Jun 17, 2014 City Council on 2014-06-17 2:00 PM

have a quorum and it is 2 p.m. our first item on the agenda is citizens comments on consent agenda items mr. city manager do we have any we do not okay thank you then we'll move on to request for clarification of any agenda items from my colleagues yes yes item in on the consent agenda I know we've received an email on this earlier because it did not add up correctly on the financial and I was wondering if it's standard procedure that we don't have a copy of the PO from UNT or something that shows that we are getting the money back from there getting reimbursed from them John I'm not familiar with exactly with the issue but then let me ask Chuck Springer if he would to come up and address the issue I know he's responded to the question which agenda item was that agenda in and is it Nancy and is in Nancy and I see mr. Payne has stood up who kind of works with them on these construction projects so I'm gonna let you answer this this one up past the chuck it would be typical for us to normally enter into interlocal agreement with another government agency to do something like this in the interest of time so that we can get out ahead and get this construction done before the fall semester and we have received funds from UNT in the past to do some streets projects we're seeking a letter agreement signed by the university president I sent an email to their facility staff and asked for a check for $65,000 to cover our costs on it in addition to the cost of the actual construction they asked us to include it with our bid project they knew we were going to do the sewer line project out there so they had their engineer seal it and they co sealed specifications and I've got emails from them where they approved the PO we just haven't gotten the check yet it would be normal and we tried to get it before the council meeting we just didn't have any luck getting the funding up front okay okay yes councilmember I'm not sure if it overlaps I'm looking at the project manager and she's doing this so I guess not sorry thank you all right any other clarification yes yeah mine's on G I apologize I should have emailed something I was just wondering how many number of change orders are we allowed to have I'm sure there's not a rule in place like that and just just kind of curious and then when we okay a max bid that's the max bid but then we keep including change orders I just wanted to know how that all kind of happened let me ask mr. Springer to address that item as well you mean mr. Payne I'm sorry if he wants to well we'll see how he does on the budget presentation today in terms of under state law that the change orders can total up for the total amount of dollars it's not a number but the total amount 25% so it totaled it can't change the like two million dollars the total project can't go over a million two hundred and fifty thousand without rebidding it in terms of that also it requires fifty thousand or greater change orders come to City Council for approval so administratively George has the authority to approve or delegate approval for smaller change orders above 50,000 it goes to the council and under state law the total amount is 25% of the contract is the most that can be changed before it has to go back out and be rebid okay that's important to understand thanks Chuck okay okay anybody else yes thank you mayor on consent agenda I I'm sorry this might be Jay the one relating to the Oakland Street parking issues out of conversation earlier today with Mark Nelson and got a lot of my questions answered but one of them pertained to enforcement of that I know that we have parking folks it seems during the daytime hours that control the square area my question was whether or not at nighttime which is when a lot of this parking congestion happens in our weekends whether we have the parking folks to help enforce that or out of habit folks will just continue to park there and the problem continues in the evening I don't know if that's a marker police chief questioner this is not more Wilson this is parking force after hours would fall to our normal patrol officers on just on the beat we have we have two designated people whose primary duties between about seven and five during the day are the right parking tickets but they also engage in some other activities as well well just maybe a suggestion as this gets kind of rolled out in the early days perhaps I'm sure there's going to be some warnings for a period of time as people get to know but maybe even just thinking head because it's really that place just gets so congested at night and on the weekends when we don't normally have those folks out that there might just need to be an initial targeted effort to keep folks from doing what they do every weekend which is park along okay thought sure thank you yes thank you thank you mayor I was considering pulling item B because it has to do with the airport I just we're we do have a work session item on that was initially considering that because it's a pretty significant impact to our airport in a positive way and the thought about a report during the regular council session however I know we have a long council session so I'm just going to defer to what you all want to do if you like to do that final I would request it to be pulled otherwise given the length of our regular session trying to see what everybody else wants to do you mean the 630 session when you say regular session yes I mean if you want to pull it out of my brief presentation here but yeah we're having here yeah I mean what's it gonna take five minutes okay then I'll be requesting that you're like sure thank you anybody else clarification agenda item seeing none all right we'll move forward with the next agenda item which is our work session agenda items work session reports 3a which is receive report hold discussion provide direction on proposed revisions to the city of Denton strategic plan thank you mayor Brian Langley our assistant city manager is going to present this item thank you Brian thank you mr. Campbell mayor members of the council's could be with you today I wanted to spend a few minutes today talking about some potential revisions that we'd like you to consider for the strategic plan just in terms of a refresher the 2013 14 strategic plan the one the council approved in September in with the budget process we brought forward the strategic plans the past couple of years and we've approved those as well as the budget at the same time so in late September we had the council approved the 1314 strategic plan and there's five key elements of that strategic plan we call them key focus areas or KFAs for short organizational excellence public infrastructure sustainable economic development and environmental stewardship safe livable and family-friendly community and finally KFA five partnerships and regional leadership those are the five elements the key vision and goals that we wanted to pursue and the strategic plan in addition to all of these KFAs we also have specific goals and objectives that try to outline in more specific formats specific things that we want to do and try to accomplish as an organization these are the ones that we had approved essentially back in 2011 so it's been some time since we've looked at those in detail we've had some changes in the organization we've accomplished some things we think it's a good time to come back and look at some potential revisions as I mentioned it was originally created in 2011 this was really the first time that the city of didn't ever had a citywide strategic plan we've had many departmental strategic plans that we'd looked at or divisional plans that we looked at we never had brought it all together as one individual plan and so it was a it was a it was a an achievement for us to pull that together in 2011 but it has been some time and we need to reflect some of the accomplishments that we've had some of the new priorities that we've seen and we think it's a good time to look at update updating it as many of you know we've been working on a new comprehensive plan as part of that comprehensive planning effort there's been a number of public forums a lot of input that we've gotten from the citizens that actually create have created a community vision statement so that process and the input that we got from the citizens that needs to be incorporated into the plan and made a part of that we also looked at KFA three which was a lot of different things together we when we had the a lot of the work sessions with council and our internal staff looking at this we knew we needed to have something about economic development and sustainability in the plan and so we ended up combining those together into one KFA but we really think it's overly broad the way it's currently constructed it doesn't have enough specificity about what we're trying to do so we're recommending that a separate KFA be created specifically just for economic development so we would increase the focus on that activity as I get a little further in the presentation I'll show you specifically some of the changes that that we're looking at making in that regard in addition we're also recommending a separate KFA to be focused on sustainability over the last couple of years we 've brought forward a sustainability plan dr. Banks brought that forward the council approved a separate sustainability plan for the city we wanted to incorporate that as part of the strategic plan and reflect that and have more prominent prominently displayed in the strategic plan so we're recommending a separate KFA for that we're also recommending a separate goal in KFA for for library parks and leisure services they were addressed in part through a separate some other goals that we have but really want to again provide a little bit more clarity about what specifically we're trying to focus on and more emphasis on those issues and then finally a KFA five which was our regional partnerships and leadership of KFA that we had it's very important concept but as we started thinking about that it's really closely related to all of the other KFA it's not a separate endeavor a separate task that we're looking at so rather than have that as a separate KFA what we're recommending is various elements of that KFA being incorporated into the existing KFAs that we already have and some of the ones that we're going to be recommending for you we think they're more closely related to those and and also we think some of the performance measures related to those are very difficult to try to asc ertain and follow and and track and so that will help us from that standpoint as well I'm going to go through over the next few slides each of the KFAs that we're looking at and the changes are going to be shown here in red so if there's for example on this particular KFA KFA one that red language here at the bottom is the addition to it that we be showing to you in your backup one of the exhibits I have a complete red line copy of it of the strategic plan the proposed changes is all of the goals and the objectives I'm not going to go through the objectives here unless you'd like me to bring that up and discuss them individually I can certainly do that but I'm going to try to focus today with you in the presentation just on the goals at this point so for KFA one organizational excellence we're recommending that all of these key goals that we've outlined here they remain the same but that we add a separate goal related to collaborate with local regional state and federal partners again this is something out of KFA five that we had before on regional leadership and partnerships that we thought was an important concept but we also think that's part of organizational excellence so we thought it would be good to have a separate goal related to that here in KFA to a public infrastructure we're not recommending any changes to any of the goals we felt like these captured all the things that we were trying to do for public infrastructure in the organization we're not recommending any of those to you unless you unless you have any changes to those KFA three this is the best way I could show it we're recommending changing that completely so we're striking through all of the existing language that we have for KFA three remember this two things combined sustainability and economic development combined into one we're recommending breaking those out so if you look at the new KFA three which would be just economic development these are the particular goals that we would recommend that would be focused on I want to spend a little bit of time going through these because I think this is probably the most substantial change in the document and want to make sure council is in agreement with these changes that we're proposing the first goal that we would recommend for economic development is that we would develop targeted policies and incentives to achieve desired economic growth we would then also strive to make Denton a destination for visitors we would promote a business- friendly environment and we would encourage development redevelopment recruitment and retention efforts in the city on this one and I'll probably have a similar question on the sustainability point that we're drawing out as well and we 're about to as a council with our economic development partnership or in the chamber have a targeted discussion retreat I guess so to speak on economic development which I think the goal is to ultimately update our economic development plan strategic plan moving forward it seems like that discussion might bring about some key target areas that will ultimately want to populate with this instead of waiting till next year so I guess my question is how how fluid is this document and subject and how able is it to change post that meeting as we kind of get a sense of what are our goals moving forward so that we make sure we're not waiting a whole year to update this I think we the council at your discretion can change it at any time that we need to if there's any kinds of updates or significant policy discussions that occur subsequent to the adoption of it we can always come back and we can try to review those in the future so if there are those discussions that are recurring and they may take six or six months or so to kind of get to where you really want to be from the EDPB and having that discussion back with the council I think we could certainly come back and address those here if provided you think this is at least a general direction a starting point if you're in disagreement with some of the outcomes here are the goals that we have we probably have more of a conversation about that if we're heading in the right direction I think that's good we can come back and refine it okay got a follow-up question for you councilman when you say we're gonna have this this retreat or this strategic session and that we might want to pop are you talking about like specific targets or is it still that general policy type you're still saying if there's some general policy statements that flow out exactly okay yeah because at the end of the day these these goals then kind of have a number of objectives underneath that are more specific in nature and those are things that might change that might kind of give us a different way we think about this right maybe not yeah so but it sounds like we have the ability to kind of come back and sure okay yeah oh go ahead oh I'm that's fine thank you okay since we're on three ten let me ask a question I've been trying to look into the the more detailed objectives and I'm trying to find where we where we really specifically address the rev isions or development code that have to do with redevelopment and the discussion that we've been having for a good bit of time now about form- based code is is that is that just too detailed to make it on this list I don't I don't think so let me let me see if I can bring that up for you councilmember and we'll see if we can show you you mind catching the front lights I think it might be a little easier to see thank you mr. Kim thank you I think if you go down to you by the way this is in make sure I get this right this is an exhibit tube and your backup you go down to goal three dot three which is promote a business business-friendly environment we do have a particular objective which I think addresses that in some way mr. Gregory that maintain a timely and efficient development review process but we could be more explicit about that if you wanted to have more specific statement about how we wanted to try to do that I think that's that's the idea behind that is is that we want to have a efficient development review process to look at the code and how we handle those those types of items but we may be need to be more specific there well I just there's been a discussion too long about form-based code without seeing anything in concrete that that puts that into effect and and there has also been some discussion about the the issues and in development time time friendly and this may be you know to to specific an objective or too small of an objective but talking about the fact that that a very small development or even a even just re remodeling sometimes the process is not much less in terms of the steps than it is for a or a major multi-million dollar greenfield development and and so you know we've heard some discussion about the need to have a for like a better term the the line in the grocery store for 15 items or less press checkout that's right okay thank you I couldn 't think of the word so and so I don't know if we need to to put a mental note here or just ask for some discussion later on about about if that's feasible and and how it might work and express development process for a smaller or smaller well let me offer another suggestion to you one of the things we conducted a retreat with the City Council is some of you were on council remember back in in January I do remember a member a member of school I just warmed up right very cold hard to forget we connected that retreat with council and we talked about a lot of elements that we wanted to see for development we tried to get some more specificity to that one of the things I heard on the strategic plan discussion that we talked about there is we have all these goals we have these objectives the KFA how do we kind of get down to what are real specific things that we're trying to do over the next year or two years to do and so in the end of my presentation I'm going to highlight some key outcomes and tasks that we think we would recommend to the council that we try to pursue that are tied back to these KFAs and one of those could be related to the form- based code bring back a discussion or that or make a recommendation or something related to that I mean that that could be a way rather than trying to address it as a specific objective or goal we can make it as a task that you want to see us come back and report back on just as a suggestion is one way to do it in one other question on on where we're talking about I guess it's section 3 where we're talking about preferred growth have we where is that defined the preferred growth I'm trying to find exactly where you are Councilman well let me see if I can it's on it's in a objective 3.1.5 implement the preferred growth concept that's coming out of the comprehensive plan process and so that's the community vision statement that more urban denser development we had some of those presentations it's not completely done yet it's not adopted I believe we're looking to do that later this year hopefully bring that back for council consideration and adoption but that's exhibit 2 it says in the comprehensive plan in the slide presentation it didn't refer to the comprehensive plan so that's where I was writing my question okay thank you you got yes councilman Ryan do you want to go back to that okay and say what while we're on this one objective 316 is basically the old objective 3.1.4 yes I was wondering why we took protecting structures historic structures have I don't think it was intentional to take structures out I think it was the comments that we'd received back is that from some of the citizens through the comp planning process that historical elements of Denton were very important and so we were just trying to capture that in some way that we want to try to retain retain that historical significance broader than just simply structures I don't think consciously I was trying to say we don't want to protect structures or something else it was really meant to be broader statement about historical significance whatever that might entail yeah the previous statement was preserve and maintain historic structures and culture in Denton and I don't know how the rest of the council feels but I think that that's a better statement okay I can certainly go back to that structures and culture okay okay thank you I can get back okay so again these are the key goals that we'd recommend for you in KFA 3 we've already touched on some of this but I just pulled out a few key objectives that I thought were particularly important that we'd be proposing for you for KFA 3 the first of those is to establish a target ratio of multifamily housing relative to single-family offerings and work to achieve that goal now I think this is something that we need to go through a learning process for the city of where are we currently right now and then more importantly where do we want to go long term how do you get there this is something that I think we'd have to work through to mr. Rosen's point through the economic development partnership board through the council what are what are really some elements that we'd like to pursue and how do we do that I think we're part of that is educating ourselves on where we are currently same likewise with increasing homeownership and housing values where are we right now in that regard where do we want to go where the policies that we'd want to try to pursue to increase that if that is indeed a goal that we'd want to have the preferred growth concept that we have identified in the comprehensive plan again that's that's being brought forward to you over the next few months for hopefully for adoption those elements and specific goals and actions that are identified in the comp plan that would help drive that that particular goal I maintain a timely and efficient development review process again that we talked about utilize development incentives to attract high quality development and projects one of the things that we talked about at the retreat was trying to grow jobs that support home ownership and higher incomes in the community back in January that's something that we spent some time on with the current council at that time talking about how we could do that again that's an education effort we need to understand where we are what kinds of things do we need to be doing to do that but that would be a goal that we try to pursue and then finally a target major industrial and commercial employer relocations and expansion so all all of our folks that we have here currently that are doing well how can we help them grow and expand and also what are some folks that may be a great fit for Denton in our community how can we bring them here and help them grow their business so those are some of the key elements that we've come up from a staff perspective that we wanted to have the council consider under economic development yes I have a question on the comment Brian the question and just educate me that the question is the first one establish a target ratio of multifamily relative to single-family offerings so point of clarification is that statement to limit the amount of multifamily or is it specifically to say based on the amount of multifamily demand that there is we need to make sure that we have this X amount of single-family growth I think what we're from our standpoint we're looking at saying where do we want to be from a relative standpoint of renters versus owner-occupied units that we have multifamily versus single -family homes where are we currently where do we want to be not certainly limiting development but what type of incentives do we want to give to attract the type of development that we want to have okay I think for really a lot of these things in economic developments about what type of incentives when we have incentives that we're willing to offer what are the targeted goals for those incentives and hopefully they're trying to work to achieve that goal over time okay that's your question yeah so then I have a comment following that up actually I'm not two comments one comment is if that is the case then I think we need to have some sort of a part of the process to make sure that we don 't have unintended consequences of something else that we're doing that hurts that ratio for an example if we want to encourage more single-family because of the amount of multifamily growth we have one unintended consequence could be if we change the requirement for street thickness what's the impact on a single-family developer when we increase the thickness of the street that they have to build so that just happened so then there's a what happens is that's an additional cost to a single-family developer that then increases the site the house the home price that they have to sell then the question is do they still want to be in this market so there can be unintended consequences that then go against the directive so if those two departments don't know right don't communicate because there's a reason that we want to require the streets to be thicker in residential neighborhoods probably for longevity and repairs and so on but understanding what the impact of that decision is it could drive single-family development away right my other comment was Dalton Councilman McGregor brought up a point about you know the express lane I just want to challenge us as we think about strategic planning because in my corporate life we would spend a lot of time on strategic plans and what happens is you've got this all-encompassing complicated thing that it then makes harder for people that are doing the day-to-day to really connect what it is they're doing to this overall big thing and one of the things that I think helps is to be able to celebrate small victories so an example is if if we know that it's too complicated to get a remodel permit because it's the same process as building something then maybe that's part of our overall plan but let's go kill something because we know that there's something there put together SWAT team kill it celebrate a victory and that would then point to the big overall plan versus waiting to have something as a part of your strategic plan to fix that small thing so that's just the challenge to you guys as you think about how do we celebrate small victories so that you get buy-in from the folks who have to do the work every day let me try to address that in at least one way of this is meant to be a high-level plan for the overall organization it's not meant to cover every single thing that we do and every single activity that occurs on a daily basis each department is also working on their own individual strategic plans which tie back to the organizational wide plan in some way to support this plan so they're have much more detailed types of objectives and tasks and activities that they'll have which tie back to this plan so those that's a way for us to try to get to those those victories that you're talking about otherwise this is a visionary type of document but it never really translates into something that that you know folks can actually implement and that's certainly not what we want it to be we we've when I work through this we've tried to have it as a very simple plan as I've seen others that can be a hundred two hundred pages and that's not what we want to have we want to have something that's relatively simple and hopefully we've tried to achieve that balance but it's always tough thank you mayor I think that's a good point and something that our citizens can rally around to kind of know what are our goals for this year where are we heading so that they know whether we've been successful in what we said we're doing so I think that's important to keep it simple to some degree I will just point out that I think there's some tension and it's it probably provokes a good conversation later on maybe even as we have that economic development discussion but point one and your third point are potentially in tension with one another depending on how you understand our our dense preferred growth concept and certainly geographically speaking around the city there's going to be places in the city where we want to encourage high density multifamily because it makes sense downtown for instance near the universities and so anyway just to think about that as we 're moving forward that we're not competing with two different concepts in terms of what that means because I do think the the markets changing in terms of what some folks are preferring in terms of homeownership and I think we're seeing that downtown to a certain degree and so the question becomes how that extends throughout our city and how we have different policies arguably for different parts of our city which we haven't quite thought about it that way and we think about how much multifamily we want to have well in certain areas it's fine in other areas it's not fine so I just want to point that out of something to think about it before yeah I think that's a great point and something as we kind of go down this road with more discussions about it we can certainly push that out one thing on the sort of was flushed out a little bit early on the point one established a target ratio I know you probably weren't intending to maybe get into the minutiae of some of these as far but what I heard was that what you said was the ratio of rental to homeownership well multifamily isn't the only I mean you do have single-family rentals so is that and this may address you know some of what you're saying because I agree I think that in certain geographical areas of the city there's gonna be more appropriate uses for a higher density than than others but so are we are is the is the goal to have a ratio between home ownership and rental or is it truly specifically multif amily as we sort of understand multifamily and that is the development of you know apartment buildings you know I you recall with that discussion I think it's probably more closely related to homeownership and so or condominium ownership or owning the unit and having a commitment to the community I think that's kind of more related so maybe I can go back and look at you have some comments on that mayor it's part of our dead plan they were currently we have in place it specifically targets multifamily the single-family 60/40 ratio of what we have in place so it has nothing to do really with homeownership versus rental in the sense that you're describing as far as single-family homeownership versus single-family rental it really has to do specifically with the amount of multifamily units compared to single-family units whether their owner occupied or rental on the correct okay yes that's fair enough yes if I may also see we as John said we currently have in our comprehensive plan that goal of 60/40 we actually hit it a couple of years ago and now we've slid back it's I think it's 62 38 something like that one of the things that I would I would hope I'm assuming by the way that we're having a another retreat we talked about doing that to finish kind of digging into the depths of this and making any revisions based on the new council members that are that are here but the increased homeownership is a separate one because it's what acknowled ges the fact that we have a lot of single-family property that is also rental property and that can have an impact on the neighborhood yeah very few of the people for a couple of blocks actually own the property they may not be quite as dedicated to the level of about people in the yards and the property says they work and would if they own the property themselves that's a gross general ization it's not always that case at all but it but it tends to be that and and I mean it's an interesting concept and I think one of the things that when we when we have our retreat again it would be helpful as you know it is 60/40 and appropriate percentage what are the arguments how do we how do we come up with those numbers is that just sort of pie in the sky is or do we have some some studies from other cities that that that tell us why those particular numbers might be good numbers to shoot for right and that's exactly what we're doing right now staff planning that cannot go out that we're working on putting together not only history as to what we've seen trending over the last 10 years or so as far as the multifamily single-family ratio but also looking at what other university type communities have again we want to try and compare as close as possible apples to apples so to speak and so we're going to be preparing that information so you can have a more informed discussion at the