination because we are trying to receive a reimbursement for our current vaccine support from the county, so we're working through that process now. So this would be on top of any of that reimbursement that we receive from the county. We could use, in any of these line items, depending on how we structure it, we could be inventing a new thing or we could be supplementing, offsetting, adding to general fund expenditures that we might otherwise do anyway. Correct. I have a little bit of heartburn about the recurring expenses. Anytime you grant fund something or anytime you have a big pot of free money that comes from nowhere in one budget year, it gets really attractive to lock yourself in. Do we have any budgetary concerns for some of these FTEs that we are talking about funding from this, 50% now, 50% later, we have to see what Congress does for the future kind of funding? Right. So that's one of the reasons we built in 50%. I've already built it into the general fund five-year forecast. We're kind of trying to phase it in so it's not all hitting the general fund in that third year. These positions are obviously needed, regardless of the funding source. So we do feel like it's important that since we do have this money to take advantage of it while we have it, but also try to build in that cushion to general fund so it's not all hitting in the third year. Good. And I appreciate that they're -- of the list that we have proposed in front of us, there are only three of those line items that are recurring and not one-time big injection kind of items. And my last question for now, I think, is we know there's additional guidance coming, and we know that some of these we may have to tweak what we propose to do because of that guidance, and we also know that some of these, they're new items, things that we haven't done in years prior. We don't know, let's say we set up a $2.3 million small business assistance fund, if we only spend a million of that about halfway through the program year, do we have the ability to reallocate? We know what the cost of the Loop 288 building is going to be. We know that we'd like to spend as much of other people's money as we could to build that, or federal money, I should say, as opposed to tax dollars and local debt. So if we have something like that where one of these line items is not shaken out the way that we thought it would, we're not spending in the same way we thought we would, are we able to reallocate between them, or is that precluded somehow, is that a big federal process we'd have to go through, what does that look like? Right now, the way that I'm interpreting the guidance is that it is allowed to be reallocated. We do require, they require quarterly reporting, our first report is due in August, but there's nothing so far that has been put out that we can't reallocate. And I did get confirmation of that from external auditors as well, so everything that they've seen to date about it. So if, just like you said, if for some reason things don't shake out the way that we intended them in six months, we can come back to council and say we have, we still have, you know, X amount remaining, how would you like to reallocate the funding? Because correct me if I'm wrong, we're already seeing that with some of the other COVID relief money that we've had to kind of reallocate just with our local nonprofits, they're not able to use all of it or they're not able to do exactly the projects they intended, so I appreciate all for running that down and figuring that out for us. Sure, and one other point I forgot to mention in the presentation, we, we intended to work closely with Denton County, but we haven't got any indication so far of what they're going to spend their funding on. So we felt like it was important to move forward with our funding plan right now since we do have the immediate need as far as the Luke 288 building. Okay, Councilor Armitage. Okay. I just stare at it in a certain way to get it to go on. Okay. So, so, first of all, I just want to say I was really really interested to read and appreciated reading the survey results and seeing all of that overlap with, you know, between the council members, or this, this council is a body, you know, what we put forward and then what so many people in the public what their priorities were, including the part at the end where they got to write in their comments. So, that was really great. Let's see just a question and a couple questions and a point. The real question about is the city facilities covered updates because I know that, you know, we've already invested a lot in federal federal grants in updating city facilities for coven, including at the new you know development services center building which is like, you don't have to touch anything, you know. So I'm that's you know $750,000 I wonder if that could be distributed elsewhere within this I'm not saying new categories created but within these existing categories, I'm wondering specifically I guess kind of what need remaining needs are there that weren't addressed with all that that federal funding to update city facilities, so I don't know if you want to answer that. So the, the city facilities coven updates are the remaining ion, ionizers, and the HVAC controls for all the buildings that have not been updated because we do have a long list of city facilities. That are still remaining to be updated. And so instead of building them into the capital program and issuing CEOs we felt like it was appropriate to build them into the ARP funding and use the federal funds since it's a one time we just need to update those remaining facilities. And then it could be used year one, and we're done with that project. Okay, thank you so much that makes sure absolute perfect sense, and I shouldn't have spent so long asking my question. So thank you for that. The. Could you say a little bit more about the temporary animal shelter. Oh, gosh, I'm sorry. I really I read that as animal shelter every time. Sorry. Never mind. So it must be this this mask is, I don't know. Wow, thank you temporary alternative shelter I like that idea. Thank you. And let's see what else. Yeah, and then finally the vaccine clinic support and I realized that that that's broad and there's so much we can do in there. You know, am I correct and remembering that there's something that we're going to be having a work session on Council is this going to be coming forward to us to talk about, you know, meeting people where we're at where they're at going door to door, and that that could or and other possibilities like that that that could be good coordinate with this funding opportunity. I don't have the matrix in front of me of the schedule, so I'm not clear on the future work session items. Yes, there, there is a work session coming forward Sarah Keeklers nodding her head back there. It's coming forward in August 10. Okay, thank you. That's my birthday. Thank you. Mayor Milton. Yeah, I just have to say I think it's a really good list. I think it really fulfills the objectives you laid out. You know it's got things that will have short term value, things that will have long term value. I think it's balanced in terms of getting into kind of into the high wants list you know from the must into the high wants and some of it will be very stimulative. I think in the local economy. You know and in a lot of different sectors of local economy. So, I like the list. That's, that's my comment. Thank you, Mayor. I want to echo that sentiment I think that y'all did an outstanding job of taking in a lot of feedback from Council and from the community and really translating that into I think you did an outstanding job. I just, you know, to the extent that we can be flexible and responsive as far as where perhaps some funding might end up not being needed. I'd love to see us put any extra dollars that we might end up with toward that behavior healthcare services grant program, because I mean that is something that the community really said was a very high priority and it's it's something that's really really lacking. It's it's a it's a major gap in our community. So, although I don't think that I would propose like right here and now, reallocating anything from elsewhere to there but if you know, like Councilmember Davis said if we don't end up using for example, the entire grant program, the entire $2,330,000 for rent relief for small businesses. I'd love to see whatever is left over go toward that behavioral health. And we can schedule a follow up for a couple months in once we see where the funding is kind of landing. Come back to Council and reallocate. Councilmember Burke. I love this list. It's so community, you know it's just captures it all I appreciate that. My question is, will you please connect the vaccine clinic support to the street outreach expansion. To the street outreach expansion vehicle. I mean is that is that does that all is that all coming together. So, I'm just envisioning a couple of people in a vehicle. You know going to different places to issue the vaccine. I'm really proud of this because this is a really additional focus on doing this outreach with our people experiencing homelessness and individuals who may need assistance. And it ties it all together in really taking that holistic approach to helping people. And so Danny, I don't know what you said is good. It really is focused on the street outreach and our street outreach program that's doing that are used to people who are experiencing homelessness so it wasn't focused on the vaccine piece of it. We've been doing that separately. So this is really about getting out and making that outreach to people and bringing them into services as quickly as possible so it's just expanding that work. So the expansion is is is also pulling in the behavioral part. No. Okay. And it's pulling in the behavioral part. There's likely that a lot of these things will be leveraged together the behavioral health will probably be invested in homelessness initiatives as well as other services that are already happening as well as creating new programs. And then