retreat yes that's what I'm hoping that as part of that we will have separated out what we refer to as student housing multi-bedroom complex rental units because they are in my opinion something different than a standard apartment complex and if we start throwing all those in that kind of thinking about separately we're going to see some real strange numbers here but because we're college and because that's a relatively new concept they they're rental but they're different and they're not they're not really this family sort of 40 and of rental but we would think of in the downtown so I don't know if we've had this discussion it seems to me that we need to really sort out all these different kinds and I do we even have a sense of how many of our single-family home or rent or occupies is there any way to know that no sir not doing this some sort of survey that might give us some sense of that it's important I think because we get comments from the neighborhood regular about the units or the number of going up or going down right but we we have the ability for example when the community improvement services division gets a complaint from someone and they have to go contact the property owner they 'll do a research on the DCAD and we're able to determine and based on utility names as well usually we're able to determine if it's home owner occupied or possible rental property but that's on a case-by-case basis as far as being able to run that report I would hope that we would delve in this deep enough that at least it was briefly brought up that don't only think of single homes but there's condominiums townhouses which we have next to nothing some of those markets do we want them is there command or why aren't we getting them I'm hoping that we get some depth thank you that's my Gregory yeah just partial answer to account mayor pro-tem Inglewood's question we actually do have some of those stats they're available in the economic development office and some of them are actually pulled straight from the census on on rentals that are that are in single families so they have some of that the strand stands and stands and reports you know one last comment as you're coming back up in the chamber lunch last chamber luncheon we had a presentation by our economic development director she she pointed out that which is interesting because it can come into these kind of competing interests is that and correct me if I'm wrong but I think it was eight of the top 20 I know it's four or five of the top ten taxpayers in the city of Denton are these large multifamily complexes so it's sort of a anyway I thought that was an interesting fact so no absolutely that would make I think this is a great conversation and discussion about where are we and where do we want to go what's that look like I mean that's the kind of hopefully that's one of the things that we get from the strategic planning process is it gets us focused on those things what are the goals but we do have a lot of those multifamily type statistics and we've got some on the single-family homes what percentage of those or rentals we look at some of the exemptions home side exemptions that we have through the appraisal district so we can we can get you some pretty good figures on that and go through a discussion right okay now now to the easier one easier one hopefully KFA for this is safe livable and family-friendly community again one of the things that we're recommending is that we provide a separate goal related to leisure cultural and educational opportunities this is libraries parks recreation services that we have are recommending a separate goal for that it was embedded in it as an objective and another goal previously so we're recommending that we pull that out call more attention to it and have more focus on it okay yeah I'm sorry I was thinking about this in light of some of our recent initiatives that are block thing that's occurring this month in kind of the excitement and enthusiasm along those lines yet in none of the objectives underneath the do I see anything that kind of hits that that in particular and and I'll tell you it's something even if you look at just the goal I'm a little I still want to provide on two occasions and what I kind of see coming out of these neighborhoods which is healthy is it's not so much city come provide this for me but we're wanting to develop something or we're wanting to kind of take matters and so it's kind of a little ask not what your country can do for you but we want to do something for our city that I think is really healthy and I think that language is important when you talk about provide in particular with goal 4.4 obviously we do a lot of providing of those through the libraries but a lot of our leaders are occur quite independently of the city so I wonder if even on that goal it makes sense to say provide and support or something like that because that's a major function of the city is kind of a platform by which we're kind of encouraging the endeavors of others but certainly from a neighborhood perspective I don't know and I don't have any clear suggestions on where to put that in but how to at least reflect I think what's happening with some of our neighbors programs. I think we're creating quite a list for our retreat because as I looked at 4.4 I like it it looks like it's very much geared towards our libraries and our parks and rec department but when I look at 4.4.3 promote healthy lifestyle for residents through parks and recreation facilities that's great but it doesn't go far enough because I think that that there's a real interest of promoting healthy lifestyles through active living and and when we're when we're promoting active living we're talking about going back up to to KFA to about our streets and talking about how we're building our streets to accommodate for pedestrians and put that into accommodate for bicyclists so I think that that that as we do our retreat we don't have time to do this today but but that we would want to go back and think about a broader notion of how we want to promote healthy living and and parks and recreation is a major player but it's by far not the only point okay okay KFA five again just to recap for you we're recommending that this one be eliminated and reconstituted to focus on sustainability and environmental stewardship these are the individual goals that we're proposing these are right out of the city's sustainability plan manage Denton's water resources improve our air quality and greenhouse gas management improve energy efficiency and conservation manage land use and preserve open and natural spaces provide alternative modes of transportation promote sustainable materials resource management encourage local food production again there are all kinds of objectives that are that are included with that but these are the things right out of the City Council approved sustainability plan yes so there's a similar question with the economic development question but we have a sustainability plan in place that that I think ought to be kind of helping us track our goals in this area to these goals just mimic what's on that plan or they they exactly yeah I mean I know a lot of these are yeah okay they are now there's more specifics obviously in the sustainability plan there's a lot more detail tonight level yes sir and there's individual metrics that I know dr. banks has developed for sustainability we'll be able to track and show our progress on each individual one of those believe the committee on environment committee environment has looked all that perfecting thank you just just a minor point on objective five point one point one protect and restore Denton's water bodies wonder if we might rewrite that to be a little more definitive I'm not sure what Denton's water bodies are I don't know if we're talking about our lake say or whether if we're talking about our streams and the lakes all the water resources then I don't think bodies is appropriate term but whatever it just seems to me that nice just some language work water resources something like that okay what something okay we'll look at better describe what it's like I'm gonna run back not running fast enough okay so as I mentioned at the beginning of the presentation one of the things that we heard at the retreat in January is really need to try to distill this down to you what are some key things that we want to try to do over the coming year key outcomes key tasks and so what I've tried to do on the next few slides is just showcase few things that we would recommend that we pursue related back to the strategic plan so it kind of again has some some teeth to what we're saying here 's this overall document what specifically are we going to try to do to achieve some of these things so these are elements that we're proposing that we consider for the next fiscal year 1415 develop a financial plan to maintain reserves in accordance with our policy requirements over the five-year forecast Chuck's going to be talking to you about the five-year forecast in just the next few minutes but that relates back to KFA one utilize the leadership excellence and enhancement program which you received some presentations from last week the innovation program the lean government initiatives to improve the cost effectiveness efficiency and productivity of city operations I know we had some discussions last week about that but those were elements and programs that we want to continue with to try to make us as effective as we can be develop a financial plan to achieve the desired level of funding for street maintenance activities within a specific timeline so we've been ramping up funding for street maintenance as everyone knows we've been trying to add more resources to that we want to try to define a specific plan of when will we when do we want to get to our target is it five years from now is it ten years from now 15 years what is that specific target that we want to try to do and what kinds of changes that we're going to make to get there that's what we're trying to accomplish with this particular task we also want to begin construction the projects identified by the citizens bond advisory committee when we have a presentation back on June 3rd on that I know the council is still looking at that program and will potentially call an election in August whatever those projects are that are approved by the voters start to start actually constructing those this coming fiscal year we do have a major capital program going forward for our electric system improvements so we would obviously recommend that we continue to construct all those required infrastructure improvements to accommodate growth development plans for DME that's related to KFA too we want to continue implementation of the bicycle mobility plan so councilmember Gregory's point earlier that 's something that we really think we need to continue working on begin the implementation of the preferred growth concept that we refer to in the comprehensive plan and the elements that are related to that we're having some discussions today about the convention center we would hope we'd be under construction by this fiscal year in the next fiscal year we'd be continuing that construction in cooperation with UNT and the O'Reilly hospitality group just a few more of these that we're looking at so develop specific economic development strategies and incentives to achieve the goals articulated in the strategic strategic plan so all of the things that we talked about what specific ratios we want to be how we're going to improve homeownership increase home values how are we going to do that let's develop a plan that specifically charts a path of how we're going to achieve those objectives and complete the reconstruction of fire station 2 that's underway but also work work to reconstruct stations 3 and 4 though again those are projects out of the bond program there would be a major element of what we'd be trying to do over the next year complete the rehabilitation of the Lake Louisville water treatment plant that's been a major capital project for us continue with that we want to begin the process of developing a municipal setting designation or MSD for the downtown area I know dr. Banks has been working on that we've been brief ed a few times in the progress of that particular project but we'd like to try to complete that and identify and prioritize our greenhouse gas emission reduction strategies related to KFA 5 but just a smattering of things around the organization again trying to get back and address some of the comments from the retreat earlier in January and some of the comments earlier today of how do we really provide some specificity about what things that we're trying to do going forward again the strategic plan is trying to give us a vision about where we want to go what specific goals that we want to try to to proceed with and this is meant to be a little bit more granular of here the specific things that we're going to try to do hopefully that's helpful thank you mayor as I look through these and I start seeing where other cities are heading it's always fun to kind of see that the goals of other cities so much lately you're seeing a lot of cities getting into some interesting social endeavors so as a matter of economic development they're tackling things like pre-k and and mentor because they were understand that they got to tackle this income income inequality issue early on and identifying education as aligned with the goals of what cities are doing and I know we have some social programs as we think about community development department and whatnot but it's none of those things are thinking ahead to what I think a lot of cities are starting to head down as becoming the leaders and tackling some of these big issues none of those are addressed anywhere in our strategic and that makes sense it hasn't been on our radar up to this point and I don't think we need to jump and just add that for this year but I would like to see I don't think it takes much money to begin thinking about that that perhaps as we move forward into next year to have that on our radars whether or not it would make sense to elevate some of those issues to council priorities and reflect it in our strategic plan so it might it might require some sort of discussion okay okay next steps one of the things we want to try to do is refine some of the performance measures that we have in the plan I didn't go through all those with you just for the sake of time but we have a number of performance measures that we had the existing plan will need to be refining those changing those up to reflect some of the new goals and objectives that we're recommending we also want to look at some benchmarking when we can sometimes it's hard to find an apples John was mentioning earlier apples to apples comparisons we want to try to find some of those for some of our key performance measures to see how we're doing versus some other benchmark cities around the country on June 17th today we'll be talking about the budget with you and this is really in our view a critical document as part of the budgeting process is this should be the foundational document for everything that we do in the organization and in the budget process in particular because what we outline is key goals and policies and our vision for the city we have to fund that and put our money where our mouth is so to speak so that we're funding our priorities and trying to pursue all these goals and so that the budgeting and strategic planning process are really closely related so one of the reasons that we wanted to have the strategic planning discussion prior to the budgeting process the numbers follow the strategic plan not the other way around you try to come up with what are the goals the vision that you want to pursue and develop a budget to try to achieve that so that's part of the design and discussion today in July at the end of July we'll submit to the council the managers recommended budget on July 31st and as part of that we'll give you the complete plan with all the the detail that we've been talking about won't be the last time that we have a chance to talk about it but that'll be our draft recommended strategic plan for you and then as we go through the budget process over August and September and all the discussions and meetings that we have any kind of amendments or changes or wording additions or revisions we can go back and look at that and make those changes and then ideally what we'd like you to do is consider adopting this strategic plan at the same time that you adopt the budget at the second meeting in September I believe it's September 16th if I remember correctly so except for from a timing perspective I've obviously if we have a retreat we can certainly include some of these discussions in that and try to get down to where the council has a consensus on these issues so that's my presentation I'll be happy to try to answer any questions that you may have councilmember Gregory well thanks for the presentation and I think that this slide and a couple of the points that you make there really go a lot to councilmember Johnson's question about what this strategic plan is for a lot of it is for us so that we are not just running a budget and a vacuum but that we're we're developing a budget that that is trying to fund our plan and trying to address our goals and I think that's important I think another important part of this and why I think taking plenty of time to work on it and and and I'm I'm comfortable with with us working budget and and we're finding the plan at the same time is that I think it guides our assistant city managers and directors and other managers in the organization so that when there's a question that comes up about something that we don't know exactly how to address but if we know that there's a goal here to do something like promote locally grown food then then if the department heads know that and they see that that some of our current procedures don't necessarily do that they know that they this might be time to get creative and find a way to to accomplish the goal and then report back to their bosses that we may need to change some of our procedures so that our procedures help us achieve our goals rather than procedures that that thwart us from achieving our goals yes I'm sorry yeah I didn't know I didn't know what this was for but thanks the I'm just messing with you the strategic plan obviously in my mind here's how I'm framing it is strategic plan is a cultural statement right it's that this is what we're about and this is our broad strategic plan every goal underneath it should point to one of those right and then every behavior underneath at the staff level should point towards one of those goals so I think the challenge is just like in our businesses is to what you said each department has their own goals and their own behaviors that should point to one of these right the trick is how do we communicate to our citizens this is what we're about so that then when the behaviors don't match with what we say what we're about how do we fix it right because the goal shouldn't be to hang people on the courthouse square it should be to make sure it helped them know my behaviors need to match with what we say we're about right so that really is the challenge is is how do we cook the cultural statement down into the everyday of what people do every day when somebody's trying to get a their lights turned on does that point towards what we say we're about and that to me is what the challenge is and frankly what I think one of our challenges has been forever which is we have really good people working here but in general our citizens think that you're like an obstacle for me getting my my certificate of occupancy or my you know my whatever and that's not the case I don't think people come to work for every day thinking what I'm gonna do is make people's life difficult so my challenge to the staff is to figure out how do I take that overriding strategic plan which is a really big thing and cook it down into the people that are doing the work every day understand what my attitude is supposed to be right what my behaviors are supposed to point towards because if we always wait for the perfect document nothing's ever going to happen right so to me it's a cultural thing it's a behavioral thing that you know that's what we have to figure out how do we get people feeling empowered to do whatever it is that accomplishes that those behaviors we talk about are those things that we're going to promote or deliver so that that's the challenge and I think I think the document is important but I think the the behavioral aspect and the cultural aspect of it is is even more important my question is definitely more specific maybe it 's for dr. Banks but I just wanted to know what the significance was of the minute municipal setting designation maybe that's another conversation for another time if you want we've been on this for an hour but yeah I was just kind of reading a little bit about it and I still couldn't really make sense of it that item is on consent this evening municipal setting designation and I'll try to summarize it briefly it's unique to the state of Texas it's a regulatory based program that allows you to essentially get past the drinking water standard issues that typically come to bear when you're trying to redevelop a property one of the challenges that we have in our downtown area is that we have a lot of shallow groundwater and that groundwater can be everywhere from 2 feet to 20 feet in depth because of the the legacy of development that has occurred over the last hundred plus years in the downtown area there that groundwater is often contaminated that groundwater is not utilized for drinking water purposes but because of its yield capabilities and because of the water quality that it has the TCQ the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality considers that a developable aquifer so because it's a developable aquifer the chemical constituents in that aquifer have to be held to drinking water standards those standards are very very stringent because they are based on a risk model of someone consuming that water over a 70 year period a lifespan and oftentimes development is hindered by the the state's requirement to clean that groundwater up to drinking water standards by putting the municipal setting designation in place it essentially creates a designation of that groundwater that's legally binding that says that it cannot be utilized for drinking water purposes once that's in place the state can then reevaluate the the area or the property in question and say okay we now have a mechanism in place that allows us to not apply the drinking water standard and apply the next most stringent standard oftentimes that can make the difference of at least an order of magnitude in terms of the factor of 10 in terms of the cleanup cost associated with redeveloping and property so we saw this as an opportunity because we have a lot of properties the city does downtown it's an opportunity to establish a larger municipal setting designation that would both deal with the regulatory challenges that we have with the city properties as well as act as a tool for facilitating redevelopment there 's a lot more detail and I've done it's that's glossed over it a lot but if you 're interested I'd be happy to provide some more information okay thank you thank you yes speaking of aligning the efforts of this plan and how this kind of trickles down we had talked about at the retreat and I thought this was a positive suggestion of really looking at we've got council committees who are tasked with kind of moving issues forward and sometimes the issues can be kind of ad hoc or specific to particular council members interests which is fine I mean it's able to kind of push some interests forward but I don't think we do enough to really say how do we align those council committees with our overall goals and make sure that there's an annual goal for this committee to push these goals through because that's lining with the council goals which was that trying to do likewise and arguably that could even affect the makeup of what kind of committees we have if we really thought through that and how we were aligning efforts so that we're all moving in the same direction likewise how to think about that with our boards and commissions I doubt that we spend a much time kind of talking about this strategic plan with our boards and commissions and how it specifically impacts what their mission is or what we're looking for out of a given year from that particular board and commission and again could oftentimes be subject to the whims and interests of particular board members or commission members which there's a place for because we want fresh ideas that come through but we could really be dangerous and how we're tackling through some of this stuff if we aligned all those efforts all the way from council the council committees the boards and commissions all swimming in the same direction with what we're doing but I don't I don't I don't think we organizationally give that enough thought and that was something that was reflected upon at the retreat I think as we're entering into a phase of boards and commission I think we can look at two things one is is the current boards and commissions options getting us where we're wanting to go here in is there changes that need to be made things that need to be added or changed or deleted or whatever looking in the future and are we properly kind of bringing them on board with the mission where we're heading understanding that they're a part of kind of helping us develop that mission because there are experts and eyes and ears on the ground level on a lot of these things so I think as we're entering into this season of boards and commission it might be worth a conversation along those lines to be able to say for each boards and commission what KFA are they fitting under what goals are they going after generally speaking and how do we align with that and then to get specific of saying in this year if we could work with them on these topics because that's our goals this year I think we could really be effective organizationally so just wanted to throw that out since we're about to have that conversation here in another month and I concur with that I think though the challenge is one that you presented earlier and that is that when we were talking about the multifamily that one size doesn't necessarily fit all and that within this this is more sort of a roadmap a general guide and that I totally agree are we doing are we not being counterproductive in our actions to what our goals are it just sometimes those goals stay real fluid so I agree with you in general I just wouldn't want to get so rigid right that it becomes more robotic and mechanical and not have some room for some flexibility and things such as that so that that's a great conversation to have and maybe that 's one that we can add to the to the retreat absolutely yeah any other questions comments I think if I've heard correctly we're generally heading in the right direction needs some more discussion on a few areas but generally speaking this is for the next year yes okay all right thank you for your time okay thank you thank you Brian we'll go on to agenda item 3b which is receive report hold discussion give stack staff direction regarding the design and construction of a westside runway at Denton Enterprise Airport thank you mayor Quentin Hicks is our director of aviation will present this and then at the council's request I present it and or answer any other questions you have at the meeting tonight thank you thank you mayor Watts members of the council I'll go quickly through these 40 slides and and recognize I mean four slides and recognition of the time you have devoted to a long agenda today for a number of years a number of times we've brought different projects to the City Council the airport board city staff is certainly considered an infrastructure improvement at Denton Enterprise Airport to add a second runway the purpose of this infrastructure improvement is is to improve safety enhanced service and increase the capacity of our airport we've now received the grant offer and you have on your agenda later this evening a resolution to consider accepting that grant what you're looking at here is a preliminary concept design this is still evolving but it has some significant features I wanted to point out to you they would be included in this grant offer for an infrastructure improvement what we 're talking about is a is a westside runway parallel to the existing 7,000 foot runway this one would be 5,000 feet long and 75 feet wide it would have of course a taxiway connections across the field from the existing runway and taxiways there's a second part of this it's very important that recently our operations manager Patrick Reno submitted a request for a grant to do a significant needed improvement on our taxiways at midfield and this is included also in this concept plan it it solves a problem of our taxiway connection at midfield the FAA is looks unfavorably on current improvements and having a taxiway connections that go directly from a ramp all the way through to the runway this would provide an offset and remove an existing connection excuse me but even more importantly than that it would provide us the additional operating safety for large aircraft moving on to our ramp the hanger that you see right here in this exhibit is the new Greenpoint aerospace hanger for large aircraft 737s and larger that our business jets will will come to our airport to get the interior completions and when they come off of the taxiway alpha now and on to the existing Bravo taxiway the wingtip extends out over the ramp area so we have a safety issue which will address in the short term but this will be the long-term solution to it so that was an important part of this this grant offer also the development will be a two-phase development phase one will be engineering design has an estimated cost of four hundred and twenty-five thousand dollars it includes an obstruction evaluation as well as the engineering design now there's another preliminary activity which is necessary in advance of the actual design and that's the actual construction and that's the environmental assessment that particular activity was included as part of our master plan grant in order to do the environmental assessment we need a concept plan that that identifies where the new runway will be so that also is proceeding and will be dependent upon the design that would come out of come out of this development process the cost sharing on the design phase would be a 90/10 grant sharing 382,000 from Texas Department of Transportation aviation division textile aviation and then 42,500 from the city once the design is complete then we'd move into the construction phase which has an estimated cost of six million five hundred and fifty five thousand dollars again this is for a five thousand foot seventy five foot wide runway but in the design process what we may actually want to recommend and have designed and eventually bring back to the council probably at the time of the engineering design contract is for a five thousand foot one hundred foot wide runway this is because at times we will be using that runway for the larger jets that come and go from Denton Enterprise Airport and we need the wider runway to accommodate the the landing gear the cost sharing on on the construction phase is an 85 percent 15 percent cost sharing so that textile aviation would be providing five million five hundred seventy one thousand seven hundred and fifty dollars and the local match would be 983,250 now the funding procedure of all through through three different specific steps that each come before the council the first of course is on today's agenda which is to consider a resolution accepting the grant there's no funding required at this time if the council approves the grant offer by resolution then textile aviation staff takes that to the Texas Transportation Commission on August 28th to get it included and approved as an actual project following that in fiscal 2015 we'll receive an airport project participation agreement for the engineering phase at the point that that APPA is brought to the council if it's approved that's when we would be asked to transfer our portion of the engineering cost to textile aviation they would obtain a contract for engineering design and administer that with our matching funds at that time they will also ask us to to provide documentation that we have the funding set aside for the construction phase but we wouldn't transfer to them at that time we would not be asked to do that the proposed funding that staff is considering bringing back to the council at this time would be with certificates of obligation with the debt service of course paid from the airport then once the design is completed in fiscal 2016 we would receive an airport project participation agreement for the construction phase at