supporting the street outreach efforts or those other efforts that we're having in housing or anything else that's dealing with folks who are at risk or experiencing homelessness. Okay. What is temporary alternative shelter. What does that look like. So right now we have the hotel voucher program that you approved through CDBG CV funds that's currently in operating about 40 rooms. So we have funding in that that program for that will probably cover us through December. And then we would like to expand that for the next year until the loop 28 facility comes online. So it would give us more time to keep people in hotels and working through housing programs until we have that alternative shelter available and the code read replacement public communication software. What is what is called read. So that that is currently our emergency alert system and it's in need of an upgrade and we're going to go out to bid for a new software. And so that's the total package to replace that software altogether to I don't know if it will necessarily be code read. But that's the current system and that's used for any I see public health resources that yes that is for whether any type of you know emergency alert system. It's what it will send a text message on your phone pop up on your email those types of notifications for our residents. Thank you. Well, most of my fellow counselors did an excellent job asking all the questions I was going to get. I just had a brief and I just wanted to double down on the point that I do think we need to finalize a lot of the health infrastructure for the buildings on the city facility. So I really think, you know, they are handling and whatnot really needs to be finalized so that we have a cross contingent health response on that one. So I think that's excellent. If there is any excess funding in that regard, if we give the ionizers coming cheaper or something, I personally would like to see maybe some of the remaining facilities money dedicated to increasing the hours of certain buildings for, you know, various groups to use, you know, paying for some of that offset if, you know, if there's any excess there, but I'm very, very glad counselor Davis asked the question about fungibility of funds. Because I think that's going to be critical. Thank you. Okay, so you know the questions I will give some insight that somebody in staff may already have but it's Commissioner Ron Marshawn, that's heading up the broadband for the county. And, and so I know that's what they're doing with their funds. And so I, whenever we hear back from them, or if we're not hearing back from them, let me know, let me reach out but I want to understand what they're doing, and where we can plug into that I know the lake cities did that study I know we're looking into that is we kind of looked at their homework, but just kind of want to understand where that fits for us. Thank you. Councilman Armitage. Yeah, I second that on the, on the broadband that's a big issue. It was also mentioned by a number of people who part who responded to that survey as well. Okay. All right. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. That takes us to the consent agenda. I'll note that item B was pulled. And I'll take a motion, Councilmember Davis. Move approval of the consent agenda with the exception of item B. Okay. And thank you see what that that works. Hold on. Thank you. Is there a second. Okay. We have a motion by Councilmember Davis for the consent agenda but for item B, we have a second by Councilmember wire, and any discussion. And we can vote on the screen here, she'll pull it up. The question of the new members figure out the technology, and that passes seven zero. That takes us to item B, which is ID 211507 consider approval of a resolution of the city of Denton, Texas, amending resolution number 192886 relating to the, to the bond oversight committee. We have to get all the long presentation so I'll give you a one slide presentation. So this item was for the bond oversight committee, changing the way that we previously the, the ordinance had each of the members named by name in the ordinance now we're going to the model, as we do with our other committees where they're appointed by council so we don't run into the issues when folks have to get off of the committee. There was one very specific question during the earlier part of the agenda so just wanted to address that question and obviously take any other questions that you have kind of simply put, Eric was on the bond oversight committee, he would join PNC and there is a charter provision that prohibits folks on PNC from being on other committee so it really is specific to PNC as opposed to other, you can be on multiple committees you just can't be on PNC and other committees for the most part so that's really the answer to the specific question earlier but happy to answer anymore and I know there was also a question on appointments, we have received one appointment so far, appointments or applications are open and we can receive those. Our current plan is to bring this, all the applications to council on August 17th so anytime before then, we will be able to prepare that agenda for you. Okay, questions. Councilman Beck. Thank you David, I appreciate you taking the time to bring that just to clear up some of the issues between PNC because Mr. Perot moved back and forth, and so just sort of a pedantic clarification question, any other board and commission would not be precluded from overlapping the bond committee, it's really only just PNC, is that correct? Okay, and the term would start this August since we're approving it this August kind of thing, or not as the case may be? Right, I would start once appointed, and I don't believe we have fixed terms even in the revised, you know, just talking about the oversight committee itself, there is a benefit of having kind of longer tenured folks on the committee, just because we're constantly bringing those quarterly updates to them and they have the history as we go forward, really to try to see through the completion of the bond program. This was that we reformed it in 2019, say we have another bond committee, a bond election in 2024, we would create a new committee at that point to move forward, so that's just kind of some of the background of what the bond oversight committee is intended for. Okay, so there's not, the way we're writing it now and the way it's been proposed is not sort of the standard two year commitment, it's just an open ended appointment. Correct, and it's not too laborious, we have four meetings a year, so not too much for them to have to show up to or too much of a commitment, but the intent, the hope would be that we can kind of keep the same group throughout the process. Okay, thank you. Council Member Davis. I move approval of the item. Council Member Meltzer. Discussion? Council Member Marmotter, question or discussion? Yes, just a quick question about applications, I was just looking up to see, to apply, does one just go through the regular application process for any board and committee, through the website, and is there, what I was looking to see is if there's a spot that people can check off for bond committee on that application form and if there's not. We'll ensure there, we'll ensure it's on the same, I'm not sure exactly where it is right now, but we'll ensure it's on that main page. Excellent, it looks, now it's finally coming up on my phone, I've got multiple screens open at once, so it's not there currently. So it would be great if that could be added to it, and now, correct me if I'm wrong, if somebody has already applied in the past to be on a committee, if it's as long as it's within I think the past year, is that correct, their application is still valid and they would just need to send an email saying that they're interested in this committee? I forget exactly what the statute of- Rosa will come up and answer. We do keep the application, the applications are kept basically for about a year, but we'll utilize six months, so if there's anybody that's interested, then we can notify that there's a possibility for them to apply for another one. Okay. And then if anybody applied via separate, let's just say sent their resume, then we would let them know that they need to submit an application. Okay, thank you so much. I think I would love to see more diversity on that committee, so I think it's a great opportunity for more people to apply, so I think we can do to get the word out, thanks. Okay. Any other discussion? Okay, we have a motion by Councilmember Davis, second by Mayor Pro Tem Meltzer, you can vote on the screens. That passes 7-0, takes us to our first item for individual consideration, which is item 2AID211552, consider approval of a resolution of the City of Denton, abolishing the Community Development Advisory Committee, and providing an effective date. Mayor, if it's all right, we'd like to present A, B, and C at the same time, and then allow you to vote. There's a song there somewhere, okay, and so I'll call those other two, so it's item B, which is ID211553, consider adoption of an ordinance of the City of Denton, repealing Article 3, Human Services Committee of Chapter 14 of the Code of City of Denton, and then item C, ID21979, consider approval of a resolution of the City of Denton, creating a Community Services Advisory Committee to advise the City Council on program services and use of public resources to address complex social problems. And then I'll check with Stuart, Alexa, do we have any callers at this point? No, sir, there's no callers and no virtual comment. Thank you, Stuart, Alexa. All right, Danny? Thank you, Danny Shaw, Community Services. We're going to do a presentation for you today regarding the possibility of forming a Community Services Advisory Committee, but in that conversation, should Council elect to do that, we would also need to abolish and rescind a couple of the committees that are existing. Very quickly, I'm not going to go through these two slides, Council has seen those in our previous presentation, but they're included for the