that point if the council approve the construction is where we would be asked to submit our portion of the funding for construction to textile aviation to move on through the construction there again that portion of the cost would be is being considered as to be proposed to come from certificates of obligation now there is a need to escalate this project and we've talked about that previously with the master plan and it's why we included in the master plan presented to the council a portion of that work to be the environmental assessment and again to get the environmental assessment we need a concept plan for the runway so what what we had proposed to do and what has been conducted up to this point is to put a request for qualifications on the street to seek a design engineer this has all been done in cooperation with textile aviation under their rules of acquisition so that any expenditure if we hire a design engineer any expenditure toward that contract would be recognized toward the APPA for engineering design when we do receive that next year this will allow us to coordinate the design with the master plan allow us to move ahead with the environmental assessment and help us answer some of the issues related to the design and the actual features that we need in that West Side runway it's it's on schedule right now to bring a proposed engineering design contract to you to be funded by the city through the airport in July of this year but again any expenditure between that and and physical 2015 that we make will count toward that that 90/ 10 cost participation our 10% of that that cost quick real quick question on that because I know you'd said that the proposal was to fund our 10% match with CEOs correct so make sure I understand what you're saying we're gonna front four hundred twenty five thousand and that's gonna go towards our 1 million whatever that is 25 thousand seven hundred then what's your then the bonds will reimburse quote-unquote the airport fund the cash that they've expended is what I'm understanding your is how you're seeing this or are you saying that that will reduce the amount that the CEOs will have to I mean if ours is a million dollars and we've paid four hundred twenty five thousand in cash we didn't get that reimbursed by somebody or we're just gonna then only over let's say six million or six hundred thousand what are you that's actually the the four hundred and twenty five thousand for the engineering design contract up front is is currently covered with approved line items in the capital budget in the airport fund for this fiscal year not not committed but that line items in the budget okay so it wouldn't be CEO funding it would be funding from the airport fund now we won't actually spend anywhere near the four hundred and twenty five thousand prior to getting the APPA right because that 125,000 is the budget all the way through the design and into construction into construction management so but whatever portion we spend will be credited toward our cost participation once we get the APPA so it would reduce the amount of CEO funding that we'd have to have to submit to okay that's not aviation then and it's just a thought and I know the Airport Advisory Committee has looked at this I'm sure somewhere down the line but I know that one of the goals I think that we've had over the years and it may be in the strategy is to do more cash funding and I don't know what the balances are and in the airport fund but if we're looking at if we're gonna spend two or three hundred thousand we're looking at only financing six or seven or eight hundred thousand I'm not sure depending on the status of the cap which I have no I mean I like you maybe somebody can address it is is this something that might be amenable to that kind of approach as far as instead of debt funding just taking care of it so I throw that out there not that I have that but necessary preference except I think there has been some discussion about moving towards some items that lend themselves more to that type of approach so that just was the thought I had sure and and I would assure you that when we come back to you with the proposal for the engineering design contract we'll be able to discuss that in more detail right but but yes we did take that into consideration and and generally the reason for asking for co funding is that that that we're proposing to use the airport fund cash expenditures more for property improvements that directly generate additional revenue for the airport and there's a balance in there sure that again we can explain in more detail absolutely I assure you that consideration is being taken sure that we will be able to bring information to yeah just a thought emails oh I'm sorry you probably have other slides sorry no no that's okay that that really is this this was just to kind of give you a heads up on the approach we're taking and the purpose of this is to give you a heads up and ask if there any questions or comments regarding the project or the proposed resolution that you'll be considering later I do want to say I came out to the air fare on Saturday and wonderful time great crowd beautiful weather so what a great event so heads up and hats off to you appreciate your organization and the airfare committee absolutely they did a great they did a great job they planned that all year long so yes I appreciate that very much I know they do too yes yes maybe this a question for Chuck but I'm wondering kind of where the line is when you do that multi-generational equity when you want generations to kind of pay for a project I wonder how much how expensive that project needs to be or is it specific to the project because I hear what Chris is saying like possibly is paying for it but if you know this is going to be around for a long time and it kind of leaves us not with a lot of cash is it better to finance it just thought I mean if Chuck wants to add detail to that but I would share this with you part of the process for thinking up up to this point is that adding a runway while it well it is a safety improvement also does add capacity which will generate more business so over a lengthy period of time there will be an indirect benefit of additional revenue coming in so we kind of balance that's one of the considerations we balanced against using CEOs and paying that service over a period of time that's a lot better answer than Chuck was gonna get one of the other things I want to mention is is there are with issuance of CEOs with issuance of debt there 's restrictions that the airport it really runs into the airport specifically because what's called private activity in issuing tax-exempt debt it can't really be used other than certain exceptions for what's considered private activity so while the runway is open to the public and some other things are open to the public if we build some facilities out there that are for specific businesses or that type of thing we generally can't use tax-exempt debt unless it's approved by the voters so one of the other balances in terms of issuing CEOs versus using those cash balances is what are the purposes we can issue debt for and what are the ones we can't and try to use some of those cash balances for those other purposes it might bring revenue but we might not be legally able to issue debt for so that's the other make sense the good good portion to consider thank you yes councilmember with we had five million dollars on the table but where are we going to come up with 500,000 out of the government with the airport funding we have now we don't have to worry about that whether we pay cash whether we issue CEOs we can argue about that but whether that's a long and it's a great discussion to have but it's your foot that 's in the better position we put in my understanding is a lot of that fun balance comes from our revenue from the gas well that that's correct okay and it is a finite source of revenue yes important and planning it yet recognize that good any other questions thank you thank you very much thank you moving on to agenda item 3c receive report hold discussion give staff direction regarding the preliminary fy 214 to 15 proposed budget thank you very much mr. springer director of finance he would present this budget discussion thank you Chuck unless you'd like frank pain no you probably would on this one councilmember Hockensleeve on purpose I've got it on my in terms of the major budgetary themes for this year and I should back up a little bit this is just kind of giving the council the first look at the upcoming budget the proposed budget will come to the council at the end of July but this is kind of our first preliminary look and kind of setting up the scope of this year's budget in terms of the budgetary themes what we're trying to stress this year is we're continuing on the course to balance general fund revenue and expenses in terms of last year's budget expenses exceeded revenues we drew down on the fund balance by about 1.38 million so we're really setting a course to bring those revenues and expenses into balance to maintain a competitive compensation plan there will be somewhat begin this year limited funding and I'll get into the details of the numbers to address general fund growth needs as part of that we've got the internal efficiency efforts the innovation program and lean programs that we talked about I'll talk a little bit more about and I just want to highlight potential future revenue limitations which was with what's going on at the state level and the recent elections there 's a lot more talk of revenue caps appraisal caps looking at cutting the rate down the growth rate and property taxes the rollback rate from 8% to 5 or 3 with a potential election so I just bring that up that those may be some challenges in the coming years potentially coming imposed by the state another budgetary theme is to continue street maintenance expansion in the utilities we're looking at replacement is expansion as a major theme in the utilities and specifically in the electric utility managing that the next few years at the TMPA debt requirements in the city absorbing some of that debt I'll get into some detailed numbers in the general fund but in terms of what the assumptions are right now underlying the assessed valuation increases are the same as we really showed with the bond committee and their recommendations we 're estimating an 8% growth and assessed valuation for 1415 that's new properties and existing properties and for the fiscal years after that we're estim ating 4% growth for the property tax rate itself the debt service tax rate will remain about the same in 1415 we're estimating as you remember last year there was a proposed one cent tax increase on the operating side at 1415 because of the greater growth and assessed valuation this year in the model we've pushed that off a few years so there's no increase in the M&O rate until 1617 sales tax for this model we're projecting at 3% above the current budget and in future years 3% growth rate in franchise fees all the growth and franchise fee revenues are transferred to the Street Improvement Fund we can have a baseline number of about 7.59 million that stays in the general fund the rest goes to the street maintenance fund and we're continuing that through the five -year projections compensation and benefits for the upcoming fiscal year we 've kind of built in a 3% merit increase as well as equity adjustments and step increases for civil service we do have a salary study underway that will come back to the city in early July where we're comparing really to our competitive cities and for the electric utility sometimes to private utilities so that may impact this but this is what we've built in for now which is basically the same compensation program we had in the current fiscal year future fiscal years have just an average 3% package and step increases built into them health insurance right now assumes a 6% increase on an annual basis in city contributions and employee contribution rates have yet to be determined for the upcoming year as we go through the budget process we'll recommend those our retirement system which is TMRS the Texas Municipal Retirement System in calendar year 2015 our fully funded rate is going to decrease by about 6/10 of a percent so that's good news is that rate is decreased the last two years second year in a row now throw a bunch of numbers up here as is required during budget presentation so let me kind of summarize what I've got here the beginning fund balance these are the revenues we're estimating based on those assumptions and the expenditures based on those assumptions so you can see we have an operating surplus there and then I've built in for new expenses these are really two areas baseline packages and supplemental packages baseline increases are really increases in things like fuel electricity contracts for computer support just those basic things we start off the budget excluding salaries everyone's budget remains exactly the same in terms of dollars so if there's an increase due to inflation or those kind of costs has to be requested by the department as a baseline request the other type is supplemental packages which is really an increase in service level additional personnel a new program so we've kind of built in about two hundred and fifty thousand for baseline increases and about a million for supplemental packages just as an estimate and you can see with that we still have a little bit of a deficit there but much smaller deficit than we had this year six hundred and thirty two thousand but they do continue going forward again these are the preliminary numbers and we'll bring a budget back to you I 'll go over some other items real quick question the difference when y'all are doing the preliminary budget I know that in the bond presentations in the beginning they were assuming a four percent growth what is the actual dollar amount between the four percent and eight percent growth in other words if this were a if this were a if this were based on four percent what would be that revenue what are we talking about an increase that we didn't really anticipate it's a little over a million dollars the four percent okay four percent yes thank you mayor by way of comparison remind me last year what did that new expenses row contain what did we end up in in terms of supplemental packages the amount of money we devoted to that at new expenses I mean what was the actual total for supplemental packages last year right I'm going to look over the budget staff I've got my budget with me in terms of getting that number and will bring it up to me in a second I think it was beyond that dollar amount if that's what you're getting at now I've had this question a couple years now and I'm still trying to understand the budget process so when when departments are evaluated it's always starting with baseline what their expenses were last year what their budget was last year and then it's they want something new or need something new it's added as either some sort of new expense item supplemental package or whatnot is there ever any part of that process that that encourages departments to evaluate reevaluate existing programs to see what's not working or not making what we thought the original goals were not hitting the target or something like that so we're actually coming back and saying we only need to spend eighty percent of what we did last year because we're cutting this because it wasn't effective or something like that doesn't seem like that's it from our perspective that that's ever part of the conversation so it appears we 're just growing growing growing and growing instead of taking out so that you can add this in or whatever talk to me about how we did I'll try not to jump ahead but part of one of the things we did this year is we asked for each department in the general fund to turn in a five percent reduction over three years if you needed to make some reductions where would it be in terms of that and that's one of the items we're going to be evaluating during the budget process in terms of taking any of those reductions so we did ask for that I think Mr. Campbell wants to well just to add to that comment a supplemental program generally speaking isn't request for new money into the budget to do a new program but a supplemental program could be a proposal by department and I will a few years ago park department for instance recommended eliminating a couple of things and that supplemental program could be the reduction in spending because the program is just not is doing exactly what you asked now does that occur as often as requests for new money no not clearly but it is an option that departments have and one we asked them to look at and Chuck will get into some of the proposed I mean that now we've asked for some scrutiny of how to reduce spending some of which has been submitted and I'll tell you it would be almost impossible for us to take those kinds of cuts but when we 've targeted dollar amount they've told us what it would take to achieve that dollar amount some of it we obviously couldn't accept to answer your first question and then I want to add a little bit more what we do on the budget process the general fund expenditure supplemental packages was about one point six seven million last year so about one point seven million in total so I think that was out of a request of something like seven or eight million that was proposed as possible that was cut down to that and the same thing is occurring this year five five four and and I also wanted to mention when we do evaluations of especially baseline requests the first thing we generally look for if they've got additional cost is there anywhere in the budget that there have expenditures that they're not spending so we can move those over an example is municipal court as they've had some increased costs they've gone to more paperless environment so they're not buying all the court folders basically so as they've had some increased costs we simply move that money over so one of the other ways we look at it is by not increasing those dollars when they make a request for a baseline is there some other funds available to cover that increase without without making a total dollar increase so that's the other evaluation factor that goes on within that I do just want to point out in terms of our fund balance minimum targets at the bottom of that slide the council's adopted a policy where in the general fund we set kind of a minimum target of 20 percent will allow that to drop to 15 percent because of unusual financial circumstances or some kind of natural emergency but we want to return that to 20 percent so in terms of the goal Brian talked about in terms of the five-year plan the goal is to really keep that fund balance at 20 percent or above during the five-year plan yes go ahead with regards to that pretty cool target for bond rating what extent and I know that they look out for our obviously look back and also forward what is the fact that this is a project for five since that well I think though the this five-year projections within the budget so the rating agency see that and they really ask in terms of how you project to balance that in year four and five so the last that questions in terms of their significance they really look at historical and where you're at in the current year and the next is the most important part but they will ask those kind of questions that's my great behavior you know I'm trying to remember back to my first and second year on council seeing the five-year projections thinking wow it we're getting down in fairly low percentages and we've never done that I would love to to for somebody to be able to retrieve from me because I certainly couldn't find it but what this document looked like five years ago because it's it's but the projections out five years were not nearly as bright as this one and yet we never got why is that but how can things end up getting better is this is this the the the Langley doing good well I think a couple things if you look at our projections probably a couple years before the economic downturn you would have probably seen growth in revenues a lot higher than we actually experienced I think a lot of times governments make the necessary adjustments and if revenues don't come in they make the necessary reductions or changes in order to maintain their fund balance so I think one is just making those changes and two is I've always been accused of this finance folks tend to be a little bit conservative and if you take the over under on are we going to do a little bit better a little bit worse usually a little bit better wins over the long term we tend to have long memories of those few years when when the economic times went down and sales tax was well below or property values were well below and we tend to try to be a little conservative and hope that things will do a little bit better than we project question on the you mentioned the 5% reduction over three years which about 1.5 a little bit more than that per year is that included in any of this or is that just sort of so it's just sitting out here somewhere that if we were to apply it to this hundred million dollar expenses 1.5 1.5 million dollar maybe reduction in those so that's not included in that expenditure number that's correct we have not incorporated any of those and this is a question I have because it's just interesting we've gone from a 4% assumption to potentially 8% and some say the actual may even be higher than that potentially depending on protest season and the like so when everybody's doing this this budget these budget presentations I mean it 's one thing to say you got a 4% increase that you got to work with or you got an 8% assumption you got to work with so which under which direction do they do that like I mean these expenditures are based upon this number of 8% or this number of 4% as far as the revenue the revenue is for 1415 assumes an 8% increase and then the future years is a compounded on top that 8% is 4% each year so it maybe it's just me understanding when the departments begin to construct their budget are they given sort of a preliminary amount of revenue that the city's anticipating or are they literally doing it blindly saying this is what we think we need irregardless or regardless of what we think the assumption is going to be or do they have an idea that well you've got to really put your budget within this framework of revenue or you put your budget in this framework of revenue let me respond a little bit generally mayor what I asked the department to do is give me a realistic picture of what you want what you think the services need to be and the resources you need to do to provide the services that the council and the public has asked for clearly that's the reason we have supplemental program request of five eight million dollars when we know we can only spend two or two and a half but we need to know this five-year forecast is a planning tool and further out you get the less accurate it is but the department's are asked to give us your best estimate of what it's going to take to deliver services based on what you've been doing and what the public's asking for or the council for irrespective of how much the revenue picture is going to be just be realistic okay don't ask for the moon when you know we've got some limitations on revenue but that's not the essence of what they go into the budget request looking okay good thank you appreciate that in yes yes Councilmember Rhoads you know going back to that that other slide what do we really use to determine that new expense line like when you guys decide okay this year we're going to set our cap at a million to five for supplemental packages how do you how do you arrive at that numbers there's some formula that that that you're coming up with but let me go back to some time if I could check before Chuck was even here and we've had these discussions a lot of time it's looking historically at what we've had to add over the years and recognizing that in most instances when we set that one one million to 1.2 million that we haven't been able to achieve even that but it's really trying to put a cap on our projections to focus us on looking at only those things that we think are most critical to the organization it's generally a question it's generally intended to be a very conservative estimate based on our history of what we've had to do and what the growth rate is in the city and how populations been growing but it is there's no magic formula it's a number that we plug in to try to determine and get a grasp of what the next five years is going to look like if we were able to achieve that 1.2 and you'll notice that increases each year because it's cumulative it's a human and the other question I have and this is an historical question maybe your team has it or doesn't off the top of somebody's head is the last couple years of growth and sales taxes has been what what's that percentage does anyone have that ready at hand I think we can look it up but up well you know my my impression is because you know we always get sent these monthly updates on these things and hasn't been super encouraging in terms of that growth especially when we talk when we think about how many new significant retail projects have come online and I don't know if your team has any economic analysts that do some punditry on these sorts of things but it's interesting to think about why that's the case why we're not seeing a larger growth in our sales tax figures coming in does anyone have any working theories on that in terms of in terms of overall growth this year I know it's been or just the trend or the trend line over the last couple years or something again we talk a lot about and Amy gave us a presentation on how much we're seeing come out of razor ranch north yet you know we're kind of stagnant in terms of our where our growth is getting so it's like what's happening out there and our retail industry is not reflecting the growth that we think we would see so people have left money I mean I don't know I don't know if you guys sit around and think about those things because certainly from a policy perspective it makes me think we need to think about that yeah I mean we saw a couple years ago we kind of saw bounce back from the recession I had a really large growth rate you know historically it tends to be somewhat driven by your population and the amount of and the amount of spendable income within that population so you really look at population plus income growth if you have a real large retail development the question you know you know becomes are we going to draw more people into that development that have been shopping other places outside of the city in terms of in terms of retail growth but in terms of specifically we we get a report from the comptroller's office and we can look at the top 20 or 30 taxpayers to see how they're doing see how they're doing to prior years but in terms of overall economically that's one of the things cities across Texas and I know across the country struggle with is estimating those kind of revenues such as sales tax that tend to be may we have economic cycles when we're having meetings on with our looking at the economic forecast and economic indicators that we have been putting together the quarterly reports that we send to you all it's grasping at straw sometimes you know exactly but trying to compare what's going on in the housing industry and the retail industry how much growth that we got how much commitment do we have on incentive agreements and how much of that if we had it are we gonna have to turn around and give back it's difficult estimate to make Amy appears to have a comment she'd like to say that we actually did an analysis in my department to provide a report to EDP which we haven't given to EDP yet that just tracks those larger retail developments that we track monthly to look at the trend over as many years as we've tracked it and I'll be glad to send that to you all as well it doesn't cover everything but it will cover the larger developments that we track as a whole in answer to the council member wrote this question you've been in Langley's office you've seen that ball for he asked a question and shakes it up and then he looks at the answer not sure yes Ken yes counseling room I get the population growth we have that tends to be shifting rapidly and we're losing anecdotally speaking I'd say that I would agree with that we haven't looked at the trends specifically for Denton I don't know that we could really capture that information but just as a as an example we know one of the the antique stores downtown now makes more money on eBay than they do with walk-ins but generally the retail industry across the world is struggling with that and with smaller footprints and with every year you see retail staying flat and in an internet sales going up and so it's going to be retail in general is going to really shift the way they do business as a result of that we have more and more retail facilities and less and less sales tax. We can't go on for very long before we start to have less and less retail facilities. And then we're really in trouble. Thank you. My staff went to go get the exact number so I'll get you those percentages in a few minutes. In terms of the budget development from here going forward as we bring it to the proposed budget to council and they develop it further I think George had sent out a memorandum to the council for your budgetary request and budgetary priorities for this year so we'll take those at the top of the list in terms of what council desires that we mentioned the supplemental packages from general fund departments total approximately five point four million the baseline adjustments the initial request total about three hundred seventy eight thousand I mentioned the somewhat limited capacity much less than those numbers in terms of available funding and the departments were also as I mentioned asked to submit potential reductions slash revenue enhancements over a three year time frame equal to about five percent of their budget so those will also be taken into consideration and I'm sure some of those will be proposed in the proposed budget we mentioned on the tenth some efficiency or service efforts the employee innovation project just to give some quick numbers the submissions and round one by the employees there were sixty three submissions kind of pick the cream of the crop to go to round two which was eighteen submissions we anticipate about seven to ten projects will be selected and considered for implementation of that the leap program they gave their presentation the leadership excellence enhancement program and their two class projects were presented to council on the 10th also want to mention and we discussed this briefly at the tenth but the lean government initiative really the focus on this is improving processes and reducing waste and improving internal and external customer service I think a good way to to focus this in terms of what Brian was talking about you know you've kind of got your long term plan and those things you really want to focus on all of us think about the time we spend on those little details that don't really get us to the big picture but just take our time part of lean government is try to reduce the impact of those details and be able to focus on what's most important we've hired an external consultant this year we've gone through executive and supervisory training held the two kaizen events which means kind of improvement events on the hiring process and the purchasing process we met with all the department heads for improvement opportunities and in this last week we trained eight staff internally that will kind of take over these lean efforts and expand the training and be kind of the internal experts the internal coaches and as part of that one of the things we challenged that group with was to come up with in lean techniques to call it elevator speech in other words if you're stuck on the elevator how do you describe in a very short time frame what it's all about so I just want to kind of read this draft one that they've come up with and hopefully this may give you a little bit more sense of the initiative our city is experiencing tremendous growth that's visible and pal atable in fact it is on track to have a sixty five percent increase in population to over two hundred thousand by the year twenty thirty this growth will place great demands on the entire organization from utilities to public safety recreation and leisure and to general government to meet this demand we intend to have controlled growth in our capabilities by innovating and reinventing ourselves rather than just adding equipment staff and layers of bureaucracy by applying methods proven in manufacturing health care service industries and even government Denton can remove many of the annoyances and obstacles to our jobs that we run into every day and take our focus away from the real work this work is rewarding meaningful and creates a better community this is Denton's lean journey and in terms of for the employees Denton employees are most important asset lean is a culture that invest employees by providing opportunities for more meaningful work lean practices draw upon employees to remove redundant and inefficient processes and enhance skills in order to provide outstanding customer service so that's kind of a brief summary that they've written up and I wanted to mention we've added some things on the website this year in terms of budget transparency when we had some discussions with the committee on citizen engagement we've added a dedicated web page with the budget idea submission form kind of a short video on the budget process and we're posting all the presentations agenda items that type of information like including this presentation on that site so there's one place to go to for the public to be able to find all of this we also at the beginning of it did a social media push to let people know that it's out there and it's available this is really similar to what we did for the bond program where we had everything at one place we had an idea submission form and then we had all the documents and information in one place for the citizens to find I've got a couple comparison tables here we like to compare ourselves against our kind of competitive cities this is our general fund sales tax per capita you can see Denton is at 226 this is for the fiscal year ended 930 13 we compare ourselves to the other cities based on their annual financial reports and the four cities there that are starred everyone else has a one cent of their sales tax that goes to the general fund Denton Bryan College station and Mesquite are at one and a half cents we have a half cent sales tax in lieu of property tax and Lubbock's at one point three seven five cents so just to caveat that that gives a little bit of sense of comparison and I've also got one for assess valuation per capita and you can see Denton falls kind of right in the middle in terms of about 57,000 per person in terms of assess valuation and you can see the range there and kind of the averages with Frisco kind of being the outlier I want to jump over to the Street Improvement Fund to give the projections here on the five-year budget for this and to talk a little bit about OCI one of our favorite topics and I've given a few extra years here of actuals really to just kind of look back historically this is in 1112 I think that was the first year that we had the Street Improvement Fund separated out and you can see we spent about six point one million in terms of revenues and you can see the growth what we're proposing for 1415 is about eight point eight point nine million and I've also highlighted what we're spending down here for bond funded we had the bond election in 2012 which was four million for five years but in red here you can see the bond committee is proposing 24 million over the next six so we can bring the sales up from four million a year really to six million a year during that six-year process so these numbers are kind of based on that proposed bond election but we talked last year about the OCI and just to give new council members a brief definition OCI stands for the overall condition index of our street system it's really a measure of serviceability provided by the pavement to the vehicle driver and in 2009 the OCI overall scale of zero to a hundred was 63 for the city and at that time in order to maintain it at that level they estimated we needed to spend about ten point one million on OCI related expenditures for the streets what we're really trying to do is build up to that level and last year we talked about kind of when would we reach the level of neutrality in other words when would we stop declining at least reach a level where we could keep it the same in terms of OCI where we're spending that so what we've estimated is approximately 60 percent of the operating expenditures are OCI related those appear the operating revenues and expenditures and a hundred percent of the bond fund expenditures since we're rebuilding streets so based on that we think that the funding will stabilize if the if the bond election is passed council calls it's passed and we start spending six million in 1516 will kind of estimate it to stabilize yes that's member and I pointed this out last year maybe around the same time when we were talking about this I really think we need to get to a point and I know you've got another slide talking about additional street funding options which is good but you know recall the the OCI report I mean as things are status quo I mean I know things are declining but the baseline is not great and so I think there's a there's a certain amount of false advertising we give to ourselves and certainly to our citizens if our goal oftentimes because we're constantly talking about when are we getting us to the point of stabilizing OCI rating and not declining instead of setting the goal at where do we want to be at O CI and at what point do we get to that point I just think collectively we got to think about that as the goal and I say that as you're about to jump to the next slide of options because we just got to move the bar up because getting to the point where we're saying we meant we're maintaining status quo which is really bad and we all agree it's really bad but we got to that point now surely it's an improvement relatively speaking but in terms of fixing the problem we just need to challenge ourselves to set that bar higher so yes thank you I concur with your statement I like the fact that I like this chart because it's I can kind of look out and see how we're we're we're at least improving in in our efforts I don't think that we're improving enough but I think you know for example we're talking about next year 13 percent increase in our efforts to stabilize the streets the the next year it's 12 percent the next year though it's only six point seven percent that's the 1617 year you know we every other year it's over 10 percent but for some reason in the 1617 year it's a pretty small percent of growth do you know why that is are you talking about the operating revenues I'm talking about I'm looking at the number of total operating revenues and and what I'm seeing is that that in 1617 the growth from 15 16 to 1617 is significantly less than it had been the previous years and and the next year it's only about a six percent growth unless my math is bad which certainly will be and and this this number here the franchise fees is really a projection the majority of which come from our internal utilities in terms of what are their rate change is going to be and what's the franchise revenues going to be so we can delve into that a little deeper but at the surface it looks like you're really looking at a year where our rate increases at least right now or to be projected to be much less for our utilities therefore there's not going to be as much growth in the franchise okay thank you so it's it may be good for the utility customers and not for the street may correspond thank you mayor I know this doesn't help with the Denton driving experience but do we have any idea of what the OCI ratings are in neighboring communities neighboring cities is there any way to figure that out I don't know how many of the others have an OCI rating I know I know my prior community had an OCI rating and it was at about 80 but you're looking at a much younger community right in terms of Denton I don't know how many of the other cities around us I'm kind of looking at Howard have someone come out and even even perform that type of study okay we can we can at least contact them and see if it's studied if there's others in the area that have that type of study real quick comment to address your comment Councilmember road and I agree with you we need to figure out a plan to get a to raise the bar higher I think though as I've looked back historically over you know the budgets in the past ten years and you know in 2003 we had one of these same similar street reports that came out that wasn't much better than it was now and so this problem has been one of years I mean we're not talking sick we're talking 10 15 20 years and so the amount of money that requires and I agree with you that the 2016 17 Councilmember Gregor I think because a lot of that you'll see some of those big increases are on the bond savings the bond sale savings which is directly related to DME infrastructure financing which instead of using revenue bonds we're using COs and so forth which I think that's because then it moves up to the 10% again the following year I mean so it's probably some anomaly in there but I'm really encouraged I mean I know we need to set the bar higher but three years ago four years ago when we were looking at this holy Toledo we only had a few million dollars we were so far behind and at least we 're really we're making some good progress which I think will lead us in that direction so gosh I'm encouraged by seeing these numbers hadn't seen these numbers for a year so but I agree the plan to get it to a different level because that will directly impact our economic development opportunities it will directly impact our quality of life for our citizens so that's certainly one of the I think has always been a priority but yes councilmember Engelbrecht or travel whatever we probably could push that faster but I don't know that we want to because at the end we need to increase our costs. That's part of that process. Sure. Any other? Okay. It kind of leads into the next slide we had a lot of discussion with the council during the last fiscal year about additional street maintenance funding and kind of what we're doing now and what are some additional alternatives if the council wants to consider it . I stated all growth and franchise fees are dedicated to street maintenance funding and the proposed increase in bond funding from four to six million a year and council members one of the things we did was look at adopting street impact fees the councils approved that study I think the adoption will come back to the council probably early next fiscal year and really what that does why we can't use street impact fees specifically for street maintenance. What it allows us to do is that's a funding source for street expansions and it kind of reduces that pressure for dollars for street expansions where we can focus those dollars more on street maintenance versus street expansion so it gives us a little bit of flexibility. Some of the additional alternatives we discussed a dedicated street maintenance fee dedicated property tax increase or additional funding from the general fund through reductions of current programs and had some discussions last year. Yes. I recall under additional alternatives the dedicated street maintenance fee we had a couple work sessions on that and the direction as I recall last year was let's bring that back and continue looking at that but it seems like it's been several months. Do we know do we know why we haven't been moving forward looking at that more as a possibility or is there still studying being done. I mean it seemed like there were some significant possibilities also significant political discussions along those lines based on what that was. But what's the update on that. Mr. Coulter is jumping out to answer that question. You know behind you to address that. We are continuing to look at the street maintenance fee approach that we presented to counsel earlier. There is a lot of detail associated with that. Say for example how Corpus Christi set up their specific uses for different types of businesses. There is a lot of tedious work that goes into coming up with that information. We are planning on bringing that back to council but we're just not quite ready. Perfect. Thank you. Yes. Just a comment on on impact fees. I don't know if you mean the street impact fee for any new development that's being built just like an impact fee for water sewer etc. I just think we need to be cautious and we need to look at what are those cities around us doing because that's our competition. Right. So we're competing for a store. I think we need to understand as a city you know just pick somebody McDonald's . They're going to open a certain number of stores in Texas this year and they've got a lot of options. And we need to be careful about impact fees because that is a another cost item just like the roof or the concrete parking lot. It's just a cost. And if they can't recover that rent then what it does is it says to the retailer the developer. Should I build this one or should I go build this one in this other city. And that's the reality of the competition. I can tell you today the exact same retail strip center that's fifteen thousand feet in Denton and in Little Elm. The impact fees are exactly four times and then what they are in Little Elm. That's a real world example happening right now today. Projects are under construction at the exact same time. So and I understand we can't waive impact fees as incentives. I think we need to really think about as we talk about loading more impact fees on the private guy that there could be an unintended consequence that the amount of total fees could actually decrease. Because what will happen is if the fees are so high if someone has a choice well I'll just go build I'll go build in these other cities this year because this deal doesn't make sense. Because they're going to look at their revenues and they're going to say what are my projected revenues? How much money am I going to make over what's it going to cost me to build this thing and operate it. I just think we need to step cautiously and impact fees and understand what that real cost is to the person who we're charging it to. Thank you Mayor. I'll just go over the utility funds. Electric utility fund as I stated before one of their major issues over the next few years will be the debt payoff from TMPA. Their replacement of aging infrastructure. Their construction of a transmission system with increased revenue to DME. The five year CIP is about $386 million for the utility fund. They're proposing an overall rate increase of 5.4% for 14- 15 with part of that including the transmission cost recovery factor which is really the amount that we pay for the whole statewide system or proportional share of it that 's set by ERCOT. And they're considering alternatives in future years for the TMPA debt payments. Their capital appreciation bond payments. In terms of the water utility fund their focus is on infrastructure replacement. A good portion of it revenue funded and needed expansion of the system. The zebra mussels have entered into our region. They come down from Texoma so they're starting to impact cost and there's some cost built into their budget for that . They're working toward double coverage at the water plants. Their five year CIP is about $116.6 million right now with $43.6 million revenue funded. And their proposed rate increase for 14-15 is 3%. At this time last year they thought the recommended rate increase would be 4% so that's a percent lower than what was planned last year. Thank you Mayor Pro Tem. I would love to hear or get just an informal staff report on what the plan is for dealing with the zebra mussels. I know that that had a major impact on the water line going from Lake Texoma to Lake Lavon. And so I know that we've got something in the works so if we could just get an informal staff report on that, that would be helpful. The manager is not here so I know somebody is going to relate. The other question, and I'll just ask it now while I've got the floor, is you're reporting on each one of these funds, proposed rate increases, at our next discussion about budget. What I would like to see is that total picture and looking at the average homeowners utility bill, what that is likely to mean in terms of their monthly increase or their yearly increase, that kind of impact. We need to see as a whole what kind of effect our decisions are going to be having on the rate payers and the homeowners. I'll bring that table back in July. Thank you. I think we did one last year, including solid waste too, I think we included all four. The Wastewater Utility Fund, their focus is on infrastructure replacement expansion and their kind of required sanitary sewer overflow program to reduce that. There's also something new that they're dealing with this year, phosphor limits. EPA is putting new requirements on the amount that you can discharge so that's impacting their cost in terms of treatment. They're having to buy some additional chemicals and spend additional amounts to meet that EPA requirement over the next couple of years. They're working toward double coverage at their treatment plant. Their five-year CIP is about $56.5 million, excluding drainage projects. Their proposed rate increase for '14-'15 is 6%. Last year's rate increase in what was estimated this year was 9%, so that's down from 9% to 6%. They've reduced their increase. The Solid Waste and Recycling Fund, their major projects include their CNG fueling station, their property expansion , and they're working in this next year plan to convert small commercial customers from containers to carts and expanding their building materials recovery operation. Their proposed rate increase is about 2.9% for standard carts with recycling and about 3.6% for large carts with recycling. The Tourist and Convention Fund revenues are conservatively estimated to come in at budget this current year and proposed to increase about 3% next year. The Hotel Occupancy Tax Committee will be meeting and providing budget recommendations for the July budget. And the Debt Service Fund and General Capital Improvement Budget, debt service tax rate is estimated to remain stable in '14-'15. The debt service expenditures are really already set by the debts that's been issued in the current fiscal year and will recommend a capital program will be presented with the proposed budget. We'll also have to incorporate kind of the proposal of the bond committee in that. That election won't be till November, but we'll propose some projects from that. And the potential debt service tax rate increase in '15-'16 , which would be the following year, based on the recommended bond sale program. Remember the committee kind of put together a program that was a three cent debt service tax rate increase. So just to let you know that that could be coming in future years, depending on the amount that's sold each year. And I'll put another chart out there. This is one where we look at, again, the end of the fiscal year, September 30, 2013, and compare the same cities. And this is general government debt per capita. We really back out debt that's been issued for our utilities. And with Denton being a full service city, having the electric utility, our total debt burden tends to be a little bit higher. But this is kind of an apples to apples comparison. And this is one where it's better to be on the low side than the high side. So you can see Denton is just number four in terms of a little over a thousand dollars per capita at the end of 2013. You can see where some of them are much higher. Again, Fr isco, their debt kind of matches with their property values in terms of their ability to issue it. But you can see those numbers there. In terms of the next steps in the budget process, the public utility board's been discussing the utility budgets over the last several meetings. And they're scheduled to consider recommendations of those budgets June 23. We'll receive our final certified value from the appraisal district the 25th. The city manager will propose his budget to the council July 31st and we have a city council workshop schedule that begins at eight thirty. Council is required under state law to take some certain actions during the budget process. They'll have to vote on a maximum tax rate to be considered . And then once that vote is taken, we have to put some publications in the newspaper and hold public hearings, which are scheduled for August 19th and September 9th. And final budget adoption is considered to be taken to the council for approval on September 16th to give you a time frame between the July 31st and September 16th. We've got something on each council meeting to discuss the budget to give the council opportunities at all of them. The last thing I wanted to give other than this was the sales tax numbers in terms of increases in fiscal year 1213 . We increased two point four six from the prior fiscal year. This year's budget calls is budgeted at a three percent increase, but in fiscal year 1112, we grew by thirteen point two percent fiscal year 1011 by eight point eight fiscal year nine ten by point three percent. So you can see how how much we'd like to estimate sales tax revenues. Any questions? Yes, I just have a comment. So in your in your budget, right at the beginning, it was all about reductions. And as we talk about our overall strategic planning culture . So here's a challenge. Get people open faster and think about how all of our departments can impact because when you have relatively fixed costs, right, how do you fix a bottom line problem, increase the top line? We have all kinds of people that are stuff coming to our city, retailers that want to get open. And I think as a as a overall cultural mindset is how do we get people open faster? An example I'll give you is just a really a small one. Seven Eleven is largest real estate company in the world. Now they've surpassed McDonald's. They want to open stores all over the place. They bought a corner. The corner of University of Bonnie Br ay. They closed on it in December of 2012. Had had their pre application and all that jazz. Well, we have a temporary easement over the front of their property because we're installing a water line. Well, whoever was installed on the water line made a mistake and it's something's not installed at the right height or whatever. And I have a lot of the details. Well, it's 2014. Now the middle of 2014, we still won't release the temporary eas ement on the top of the property because we're working with the contractor who made the mistake to redesign the thing on the front. And that's my point. If we have a culture of let's figure out a way, right, because we just they just want to get open and start selling slim gems and paying sales tax and average seven eleven store. I think because they tell me that they like thirty forty thousand dollars a year to us and sales tax. All those little small examples of if it takes somebody six months longer to get open or three months longer or nine months longer, those things add up to real money. And so I think as we think about the strategic plan and how it impacts budgeting, maybe put just as much focus on what are the things we can do to increase the top line, not necessarily by recruiting more people because we have that initiative, but thinking about how do we get people open faster? Well, that's going to fix a lot of the bottom line problems , right? Because the increases those little small incremental people get open faster and start paying sales tax. So it's just a challenge to maybe have as a piece of the budgetary thinking is how to how to all the departments work together because no one likes to sit down and think about how do I take cost out? How do I reduce my budget? Maybe it's how do I increase revenue by something I can do unique and different in my department that might actually cost us some money, but it's going to net us more money at the end. So just a comment and a bit of a challenge there. Any other questions? Great. Okay. Thank you. All right, moving on to the next agenda item for the work session agenda item D receive report hold discussion give staff direction regarding the creation of a tax income refinance reinvestment zone. Thank you, Mayor. I'm this item is on here for essentially for questions and answers from Council presentations have been made and you do have a public hearing on your agenda tonight. Amy is here and available and Amy unless you had some comments that you'd like to make be happy for you to do that and or to respond to questions that Council may have prior to going to public hearing. Thank you. I'll just state that we we addressed questions from last week's work session in your AIS for today and we do have David Pettit here as well. If you have any questions regarding the project plan or finance plan and would like to have any further discussion. Any questions? I have one, but I'll take anybody. I don't know question or comment, but my challenge during this process is I just want us to try to get to a point where the average Denton citizen kind of understands what's going on. And I had a I had a meeting with John Fortune a couple of maybe 10 days ago and it was strange because the following day I had a phone call from a Dina resident saying I don't think I can be for the creation of this TURS zone because I don't know what it's going to do to my property taxes. So I had to kind of explain how the whole thing went. And so that's all my all I'd like us to do through that this whole thing is just and I think that we're we're trying to do that already, but just continue to be thoughtful to the average citizen understanding some of these complicated issues that are going on in Denton. That's and I'm not saying that we're not doing that, but I just want us to always be thinking of that. I guess it's not a question. It's a good point. Now I'll be sure in the public hearing when when that opens tonight to present a basic overview that address tries to address some of those questions. Thank you. So picking back on that and I wasn't but I know during last this last spring as we as I met you know as we as I was campaigning I mean a lot of people met with a lot of people in their homes and you're right a lot of them sort of don't have a full picture and understanding some of that is that maybe they don't have the opportunity to look at the information that's out there. But obviously the education process is continuing. I think that's something that's good for the city. The question I have is on the tours just the statutory language about you know what it can be created for and the different things such as that and I've got the ordinance in front of me. So I'm going to read this this element often just help me understand the narrative of how what we're trying to do fits into this statutory language. I believe it's on page two of the ordinance in our backup. I don't know what page that is and your computer still in the stone ages because it talks about you know what are the reasons that you can create a turds and and bullet double I . It says it substantially impairs or rest the sound growth of the municipality creating the zone or constitutes an economic or social liability in its present condition and use because of the presence of and this gives three items. The area has a predominance of defective or inadequate sidewalks or street layout and or predominantly open or undeveloped land and because of obsolete plotting deterior ation of structures or side improvements or other factors and or faulty layout lot layout in relation to size adequ acy accessibility or usefulness and my primarily thought comes on. This is this is project specific most turds are more geographically specific as far as a an area and this is on university land which means this is the largest assumption on my part that there really can't be any commercial development immediately adjacent to it unless there's some discussion going on that I'm not aware of on university land. So help me understand the narrative I mean if you're going to somebody would ask you will tell me how does this fit into why turds you know what can be created help me understand sure well I think I think David can come up and address some some some things that are specific to creation criteria for the turds and that's what I'm looking for yes criteria yes. Please wait. Thank you very much. Mayor that is a question that I get asked every time we put together a tip sure do we meet the criteria. To be able to establish this tip and I put together because it is a complicated you read through the ordinance. That essentially is there and basically the city council has to make several determinations to create a turds one of those is that it substantially pairs or rest the sound growth of the city. Also has a predominance of defective and inadequate sidewalks or street layout the one that we hang our hat on when we're kind of doing one that's open and it's currently not developed. Is that were predominantly open or undeveloped and because of obsolete planning deterioration of structures or site improvements or other factors is kind of the key determination. I think this is the just the really the go to slide that says basically you had a taxable value is currently now zero. So you mentioned that you and he owns the land and so right now nobody is currently getting tax revenue off of this project. At what point you were that was demolished and it's currently been zero so nobody received that tax revenue. So you know the findings would be that the development would not occur it would stay predominantly open or unde veloped per the statute the section of the statute which is chapter 311 05. Without the creation of this turds and this is another determination that I threw out there that the land is currently owned by you and he which is a tax exempt entity. And it is reasonable to assume that the property would not develop unless you and he was a party to the executed development agreement which necessitates the creation of the turds. You also executed a master development agreement which basically the city agreed that the creation of the turds is appropriate and shall diligently pursue the creation of the turds with the creation of this. Then we get into our attorney general opinion and basically you'll see it's a no offense to any lawyers in here but you know the talk at both sides of their mouth basically they 're saying that you do have to make a determination. That it is unproductive and undeveloped or blighted but the city makes that in good faith exercising reasonable discretion subject to judicial review. This next bullet which I think is very interesting says such determination involves questions of fact this office is unable to make findings of fact in opinion process and we express no opinion regarding whether particularly may be designated as the chapter 311 reinvestment. Dan Morales also had an attorney general's opinion says the legislature intended to leave the state substance of the criteria to the discretion of the local governing body. So you have a lot of deference here I can tell you that I 've gone through a lot of these tips not one of them has been overturned because of a ruling that it would not occur that is a reasonable determination of the city. Thank you. Yes. So I along those lines so I guess that a challenge to our ability to create this terms would have to come from a lawsuit from where. In who has standing to be able to would just be an average citizen of the city correct. The example I like to give is Cabela's and for there's a lot of people the question about whether that was open and unproductive land so there was a taxpayer group that sued the city. Judge basically that came back and said that the council's given a lot of deference on the determination whether it is unproductive undeveloped property. So basically the case they found in favor of the city council because it's the city council that ultimately makes that decision. So there's no there's no Texas. Governmental body that has to sign off on these as appropriate or not comptroller's office doesn't doesn't say something about it I mean is anyone. Affirming are there's no tip police. I was like to say that it's a place that you're asking that question. Attorney general be quick to point out if somebody brings it to their attention whether you follow the law you did not. I think these court cases and these attorney general opinions confirm that you're following it's the discretion of the city council. To make that determination the comptroller basically provide your reports. And that's it so essentially unless there's a challenge brought up there is nobody that come in comes in and says you did it right you did it wrong. It's only if you're ever challenged to that process so go back to go back to those. Factors are what would what would qualify as a church you had that on the. On one of your first slides and this is part of the ordinance so walk us through our other two terms. In terms of what they fall under at least the second one that's the most most recent. Just so that we have something that airport compare it to therefore that the West by the airport West Park West Park would be our latest one so that would also fall under be correct. Correct and this is just a excerpt of the conditions there is a whole. List right right right see the city attorney is looking at chapter 3 1105 right now there's a number of different conditions that you need to meet we pulled out these three right here the specifically applied