public in case they're referring to this later. But I did want to remind you of the survey feedback that we did get from the existing committees. There were 86% of the folks, that's 12 out of the 14 who responded, who were in favor of this conversation. We also did ask just to make sure we understood if it would have an impact on folks' ability to participate in the committee, because our goal is to have them meet more frequently and to be participating in a larger conversation. So we did ask them if there was any issues or concerns with that, and we got 92% back that said that wouldn't be an issue for them. The only one who said no is just because they weren't returning to the committee anyway. And then based on our conversation, we did have a joint meeting with the two committees where we did have the discussion about the possibility of doing this work together. One of the initial conversations from the committee member, her first question was to play devil's advocate, to just ask what are the potential downfalls or downsides of this particular decision. So we did discuss that the current process may not be desirable for people who've been interacting with the committees in the way that they currently are performing. And then there was some concern about fewer citizen engagement with less members on committees talking about these particular topics. What happened after that was we did have a discussion about what folks were seeing as the positives, and so obviously they felt like it aligns with our growth and our changing needs in the community around social services and community services. They did agree that they felt like it would be more responsive to be able to be a smaller group and working on the city resources around broader topics. We also discussed, it didn't come up in our previous conversations, just the idea that now we have a tool that staff can access regularly to get feedback on things like you saw in the ARP presentation. There's going to be a significant amount of funding that's going to go to these types of issues, and we want them to be available to be able to provide that feedback on how those programs should look. As we move forward. There was significant conversation on the size and quorum discussion. We went back and forth. We did let them know what you had said, you know, anywhere between seven and 14 members was a suggestion. They ultimately came back with a consensus to recommend that something that was a minimum of 11 and a maximum of 15 would be something that would be desirable for those folks. And then we discussed a couple of other alternatives to that around the quorum discussion. So there's a lot about how are we meeting quorum and how are we able to do that with the members that exist. And so there was some discussion of some ideas around subcommittees and using alternates. But ultimately in our discussions with legal and overall just these are probably things that were not necessary. We can do these in other ways, like having public meetings or having guests come in and speak to the groups. And then the alternates really, if we just work as a traditional committee structure, it shouldn't be necessary either. And then we did have the conversation with them about the United Way ex officio like we had with you to get that feedback from them as well. Ultimately there was a mixed input on that. But one of the things that came out of that discussion was a consensus that if counsel decides to form this new group, that it would be the opportunity of the new committee to make decisions on whether or not they wanted to amend the resolution to add more authorities or more work that they would be responsible for. And so one of those might be to add an ex officio. One of those might be later to do subcommittees or other things like that. So they felt like it was important that those folks knew they had that opportunity to do so in the future, but wasn't necessarily needed right now. And then ultimately we did have one additional member provide an email back to us that they were against this decision. So I wanted to make sure you were aware of that. This was just a slide we added to show you as counsel members who currently is considered an appointment based on your counsel position. There's an information in the columns about who appointed them, and that may be that the original committee or the original counsel member appointed them, or maybe who reappointed them when you're looking at that information in the term slide columns. Other than that, it's just informational for you all as you're thinking through what it would look like for either reappointments, because one of the things that the committee did ask was what the reappointment or what it would look like for folks to be appointed to the new committee. I think one of the concerns was will they get to continue to serve. They did ask if there was an opportunity for you all to prioritize those who are currently serving. So this gives you an idea of what that would look like should you decide to do that. So really this is where we are, the timeline. Today, if you do agree, you would be approving a resolution to abolish the CDAC. You would then be approving an ordinance, because they were formed differently, an ordinance to repeal the HSAC, and then if you finally would approve the resolution to create the new Community Services Advisory Committee. If that happens, then we would go forward with the city secretary to recruit new members for the committee, and then the new committee would begin meeting in September. So I will take this down, because really these slides are just about your options. Essentially you have the options of approving or not approving. Okay. And so we'll take these, so that's the presentation for all three, right? Yes, sir. Okay, great. So we'll take them one at a time. So we'll take questions for staff, but we're focusing on item A, and all the questions will get out, but then we'll just vote on B and C. But we'll focus on A, and Council Member Armitage. Okay. So just first I want to mention, I sat in just to listen on that meeting, and I thought it was really an excellent, productive meeting, and you also did a good job of summing it up. I was wondering if anyone who registered as kind of being in opposition to this on the survey officially changed their mind during this? I mean, that's different than the third note that we got by email of a different member. So I don't know who the anonymous was, but during the meeting, as you're aware, we didn't hear anyone saying they were opposed at that time. I mean, I heard some just really good skeptical questions that were kind of collectively answered and worked on, and some really, including some really innovative solutions to quorum issues with the idea of alternates, for instance. So anyway, thank you. Council Member Davis. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, Danny, for facilitating that conversation, because I really appreciate the insight that those folks gave us, and that's exactly what we asked for. The last time we considered this was, well, what are the people serving and answering these questions for us now? What do they have to say? That's very useful. I think, at least in my decision-making process, it's very useful to have their comments. And I agree with Council Member Armitter that some of these are innovative things, things that we wouldn't have thought of sitting up here that they thought about. And for me, it kind of solidifies -- one of the things we talked about last time was the benefit of a single committee being laser-focused. And as you were going through their responses, it made me think of the Bond Oversight Committee. This group is going to be dealing with millions and millions of dollars, more money than we usually handle through either one of those committees. And then on top of that, their normal workload during the -- just the normal funds that we deal with, the federal funds that we deal with every year through those committees, I can't think of anybody besides PUB and the Bond Oversight Committee that deal with that kind of -- making those kind of monetary recommendations to the Council. So having a laser-focused, highly professional, dedicated group of folks in a single committee is very attractive to me. And I'm reading over the resolution that's in our backup, and it looks like the draft resolution in the backup is the committee recommendation for 11 members, seven from individual Council Members, four at large, and then also no United Way ex officio. Is that correct? That's correct. Would that prevent -- if that committee wanted to, could they have a standing United Way report on their agenda, or could they have a -- No, we'd not prohibit that. That would absolutely be an option. I think that was one of the things that came out of that conversation clearly, was they were wanting to have more groups coming in and presenting to them to help them make better decisions. Very good. Thank you. Council Member Beck. Thank you, Mayor. So one of the things that -- let me lead with the question before. On the United Way issue, on the ex officio status, there's nothing in the way we're structuring this that would preclude, say, a member of United Way from being nominated to serve as a committee member. There's no separation at that level. It's not that fine-grained, is there? Yeah, they wouldn't be able to serve as a committee member. Oh, yes, they could be nominated by one of you. I apologize. Thank you. That person would just have the standard dent required. Yes, if you decided to nominate a staff member or a board member from the United Way, you could. Absolutely. Okay. No, I actually kind of concur with the combined consensus that United Way can be a recipient of funds, they can be a source of advice, but I think we really should keep our government boards separate from our nonprofits, just to keep the bright lines bright and the streams -- we don't cross the streams to make a Ghostbuster reference. And so I think that's really important. And I will say that, you know, I had some trepidation with this, not from the staff concept of streamlining your efforts. I mean, it's clear, you're doing half the committee work, so that's -- I mean, it's going to be more time. But because these have been committees that we've had for 30 years, and I don't -- you don't want to be locked in stone, but at the same token, if something's been around for 30 years, you don't go whoop, you know, and get rid of it, because we have rationale for keeping it for 30 years. But I do think that -- I could see my way to supporting this, but I would like to sort of admonish that the new makeup, the new committee -- I mean, it's a new committee. Let's just be honest. It's a new committee. Take a very, you know, not aggressive, but a very demonstrative role to really sort of set up human services policies, set up human services goals, that human services component, and then at the same time, keep that breaks and sticks component to where what are the infrastructure elements that service those policy goals that that committee comes on. And I've actually completely turned to, like, the idea of if the combined new committee will be that way, will be the P and Z of human services, will be the P and Z of human services, then I really think that could be powerful. But if we're just streamlining the committee, then that's the danger that the committee itself brought to your point. So I guess I'm encouraging staff to encourage that sort of more demonstrative role in this new committee, should we vote to approve it. Thank you. Mayor Pro Tem Meltzer. Thank you. What were the creative ideas that came out of the conversation that we couldn't necessarily have anticipated that you found most compelling? Well, I think we had tried to articulate it before, but one of the things that came out of it was just our ability to be that much more nimble about anything. There clearly felt like we would be able to move much more swiftly in response to things that were happening quickly, as opposed to our longstanding process that's a year-long grant application process. So allowing us to look at needs not just at one time of the year, but year around. So I think that's what I heard clearly from them from a big picture perspective. Certainly, the alternates, the subcommittees were ideas that came out. They were sort of unique ideas on how to handle the quorum and other things like that that also came out of the conversation. And then they really heard us when we were talking about our ability to do gap analysis, which I think is towards Councilmember Beck's statement as well, just understanding what the needs are and all the complexities of that and being able to analyze that as a group better. So I think that's what I got. But you're not looking for us to move forward on alternates? No, I think when we looked at it with legal, we felt like there were some legal complications with how to figure out when they would get to vote and when they wouldn't and some things like that. It just felt like that was sort of contrary to our ability to move quickly. But I think it's an opportunity for them to look at if we're having quorum issues in the future that we'll keep in the back of our mind. I think that's clearly an idea that came through. I know the quorum, you know, is perennial an issue with committees in general, though it hasn't been actually for these two. I mean, you've always barely made it, but you've made it. Is that true? Yeah, well, we didn't actually make quorum in the joint meeting with one of the committees, so it is something that we stress about each time, but we generally make quorum with the minimum. Okay, thanks. Yes, City Manager. To your point, Council Member Beck, I think this is a very unique situation, but an opportunity. And if you look at the item C, it talks about this group that will advise council on all these things under the umbrella of social issues, but everything from homelessness, how we're spending our dollars. So I would say to council as an opportunity that because we want to create this sort of all-encompassing and really look at how we address these things, it's very important as a council member, just as a suggestion that you really think hard about who you put on this committee from experts or other individuals who have had and been engaged in issues related to these items that will help us then bring back to you the very best recommendations. Thank you. Council Member Armitage. So, so two things yet one comment question. I think just add my own personal two cents to the city managers comment about considerations that you know I would also add to that. That, that we keep in mind, you know, diversity of all kinds, and, you know, including socioeconomic diversity and, you know, making sure to put people on there who are close to, you know, are the kind of kind of people who would who would benefit from these kinds of programs and who not just themselves but, you know, neighborhoods, family, friends. I think that a point that I forget if it was your Courtney who, you know, mentioned at the meeting, but that one of the problems with finding a good time for everybody to meet has to do with, you know, people who, people who work nights for instance, or, you know, people who don't have flexible work schedules, who are the kind of, oftentimes the kind of ideal people to be on these committees because, you know, they are for their working class or you know low income. And, you know, can make it difficult to find a good time and to meet quorum. But, so I appreciate your understanding of that. I'm wondering my question is kind of a question for legal. And I'd be happy to save it till item C when we're voting on the new committee because I realize this is item A, but since other, since there have been other comments and questions pertaining to item C, I thought I would just kind of throw this in there. Since, and this is about the idea of there being alternates, which I thought was really was really interesting and a good idea that came out of the committee. I understand it, you know, legal found some potential problems with that. I'm wondering, you know, since there's, there are alternates on ZBA, is there a reason why it's okay to have it on ZBA but not on this committee? Well, if I phrased it incorrectly, they just gave us some suggestions on how we might do it and then the committee then agreed that there are things they could look at later if they're, if they're necessary and the resolution changed, but all that. Okay. Yeah, if you, yeah, if that, okay, good. And so, so the proposal is for the 11, you said not for the 15. Correct. Our staff recommendation is for 11. We did some research on just the form, how committees are formed currently within the city. So 54% of the committees are seven members and 86% are between seven and 11. There's only four committees that are outside of that range, and there's one each, so there's a committee that has three members, a committee that has six, a committee that has 12, and one committee that has 14. Everything else is between seven and 11, so we felt like, based on the success of getting quorum in our current committees as well, that that was a good number to stay within as a recommendation of 11. Okay, and then, you know, alternates could be added if, if needed. Right, I think that's the idea that if for some reason there's some issue with quorum or there's the membership composites, the committee could then come back to council and request a resolution change to add that as a solution to it, if that were coming up. Councilman Burke. Almost forgot my question. Oh, but you know what I really this is really putting me putting in mind that this is like a one stop shop. In the, the, the quickness of how things could turn over meeting the needs as quickly as possible is very much appreciated. I was going to ask about what I'm asking about is let me get back to my. Sorry I gotta go back here. I was looking at this current committee. Are we, are we going to be able to go back to these people or some of these people. How are we going to get these names. So I think we'll work, you'll work with the city secretary and making nominations, should you choose to open up a new committee. And, and I was just, you know, for the sake of my lack of knowledge year. I can see where some things are highlighted in green. Is that a P like present or I don't know what that P means on there or somebody present. I apologize. I'm not sure. It's like the term and then it is a 3121 and it's it means they were filling a term. Oh, feeling. Yeah. Partial means partial. That means partial. Thank you. Thanks for asking the question. I forgot why I did that. Yeah, they were not appointed to they were not appointed at a full term. They were appointed halfway through because we had a vacancy or some other reason. Thank you. Okay. All right. Thank you. And that's all I had. Thank you. Okay, we have a motion by Councilmember Armitage second by Councilmember Davis. Any other discussion? Okay, we'll vote on the screen. Just a quick point of order. Yes, Mayor. I don't think we have those on the board, but I don't think we've actually made the motion or seconded it yet. All right. Then I'll call call for the motion. I move approval. Councilmember Davis, and I will second. Thank you. So again, thank you for that. Councilmember Davis motion by Councilmember Armitage second by Councilmember Davis. Any discussion? Seeing none. And this is item a will vote on the screen. And that passes seven zero. And we do not have a presentation, but that takes us to item B, which I've already called. So I'll take a motion. Councilmember McGuire. I move approval. Councilmember Bet. I second. Okay, we have a motion by Councilmember McGuire second by Councilmember Bet. Discussion. Seeing none, we'll vote on the screen. And that passes seven zero. And that will take us to item C, which I've already called. And I will take a motion if there's questions for staff. Councilmember McGuire. I move approval. Councilmember Davis. I will second. Okay, we have a motion by Councilmember McGuire second by Councilmember Davis. Discussion. Seeing none, we'll vote