to this but the. Statue provides a long list of those and I can pull those up if you can get that's fine I mean I guess I guess as I'm thinking about West Park. Obviously the goal is to do something different than the goal is of this one but in terms of the conditions on the land it's not arguably dissimilar. I could argue that but I'll give you that. And currently undeveloped or at least in this case one could argue it was something was torn down blighted torn down buildings or something like that so maybe this case even more so than West Park but I think there's a case to be made out of it from the similarities that were. I wasn't asking from a legal perspective I would just want to understand from from staff and from who just got what yeah there was a question I challenge is not just not the issue club they have a big property when are area when you pull in and it's predominantly open. You can see that everything around it is developed i'm going to go back to my friend Chuck Springer when he worked for the city of Arlington we did the I 20 and Matt log Ar lington Highlands tip. You know would you question whether that's you know why you know the city council made the determination but for that tip and said that development would not occur and so this is a question that continually comes up and so it really comes down to your determination absolutely and that's why I wanted to come through there because. And quote a little bit of the attorney general that comes in there basically saying we don't make these findings a fact or opinion and really that comes back. Okay thank you you're welcome and it's not question. Anybody else. None okay that's it that's it yes. We're able to discuss tonight as well or ask questions during the public here of course yeah yeah so this is just another opportunity. Absolutely yeah thank you was that any I guess that okay all right. Okay that ends our work sessions we will move now and I'm going to go very slowly into closed session but I will wait until we get to do it yeah yeah. Okay. Good evening it is Thursday June the 17th 2014 I want to call this order to this city didn't city council meeting we do have a core my first item on the agenda is the pledge of allegiance if you would stand with me if you're able thank you. United States of America and to the Republic. One nation. And invisible. Liberty and justice for all. Honor the Texas flag. I pledge allegiance to the Texas one state under God one and invisible. Going on to agenda item number two I see no proclamations or presentations if that's correct Mr. Manager. Citizens reports and I see no citizens reports. Moving on then to agenda item number four which is the consent agenda which are items for contractual and minister ial administrative ordinances and issues so. Councilmember Gregory. I believe we're pulling item E. Yes that's correct. So I would move approval of agenda items A through Q. Leaving omitting item E. All right we have a motion councilmember Hawkins. I second. All right we have motion to second vote on the board please . Passes unanimously we will now take up agenda item E for individual consideration Mr. City Manager. I ask Mr. Quinton Hicks our director of aviation if he would come and give a brief presentation and entertain questions. Thank you Mr. Hicks. Mayor Watts members of the council I'm pleased this evening to. Present to you the staff's recommendation. To. Consider a resolution accepting a grant offer from the Texas Department of Transportation aviation division in the amount of approximately seven million dollars. To build a second runway at Denton Enterprise Airport. This is a project that many in the city have worked on over the past several years staff. Airport board even the city council has considered several aspects of this with with specific actions and this is the opportunity now. To actually move forward with this infrastructure improvement that will improve safety. Enhance service and generate additional capacity at the airport for development so we're pleased to present this resolution and. Would be pleased to answer any questions you may have about the project. Any questions. Do we do we have a chair would entertain a motion. Councilmember Hawkins. I move approval of consent agenda item E. Councilmember Engelbrecht. Second. We have a motion to second please vote on the board. Motion carries unanimously thank you. Moving on to agenda item number five items for individual consideration consideration of the use of eminent domain to condemn real property interests. So it's my understanding that. Mr. City manager. Yes I'd like to ask Lou Ann Olin if she would come and present item number eight five eight to the council for consideration. I'm going to need to read the entire caption to call the item. Thank you. This is agenda item eight five eight I.D. 14 dash 0251. Consider adoption of an ordinance finding that a public use and necessity exists to acquire through the exercise of the right of eminent domain one fee simple. To one point three nine eight acre tract to slope easement encumbering a zero point one five one acre tract for the public use of expanding and improving Mayhill Road a municipal street and roadway. Generally located in thirteen hundred block of North May hill Road each affected track located in the MEP and PR our company survey abstract number fourteen sixty nine the city of Denton Denton County Texas as more particularly described on exhibit a attached to the ordinance. And made a part thereof and it's collectively the property interests authorizing the filing and prosecution of eminent domain proceedings to acquire the property interests author izing the expenditure of funds there for. Making findings providing a savings clause and providing an effective date. This is the Mayhill widening improvement project parcel M zero two six the Habib. Track. Thank you the location map that is displaying currently loc ates the property on North Mayhill Road on the west side of Mayhill Road north of black and south of U.S. Three sixty mayor city council members before you tonight our ordinances making findings of public use and necessity also instructing staff to acquire the necessary land rights via eminent domain. Regarding parcels of land affected by the Mayhill Road widening and improvements project. All right council member Johnson. Thank you mayor I move that the city of Denton Texas author ize the use of power of eminent domain to acquire one fee simple to a one point three nine eight acre tract and to slope easement. And come bring a zero point one five one acre tract for the public use of expanding and improving Mayhill Road a municipal street and roadway generally located in the thirteen hundred block of North Mayhill Road each affected track located in the MEP and PR our company survey abstract number one four six nine city of Denton Denton County Texas as more particularly described on exhibit a to the ordinance now under consideration and on the overhead screen being now displayed to the audience for the public use of expanding. And improving Mayhill Road a municipal street and roadway in the city of Denton Texas. Council member Gregory I second item five eight. We're ready. We're ready. Let's we have motion to second. Let's vote on the board. All right motion carries unanimously. Thank you. We'll go on to agenda item five B and I will read the caption. Consider adoption of an ordinance finding that a public use of necessity exists to acquire through the exercise of the right of eminent domain one fee simple to a one point two five one acre tract and to slope easement and covering a zero point one six one acre tract for the public use of expanding and improving Mayhill Road a municipal street and roadway generally located in the twelve hundred block of North Mayhill Road. North Mayhill Road each affected tract located in an MEP and PRR company survey abstract number fourteen sixty nine city of Denton Denton County Texas as more particularly described on exhibit a attached to the ordinance and made a part thereof parentheses called the collective property interest authorizing the filing and prosecution of eminent domain proceedings to acquire the property interests author izing the expenditure of funds therefore making findings providing a savings clause and providing an effective date. This is the Mayhill Road widening and improvement project parcel M zero to nine J and J prominent square LP. Thank you Mayor. Miss Odom is also going to present this item. Thank you. The location map you see is roughly the same location only we're down just a little bit farther south on North Mayhill Road. The J and J prominent square location is south boundary line lines up roughly with flag. Mayor and City Council members before you tonight is an ordinance making findings of public use of necessity and also instructing staff to acquire the necessary land rights via eminent domain regarding parcels of land affected by the Mayhill Road widening and improvements project upon favorable motion. I'll proceed to display the effect of tracks of land on the overhead. Councilmember Gregory, thank you Mayor, I move that the city of Denton Texas authorized the use of the power of em inent domain to acquire one fee simple to a 1.251 acre track and to slope easement encumbering a 0.161 acre track for the public use of expanding and improving Mayhill Road, a municipal street and roadway generally located in the 1200 block of North Mayhill Road. Each affected track located in the MEP and PRR company survey abstract number 1469 city of Denton, Denton County, Texas, as more particularly described on exhibit a to the ordinance now under consideration and on the overhead screen being displayed to the audience for the public use of expanding and improving Mayhill Road, a municipal street and roadway in the city of Denton, Texas. Councilmember Hawkins, I second. We have a motion and a second vote on the board. Motion carries unanimously. Thank you. We'll now move on to agenda item 6A items for individual consideration. Continued consideration of ordinance of the city of Denton, Texas providing for zoning change from a downtown residential to DR2 zoning district classification and use designation to a downtown commercial general DCG zoning district classification on approximately 0.184 acres located on the south side of West Oak Street. Thank you mayor director planning development Mr. Brian Lockley will present this item for your consideration. Thank you city manager mayor members of the city council that request before you this evening is a continuation of the rezoning that was initially presented at the June 3rd meeting. This request is for a zoning change from a DR2 zone district class and use designation to a downtown commercial general zoning district classification and use designation. Just by way of background, here's the location of the property south side of West Oak Street, west of Avenue B, north of Hickory Street is outlined here in red. The zoning for the subject site as it exists today is DR2. That DR2 is consistent with the property to the west and some properties to the north. The proposed zoning is DCG is shown here outlined in black and that would also be consistent with properties to the east and to the south. The future land use designates this property and the surrounding properties as downtown University core which specifically notes that specified commercial areas of the downtown University core district should be places of great vitality. With a mix of educational, residential, retail, office service, government, cultural and entertainment development . These are just some site photos illustrate the present conditions of the site from various directions from the west, from the south, from the north and from the east. Now following this discussion at June 3rd was Council's direction for staff to meet with the applicant and determine if a mutual access agreement with the adjacent property could be reached. As you recall, there was some discussion by several council members on the pedestrian orientedness of this area and the concern really arise from the ability of that pedestrian activity to continue unimpeded by way of the number of access points that are not only proposed at this site, but also at the adjacent sites to the east and west of this property. Staff has met with the representatives from CVS and we've reached an agreement to provide access to the site from their property from Oak Street via an easement that will be recorded by a separate instrument and I've got an illustration to show you and I'll provide some more discussion shortly. The CVS property is currently in the plotting process, which is separate and apart from this rezoning process and once that easement agreement has been approved by the city, then that recording information would be provided as well as a note that joint access has been provided to that adjacent property owner to the east. CVS and staff also agree that the plat will not be recorded until that recording information from the easement agreement is included as well. The city can issue a permit to allow for the construction to begin without that planning. So essentially that's one of the checks and balances, if you will, and then providing that easement. So this is the proposed site plan and I'm going to use the mouse here to really depict or illustrate. This is the access right here. This will become the joint access for the CVS here and for the laundromat here. As you can see, there's also an access point here and there 's an access point here. The issue or the concern that arose was from the number of access points that are here along Oak Street. Its staff believe and intention that because of the spacing that's required, that this will not meet spacing from this intersection and from the location of this access point when this property is developed in the future. That easement or that access easement and mutual access will allow this property to then take access from this access point and then cut across this location in some area here. But they will also be allowed to have an access point on this side, on the east side of the property off of Avenue B . And so this is the proposed mutual access easement that was discussed with the applicant. Next on to the DIN Development Code, subject to Chapter 35 34B, a zoning amendment can be issued only when the following standards are met and that it conforms to the future element of the DIN plan and that the rezoning facil itates adequate provisions as outlined here in public convenience. That did send out notifications to the properties within 200 and 500 feet of this property and did not receive any notices affirmative or in objection to this request. Therefore, the Planning and Zoning Commission did recommend approval of this rezoning request 6-0 as did the Development Review Committee in their recommendation to the Planning and Zoning Commission. So that concludes my presentation and I'll stand for questions. Councilmember Rodin. Thank you, Mayor. Can you go back to that site plan you had showed? Maybe you'll have to refresh my memory on what it is we requested at the last meeting. I'm unclear what this fixes from the concerns we had, which was, I think from my perspective, I wasn't sure of the need for the third entry point into this CVS property. This access? Right. Okay. So in the point in which, so the shared access deal that you're talking about, currently it would cut across right next to where that current laundromat is right now. So assuming somebody redevelops that by just simply reusing an old building, the existing laundromat building, that wouldn't be a shared access point at all, would it? This, the language hasn't been drafted, but there's, this whole area here would be used or they'd have the ability to use a space, if you will, a certain number of feet from this right of way to here to provide that access to this property here. If that answers your question. I mean, what you're asking is that if they put it right here, it would just run up against the building. Right. But this is not the only location. This was just to illustrate that the easement would run from some point here all the way to the beginning or to this right of way that they'd be able to work with to maneuver and create an access. I can only understand that as a fix to a problem, assuming someone completely redevelops that property, because the only thing that would trigger them giving up their current access onto Oak Street. Correct. Would be that sort of redevelopment. If someone comes in and is just simply reusing that laund romat, which given the amount of land there might be the only option to use that space at this point moving forward, then no problem has been solved. That we were raising concerns of which is this is a high pedestrian area. CVS has plenty of access through the two drives that they have there. Why do they need this third one coming on from Oak Street, which was my concern to begin with. And so short of a complete redevelopment. Am I right in that? That none of these other fixes would be triggered because they wouldn't have to change those curb cuts at all if someone just reinvigorated that old building. In the scenario you proposed, that would be an option, yes, that they would not have to. Okay. So maybe I can hear from other council members as we move forward on this as to how they think this fixes the problem . But thank you. I've got a question. Help me understand, is this little sliver that is this site that's being the subject of the rezoning, is that necessary for the development of the store to proceed? In other words , is this satisfying any landscape requirements? Is it satisfying? I mean, I don't think it's satisfying any access requirements because that's already been met. So what is this specifically being sought for the sole purpose of that additional drive? For the additional open space and for the drive. The drive is more a convenience for the applicant, but the open space is what's the requirement, what's being met by this rezoning of this area. Okay, I guess I'm not. So what you're saying is there's some open space requirements subject to the DCG zoning that's south of it. That's south. Yes. That without this piece of land, that some requirement is not being met. That's correct. And it's the open space requirement. The open space, yes. And so if there's concrete there that that is also considered open space. When you say the open space requirement isn't being met without this piece of land, if the drive is there, that still is satisfying the open space requirement? With the amount that they provided here, yes. Okay. They can meet that open space with the landscaping they provided here with that access point. So without the rezoning, they don't meet the requirements and so what's the consequence of that? We can't somehow give them the, that can't meet the open space requirements if it's not rezoned, if it's their property? According to that plan, and I'll defer to them, but it was my understanding that they wanted this access, that this access was that important for them to develop this site. Okay, well that, I appreciate that. I guess the thrust of my question is from city staff perspective, okay, regardless of the driveway and y'all's recommendation and all that, that if this doesn't get rez oned, does that development south of it still able to proceed because even though it's DR2, they still own it, does it meet the open space requirements? Does it satisfy those? I wanted to come back in earlier to another question and answer, which you asked Mayor about, why is this little lot being rezoned? Sure. The reason why it needs to be rezoned is currently it's DR2 . Okay. Now, the driveway is not serving a primary, the driveway is a secondary or an accessory use. It's not serving a primary use on that lot. It's serving the CVS pharmacy on a different lot that's appropriately zoned. In order for the driveway to be able to provide access to CVS pharmacy, it needs to be rezoned to a similar zoning to allow that. Otherwise, it would be, there's not a primary use in the DR 2 lot. Okay. And so that's a zoning requirement that we have. Sure. There must be a primary use and there isn't on that lot. So maybe I must not be communicating very clearly. Let's say, for instance, it doesn't get rezoned. Right. So that's stopped the development. No. Okay. All right. And as far as the open space requirements, they may have to reconfigure their existing lot to be able to meet the open space requirements that Mr. Lockley was referring to. Okay. But if it doesn't have a driveway on it, but it gets rez oned, it still meets it. It still meets the open space requirements. Without it being rezoned, yes. Yes. Without it, with the landscape that they have here, without it having any access to it, yes, they can still develop it. Okay. And was this the hardship variance that was sought at zoning? This particular, was this sought under a hardship variance? The access was sought under hardship variance, yes. Okay. All right. Okay. Councilmember Gregory. Well, regarding the open space, you said that the development might go forward without that access point. On Oak Street. But that they might have to do some reconfiguring of the other lots in order to meet the open space requirement. Yet, they might also have a problem then with meeting the parking requirements of our code. I'm wondering, are we able to, through a variance, waive the additional parking requirement or waive the additional open space requirement? The parking number variance is probably more suitable for the variance because of the Zoning Board of Adjustments' ability to waive that number. In the past, when we've looked at different options, I mean , it's either a, they can vary either option. They can vary the open space or they can vary the number of parking spaces. But it would have to go to the Board of Adjustment for that request. Hi. We're not in a public hearing, are we? No, we're not. Would it be appropriate for me to respond to Councilmember Rodin's comment or question? I mean, is now the time or is it another time? Sure. I think I hear what you're saying about your concern about that use. It seems to be not the highest and best use for that particular lot. I went over there because I was kind of curious about the number of curb cuts that there are right now. And we thought that there were six in our discussion at our last meeting there. By my count, there's five. And that particular lot opening on Oak Street has a curb cut for a driveway. There was some structure there and there was a curb cut. And I suspect if something else is built there, there will still be a curb cut. So not changing the zoning is not going to reduce that curb cut. If there is a provision that there is a possible mutual access point in case a different developer wants to develop the old cleaners, then there's that possibility. My concern was more about creating a site that was unde velopable by doing this. It seems like maybe that we've satisfied that. We've reduced the number of curb cuts. It would be nice to reduce them more. But I'm not sure how anything that we do here tonight is going to actually reduce the total number. I may be missing something and I'd be open to hearing if there was another way to do that. Councilmember Johnson. Thank you, Mayor. So what we were talking about on the concern about the curb cut, if I remember right from last time, is the westbound traffic on Oak because it's a one way. Right. Yes. So I think staff recommended approval, planning and zoning recommended approval. Would it be reasonable? If what we're talking about here is that staff's opinion, we're talking about traffic that is eastbound or westbound on Oak having access to the CVS. Right. Yes. Well, if you're westbound on C on Oak and you're going to CVS, you're going to do one of two things. You're going to turn south onto Avenue B or you're going to turn south into the driveway after you pass Avenue B. Correct. Correct. And by the way, you're going to have a westbound car turning southbound. So to me, in terms of protecting pedestrians, I don't know that not allowing the curb cut on Oak really makes a difference because it's the same car traveling the same way , making the same turn. The question is, does he turn on B or does he turn after he passes B? And my comment from the last meeting was it seemed to me if you look at how pedestrian traffic moves around the university to the north, they walk along the streets. So personally, I would rather have a car go past Avenue B and turn into a driveway than to turn on Avenue B and then make an immediate right turn into a parking lot because Avenue B seems to me where the most logical place to walk would be if I was traveling north from the campus. So if our reasoning is protecting pedestrians, I would almost rather see the curb cut on Oak than not see it because that seems to me like just a recipe for bigger problem if a car turns south on B and an immediate right into a parking lot where students are most likely to be walking. Councilmember Rohn cannot recognize Hawkinson. Yes. Okay. Councilmember Hawkinson. Thank you, Mayor. Are they planning on, well, maybe this is for the applicant , putting some sort of signage on that curb cut west on Oak where they're not able to do that on Avenue B, maybe that's why they're wanting to keep that curb cut. I'm not aware of anything beyond maybe an entrance. Okay. That's all I had for now. Thank you. Councilmember Rohn. I want to talk a bit because I followed this through P and Z and prior to the zoning change, this came through as a hardship variance. That as I understand it, your staff or the DRC staff recommended it not be approved. Correct. We did planning and zoning, approved it despite that recommendation. And now we're back because you tied one of the conditions to approval of that variance to a zoning change. So we're stuck looking at the zoning change but can't undo the hardship variance that got us into this thing to begin with, which you guys recommend not approval initially. That's correct. So let's start from that point just to help us understand kind of that to now. Why did you all recommend not approving that hardship variance and has your position changed on that particular point to where we are today? The staff, the DRC did recommend denial initially on this request for some of the reasons that have already been stated. The number of access points, the pedestrian and vehicular interaction and we felt initially that the access off of Avenue B as well as the access off of Hickory Street was adequate to serve this property. When we got to planning and zoning commission and we made our recommendation and presented our position that PNZ didn 't agree with, they recommended approval, which at least in my mind meant that they could have that access point. Going forward or coming to now City Council to make the presentation on this rezoning understanding that that access point was already approved by planning and zoning commission through a different process by a different body. Essentially we were looking at it from the standpoint then that okay now this is a rezoning. This is from a land use. We're looking at this from a land use perspective that these land uses are consistent with the other land uses. Let's look at the access point but understand that essentially that horse has already left the barn. We've gone beyond that now. In that I think that's the concern you heard from us last time or some of us at least and that's the concern I continue to have is that ultimately I agree with your first initial recommendation to deny that hardship variance and ultimately disagree with the PNZ's recommendation. So we're stuck with a rezoning that doesn't allow us to undo what got us into this situation to begin with which is odd being from the perspective of City Council that we can 't undo that. My understanding is this is a big policy issue relating to as we get new development we want to get the type of amenities for pedestrians that we want ultimately on a project that's going to be in there for 30 plus years. And the layout is going to be as such and I also don't think it encourages any great development on that other very important corner because of them wanting to take that sliver out. I don't know what you do with that laundromat at that point . I have serious concerns about this is a really important part of our city and it could be something really great. And so that's what I continue to struggle with. So to get to Dalton's question or statement rebuttal of my statement, he had mentioned it will be there anyways whether we approve this or not. You had mentioned if we don't approve the rezoning or at least Mr. Liao that they then would be unable to use it even though it exists. So they what happens in that scenario. So technically they can't use it, but it still exists. Say some wayward student found it and started coming up through it anyways. I don't know what he's violating at that point. What happens practically to that spot if this zoning request is denied, but yet that access still exists. Would you guys require them to cut it off at some point? Well, that condition exists in a number of places throughout the city where you've got properties that were once developed that are now undeveloped. Those parcels have been sold off and what's left is an access point or there were more access points approved because our standards have now changed because of the increase in pedestrian activity. And typically what happens is when a development comes in, what we'll do is we'll look at the number of access points, determine how many are necessary to serve that development and require the development to then close off the other access points. Since there's no development on this property, one of two things would happen. We could either wait until it's developed. But at that point, this is the only access points that serve in this property. So we have to provide access, so that would remain. Or the city could take the steps of saying, okay, what we could do is through some street project, we could go through and close off the access points. But then when that property developed, determine if a direct access from that property is required or determine if they can take access from an adjoining property. But that's usually part of a much larger development because this is almost just a remnant of a piece of property that's left over. Them developing it without an access point is going to be very difficult. So it's in my opinion, it's either going to occur from this development or it's going to occur when at some point in time in the future when it's developed by another party. Right. Thanks. Councilmember Engelbrecht. Thank you, Mayor. The Laundry Lot, there is an ingress/egress, is there not, off of Avenue B? There is. Okay. I don't understand why, it seems why you couldn't require them to close that curb cut on Oak prior to issuing a CO. Seems to me we've done that in the past on other roadways. It wasn't required that there be complete redevelopment. One business goes away, another one wants to come in, then we start cutting down the curb cuts. As I understood it, we did that all along University Drive where they had universal curb cuts from one end of University Drive to the other. When a new occupant came in, in order to get a CO, some of the virtually unlimited driveway had to be given up. So in this case, even if they retain that current building, someone comes in there and wants to use it, in order to get a CO, we could require that they close that Oak Street access, could we not? Well, we could, but it's not quite as simple as just requiring them to close it. We would have to determine whether or not the amount of traffic being generated by the use warranted those access points. The CO typically requires that you take access from the lesser of those two streets. So there is an argument to be made for closing that one off . But whether, I think that Oak Street is probably the more travel street than Avenue B, so the lesser street in this example would be Avenue B, so I understand where you're going. With that, the likelihood of that happening, yes, we would have that conversation. In addition to that, they would have the other access point off of the curb cutting question tonight. Correct. So they would still have two access points. Correct, yes. Right, just only one egress, but they would have two ing ress points. And there's also another consideration I just want to be sure that the council is mindful of, is that the spacing is also not just from access points, from the location of existing access points, it's also from the intersection. Right. I mean, we also, we do want to create a safe condition so that folks are not exiting so close to the intersection. Right, right. I understand that. In that case, they're about equal distance from the intersection. Just about. And actually, if you close the one on Oak and move them up to the next one that we're talking about tonight, you're further away from the intersection. That's correct. Okay. Thank you. I've got a, it's my understanding