on the screen. And that passes seven zero. Thank you, Danny. Appreciate all your work. And that takes us to item D, ID 211538. Consider approval of the resolution of the City Council of City of Denton for the appointment of one member to the Board of Managers of the Denco Area 911 District. Excuse me one second. I don't see mine here or so. I do not. Let me see what this unlabeled one is. I do not see it here. No, I think I heard the door. See DENCO on here. I don't really have it if you want me just to wing it. I'll grab my phone if you don't. I have an email. Is it it was kind of called it. Let's go ahead and do it and move on. And I think you can probably explain it Suzanne. The DENCO Area 911 District was established in 1987 and it's governed by a Board of Managers from the Department of Denton County area participating cities in the Denton Fire Chiefs Association. Each year the term of one of the members appointed by municipalities expires. And this year the term of member Sue Taymel is expiring. It'll expire on September 30th, 2021. She is seeking re-election to the Board of Managers at DENCO. On May the 10th, an informal staff report was submitting requesting nominees to the Board of Managers. No nominees were submitted on behalf of council to staff so none were submitted to DENCO. Four nominees were selected by participating cities and on June the 1st of 2021 the city received a request from DENCO for the City Council to make a selection from one of the four nominees presented. Those nominees are Brandon Barth, Mark Klingle, Sue Taymel who wants to retain her spot and David Terry. So the request from council is to vote on a nominee for the DENCO Board of Managers. Okay, questions for staff? Mayor Proctor Meltzer. Yeah, can you remind me which of the nominees is former Denton firefighter who earned his MBA as well? Mark Klingle. Thank you. And the other nominees were Brandon Barth, Sue Taymel and David Terry. I see there's already a member choosing to make a motion so I'll wait. Otherwise I'll have a motion. Okay, any other questions for staff? Okay. Seeing none, I move to reappoint Susan. Sue Taymel. Yeah, and I don't want to. Thank you. I had to ask how to pronounce her name as well. Yeah, I appreciate that. Yeah, she has a wealth of experience and has served in that capacity before so welcome and she wants to serve again. I appreciate her service as well. Councilmember Davis. Mayor, I'll second your motion. Okay, I have a motion by myself, second by Councilmember Davis, discussion. Councilmember Davis. Just a couple quick things. Why I second the motion, I would have made it myself with the mayor. You beat me to the draw. I've had the chance over the last few years to get acquainted with Sue just a little bit over email. And a couple things I'll point out is that she's a former mayor of a member city, of a DENCO member city. And that also one of the items of concern for me that we've talked about before is firefighter first responder representation somehow on the committee on that board. There is currently serving on the board a representative of the Fire Chiefs Association. So there is a firefighter currently serving on that board. And also, for what it's worth, Sue is the only woman currently serving on that board. Okay, thank you. Any other discussion. Okay, motion by Mayor Hutsworth second by Councilmember Davis will vote on the screen. That recommendation passes 7-0, thank you. That takes us to item E, which is ID 21791, consider adoption of an ordinance of the city of Denton, authorizing the city manager to execute a roadway development agreement between the city of Denton and Sagebrook. David Gaines, assistant city manager. I'm just going to give a very short introduction to this item. And for the next one as well, Becky Divini will present this item and then Gary Packin will present the next item. Let me call the second one just in case you bleed over, you're out of control. Okay, so that's item F, ID 211514, consider adoption of an ordinance of the city of Denton, authorizing the city manager to execute a park development agreement between the city of Denton and Sagebrook. And let me make sure we check one thing. Stuart, do we have any callers? No, sir, there are no callers or public comment for this. Okay, just wanted to get that in, this is the last item. I appreciate it, Mayor, thank you. Go ahead. I only want to say as we head into these two agreements that they are each narrowly focused in their own right, the first being for roadways. And really, that conversation is, as we went into, is how are we going to build Allred, look at what needs to be done on Bonnie Bray, and start planning for the Brush Creek extension. So with that being the mindset as we started our discussions with the developer, this has really been a five or six month process with them of trying to think of what works best for the city as we went into those negotiations. So we looked at a number of different iterations to get to this point and feel good about where we are as a result of that. So just wanted to give that preface before Becky presented, and the parts agreement was somewhat more straightforward, but certainly part of the overall mix. So with that out of the way, I'll turn it over to Becky. Thank you. Thank you, David. Good evening again, Mayor and Council. I am here to present, as David mentioned, the Sagebrook Roadway Development Agreement. We have several different members from staff that are present in case there are additional questions, and also the developer is working to get himself on the phone. So if he does get on the phone, we will be more than happy if there's questions for him. So just a little bit of the overview. This is a single family residential development with 490 residential lots. It was approved in July of 2020. The neighborhood will be developed in four sequential construction phases. As you can see, phase one is down here in the green, phase two in kind of the pink, phase three in the orange, and phase four in the blue. The final plot was approved April 21st for phase one of 2021. So the roadway development considerations, really there's quite a few of them. The approved plan development included several roadway development improvements. That included the extension to Brush Creek from 377 to the Ultimate All-Red Road, the closure of the Bonnebray Union Pacific Crossing, the opening of a new Union Pacific Crossing at the Brush Creek Extension. Sorry, that's a mouthful. The City of Denton does not currently have funding for the identified design and construction of Brush Creek Extension and the included and associated railroad crossing. The City was unable to provide a specific timeline from the UPRR and when they could complete the review and also approve the provided closure of the railroad at Bonnebray where this new crossing would be located. To address the intimate roadway improvement and access needs, with the Sagebrook development, a cross-departmental team of city staff has been coordinating, like David mentioned, over several months with the developer and drafted the proposed roadway agreement. So what I want to mention in this slide is the proposed roadway development agreement in the column you see, city with different check marks and developer with different check marks. These are city anticipated possible projects that could come about, so I want you to understand that these are things that we would be looking at in the future. So I'll run through them. I know you can read on your screen, but the dedication of the 120-foot right-of-way of Brush Creek Extension is something the developer is doing. The temporary access point off of Bonnebray once he hits his 30th home. He's also going to complete the traffic impact analysis that's related to the primary access of the development from Allred due to the unavailability of the access road of Brush Creek that I mentioned earlier. He's also going to construct the access drive to the future Southwest Park, and Gary will go into that in a few moments. He's going to reconstruct the 25-foot commercial collector section. It's actually a 39-foot section. He's going to construct his two lanes, which would be 25 feet, and including the left turn lane into the Sagebrook primary north entrance. He's also going to construct an 8-foot sidewalk of Allred to the western edge of the development, and we will be looking at assessing his overall roadway impact fees. What you can see in the check marks for the city is that at some point in the future, the city will be wanting to look at constructing Brush Creek Extension on the southern side of Sagebrook. That will also include the railroad crossing and the permitting and removal of the existing Bonnebray crossing. We will also look at constructing the other portion of the roadway cross-section along Allred, and then also there's some additional right-of-way acquisition that will be required on the western side of his development near the end of Allred, where it connects to the county. Also, we will be looking at, and currently looking at, as a part of the agreement, the roadway impact fee credit for the Brush Creek right-of-way dedication that he's dedicating for the future roadway. This map that you see is very detailed, but just so that you can understand, and I don't need to go through the entire thing. If you have specific questions, I'm more than happy to answer. But what you can see on your screen is that the first phase that the developer will be doing is to be building the 25-foot-wide portion of the roadway along Allred with that turn lane and 8-foot sidewalks. The city will be looking at constructing, like I mentioned, that other 14-foot section at some period of time when the need necessitates. There also will be some additional right-of-way dedication that the developer is doing in this area along with the entire right-of-way dedication of Brush Creek Road. So I'm going to stop and see if there's any particular questions about this agreement. I'm sorry, this map in front of you. Council Member Beck has a question. Yes, sir. There we go. Not a fan of the touch buttons. So yeah, I know we're doing this in phases. I happen to know from when I was in P&Z that there's various components that went into this. The gas well up where Allred comes into - I mean, it's capped, but the construction on a gas well is sometimes problematic according to engineering. And so there seems like we're - I understand that we're trying to proceed forward, but it seems like - okay, so help me understand. We didn't procure the funding for the development for what reason? I mean, it just - we haven't gotten our ducks in a row, or it's a longer-term goal than aligns with this particular development? Can you explain to me more what you're requesting as far as procurement of funding? Yeah, so you're saying that the backup was said we had to get into particular - we had to get into this particular relationship because we had not yet procured funding for Brush Creek and that the developer was going to do the other elements. And so I guess what I'm concerned about is a little bit of a cart before the horse in terms of putting a neighborhood before we have infrastructure. And we've seen that happen in other neighborhoods where neighborhoods were trying to come in before there was sufficient infrastructure to handle it. So I guess I'm in favor more of building out the infrastructure that allows the neighborhood to organically develop. And so the fact that we haven't procured development for Brush Creek, I guess the developer is putting in the Allred roads and potentially the extra right of ways around the gas well and the connection up to Southwest Park. The question I have more is why - if we don't have the funding for this component of the mobility plan along Brush Creek, why are we pushing now for the credits? Why do we not say to the developer, okay, you've got your final plat, go ahead and build those roads out because you're the one that needs it, not yet us, because we don't have the demand for you. Hence the lack of funding for that element of the mobility plan. I think I finally got there in the end. It is a long narrative. Maybe you can approach that? Sure. And I'm happy to have anyone else that wants to help answer that question too. But essentially at this point, you know, we've had multiple conversations back and forth about Brush Creek construction versus Allred construction. The developer would like to move forward with their development. And so the city evaluated the overall mobility plan and the proposed mobility plan in this section and worked with the developer for the cross-section of Allred to be constructed due to the timing of Brush Creek. At this time, there is not funding associated with Brush Creek, which would be that future Hickory Creek extension. And so what the city worked on was having him dedicate that right of way for that future roadway. The timing of the railroad and their actual construction, it was just going to extend to a longer period of time. And so what we came up with and worked with the developer on is looking at actually constructing Allred as an alternate to the Brush Creek extension. Sure. David's going to add to you? Yeah. I would just add, you know, obviously, Brush Creek is a huge project as we're thinking about the future phases of Hickory Creek as we finish 2019 modern program. And a big component of that is talking with the COG and seeing what kind of regional funding we can get to go forward toward that. So that's something we're working on. So I think the benefit of the proposal as it's laid out is we're getting that right of way now. We have that right of way dedicated. It's on the mobility plan for this route, so it's consistent with the plans as we move forward. We're not going to have a better way to get the right of way in the future when we're thinking about prices and things like that. So it's a benefit we get on Brush Creek extension. But with Allred being built out and the improvements on Bonnie Bray, it's also the needs there from an infrastructure perspective are there for the development. So we're able to -- he's able to hit all the goals he needs for the infrastructure from a city standpoint. We have the infrastructure we need for the roadway capacity, and we're able to go ahead and at least have that first step that we would need for future Brush Creek extension. So we're able to kind of hit the immediate needs, but also get that right of way that we know we're going to need, whether it's in three years, five years, or whatever that timeframe is down the road. So that's how we looked at it. Those were the factors that we took into play when we kind of got to this point. So help me understand a little bit, and I'm more -- I'm not trying to stop the development. I'm more trying to get the horse in front of the cart. If we want this to be part of our mobility plan, and NCTC-COG wants it to be -- I added too many Cs in there. Anyway, North Texas Council of Governments wants it to be part of the mobility plan, and TXDOT and yada yada. If all the players want Brush Creek extension off Hickory to be part of the development, why is that not being done in order to enable Sagebrook? Why are we having to do the Bass-Aquards back entrance for a few years? And then I very carefully did not say any negative things on that. Yes, you know, it's -- we've been having -- and Becky's been in countless conversations with TXDOT on this exact road. So it's -- I would say it's on -- I don't want to speak to -- it's on their plans. I mean, it's in their considerations. It's just not something that they're ready to dedicate funding toward at this time -- money toward at this time. You know, eventually we're going to need -- when Southwest Park is there, we're going to need Allred built out as well, at least to this level. So we're going to need both long-term. This is a way that we get the one that we need most immediately, especially if Southwest Park comes up sooner and we get at least the right-of-way to Brush Creek extension. So the thought process is we need both just from a city perspective. And so here is a mechanism to at least get one partially done and the other the right-of-way that we would need. Okay. I mean, I guess I understand that, you know, the goal is to proceed on something, but I'm -- I'm highly trepidatious that we're building in -- what we're going to do is end up building in a TIA complaint system for three years before we get anything done because we don't have the infrastructure in place for 490-odd homes. And that isn't sage-brooked. That is the various municipalities should have put the infrastructure in to allow this or at least concurrently. And we're not doing that. And that is what I'm admonishing, not just us, but all of our partners as well, that we've got to stop putting in development before we have an infrastructure to support development. So I don't know. I will shut up and ruminate inside my own brain for a while. Council Member Armitage. Yeah. I just wanted to say that I concur with Council Member Beck's objections. And I agree, it's not just a matter of -- it's not just saying that this proposal from the city's point of view is objectionable, but it's kind of looking at just the whole process. I almost wonder whether or not we are unwittingly enabling, you know, some of these other entities to depend on us to do this cart-before-the-horse work -- horse-before-the-cart work. So anyway, just wanted to register that without needlessly repeating what he mentioned. And I'd like to mention, too, you know, the developer also agreed to your TIA comment and also, you know, the overall roadway cross-section. Currently on the 2015 mobility plan, this roadway is shown as a residential street. But with working through that with the developer, knowing that the construction of Brush Creek would not be at this time just the right-of-way dedication, he did agree to build the commercial collector cross-section, which is a part of our 2020 mobility plan. Okay. Council Member Davis? Yes, sir. Thank you. I have some other questions just to pick up on your last point. So would that be a value add, something we wouldn't have gotten in the first iteration of this development or the first, I guess, the process that we thought we'd be going through? That we would not have gotten build out of Allred as that commercial cross-section -- excuse me, collector cross-section. Yes, sir. My understanding of the original agreement -- and I apologize because I wasn't here at this time in this capacity -- but my understanding of the original agreement is that Allred was going to be resurfaced to some sort of driving that would be a passable structure, whether it's just a few inches of asphalt put over the top like an overlay of some sort and left in its current condition not constructed to that commercial collector. Okay. So I'm doing my best to understand the history of it and then also what the new agreement addresses. Tell me if I'm on the right track. Sure. The developer, to build any subdivision like this, developers are required to build some level of infrastructure. They've got to build some level of adjoining roads and sidewalks and those kind of things to be able to build their development. Ideally, they'd be wanting to build part of Brush Creek, not just dedicating. Ideally, they'd be wanting Brush Creek to be their main entrance, their first constructed entrance probably. But we're not ready for them to build Brush Creek. There's no Brush Creek for them to connect to. They'd be building just an internal road to their development because there's no Brush Creek on this end and there's no Brush Creek on this end. And so the agreement is for them to instead build out Allred to a higher spec as their point of entry, as their connection to existing city infrastructure. Am I in the ballpark? Yes, sir. You were spot on with the point that as soon as they build 30 homes, they will need to require a second entrance, what they would do off of Bonnie Bray. The Bonnie Bray in the neighborhood of the crossing that we're eventually going to get rid of, correct? The pink line you see in this area would be where the temporary connection would be. And at some