this is an item for individual consideration, and we don't have any cards to speak of, and that we can ask the applicant questions, but as far as the applicant having just a time to address the council sort of, is that something that's not available at this point? I think if the council wants to hear from the applicant, you can, with the consent of the council, you can certainly ask them to come forward and ask whatever questions you want answered. Because I do have a question. My concern is this. This was brought under a hardship variance at planning and zoning, is my understanding. Before there was even the rezoning of the primary property. And, which is fine. I mean, I've read the backup. I've read some of the PNZ minutes about this. Well, when the applicant was here, and I'm going to ask the applicant this question, because Councilmember Rodin, there are ways to undo it. There are basically two primary ways. One is you deny the rezoning, and the condition goes away. And the second one is that the applicant voluntarily rel inquishes that access point. And so my concern is I really take them at their word when asked why do you need this, it was, well, if somebody passes Avenue B, then they have an option to turn in right there. Well, so I was driving down Oak Street just not for that reason, but I just happened to look around and there was the 7-Eleven, and I'm sure the CVS was not there. In fact, none of the buildings were there. I believe they've all been torn down. Yes. So I can imagine a pretty large building there. My concern is if you pass Avenue B wanting to go to CVS, and by the time you notice it, you're almost going to be too far down the road to really turn into that. And so the argument was we don't want them to make the block, circle the block. I don't see this as a hard -- I don't see this really from a hardship perspective. It's certainly something that I think that would be -- I certainly don't blame the developer for asking this. So my question to the applicant, and I do have a question for the applicant, is is this -- I mean, if this rezoning doesn't occur, does that mean the development goes away? That's the question I have. So whoever's -- yeah, wanting to answer that. Good evening, members of the council. I'm Richard Hayes, 512 West Hickory, Suite 100 in Texas 76 201, and I'm here tonight representing CVS. And we do appreciate the opportunity to address council. If I could just step back for a minute to look at big picture, and then I'll get very specific to your question. Sure. So we have four tracks. Three of the tracks are zoned. The DCG, this track is zoned, the DCR. The DCR track previously had two fourplexes on it. One of those fourplexes has been torn down a number of years ago because it was such poor repair. And then most recently, the other one was in pretty bad repair also, and it's also been taken down. Where you see the proposed driveway now is essentially the exact same place that the driveway was for the fourplex. And I think it is important to understand the dimensions of this lot. So if you could follow me, if we backed up to the earlier green slide, I'm not sure if I know how to do that. But if you would just follow me here, you start at Oak Street on the east boundary of the property. And if that's -- you can see the dash line. That dash line is going to go all the way down to that little tree-looking gizmo right there. You know, you're going to pass the corner. Okay. And if you go to my western boundary line and if you come all the way down where it hits and it takes a 9-degree turn , that's the boundary. It comes back down 165 feet. And then if you took a right and went over to the west -- that's helpful. This dimension here is 165 feet. That lot comes over to here and then comes back up. What was originally proposed to the city was that this be used for driveway and for parking. Staff suggested, why don't we make this a pedestrian- friendly area? Let's make very large sidewalks. Let's make green space, a place where bicycles could even park. There's going to be also bicycle parking over here. And just -- and as a consequence, you'll have to apply for a variance on your parking requirements because you will lose the parking here. That decision was made to move forward on staff's recommendation to make that a landscape area. Now, if you think again of the dimensions, this area right down here has that same zoning. I think a lot of people think, well, the zoning stops right here. It comes all the way down. As you can see, it would interfere with the circulation because you've got parking here. You've got parking here. If you had to put, let's say, a wall right here, then you 've ruined the circulation. The traffic engineers have really stated this. And their point is this is -- even though it may seem small , it is critical. This is not a big giant piece of land. It's relatively small. The reason the hardship variance was granted, if you'll recall, this is a very historically-platted area. Most of the lots are very small, like this one, 50 feet wide. I live on Oak Street. My house is bigger than most, 113 feet is all. The spacing requirements were 150 feet from the corner and 150 feet from driveway to driveway. Well, you can't do it when your lots are smaller than 150 feet. The laundromat next door is only 97 feet in width. So you -- there's no way you could get over here -- with this being 50 feet in width, there's no way that you could meet the theory of the spacing requirements. Now, those spacing requirements work real well on a new street, like a Teasley Lane. Or if you were going down Lillian Miller, where you've got a new street, a smaller historically-platted area that's been there over 100 years, those lots just weren't the size that we see of today's lots. So the point is that the prior usage of this 50-foot strip of land allowed a parking -- allowed a parking. Whether you rezone or not, someone's going to still have to access their property, you know, in the future to move forward. So what we're here today is to request that the 50-foot Oak Street lot be rezoned and allow the usage by CVS. Now, the current zoning, DR2, allows the 160-foot -- 165- foot strip of land to be used for driveways, for retail buildings. But it puts a max size of only 5,000 square feet. Well, the pharmacy is 13,000 square feet. So when that was discovered, I believe in February, originally staff's thinking was that no zoning change was going to be required. But once, as the project, I guess, unfolded, staff came to the conclusion that, no, you need to go rezone that, and we will support rezoning it because we can see how important that is. So this is the area, guys, that is absolutely critical, you know, to the project from the circulation point of view. Now, in regards to pedestrian issues, if you'll visualize Oak Street, there is not really a sidewalk along the south side here. When you get next door, you've got that apartment complex, the cars head in park, and there's no real pedestrian- friendly area there. What the city has done and its wisdom is, on the north side of Oak Street, there's a bike lane. And that's where most of the pedestrian traffic is flowing, and there's a sidewalk up there on the north side of Oak Street. When the traffic engineers looked at this, as you know, there were four current businesses or four uses. You had the Fourplex, the Sukkotai, the old fire station, and then the Treehouse Restaurant. The amount of traffic increase was minimal as far as true traffic increase because they do believe this is going to be -- because it's in the University of North Texas or in there's a lot of pedestrians out there. There was no change in the rating of Oak Street because of this CVS with the amount of trips per day. So their conclusion in their traffic report, there were no safety issues. This is a great neighborhood asset. It's in the heart of that UNT commercial district. It continues the revitalization of the Oak Street/Hickory/ UNT area. As you saw maybe in your backup, there was a neighborhood meeting. It was very lightly attended, I will tell you. We had two people. And -- but very positive. The only comment that came out of the neighborhood meeting was on the northern -- excuse me, on the western boundary. It would be a good idea to have fencing along there between it and the apartment complex. Mr. Hayes, if I could, as far as the -- I mean, I certainly appreciate you pointing out that that property does extend down into that sort of circulation pattern of CVS, which I totally understand that. But the thrust of my question was is the driveway critically necessary to the project? CVS believes it is. It's one of the reasons they hired the traffic engineer. They build these around the country. They're building about 30 stores a year. They studied ingress and egress with great thoroughness. And that was very important to them, or they wouldn't have bought it. But not only was it important for ingress/egress, it was important for the landscaping requirements. It was important for the circulation requirements. And I totally get that, that this rezoning -- and I really do appreciate -- because honestly, I think part of me assumed that that lot stopped at that property line where the parking lot was. So I appreciate you pointing out that the reason why they would have to redo their building or their site plan if it didn't get rezoned is because of it extending down into that circulation area. But I struggle with the driveway being there, honestly, because I already have two additional areas, and you've got just a left-hand turn lane only. And I struggle with the rationale that was given as far as that, well, it just provides an opportunity if somebody passes that they don't have to make the block and turn in. So that's really my concern. I understand it needs to be rezoned for a lot of different reasons other than the driveway. I mean, it sounds like there's reasons that are more critical than the driveway issue. And so that's really my concern. I mean, I don't have a problem with the rezoning. The problem I have is with that drive cut there, with them having that left-hand turn lane when they have two accesses . Or, as Mr. Johnson pointed out, maybe, I mean, what if somehow we close the avenue? To have three points into there, I struggle with. I don't struggle with the zoning. And I don't struggle with CVS. I struggle with it being contingent upon that, that if we pass the rezoning because of the process that has occurred in the past with P&Z, because they probably bought the property prior to even seeking the hardship variance. I mean, I think the property was bought probably long before then. That's true. So I struggle with that. And your points are very well taken as far as why they need it for the circulation within the main site. It's that vehicular ingress that I struggle with. And I don't know if -- Well, I guess the other point I would make there, Mayor, is since these were four tracks that were assembled, there are five. Councilman Greger was correct. There are five ingress and egress driveways right now. When you get through this project, there's only three. So two of those have been eliminated. So from a transportation goal, that's what I'm hearing you are talking about, that is a greatly improved situation than what you have right now. If they stayed as the five -- or the four individual lots and those driveways stayed in place, you'd have a very different circumstance. The other thing is with five driveways right now, you've got in and out. So you've got ten, really, five ingress, five egress. When you get through on this, not only are you down to three driveways, you've reduced the number of ingress, e gress to just five. So that is greatly improved. I guess if there's nothing on there, if everything's been torn down, people -- I mean, there's really no -- whatever happens with these lots now since the property's been torn down, that's all going to have to get fixed anyway. I mean, the ingress, egress will get cleared up simply because all the properties have been torn down that had the prior existing uses. And so that's my only concern. And I appreciate -- it looks like we have some other questions for you. That's really all my concern was is how do we -- we don't really have any way to address our concerns with the ing ress, egress, other than the crazy way of denying the zoning , which I don't necessarily have a desire to do that. It's how do we address this issue that we're concerned with without taking those drastic measures based upon what has been done in the past. Well, your ordinances provide, I guess, a process for a landowner to work its way through the process on the hardship variance. I believe it was well established at the PNZ meeting and why it was passed. So I guess I heard the expression earlier, maybe that cows are out of the barn or whatever. Yes, sir. But that's the process the city has. If you're struggling with that, what I would suggest is build in an appellate remedy, I guess, in your ordinances if you think it's -- if this is a recurring problem that happens all the time. Maybe you get one here that you scratch your head on. But tonight we're here for land use and we're -- the site development issues really are a staff and a PNZ issue more than a land use issue. Sure. Okay. All right. Councilmember Roden. Thank you for your presentation. It's helpful. I have a hypothetical question for you, Mr. Hayes, and then a question to follow up with the staff on some of the things that you brought up, which I think are important to dig into very quickly. If the parking requirements were less stringent in this particular area, say, similar to what you see in the downtown area, would a CVS -- because I've seen CVSs in very urban environments. You've talked about how often they do this thing and so they kind of have a sense of what they need. But I've seen them in places in downtowns where there's no parking. They're just dependent on pedestrians or whoever else is kind of going by there. Could they have done with, hypothetically, if the parking requirements didn't require so, just to be able to cut that block in half and just do with what they did? I don't think so because with the green space requirements and the landscaping requirements and the open space that they have, you know, the ratios the city requires, that doesn't work. It doesn't work if you cut it off where Mayor Watts was thinking the boundary line was. Or even closer to the south. Yeah, I mean, I see -- it just doesn't work. That is, if we try to meet all the requirements that the city has in regards to green space, we have to have that additional land. So in that land provides what the city wants and not only in green space but in the amount of landscaping that the owner would provide to the project. Thank you. And if I could ask Brian a couple follow-up questions along those lines. Okay. Thank you. Any specific engineering questions? Michael Doggett is here from -- and Winkleman Associates and Tom Semmerly is here from the DeShazer Group on the traffic issues and the traffic study. We appreciate it and would ask you to approve the rezoning. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Hayes. Brian, it occurred -- to follow up with that, it occurs to me that we need to look at kind of our requirements here. Because I don't know how we encourage good urban development here if we need C's of parking lot for every building this size in that area. So something we need to think about looking forward. But he pointed out this little spot when he kind of outlined what this property was. As Aaron was talking about, you can't use -- yeah, you can 't use the driveway if this is not approved. But to Mr. Hayes' point of just the circulation possibilities, does -- do they require a zoning change in order for them to use that spot just in terms of circulating traffic in their parking lot, even if they're not using that as an entry point into the property? Yeah, I was a little confused by that statement as well. Because I think the circulation is just based on what CVS would like to see on their property. You can -- you have circulation on the property without that access because you have access on both ends of the property. So in terms of circulation, you're looking for access, the efficient circulation of the property internally and having the ability to enter and exit efficiently. So this property where they're showing this access point, I think to his point, I think it would -- he's stating that it does operate more efficiently with that. But it's not that it operates ineffectively without that. So you wouldn't require, as he was speculating, some sort of L-shaped wall that met the boundaries of the southern and eastern side of that little 50-foot strip. He seemed to be indicating that you guys would create some sort of boundary that wouldn't allow traffic to circulate to make that parking lot work the way they need it to work without this zoning change. And I think what I'm hearing you say is you guys wouldn't necessarily require that L-shaped wall, and they could still utilize that for traffic circulation? Even without the zoning. Even without the zoning. Without the zoning. Yeah, without the zoning. What this is primarily, from a staff perspective, what this area is being used primarily for -- and I'm just going to highlight this lot again -- is for the tree canopy in the open space. Okay. If the access was not taken from this site, it was just treed, landscaped, as Mayor Watz questioned, alluded to earlier, could that property still be used to meet that requirement on this lot? And the answer is yes. For it to be used as access, I think it's just added for its bonus, which was approved by P&Z. So at that point, you meet the requirements, it's just a matter of how the property is then going to circulate internally from Avenue B and from Hickory Street, if that answers your question. Yep. Thank you. Councilmember Johnson. So, Brian, if these properties remain zoned as they are today, and there's no driveway, but they want to build the development just as it is today without the driveway. So the parking lot is now built over on the DR2 lot, right, or whatever the zoning is. Right. Because you're talking about that circulation, right ? So that is part of their parking lot. Now when you say part of the parking lot, I mean, is it being used for parking? Or is it just being used for access? Well, I guess what I'm getting at is you have two properties that have different zoning. Correct. That are, that's going to have a building and a parking lot built on it. The parking lot is going to encompass both lots. That circulation area that, you know, remember how Mr. Hay es was drawing where the lot boundaries are, right? Correct. So you've got circulation that goes westbound from the rows of parking, then south around to the other parking. My question is, if it's not rezoned, can they build it just like that but not have the curb cut opening at the top? Because you've got two different zoned properties with one development on it. If it's being used for the parking or used for this property, and I don't believe that the parking is a part of this lot, okay? Well, just circulation or whatever you want to call it. It just seems to me like it's one. Yeah, but if you look at this illustration, and I wish I could, let me see if I can. I'm just trying to figure out a minute. If we say you can't rezone it. But here's my question, Brian. If we say you can't rezone it. Okay. So they could have a seamless concrete lot. Let's just call it a lot. A lot, yes. Parking's on part of it, circulation's on the other part. What you're saying is they could leave it current zoning, build this thing just like it is and not have a driveway. That's correct. Okay. Okay. It's not taking access or doing anything and it's meeting the open space and canopy requirements. Okay, I just want to make sure for my own clarification. I heard your answer. But I just want to try to get a really definitive statement on that with the current zoning, they can meet the open space requirements, landscape requirements, and circulation period. But to get the access, that's really where the rezoning requirement is coming in. That's where the rezoning requirement is coming in. Okay. All right. Thank you. Any more questions before I call on Councilmember Engelbre cht? Any more questions? Seeing none, Councilmember Engelbrecht. Thank you. Thank you, Mayor. Well, I'm going to make a motion to approve. If in fact you allow, if you have joint access on this new strip and you can close off the other access to the laundry lot on Oak Street, you in essence reduce five to four. And still everyone can get around. And you have moved the access point on Oak Street, let's just assume for a moment, to the laundry lot further to the west, which moves it further away from the intersection. So I see this as a positive and addition, I just want to, this little piece of side I want to thank CVS for. I know that they, the staff, when staff approached them about moving their building around and bringing it up to the curb and making it more of an urban look, they were willing to do that. And I appreciate the work that's been done here by all parties involved. Thank you. Councilmember Johnson. Thank you, Mayor. I want to second Mayor Pro Tem Engelbrecht's comments about CVS. You know, we asked some questions last time. We talked about would they be willing to share the access in an effort to be able to close the future curb cut. You know, in short order, they went back and worked with staff and agreed to provide that shared access. I think they've been a good, I think they've been a good partner to the city and certainly do quality developments and have worked with us here. And I think we're achieving a reduction in overall curb cuts, which I think is the goal. So I want to thank them for that. And I want to second the motion. All right. We have a motion and second. Any question or discussion? Let's vote on the board. Motion carries five to two. Thank you, gentlemen. Agenda item number six be considered option of an ordinance of the city of Denton, Texas, approving an amendment to an economic development program grant agreement dated August 16th, 2011 between the city of Denton and GTM development. Thank you, Maryam. I ask Amy Bissett, our director of economic development, if she would present this item for your consideration. Thank you, Mayor and city council members. What you are considering tonight is the adoption of an ordinance that amends an existing program grant agreement between the city of Denton and Golden Triangle Mall. This program grant agreement is a chapter three 80 grant that currently exists. That's a 50 percent rebate on sales tax revenue. That's new sales tax revenue generated after the base year with which this agreement was made. The grant is currently structured such that in order for them to qualify and receive the incentive, they have to have invested 60 million dollars by October 1, 2014, with a caveat that it could be 45 to 60 million with a minimum of 45. And in that instance, they'd be eligible to receive an incentive in the amount of up to nine and a half million dollars over the life of the rebate. They're requesting actually they requested a two year extension from October 1, 2014 to October 1, 2016. That request was heard by the economic development partnership board and their recommendation to city council is a one year extension to October 1st, 2015. I do have the Golden Triangle Mall representatives here with me to to speak briefly at with your permission. Any questions. We do have a couple of cards. This is an item of individual consideration, so we have some blue cards. Jim Greenfield, if you would come down and state your name and address. My name is Jim Greenfield and Golden Triangle Mall is located at 2201 South I-35. And primarily, I want to thank Mayor Watts, the current council, as well as the past council for all the support and help they've given GTM development in the renovation of the mall. And we appreciate your consideration. During the past several years, we've added new entrances to the property. Five, seven, excuse me, new tenants have come into the mall bringing new businesses. They're new to Denton. We've also had five tenants who redeveloped their stores and renewed their stores. And we hope to keep going forward that progress. All right. Thank you for your consideration. Any questions. All right. Council member Hawkins. Yeah, I move approval of item 6B. Council member Gregory. Second. And we did have one more card, but was told Matt Luterman. I was told that you're okay. All right. All right. We have a motion and a second. Let's vote on the board, please. Motion carries unanimously. Thank you. Thank you. Agenda item 7A is a public hearing. Hold a public hearing. Consider adoption of an ordinance designating and describing the boundaries of a tax increment reinvestment zone. I'm sorry. I missed one. It's really one small one down there. We're going back. Item for individual consideration. 6C. Consider appointing a nominating committee to recommend appointees to serve on the Economic Development Partnership Board. Sorry about that. I'm going to ask Mr. Bissett to also present this item. Thank you. The item you're considering tonight is appointing a nom inating committee to identify new members of the Economic Development Partnership Board. This nominating committee is made up of two city council members and one Chamber of Commerce member. The Chamber of Commerce has recommended Marty Rivers for your consideration for their representative on this nom inating committee. The nominating committee is charged with identifying potential members to serve on the board and making sure that they are comfortable with that role and then bringing that forward to city council at a future date. All right. Thank you. Council members. Council member Roden. Just a point of clarification. Last time when we discussed this in the context of our council committee discussion a couple weeks ago, there was a question as to my colleague Johnson's status and he has previously served as a representative of the chamber. And there was a question of whether or not he could continue in that capacity as a representative of chamber and still be able to have two council members even though he exists as a council member that he put on a different hat in that capacity. Do we have any ruling on that at this point? I did not find anything that would prohibit that there is a requirement that there be two council members sitting as council members. But if this existing current council member who was seated before continues until he rolls off, I don't think that's going to be a problem. Thank you. Okay, council members. I think we've got to have some nominations for the committee nominating committee, do we have. We have to have two council members. All right, we have a motion. Council member Gregory. So we're just not sitting here doing nothing. I would move Marty rivers with his permission, Mayor pro tem Engelbrecht to serve on the nominating committee and with your permission, Council Member Ryan to serve on the nominating committee. Okay, we have a motion. Is that okay with you guys. Do we need a second for that motion. Madam City Attorney. Okay. Council member Hawkins, I second. We have a motion and a second for the nominating committee. I'll let's vote on the board. Approve seven zero. Thank you. Now we'll go to the public hearing agenda item seven eight hold a public hearing consider adoption of an ordinance designating and describing the boundaries of attacks increment reinvestment zone three, city of ninton, Texas. Thank you, Mayor, Miss business is also going to present this item I think. Mayor and city council members, the item you're considering this evening is an ordinance creating attacks increment reinvestment zone for the proposed hotel and Convention Center project. This zone is one step in a feasibility period that was kicked off in December of 2013 when the city council approved a master development agreement between the city of Denton and O'Reilly and the University of North Texas who are the three partners in this in this project. I would just like to start by saying that creating the tax increment reinvestment zone for this project does not necessarily make it inevitable that this project will move forward. That is one step in a feasibility period that includes a variety of other steps, including architectural design drawings and going out for construction bids and having all parties look at the financial feasibility of this project. In order to determine the financial feasibility of the project, we would need to know whether or not a TURS would exist and what the participating entities would look like. And so this is one step in that process. I do also want to step back and just say that a TURS is a tax increment reinvestment zone. It's an economic development tool that is utilized to help fund economic development projects. The basics of how it works is you basically draw a boundary around an area where you would like to incentivize development. And then as the property taxes rise in that boundary only, that money gets set aside to be reinvested inside the zone. We've got two existing TURS in the city of Denton already, the downtown area and our industrial park out by the airport. This does not impact property taxes or other taxes for citizens in general. It is the burden of only those that are inside of the zone. I'd like to introduce David Pettit, who has put together our project plan and finance plan for the TURS itself. Identifying or creating a project plan and finance plan is a necessary step in the creation of the TURS, and he will go through the details of that with you. [Pause] You may need a minute to round up a presentation. Okay. [Pause] [Pause] Thank you all very much. Technology working at its finest. It's always something with a PowerPoint. My name is -- thank you, Amy, and thank you, Mayor and members of the City Council. I want to walk you through the steps that we took putting together the tax increment reinvestment zone number three, the proposed tax increment reinvestment zone number three for the city of Denton. The proposed city of Denton, TURS number three, is approximately 13 acres. It's located near the intersection of Interstate 35 and North Texas Boulevard. The purpose of the TURS is to facilitate the development of a full service hotel and fund a convention center. The process that we're going through tonight is we're having a public hearing and then consideration of an ordinance. The tax increment reinvestment zone creation ordinance establishes a number of different things. The boundary, the term, the city participation rate, the T URS board makeup, and a preliminary project and financing plan. After that TURS creation ordinance is approved, the preliminary project and financing plan is separately considered by the TURS board by resolution and then comes back to City Council as a separate ordinance for consideration. So it's preliminary at this time. We're really just talking about boundary terms, city participation rate, TURS board makeup. The land used to be developed is currently vacant, unde veloped land owned by the University of North Texas. The anticipated development, this is a rendering of the proposed development, it includes 318 hotel rooms, a restaurant of approximately 7,500 square feet. It will have food and beverage throughout the entire hotel and also the convention center space of 97,000 square feet. We conducted a taxable value analysis and we examined comparable taxable values, taxing jurisdiction participation rates, what we assumed. And that's why Amy made a very good point was we need to go into this process and have those discussions with the individual taxing jurisdictions to determine what those will be. We plugged in some assumptions at this point and they are just that, assumptions. We also looked at a TURS term and the anticipated revenues to the TURS. The current year taxable value is zero on this property. It 's currently tax exempt. Looking at a number of different comparable values, we felt very comfortable with $100,000 per room. There's a number of different ways that you can look at tax able value. There's income approach, cost approach, and for appraisal purposes, the comparable approach is the best approach when looking at a tax increment reinvestment zone. And we also anticipate that there would be a 15% educational credit. So that brings us to a $85,000 per room anticipated taxable value bringing on $27 million with the first year of tax revenue coming in 2017. Now that first year of revenue, it will take several years to stabilize, so it would most likely be 2019 before it becomes 100% of its full value. We also in this financial analysis looked at the city of Denton contributing 100% of its incremental real property tax revenue. Denton County contributing 75% of its real property and potential Denton ISD on their debt service, the INS side, not their maintenance and operations side, but their INS side, 75% of the incremental real property tax revenue to the project. Currently, if you look at your overall tax rates in the city of Denton, it comes to $2.50 with these anticipated participation rates. We are looking at an assumed rate to go into the TIF of $1. 