point, then we would evaluate a more permanent connection and maybe even possibly in this area where you see my arrow. Got it. Thank you. Yes, sir. A couple timeline questions, both of them kind of beyond our control, but need to know if we have any idea. First, a timeline on identifying Brush Creek funding, knowing that funding, that just kicks off the process. We've still got design, we've still got construction, we've still got all the different things we have to do. So timeline on identifying Brush Creek construction, knowing that it's not immediate, and then also a very rough timeline on TxDOT and I-35 frontage roads. Because if we've got folks coming in, if they've just got Bonnie Bray right now, then otherwise they've got Crawford Road to John Payne, all the way up around to Allred, and then into their development. So depending on where they're going, depending on how many homes there are, depending on when those homes are built, that's a pretty long trek just to get in and out of your neighborhood. So we know roughly when TxDOT will have frontage roads out there and roughly when we might have a better idea about Brush Creek funding. Sure, and I apologize, I'm looking up the frontage roads for you. The Brush Creek extension, which would be Hickory Creek, phase four and five in this area, currently with our current conversations with COG, they've asked us to focus on completion of Hickory Creek phase three, and then also the Mayhill DCTA project and portions of the Bonnie Bray. That's where they'd like for us to expend our efforts at this time, and they've asked for us to hold on this project at this time. They want us to finish and complete some of those projects that we're working with them on funding. So as far as a timeline, it's not currently in a capital plan, and it's also not something currently that we're having conversations about as far as putting it within the capital plan. Definitely on our radar and on our horizon, but at this time we don't have a design timeline. As far as the frontage roads, thank you Chandra. Chandra is in the audience listening and giving me feedback. I do have a report, I just did not print it out. The 35W frontage road timeline is approximately 2026. Mayor, can I ask one more follow-up? That's helpful, thank you for that, especially on the kind of the regional participation in this project. Do we know, do we have any idea how much of this particular project is going to be impacted by Hunter Ranch development? And they're starting a different part of their project, they've got an enormous 40-year build-out project, but they do straddle Allred Road with their development. Do we know if there's any, if we anticipate any participation by that developer on the western portion of Allred Road, the Brush Creek to I-35 portion? Yes sir, and some of that roadway is actually in the county, but yes sir, there are conversations that are currently happening between myself, Ethan Cox and Christine Taylor working with Hunter Cole on the future mobility plan and the needs of Allred, and Ethan actually has been putting together an overall overview of all of those actual roadways. And so we do anticipate that a portion of this could be constructed where there would actually be a connection between the portion that the Sagebrook development would build and then the portion based on the Hunter Cole development. Thank you, you're getting to the heart of my question, so there could be, if we do it right, there could be kind of a, the stars could align between our frontage roads, our collector spec Hunter Hillwood Ranch, Hunter Ranch Hillwood collector spec road, and then our Sagebrook collector spec road. Yes sir, we're working on trying to coordinate those efforts between this development, the Hunter Cole, and then also the 35W project. Thank you. Okay, any other questions for staff? Councillor McGuire. Thank you Mayor. This isn't a comment, but I just you know for the public watching at home I want to echo Councilmember Beck and Councilmember Armenter's kind of frustration with the way that this has gone. I'm personally not going to let that impact how we move forward with our roads, but there you have it. Councilmember Burke. You said something about that the builder would need to build 30 homes before they extend Bonnie Bray to make an additional entry point. Is that what I understand? Actually Bonnie Bray already currently exists in that area, what they would be constructing, this is per the fire code, and once you have 30 homes you have to have a secondary entrance, and so this pink line that you see on your screen would be the proposal of the location of the temporary access that would be provided once those 30 homes are constructed. It just seems odd to me that phase one would be, you know, the furthest point from the second entrance. This kind of unnerves me a little bit as well. I thought that we were building and we were considering, you know, putting in developments where we do have the infrastructure in there to have access to things. It still looks like this development is kind of out there. I had been looking at my own personal phone to see where the nearest stores are and all of that, and it seems like it's far away from everything, but I don't see any kind of additional infrastructure in here in this little neighborhood. It's a little bit quicker than we would expect for it to. I'll just comment on my part. Sure. There are additional details that I'm sure the development services department could provide as far as amenities. You know, it will have underground infrastructure just like every other development, but as far as other amenities, that's not something that I could speak to, but I'm not sure if you'd like to know that, I'm sure Mr. McDonald could speak to. Scott McDonald, director of development services. I don't know that I heard the entirety of the question, but I did hear one part of this that where the phase one was the original, that's what it's approved, and then you reference the second access point on body and bray, which really is phase 1A is what they're calling it. We've got the plans in for that, and we're just waiting for the completion or the review with our reviewing staff, so ultimately they will build phase one and that access road almost simultaneously, so they'll have the two points of access right off the bat. The intent was that phase one was aligned with what would be that future brush creek extension, and because the timing with the railroad, we went into the discussions with Allred, but again, the plat was already approved, so they're entitled to build, and they can build today, and there is no perimeter straight for improvement, so they would have no requirement. We have the benefit of getting the Allred improvements included with this, and that's why it is that we bring it forward as an agreement, because they wouldn't be required to build that at this point in time, so if that helps answer the question. And Scott, I think she was also asking about additional amenities to this development. That's not something I can speak to. I can only speak to the roadway and the infrastructure. And I guess what you will see in that other part of phase one through the middle, and I think Becky may have this in the next part of her presentation, is really that parkway going up through the center. So where it is that would connect from the south entrance to the north entrance, that parkway and trail system ties from what would be a future south park to southwest park, so it connects the two park pieces of property, and then they've got some green space down on where the future brush creek extension would be in that corner. They've got some green space and trail as well, if that helps. Okay. Becky, I have a couple questions. Yes, sir. Because I think it's important to kind of note. When was, if you recall, I think you said it, when was this originally approved? The original approval, and I'm sorry that went through the development services team. The original approval of the single family resident was actually in July 21st of 2020. The final plat was approved on a very good day, April 21st, 2021. Okay. And so, help me, when it was approved by council, better said, I'm sorry, is that that April date, pardon me, July date? The actual PD was approved on July 21st of 2020. Yes, sir. And just for context, forgive me, but how long have you been in your position? Like your new position currently? Yes, sir. I began in my position September 5th of 2020. Okay. So after, so you know, so you inherited some things, right? So we feel like this is, and I'm speaking for you, but correct me where I'm wrong. Picking up where you, you know, came into place and moving it forward, understanding it was approved by this body before you were even in that position, you feel like, I'm assuming this is, we've done the best work we could to get, to make sure everyone's going to be in a home that's safe, able to travel, it's safe, and then we have plans going forward to mitigate any concerns that would come forward. Am I, I'm speaking for you, but am I close? Yes, sir. That is really the reason why we pushed for the commercial collector section for Allred versus the original section, which was the residential, knowing that Brush Creek could be some time before it's actually extended in this area. So, yes, sir, I would concur with your statement. Yeah, and so I think, and I think that's important because I could, you know, we, we as a body can identify, I mean, there's, there's a previous body approved this, and this body gets it and moves it, you know, you have to move it forward. You can't, we can't take back that approval. They can, they can build. That is, that's been approved by a previous body, so we have to, if we have concerns, we mitigate that to the best of our ability, but at the end of the day, we need to make sure we have roads to keep people safe and not a development that has no improvement. So we're, we're, we're, we've requested, I feel, as much as we can, I appreciate David's spotlighting of the right of way because all you need to do is take a short trip to Catherine's office in legal and understand how much we pay for right of way. I mean, it's, it's, that's significant. Now that's not valued today, but that is valuable. And then when you're talking about leveraging other dollars to make sure we can pay for roads in the future, I think that's important. Again, does not help today, but, but looking forward, I think it's very helpful to try to work our way through this thing that maybe has started less than great, but we can still finish strong if we adjust accordingly. So, with that understanding, I've made the motion, I hit the button, I'm going to move approval, and I'm looking for a second. Councilmember Davis. I'll second the motion. Okay, so we have a motion for approval. We have a second by Councilmember Davis discussion. Councilmember Armitage. I'm going to be voting no for the reasons that I, that I mentioned earlier. Okay. Councilmember Bet. Yeah, I prefaced my comments that I'm not trying to stop this development. I'm saying that we are not doing our infrastructure properly. And so, not against the development, I mean, I'm saying, I want to say I want to make a statement that we're, we should put our ducks in a row. Councilmember groundwater. Thank you, I am against the development. If I had been on Council a year ago I would have voted no. But here we are a majority of us in, you know, maybe not a majority but a significant number of us in this room we're not here. When, when this this project was set in motion. So, you know, I agree with you, Mayor that that that there's not much to be done now I am going to be voting yes because this needs infrastructure but, but yeah, I just feel like I need to make my voice heard on that. Councilmember Davis. Thank you, Mayor. So, private property owners have the right to build within certain requirements that we set out in our code. And then sometimes when they need to flex those rules just a little bit, or we need to horse trade and leverage them. We use the PD process to do that. That's exactly what we did with this development when it was proved last year we got significant green space dedication. We're now continuing that positive relationship and getting a value add. This is not what anyone expected. It's not what anyone would have asked for when this PD was approved last year. But we are getting more than we bargained for here. It's not exactly what we wanted. But in the final analysis there's a value add to what we get. I hope someday we have brush Creek finished I hope someday we have that that connection that good connection from 35 all the way down to the current Hickory Creek. But this is the situation we're in. We didn't necessarily get here because there were some big failure of priorities, or because we have the heart the cart before the horse. But private property owners have a right to develop with a reasonable regulation. We use the PD process to get value adds for our citizens. If people want to buy a house a mile from a grocery store, I'm not going to do that. But somebody is going to. And they're going to build out these homes very quickly. And they're going to sell very quickly. And we can't base all of our decisions on well that's not where I would build. That's not how I would have done it. Private property owners have a right to develop. And we have the obligation to hold their feet to the fire and horse trade and leverage just as shrewdly as staff did with this agreement. That's why I'm voting yes. Thank you. And I want to say I think you're spot on, Councilmember McGuire, because absent this support, they still build and there's less infrastructure. And I can only guess what they charge us for the right of way for going forward at a consternation. And so, yeah, you're right. I mean, it is one of those things where it is an impasse. But to not support it would be less infrastructure. And that's concerning to me as well. And cost more in the future. And that's concerning. So any other discussion? Seeing none, let's vote on the screen. And that passes five to two. Thank you. And that takes us, I've already called it, so I'll turn it over to the last item of the evening, F. Okay, Gary Pack and Director of Parks and Recreation, a very short presentation. Okay, similar view of the development that you currently had in the prior presentation. The developer is required to provide a little over 10 acres per our development dedication development ordinance. They are exceeding that and providing 15.258 acres of parkland down in this bottom left hand corner that you can see here in green on the south side of the proposed brush Creek. And then $142,000 in park development fees that can be used towards natural trails and open space that we have planned in this parcel in the future. Once those fees are collected. As mentioned earlier, they have agreed to put in an apron on the north side. So there's access to the park in the future. We'll identify exactly where that's going to go in the very near future. So that'll be ready for them when they go to put that road access in there. And then also we worked with them. They're putting a 10 foot trail that will connect both parks with the neighborhood providing access both north and south to the future Southwest Park. And then the future property that's being donated for public access. It's a private median, but we'll have an easement on top of that trail so the public can have access for even if they don't live in that neighborhood. So that improves our trail network and our connect ability for the neighborhood. And then this next slide is just a 30,000 foot view. Here's the development here in this area. This is Southwest Park. This is the proposed development park that they're donating. Here's the Hickory Creek Road and the Brush Creek extension coming this direction, the future trail. And then the other gray lines are just general trails that are in our proposed trails plan just to give you a higher elevation of that connectivity opportunity. So with that, entertain any questions. Thank you. Questions for staff. Councilmember Melzer. I'll move approval. Councilmember Davis. I'll second. Discussion. We have a motion by Mayor Pro Tem Melzer, seconded by Councilmember Davis. Discussion. I'll just say this. For my peers, if you've not spent some time with Gary to understand what he's working on on the Southwest Park, book some time with him because that park alone, and once those things are solidified, will drive development in this area. I mean, it's already coming, right? I mean, it doesn't need a catalyst, but there's some significant things Gary's been working on that aren't ready for public consumption yet, but are really, really exciting for that park. I mean, it is going to be a showstopper for sure if all things come together. So I would encourage you to kind of visit with him and get up to speed on those things if you have not. Councilmember Beck. Yeah, no, I completely agree with the mayor. Gary's doing an amazing job. He's making amazing progress. And in fact, the problem is Gary's going to be too amazing. He's making too many facilities for people to enjoy, and it's actually going to drive traffic, which goes to the point that I had with the previous item. So, Gary, you're driving traffic analysis problems. That's the problem. So, you know, Gary's doing a great job. So I want to make sure that that's said publicly. It's really an entire team. It's not just one person. It's the entire organization. Gary, your team is doing a great job. Yeah, agreed. Well said. Okay. Any other comments? Seeing none. Let's vote on the screen. And that passes seven zero. Thank you very much. That concludes our agenda takes us to concluding items. Anyone have concluding items just buzz in here. Okay, city manager. I'll be away from the office Thursday and Friday with my family getting my boys ready back to go back to school. So, David will be in charge, but you're in good hands with David and the rest of the staff. Sarah Keechler will be here as well. Great. Thank you. Enjoy that family time. I do have a couple of things. Just a reminder, city manager, for staff with respect to the -- better said, please provide your questions for staff to the city manager regarding the waste discussion we had and rates and all that stuff in preparation. So just a reminder, we talked about that earlier. And then let's see. I think staff made a good point and maybe we can spotlight this more. When you talk about diversion before it gets to the solid waste department. So you have people like Morrison milling that has 100% diversion on site, that's what they're working towards. And then Tetra Packs of the world and Peter Biltz and obviously there's some smaller companies that are doing great things. So I think that's really important to spotlight those corporate citizens. And then lastly, just from a kind of scheduling standpoint, family fund dyno reveal at the Explorium is going on this Saturday the 31st. The 3 to 5 is sold out, but the 530 to 730 reveal, it still has tickets. So for those that have not heard about that, it's going to be dyno bow talking about the dinosaur bones, I guess, or fossils. I don't have binoculars wrong, I'm sure. But they'll be able to reveal at Explorium. First show sold out, second show still tickets available. If you have questions, you can see Councilmember Davis's newsletter. I think it's in one of those. Yeah. So Councilmember Byrd. I just want to note that just for a personal note that another family member of my husband's passed away, one of his aunts. We just went to a funeral in June, mid-June, and here we are. We're going to travel to Alabama here in the next couple of days. So we're just asking for some traveling grace. Thank you. Sorry to hear that. Councilmember Bet. I will encourage the public to review changes to the CDC guidance that just came out today. So I encourage you that you may have asked if you're the public watching why suddenly we masked up, and many of the people here saw the new guidance and decide to follow it. Okay. Any other comments? All right. Thank you. We'll adjourn the meeting at 830. Thank you very much.