27. Looking at, we anticipate having this term to mirror the anticipated debt for the certificates of obligation for the hotel convention center, for the convention center space. So because of the first five years, we won't have any revenue. We go ahead and we looked at a 30-year period to capture the revenues. If you look at all the anticipated new tax revenue generated during the life of the TURS, that's approximately $27 million. That's real and personal. There are other revenues that will be coming into the project that we didn't look at. That includes hotel occupancy tax and sales tax. And if you look at the amount of participation from those taxing jurisdictions, that comes to $13,673,693 just in real property. So we took that output and the project cost, which is a component of the project and financing plan, all that money would be going towards repaying that portion for the convention space, the 97,000 square feet of convention space. I want to make this clear that the TURS revenue represents current assumptions, and that's why this is the preliminary project in financing plan. This is current assumptions of the project build out and taxing jurisdiction participation. So if the development is, if less development is delivered, let's say 200 rooms versus 318 or other taxing jurisdiction participation is less, then the TURS revenue will be less. The next steps, of course, we're in the public hearing phase tonight and then also moving towards potential consideration of the TURS creation ordinance. Once that has been completed, the city council will be asked to appoint the TIF board and that project and financing plan, the preliminary, would go to the TURS board for discussion and approval. And then back to the city council for approval under a separate ordinance. At that time, we have the plan in place that we can actually go talk to Denton County in the independent school district to talk about their potential potential participation. And once we're able to get to an agreement there, we would bring back those participation agreements to city council. And then you're in the TIF business and we anticipate having one TIF board meeting, which would be simply to just dedicate this revenue back to the city to repay that debt on the debt for the certificates obligation for the convention space. So that concludes my presentation. Happy to answer any questions. Council Member Rodin. Thank you, Mayor. I noticed that the ordinance does not contain any of this financial analysis. So simply the creation of the TURS doesn't require any of these assumptions that financial analysis, am I right, is simply for the benefit of, in this case, the partners trying to figure out if this is financially feasible. Per the statute, you have to prepare a preliminary project and financing plan. I should say somewhere in the ordinance that a preliminary project and financing plan has been created. Is it attached to the ordinance in some way? It is never attached to the ordinance. It just says that one was prepared. There was an analysis that was completed. But if we go back to these are the components that really are part of that creation, it's the boundary, the term, the participation rate, and the TURS board makeup. The preliminary project and financing plan is just that preliminary because until you get those final, you know, participation agreements, you won't know what your final output is going to be. And some questions have been raised as to these assumptions . How accurate are they moving forward? You know, we're basing them on certain comparables that, who knows? You said so yourself. There's many things that could factor into this final analysis. And given the fact that we're going to be presenting these figures to Denton ISD, the county, some partners of ours who are asking to kind of come on board with it, is it ever appropriate instead of kind of giving one bottom line figure, this $13 million, in representing more of a range of possibilities just so that we have a pretty sober, sober, I guess, analysis of what we can expect from best case scenario to worst case scenario? Is it typical to give more of a range? Yes, and that was my attempt at some of this language here saying that if the less development is brought online, that the overall TURS revenue would be less. So basically, if there's only 200 rooms, that number, of course, would be less, or if the TIF participation from the other taxing jurisdiction would be less. So my answer to your question right now would be it would be between zero and $13.6 million. So this is the best case scenario? This is the conservative scenario based upon comparable assumptions of two other comparable properties, and I think I mentioned these previously. It was the embassy suites at Grapevine Mills and also the H ilton Southlight. Denton County, the highest taxable value that you have for a hotel room is $58,000, and that's the Marriott at Champion Circle. But these others, majority of the hotel rooms, every time I do a projection, we typically use around $90,000 to $100, 000. So one final question, and you work on these TURS and TIFs all the time. Is this unique that you have a TURS, but you only have one property tax payer paying into it? All your eggs are in that one basket. I mean, typically you have a large swaths of land and there 's a lot of properties coming and going off of that that are contributing. Is this unique or can you give others examples where you're depending on one? There's a number of them where we've just created a TIF just for project specific. So I mean, I can think of in Fort Worth, Cabela's TIF. It was just created for Cabela's. Radio Shack TIF was just created for Radio Shack. Grapevine Mills was created just for Grapevine Mills, which is just a Simon property. So, you know, they come into two categories, project specific, which that's what this is, and more area based. And so we do them both about 50/50 percent of the time. OK, thank you. You're welcome. Council Member Hawkins. Thank you, Mayor. I just want to understand this all the way here. There's no revenue in the first five years. And so there's a 25 year term and there's can you explain all that to me one more time? Correct. We could just go ahead and just run a 25 year term now because I think John, correct me. It's a 25 year term. What you anticipate from the bonds. However, you're not going to receive that revenue. So let's say we start construction first quarter of 2015. It's going to take about 24 months. You're going to be in 2017. But then there's an 18 month lag from when you take an assessment into when that revenue comes in to the taxing jurisdictions. So you're already at 2019 before you even start. So that's why we went ahead and we just put a 30 year because essentially you've got five years. There's going to be some revenue because you're going to have 10 percent of it completed, 20 percent of it completed . But you don't hit 100 percent until about 2019. So the length of the terms is 30 years and the length of the bond is 25 and it kind of that's when they kind of hit the same time. Correct. OK. Thank you. That's my Gregory. Well, this may not be the time for the question because what I wanted to ask was our assistant city manager, John Fortune, to put this terms project in context of the financing for the convention center. So my guess is we need to I need to hold off on that question until after the week. Close the public hearing or would it be appropriate to ask that question now? Madam City Attorney. It's OK. Go ahead. Other than this question is for assistant city manager, John Fortune. Sorry to spring this on you, but as we talked this afternoon in our work session about the need to educate the public, seems like that this would be an appropriate time to once again review this city council early on in our negotiations for this project of a convention center gave you directions as you were representing us leading the team in this effort to work out a plan for the convention center . And for for paying for the certificates of obligation in a way that did not that minimized any obligation on the part of taxpayers to cover that cost. That's great. So the plan that you've come up with in order to end that the agreement has developed, not just you, but the whole team has come up with. Would you explain that that plan of how we would pay for the certificates of obligation that pay for the convention center that would be owned by the city of Denver. I'd be happy to and you're you're correct. This the direction of the council from the start of this negotiation process is we want to be able to protect the city. We want to be able to make sure that this project is self supporting to the best extent that we can. So we started the premise of negotiations from that standpoint. The way the current master agreement comp templates that the project will be financed is that the city will pay for the commission center through the issuance of certificates or obligations that will create an annual debt service payment. The city then will take all the project related revenue from the hotel in the convention center. That's the economic activity. That's the valuation of those those buildings. All of the revenue that would be generated from sales tax property tax would come in to the city and be dedicated and allocated toward their debt service payment. Should there not be enough revenue from either the hotel tax property tax or sales tax and to fully meet and satisfy the city's annual debt obligation. We negotiated with the developer that they would pay an annual rent payment equal to that net amount to make the city whole on an annual basis. So it's quite possible that early on in the beginning phases of this project the rent payment from the developer will be higher. And as the project becomes more successful and as we collect additional hotel tax revenue property tax revenue sales tax revenue that rent will decrease. But the excuse me the cumulative total of all of those items will be sufficient on an annual basis to meet the city's debt obligation. So the mechanism to create the TERS is a tool to use to capture that incremental growth in the tax value. Right now the property is valued at zero on the tax rolls. And so by creating the tax increment reinvestment zone we are allowed to create a mechanism a tool if you will to be able to say any increased value from this property will now be able to capture and accomplish that goal that we set set up to achieve in the master development agreement. So the so the the the money that comes in from the property taxes the TERS simply redirects those to cover the debt of the Convention Center. It becomes it becomes a single specific purpose of the TERS is to satisfy and go toward the debt obligation for the city. Is there a possibility that it could. I mean there might even be a better case scenario than what we've seen at some point where the the the TERS revenue exceeds what we need to cover the cost of debt service for the Convention Center. Is that even in the realm of possible. Yeah it is possible I would imagine that 's going to be very close toward the end of the project and anything that we would receive in excess of the debt obligation would have to be used for the project. Okay but at that time does our agreement allow us to then redirect hotel occupancy tax money for other purposes. The master not not not related to the TERS the master development agreement and contemplates that once the debt payment is satisfied those hotel tax dollars continue to be used by the city in the current manner that we going through the same process we would now in terms of an annual allocation for additional opportunities for the city to attract the debt. Opportunities for the city to attract tourism and promote the arts and historical preservation in the community. So then, then if I'm understanding correctly, the TERS is not the only source of revenue that we would use to service the debt for the Convention Center. That's correct. It is one of several. It's one of several and it allows us to bring in other partners through the county and the school district to participate in the project as well. But, but if those other partners being the county or the school district participate, it doesn't completely shut them out from from their own gain, because they're not they 're not giving 100% of where no one's asking for them to give 100%. That's correct. We did not contemplate that they would participate at 100%. So if the property is currently valued at zero, and they contributed at 50 or 75%, they have a net gain and new revenue to to them from this project so if this project does not move forward. There is no new revenue to the school district, the county, whether they participate or not their participation allow hopefully will allow this project to move forward in such a way that even if they participate at 75% as Mr. Pettit showed you in the pie chart, there will be a net gain to the county in the school district and new revenue. So we believe it's a win for the community. Okay, thank you very much. Any other questions. Mr. Fortune just a real quick question is the TERS the only tool, excluding the county in the school district, let's just put them aside for now. I mean, it's been said all along that the city would contribute all the project revenue to the debt service payment. So is the TERS the only way that the city's portion of the tax revenue gets directed to the debt payment or is it more of a formal process in other words, it forces that issue instead of it just being something that we, well, the city could just make a decision that we 're going to allocate money from our general resources that we collect on an annual basis from, from our tax collections toward the debt service of this, this project. However, we did not believe in our preliminary conversations with the other taxing entities that there would be much room to consider their participation in a T ERS that the city itself was not a participant in. So we believed is a necessary element to all of us to be in this together in the TERS the same net effect for the city one way or the other, but it was a tool to be able to to be more encompassing and more inclusive in the taxing jurisdiction. No, that was the thrust of my question. So really the creation of the TERS is primarily to allow for the participation of the other two political subdivisions, which is the county and the school district. Without that, it would just be, I guess on a volunteer basis. There wouldn't be any avenue for participation. That's really that's correct. That is the mechanism. Okay. All right. And this is going to seem like an odd question. The, the, the management company is going to be paying to the city rent. That's what it's categorized as. Is that a, and I guess I would ask the city attorney. Is that a taxable interest? In other words, if the city is receiving revenue from the convention center. Is that something that is subject to ad valorem taxation? Because it's revenue we're receiving from. I don't know. I'm going to have to probably defer to our finance people and we may have to look a little bit more at that. I'm seeing John shake his head a little bit. Yeah, I 'm not certain we would have to invest. Okay. Because that would be, if that's the case, then that 's going to be something else we have to consider as far as what is that value? And then that's going to be value that would be subject to these participation levels in the, in the terms. I can tell you that we have not contemplated that there would be an ad valorem value of that rent to the city and all of our discussions. The rent value primarily is going to be coming from, excuse me, the appraised value of the project is going to be coming from the hotel, the revenue generating, and the small portion from the convention center. But the payment of rent to us, we hadn't contemplated that. But I'll have to just verify. Okay. We'd be happy to invest. Do you happen to know? I can say with confidence that it would not be taxed because it would be going towards repayment of that debt that was for the convention center purpose, which is a public purpose. And so I've had a number of different instances where a public entity has actually purchased a revenue producing entity like a property when we did eminent domain and it was producing income. That is not taxable income, because as soon as it's touched and it's basically you have the city of Denton, which is a tax exempt entity, the revenue that's received off of that is not tax. Okay, from an income or on a real property side. Yeah, if I could just get some verification of that, that'd be great. I mean, it would cut in favor of additional revenue, quite frankly, but I just, I've been thinking about that. We'll be happy to do that. Okay. And I guess if I could address a comment by Mr. Bissett, you had said that this T URS, the creation of it doesn't necessarily mean that the project's moving forward. Does the converse apply that if somehow the other entities do not participate, that doesn't mean that it kills the deal. I mean, it's just one factor that I believe the hotel, the management group decides. Correct. It's part of the feasibility period. So the answers to those questions about who would participate at what percentage and what would that yield in the end are just part of an overall analysis of whether the project would be feasible from our perspective. I guess the only question that we had a timeline up there as far as the next steps. I think it was through Mr. Pettit 's presentation. Really when the timeline but it was sort of we prepared one when I was originally working with John, I think that we can. It's all dependent upon as soon as we get in front of the ISD and also in front of the county and I don't know if you 've had conversations with the county, but I would anticipate by August September, we'd be coming back with that participation agreement. To the city. Okay, that's right. So then by the time we get back the participation agreement from the the political subdivision, will we be further down the line as far as understanding what O'Reilly still needs to provide as far as financing commitments? I mean, we're going to have a more cohesive package as far as look at what what this feasibility period. Yes, absolutely. And if it would help I can give just kind of general overview of where we are right now and some of these steps mean because there's a there's a number of things that are currently happening for the project to advance one is we have construction documents out on the street right now. We we originally had anticipated those for contractors to provide us construction bids. We originally anticipated those coming back to us this week that we've had some requests for some additional time. So we've extended that toward the end of June. But we do expect that we would hopefully be back to the council on June 15th July 15th for approval of a contingent construction contract just so we can lock in the price locking in the price for the convention center is an important element for us to be able to now start taking hearty look at the financing so that the developer can make the commitments for the franchise and their financing and then we will keep moving toward these other steps such as getting the taxing entity participation agreements in line and so forth. So with the idea of being and I I'm just estimating that this is a toward the mid to late August timeframe where most of these things will kind of come together at one point. That's the plan now if the construction bids come back a little different than what we expect and we may go back to the drawing board in terms of some design concepts to see if we can we can get the cost where we need it to be if that's that's the case. We're hopeful that that's not going to be necessary. Those type of things could obviously change the timeline some of right now we're estimating that we'd be back to you in July mid July with some other elements of this project. None related to the tires. Okay. Councilman rodent. You're both up there. I get questions all the time given what we're talking about with the tours. All the revenue generated from this project from the hotel everything that would normally come into the city property taxes sales taxes hot funds, hot firms from other hotels are all going into just simply paying off what we're building here is the convention center so the question I'm getting increasingly moving forward with this is this is all cased in an economic development term. We're saying we're doing this to have this economic development benefit. Yet all the revenue from the project just goes back into the convention center. It's a reasonable question to say, how are we winning economically in this situation and, and is there something I can point these citizens to who asked what I think is a reasonable question, do we have some sort of declared economic impact globally for this project and why we think at the end of the day the city wins in this issue. Well, there's a couple of things I could respond to in relation to your question. First of all, all the other hotel tax revenue is not going into this project, and I believe I thought you said that and so to the to the extent of 100,000. Yeah, there's a there's a small portion of it but it's, it 's, it's not the current allocation of funds that are being used to be able to attract tourism in the community so the, the economic benefit, as you said, is is what happens to the community to the to the restaurants to the other money that gets spent in the community when we bring additional travelers to the community just like we try to encourage now through our current allocation. The use of a hotel tax funds for a convention center is really no different than the way we use them now. It may actually be more specifically targeted so I would say they're very similar in terms of overall economic impact to the community. Second of all, I would say that while it's true that this revenue is going toward paying repaying the convention center debt I would like to remind everybody at some point that debt will be paid for. And I believe it was Councilmember Gregory was alluding to this that at the end of that life of that debt, all of that money now will come into the general fund or end into the hotel tax fund in fact the biggest revenue source at the conclusion of the debt payment will be hotel occupancy tax and so there will still be tremendous opportunity for the community and for the city to be able to turn those dollars back and reinvest in additional incentives or opportunities for us to promote tourism in the community. And I don't know if Amy had a different or any additional information. I would just speak to to John's first point which is that when you have 1000 people come in for a convention. They're going to be spread out all over town and they're going to go out to eat and they're going to shop and buy souvenirs for their kids and they're, they're, they're going to spend money and then and will capture that revenue that none of that will go back towards the payment of the debt that will be additional revenue not just for the city but for the community as a whole. I think, I think, you know, I keep hearing from a lot of council members education is the key and I think the questions are going to become greater as we kind of move forward in this project and we've spent considerable amount of time and financial analysis on all this stuff. The answer to that question oftentimes is, is a lot of soft numbers, anecdotes, and I want to believe that that's what 's going to happen in this situation. I think, I think we're going to need some sort of can we put some sort of economic impact together to give us something in our hands to for us to grapple with for the citizens to grapple with as we're moving forward. I think that would be helpful. Any other questions before we get to the cards. Thank you. All right, this is item for individual consideration we do have some cards request. Oh, it's public hearing public hearing I'm sorry so we do have some cards and after we go through all the cards, then we'll give everybody an opportunity who wants to come down and speak even if though they didn't fill out a blue card. So this is that we want to open the public hearing. And so our first person to speak is Mr Larry loose, and if you would come down and give your name and your address. Stretch. My name is Larry loose. I live at 2200 Pembroke Lane place here in Denton. Thank you for the opportunity to speak. I'm opposed to the project. In all these turds developments. What happens should take a piece of property and say the increase in taxable revenue from this point forward goes to pay off this particular project. What is not discussed is that the tax load for the city or whatever organization is doing this is spread amongst the rest of the city in this case. So I as a homeowner will have me pick up the slack of the taxes that you're not now collecting from this particular project. You sell off the city, a piece at a time. You do this and we're told we're just talking about it now. Nothing's fixed. And yet construction projects are out. We are awaiting bids. That's sounding pretty fixed to me. It sounds a whole lot like commitment. If you're just thinking about it, you're taking bids. Come on. What that done? This project will be managed by an independent for profit corporation. You'll have no direct accountability to them. They won't turn a profit because if they do, their expenses will go up. So the idea of Councilman Gregory of paying off some additional city funds, that will never occur. So what's going to happen is my taxes will go up. Because you've given away part of the city that you're supposed to represent in this tax increase for the future. In this case, any taxes that we get, you keep doing this. There won't be any city left to tax. It all starts here. Everything's up in the air. Nothing is fixed. Nothing is final. Except those bid documents are out on the street. And there are construction people spending a fair amount of money figuring out what it's going to cost so they can put their bid together. They expect to build it. Put the phlegm phlegm aside. If the city wants to build a conference center, talk about building a conference center. You don't need to create this funny tax system that makes it look like it's going to pay for itself when it doesn't. When I started reading about this in the paper, I thought we would never come to this point. I thought, that's just a crazy idea. And here we are. And I'm ashamed to be before you discussing this. We're brighter than that. Thank you. Next card will be Lynn Holt. You can come down and give your name and address, please. Good evening, Mayor, fellow council members. My name is Lynn Holt. I live at 2520 Bowling Green, Denton, Texas, 76201. I am opposed to this TIF project. One reason is you're leasing the land from North Texas. North Texas has already imploded one hotel close to the property where this is going to be supposedly built. Other hotels, we have lots of hotel and convention centers in the Metroplex area. We really don't need any more. You have the Civic Center over here just back behind us, and it's hardly used. It's been there since the early '60s. If you can't use that, you're not going to fill up a new hotel and a convention center up there on that hill. And North Texas, you don't want to deal with them because they'll fix it where you come out on the short end of the stick every time. And I believe one council member works for North Texas, and I recommend that he recuse himself on any vote because I believe that's a conflict of interest. That's all I have to say. Thank you. Our next speaker is Elma Walker. You can state your name and address, please. Elma Walker, 9805 Grandview, Denton. And I want to give you a review of what I think this council needs to consider. The 25 million of certificates of obligation need to be rep aid by the city as plus interest. The city assumes 75% full capacity and $145 per night, but Denton Hotel Market falls much lower than that. In the 26th year, the city starts paying UNT $175,000 annually for the lease of the land and UNT pays no taxes on it. In the 70th year, it reverts back to UNT, although there seems to be an agreement that stipulates that O'Reilly, the builder, can't transfer the hotel to a tax exempt status. I don't know what the answer is on that. I may be wrong, I don't know. Why are we doing this now? How can you vote for this? Without county or Denton ISD revenues support. How could you do it without that? I think you really can't. I don't know why the county would want to do that. And the school district, they're floating a bond because they need more money for schools. Now I know they may get some classes in the hotel. But they've been approached a couple times, a few times within the last year, year and a half or so. And they haven't been real excited about it from what I've read. So the TIF at the airport had money from the county and property owners. Why not wait until the I-35 construction is complete? I mean, it's a nightmare now. You got a thousand conventioners coming in. How are they going to even get to it? Grapevine and Frisco already have convention centers. And won't the proposed Louisville $160 million public, private 300 room resort convention on 60 acres at the lake be stiff competition? We have a TIF for downtown Denton, but the last bond election was insufficient to repair the streets and build the new roads needed when we annex property. We have just okayed millions more for, in other words, we're now a lender for Razor Ranch to continue the north side. O'Reilly wants the TIF. I'm just going to finish a couple sentences. >> Okay, he would. Thank you very much. >> We don't think there being, anyway, we can't guarantee that the city's bond payment at 2 million per year, and they won't discuss their financial backing for these commitments. The past council had too few briefings with lengthy closed sessions. And I believe a letter from the Texas Attorney General got the public back in the loop. I for one say not yet. And I do think we're going to need another public hearing because you don't have all the information and neither do we. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> The next speaker will be Gerard Hudspeth. If you could come down and state your name and address, please. >> Can I have the helmet on, please? >> Pardon me as I get ready to power read. No? >> Yeah, it'll pop up. Yeah, just one. >> Okay. Gerard Hudspeth, 606 Wilson Street, Denton, Texas. I too fall in agreeance to quote Fred Durst with everyone else that we should not build this turf. And while I organize my thoughts, here's a picture of what Razor Ranch is supposed to look like. Here is a article outlining all the fun and great stuff that Razor Ranch was going to have. Here's the three check marks at the bottom of what we do have. Here's a article, Denton Record Chronicle, that's October 2011, discussing what great things are coming, developing another side. But you know, sort of -- all this stuff sounds familiar. This is what we have. Here's reality. We had a beautiful ranch there, Longhorns, as people come into town. Now they have a grass farm that is just sitting there bl ighted. And so my question is, and I'm going to leave that one there, but are we void of common sense? I'm not a math guy, so I'm not going to come talk to you about numbers, calculations, percentages. I'm going to talk to you about the example they gave, Cab ela's and Grapevine Mills. We're comparing a lot of 13 acres surrounded by a Denia neighborhood to Cabela's and Grapevine Mills. That's the examples he gave. He gave another example of Grapevine Mills and their convention center. These aren't apples to apples. It's void of common sense. If you use their -- ask them, challenge them to find some other TURS or some other convention center that's bookended by a neighborhood that's getting ready to go through a major construction around I-35. And I might add, you have a 20-mile-per-hour zone all the way around it. Who wants to do that? It's void of common sense. And again, I am intrigued by all the lack of details, but then bids are out. And then I notice there's no questions about what if it fails? There's questions about what to do with all the extra money . There's questions to do about how quickly we can turn it off. There's no -- pay it off. There's no questions about what if it fails? What if we end up with another grass farm? You know, and so I really lean on this council to put three and four together, to challenge common sense. Don't get into percentages. You don't have to. Razor Ranch looked great on paper, but no one did the math as they're asking now for more money. And so it just -- it is really perplexing. So then you get into some other points I wanted to make. Warren Buffett didn't make any money off of the dot-com boom. That's because he didn't understand it and he didn't invest in it. And so I think that's the course the city needs to take. And another hot button I want to touch on is everyone says, and I've met with the DISD, we get zero dollars from the tax of that land right now. Well, I get zero dollars from AIR. So can I go just propose to sell AIR to then come up with some magnificent percentage of all this money I'm going to make once I sell AIR? No. So I understand the need to get those tax dollars probably better than the average because I've met with Dr. Wilson. And so he's explained. You have a hospital that is now off the tax records, so that's 60 million that the DISD has to manage. And so there's a lot that they are faced with, and I understand that. But that doesn't force us into making bad decisions to start investing in grass farms. So I would just -- I would ask you -- and another thing I 'll close with is they touched on number of rooms tied to the number of dollars that comes in. So if the room is empty, somehow that's not calculated. But anyway, thank you very much for your time. And I'll note that they didn't have a green three-minute timer when they spoke. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker is Kathleen Wasney. If you could please come down and state your name and address, please. Kathleen Wasney, 9117 Perimeter Street, Denton. I vote no on this convention center and hotel. But oh, wait, this has never gone to the voters in Denton, the taxpayers in Denton. We've never been given the opportunity to vote yes or no. In November, we're going to vote up or down on 20 million in road repairs. So why don't we have a plan to present a $25 million hotel convention center to the voters to approve or disapprove? Don't kid yourself. The city of Denton means the taxpayers. And we're going to be stuck with this debt for 30 years. I think this should be voted on not by seven city council members, but by the voters of Denton. Comment number two, why are we building this land owned by the University of North Texas? Well, what's the big deal about building on UNT property? If we build this convention center on UNT land, no shops or restaurants can be built near it. Have you been to a convention lately? You don't just go to a convention when you're in town. You walk around, you shop, you eat, you attend plays, grab your friends, grab a cup of coffee, a nightcap. None of that is going to be happening around the convention center. Because it was businesses cannot be built on UNT property. So the TURS is limited, greatly limited. Why can't we rethink this convention center and hotel? And if the numbers make sense, which is still a huge question mark for taxpayers whose property taxes continue to go up, let's build this with close proximity to downtown so that our current businesses can feed off of it. And this project could generate further revitalization of our downtown. This is economic development, but it needs to go back to the drawing board. We need to move it close to downtown. We need to move it off UNT property, and then you need to take it to the voters. This project has turned sour under the microscope of common sense. Thank you for allowing me to speak. Thank you. Our next speaker will be Mike Cochran. Come down and give your name and address, please. Mayor, members of the council, staff, esteemed staff, I'm Mike Cochran, 610 West Oak Street, Denton, Texas. And I have to say there is nothing I hate worse literally than coming down here and speaking on something like this, although my past performances may belie that statement. But in any event, it's true. But only something as important as this would get me up off of my couch to come down here this evening. And I think I'm urging you to vote against this tax increment refinancing district, because I think it's an incremental step towards a project that I believe the city doesn't need. It's ill-advised, hasn't been thought through properly, and it's just plain wrong on a variety of levels. Now, I'm not going to get into all the details of why the convention center I think is a bad idea there right now. I would ask that if you haven't read the Brookings Inst itution report by Haywood Sanders on these creatures in Texas and around the country, that you do read it. I know Kevin, I know you have for sure. And it's really interesting to give you some background on these things. And the fact of it is that these publicly financed convention centers around the country are losing money. The trend is away from big conventions as it has been in the past. Businesses don't want to spend that kind of money on these things. They can do virtual conferencing now. It's so much cheaper and easier. And it's a dying business. And in fact, there's greater competition for these, too, because of the fact that we're having so many of these things built around. They're not making any money. Some excellent reports of a man named Stacy Talbert wrote a great report from the '90s investigating Texas on these things. And you can see they were money losers back then. They still are. It's an economic fad, economic development fad that's been kicked around for a long time. But it's outlived its usefulness sort of like big malls, you might say, with all due respect to our folks over here earlier. In any event, I would urge you to read that report. But as far as the TURZ goes, they can be an effective tool. And they're there for a reason to bring up blighted areas and to sort of raise the level for a large group of people, maybe an area that needs a little bit of injection of some infrastructure, needs a little bit extra, needs a little help. And it will rise and bring a number of boats up, you might say, at the same time. But that's not what this is. This is a single person, single entity will benefit from this. We're being asked to take a risk on this. You ask a great question about this, about this one single entity here. And it seems to me it's completely at odds with why a TURZ exists. I see I'm running out of time. Let me just cut to the chase. And that would be that if you look at your own ordinance as you described here, there are some criteria set up for how you can approve a T URZ. And if I may ask just because I'm in my final one here, and I'm not going to read it all because you've got it all in front of you. But if you will look at the criteria that is in your own ordinance that you're trying to pass tonight, this does not qualify as a blighted area, substantially imp airs or arrests the development of surrounding land or defective sidewalks, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. This is with a wink and a nod, you could pretend that this would qualify to be a TURZ. But in fact, it's dishonest to say that it is. So thank you. Thank you. Thank you very much. Those are the cards we have for people wishing to speak. I have some cards wishing not to speak and I will. Well, I'm going to call it in. We have Chuck Carpenter is speaking in support of the TURZ. Comment Denton Chamber Board of Directors formally endorsed Public Convention Center in January 2007 and has provided supplemental info for city staff past two years. Dana Lodge speaks in support. This will our city compete with other cities. It shows tourism tourism comes back sevenfold. Bonnie Gold opposition who would come to Denton when they can go to Louisville Lake three. The lose the lake. You and T has no risk but will profit. I've lived here when the Radisson was torn down. Don't need it. The existing hotels are hurting. Those are all the formal cards we have. But this is a public hearing. So anybody wishing to speak, please come down and state your name and address for the record. Good evening, counsel. My name is Zach Glenn. My residential address is forty one oh four Cadena Road and our business address of the best Western Premier is twenty four fifty Brinker Road. So we have dual interests in this. I'd just like to thank you for the time that myself and the others have had to speak to you on this. And a lot of them have raised a lot of my points just for background for the citizens here and for you council members. I'm a consultant for a best Western Texas co-op that handles the marketing for all of the state of Texas for best Western. And I have a lot of background not only with our current set of hotels, which we have six, but also through the best Western brand and also my voting through best Western. Again, my family owns six hotels, but we chose to live here in Denton. We loved it and we're in love with them. But this is not the right thing to do for us. The biggest flaws, of course, has been mentioned, the locations landlocked, but something that has not been brought up as the developer of Tim O'Reilly, who's never done anything close to this before. The inexperience there alone should be shown that we need to do more research and diligence on this project, as all of your sense like your constituents here are asking for. And there's only a very few in favor so far. One of those, the director of sales for the CBB. So I just want you to know that as a hotel, we're not doing this just because we're a hotel. Yes, the hotel market's not great here in Denton. We're doing OK. We could be better. But the fact is we want this to succeed. We if the convention center succeeds, we as a hotel will succeed. The only thing here is you've got a lot of problems with the succeeding again, as I mentioned, the landlock and the developer. But also, as someone already mentioned, people like to do things around the convention center where they're at. You can't do that. So first of all, you need taxis. Well, we don't have a great taxi service here. Trust me on that. We can't send our guests anywhere without taking 15 to 20 minutes to find a taxi service. It's not like New York City or Chicago. So we need think we need to rethink this, as everyone has already said, maybe move it out somewhere or perhaps. And I don't like to do anything negative without coming with a positive. We could rethink what we're doing, maybe change the convention center concept not to what everybody else is doing. Louisville, Frisco. What about something that accentuates our horse country? Maybe with some rodeos, maybe an amphitheater, maybe a theater, something that can help our music scene. We're becoming the new Austin, so let's maybe start acting like it. This shouldn't be an emotional appeal. I know a lot of this has come on an emotional level that has been in the process for 18 plus years. Everybody wants this, but we need to figure out why we want this. Is it going to be beneficial to the city? Thank you, Mr. Roden, for asking about the economic development and how it's going to impact the rest of the community. That really means a lot to us. And thank you again for your time. Thank you. Anyone else wishing to speak? Please come down and state your name and address. Hello, my name is Bob Bland. I live at 1609 Victoria here in Denton. I'm also a professor of public finance at UNT and been quite intrigued by this whole process. Let me have a few suggestions. I am in general in support of this idea. I think it has a lot of merit, but I think some caution is in order here, and you've heard some of that. I know for a fact that the city of Dallas, for example, has done 19 TIF districts, and all of them have been very successful. And with a PhD student, we have been looking at those TIF districts. And it's interesting to note that with each one, Dallas has become more successful. By successful, I mean the addition to its taxable value, the property tax value of the district. Here's a few suggestions. There's probably a need for an independent market analysis for the demand for convention space so that there's some independent assessment of the true demand for that space. Now, any forecast is a -- it's uncertain. It's not rocket science here. There's a lot of estimation that goes into any forecast, but an independent assessment of the demand for convention space might allay some of the concerns that you're hearing tonight. Councilmember Rodin mentioned the need for an economic impact analysis. Right on. I think an analysis of the economic impact of a convention center on the whole city, what is the multiplier effect? How does that affect other businesses in the community, and what's the value added from the city's investment? One thing that we noticed in the case of Dallas that's quite interesting, and I'm not sure that it can be repeated here, but what the city of Dallas does with its TIF districts is that it shifts to the developers the upfront cost of the development, and then the city reimburses those developers with the increment from the tax. I'm not sure that that's possible at this point. It takes a while to build that sort of confidence between a city and its developers, but in this case, if O'Reilly bore the cost of the upfront of the development and the city paid O'Reilly back out of that increment, that takes away a lot of the uncertainty that otherwise might exist with a TIF district. It's a much different way of approaching it, and I'm not sure that that can be done. And the last point is that there's a learning curve. And as the city does more of these TIFs, it's going to become more and more successful. And I commend you for taking the initiative in this case. This is a big step, and it's a lot of risk involved, but I think it's one that's well worth the effort. Thanks. Thank you. Anyone else wishing to come down, please state your name and address. Thank you. Good evening. My name is John Sigmond. I live on Stonegate and Denton. I have not really looked into the details of Finance and Convention Center, primarily because I don't really think that is the citizen 's job to do. There are certainly more expertise people available to do that sort of thing. Even if you have the people in there that have the expertise, no group can guarantee that their evaluation of such a project will evolve the way it was projected. But I am confident that city council and city staff and probably outside consultants can arrive at a logical proposal. My comments are more about whether the city of Denton should take on the obligation and potential risk of helping to fund a convention center. If Denton wishes to grow and develop to its full potential, a convention center is needed. It will serve to accommodate various local organizations that currently are unable to find a local facility adequate for their larger functions. More importantly, a convention center will bring to Denton outside companies for their conventions and retreats. The center will be a major factor in continuing to, as the saying goes, to put Denton on the map. Provided the center is a quality, designed, well-construct ed facility, it will be a significant asset to Denton's long -term future. Once built, it will get used. It might not be paid for on the schedule and in the manner intended, but it will get paid for. Actually, my expectation is that the convention center will prove more successful both in city development and financially than anticipated. To not build will likely prove a significant negative for Denton's future. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else wishing to speak, please come down and state your name and address. Good evening, Mayor, members of the council. My name is David Zoltner. I live at 2501 Timber Trail in Denton. First of all, I realize that tonight is only about the TURS and its creation. This is not about the convention center. So I'm going to table any comments that I have about the convention center itself. I sincerely believe it would be one of the most costly and devastating mistakes this city is ever going to make. I do want to thank the members of the council that have given their time to meet with me privately and discuss some of these issues. Councilman Roden has already voiced some of my concerns tonight, and I do thank Kevin. There's a lot of questions that Kevin has posed that I really hope that we can get to soon. Two weeks ago, there was a workshop presentation that I listened to very carefully, and with all due respect to staff and to Mr. Paddy, I left with more questions than answers, mostly in terms of the valuation itself of this TURS. We started out with some fairly arbitrary and very generous growth estimates for this TURS. We layered that with current tax rates, and at the end of a spreadsheet, we ended up with $56 million in valuation, $27 million in projected revenue, and $13 million in TURS revenue. Now, in the case of the average Texas city-bred TURS, which is approximately 240 acres, who in the world can guess what that TURS is going to be worth in 30 years? Certainly not me. Probably no one on this council would have any idea. So that's an issue that really has me confused. Now, in this particular case, we have a single-use TURS of only 13 acres. So in this particular case, the valuation of that TURS can be no more than the hotel and the restaurant itself. So we're sitting here looking at $56 million. Now, the value of area hotels that had been mentioned during that workshop average about $35 to $40 million. Immediately, there seemed to be a conflict to me where you 're going to create a bit of a conflict because you're going to have a vested interest in the single property owner or the single participant in this TUR S to keep that valuation as low as possible. So every year, I don't see how in the world you're going to avoid a problem or avoid the issue where O'Reilly and embassy suites are going to be exhib iting pressure to keep that valuation low. And I don't see how in the world any of these estimates are ever going to materialize. So my final point is I think you have a responsibility to the other taxing entities. If you take these numbers out of City Hall and if you go to DISD and if you go to the county with these estimates, I would be embarrassed for you. So I think you need to be serious about these numbers. I think it's way past the time that we can just say we hope it all works out and we're just going to take these estimates and just see where we go. So thank you, Councilman Rodin and the other council members that have visited with me. And I look forward to discussing later why this convention center itself is a big, big mistake. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone -- this is a public hearing. Anyone else wishing to speak? Please come down and state your name and address. Anyone else wishing to speak? I don't see any movement out there. One more time. Anyone wishing to speak? Seeing none, we will close the public hearing and open the discussion for discussion and/or motion. Any questions, comments? Councilmember Johnson. So just for clarification, we can create the TURS. The project doesn't go forward. We have the ability to eliminate the TURS at any such time this council feels it appropriate. Is that correct? Yeah, could we get an answer on the record? Thank you. That's correct, up and to the point where we issue the debt . Okay. Thank you. Any other questions, comments? I have just a couple that I will state, but I want to give everybody an opportunity to -- this is a -- I was glad that staff stated that the TURS does not create -- mean the convention center is going forward. The lack of the TURS does not mean that the convention center does not move forward. This has probably been one that I've struggled with a while . I will tell you, if I had been on council when the developer's agreement was being decided, I have to be honest. I would have voted yes for that simply because it created a feasibility period. It didn't create authority to move forward with the convention center in totality. It just simply said, and as a real estate person, a feas ibility period is where you actually look to make sure that the project's viable. So I'm going to vote for the creation of the TURS only in the sense that I want it to be -- I want to be able to at least satisfy that component to give the taxing entities an opportunity, because in no way does that commit me or anyone else on this council to moving forward based upon the answers to the other situations. So I wanted to explain that because I do have some questions that have been raised by several people here, by Councilmember Rodin. I have some questions about this particular project. Honestly, I have no question about the need in Denton for a conference center or a convention center. My concern and my desire and goal, as I think it is all of us here, is to make sure that we maximize the expenditure of $25 million to bring the best facility to Denton that will maximize the City of Denton's interests. So I'm going to be voting to support the creation of the T URS simply because it provides an opportunity per the development agreement that was executed by the prior council, which in all honesty, I would have agreed to do that simply to continue to examine the numbers. I wanted to explain that because I know on the campaign trail I did have some reservations and concerns and questions, as I still do, about the convention center. But I don't believe that this particular component of it is one that makes or breaks that particular decision. And I will open it up for any more questions or I would entertain a motion. Councilmember Engelbrecht. Thank you, Mayor. I just would reiterate what you stated. I think you stated it very well in terms of what this particular decision is about and we need to see some real numbers and the developer on the other side is very interested in this TURS, too. Depending on how that goes could influence their decision greatly. Thank you. Thank you. You bet. Seeing no more requests to speak, Councilmember Rodin. Thank you, Mayor. And I am going to move approval. I want to just say something quickly, and that is this is the first time we've had a public hearing on this particular topic since we've started discussing it. And we've got to find more ways to hear from more folks on this issue because we definitely heard a particular side today. And it sounds like some questions have been raised that we just need to make sure we're answering moving forward. And I think in particular the economic impact of this is something that I think is weighing on a lot of people as we 're thinking about is this a good thing? So we've got to demonstrate that moving forward. But I'm going to move approval of agenda item 7A. Councilmember Gregory. I would like to second and make a couple of comments also. Yes, sir. Thank you. I think that I agree with Councilmember Rodin that more public education needs to be done. We've had several public vettings of this in workshop sessions. They don't tend to be watched or attended nearly as well as a regular council meeting. And so I think we need to do some more work. It was clear from some of the questions raised tonight that some folks have questions that members of council have had that have been satisfactorily answered because we've had a chance to sit down with staff and we've dug down in our work sessions on these things. You know, we need to be clear that this TIF is to help support funding for the convention center. It does not support the funding of the construction of the hotel. I mean, that's just one of the educational things that it's clear that we still need to work on. And I think that the models for successful convention centers in this day and age, they're always paired with full service hotels. And the models always show that when a successful convention center operates, that lots of the other hotels benefit from that. So I think that this has a great opportunity for the city. And I think that's a great opportunity for the city to be able to do that. And I think that's a great opportunity for the city to be able to do that. And I think that's a great opportunity for the city to be able to do that. And I think that's a great opportunity for the city to be able to do that. And I think that's a great opportunity for the city to be able to do that. By taking this action tonight to create the turrets, it allows us to take it to the next step and approach the county and the school district to determine their level of participation. Okay. Thank you, John. Any other requests to speak? Seeing none, we have a motion and a second. Let's vote on the board, please. The agenda item passes 7-0. We'll move on to our next item in public hearing. Hold a public hearing and consider adoption of an ordinance amending Ordinance Number 2014-137, which established a mor atorium on the acceptance, processing, and approval of certain applications for gas well permits. Thank you, Mayor. I'm going to ask Mr. Darren Groth, our gas well administrator, if he would present this public hearing for the amendment to this ordinance to your consideration. Thank you, Darren. Thank you, Mr. City Manager, Mayor, City Council. Oh, all right. Well, we can get rid of your email or we can just open that up for public viewing. That work. All right. I apologize for the delay, but I can get going here with SI 14-0001. This is an item as mentioned to amend an existing ordinance . So for my presentation, I'll kind of go over what that initial ordinance was, talk about the moratorium just briefly as an overview, show you what the proposed rev isions are, and then address the P&Z results just due to the timing. It's not in your report. So I'll give you the results of the P&Z action. Ordinance Number 2014-137. On May 6, 2014, City Council adopted that ordinance that declared a moratorium affecting the acceptance, processing, and approval of certain applications. What we did with that as an overview was actually identify ways to update the city's gas drilling and production ordinance and give us time through this moratorium to actually make those changes. The moratorium ordinance is in place until midnight, September 9, 2014, but may be extended or shortened, I guess, by the City Council thereafter for good cause. The applications in the initial ordinance that were exempt ed are identified here, the fire code operational permits subject to and consistent with an approved gas well permit issued pursuant to DDC Chapter 22 as amended by those ordin ances. Any gas well permit subject to and consistent with the gas well development site plan approved after 8/17/2010. And the applications in sequence as described in 1 and 2, and then permits for wells that don't require hydraulic fracturing in conjunction with the injection or storage of natural gas. So those were the first four exceptions in the original ordinance. So the reason for this proposed revision is to revise mor atorium exemptions and variance procedures and to make other minor clarification changes. So the first change was that in the heading of the ordinance, the word "receipt" was deleted and replaced with "acceptance." We don't have the ability to stop somebody from actually submitting an application. They're done online, so we can't stop the receipt of it, but we can stop the acceptance of that application. So in Section 2, the word "receipt" was just completely deleted. In Section 3, the exemption list was updated. The prior approval date changed from August 17, 2010 to January 15, 2013. Those dates coincide with what we call the Phase 1 versus Phase 2 ordinance updates. Number 2 was the added provision for fire code operational permits for annual inspections of producing gas wells. So those are existing wells. It's an opportunity for the fire code to go out and inspect on each well each year. And then number 3, added provisions for applications to vac ate all or portions of land areas on a gas well development plan approved before August 17, 2010. Again, that was the date of the Phase 1. These are some large plats, and that's now exempted in the proposal. Another revision provides for the application to actually be processed by the Director of Planning and Development as opposed to submitted to the City Secretary. And then the Board of Adjustments will hear the variance, the previously ordinance, put that in front of the City Council. So the result of this public hearing on June 11, 2014, P&Z actually held a public hearing and voted to approve Staff Initiative 14.1 by a 6-0 vote. That concludes my presentation, but I can stand for any questions you may have. Council Member Rodin. Thank you, Mayor. You made a point of this distinction between receipt and accepted. Have any applications snuck through on a technicality because of that? I mean, have we had any that have -- okay. No, this is just foresight, so we're just -- That's right. Okay, good. And have we since the time we enacted the moratorium to today, have there been certain permits that we've approved because they fit the criteria that would allow them? Just because questions would arise if people start seeing drilling, thinking we're under a moratorium, but there are certain conditions. And how many of those are there? We've actually had, per the exception, a gas well plat that was approved that met that criteria, and so we've had a request for three gas well permits that fit the plat that was already approved. There is a request, at least I know from that operator, that they are possibly going to add eight additional wells. So you may see the rig, hopefully, just stay there and drill them all in subsequent order, but we've only had three of them submitted. And so far they're waiting on railroad commission approval. And generally, what part of the city are we talking? This is West Denton. It's off 380, correct? Correct. Right. On the other side of 35? Yes, sir. Right. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions for staff? Thank you. This is a public hearing, and I will now open the public hearing. We have no cars, but this is a public hearing. Anyone wishing to speak on this agenda item, please come down and state your name and address. Do we have anybody wishing to speak on this agenda item? One more time. Seeing none, we will close the public hearing. Councilmember Hawkins. Thank you, Mayor. I move approval of 7B. Councilmember Ryan. I second. We have a motion and a second. Let's vote on the board, please. Motion carries, 7-0. We will now move into public hearing agenda item C. Hold a public hearing and consider adoption of an ordinance of the City of Denton, Texas, amending the Razor Ranch Overlay District consisting of 410 acres of land located on both sides of US 380 between Inter state 35 and Bonnie Bray Street. Sorry. I'm going to ask -- I'm going to ask Abra. I'm not sure if she -- our senior planner, if she would come forward and present this public hearing. Thank you, Abra. Good evening, Mayor and City Councilmembers. I have your last public hearing item for this evening. It is for Razor Ranch. Before we kind of get into this, the first component of the request was actually withdrawn today. That was to create the new sub-district allowing the automotive-related uses. So we are just proceeding this evening with the second component regarding the mass clearing and grade. The second component of the rezoning request, which is now the entire request, is to allow approximately 99 acres within the southern side , a one-time accommodation from DDC Sections 3518, 2A1, and 2A2, relative to approval of a final plot and construction plans prior to release of a clearing and grading permit. The location of this request has been revised since it was originally submitted. This map reflects what was originally notified to the property owners. The location of the request now is within the red box in the teal area. Here's another view of that with the zoning on the side. It's RCCD, and it also has the Razor Ranch overlay district on it. So the clearing and grading permit request, like I said, is for the 99 acres, and it would actually be to clear and grade in phases prior to the approval of final plot and construction plans as typically required by the Denton Development Code. The applicant would be eligible for one clearing and grading permit for each phase provided on a phasing plan to be reviewed and approved by staff. Should the applicant wish to clear or grade a particular area that has already been cleared or graded under this approval more than once, they would have to follow standard procedure and file the plot prior to the issuance of a permit. So this is 3518(2), which talks about land disturbing activities. It details three types of permits. One is a clearing and grading permit, which is what we're discussing this evening, and it typically requires DRC review of construction plans and site plans, and also P&Z approval of a final plot prior to the issuance of a permit, and that's what we would be granting a one-time accommodation for this evening. Staff is in support of this request. It will allow the developer flexibility to mask clearing and grade at one time by larger phases instead of individual sites, as site plans and plots move through the development approval process at their own pace. The checklist that is proposed to be attached to the ordinance for the request provides the city with a level of comfort, that we could address drainage conditions and best management practices. So this is just the wording of the conditions that we've already talked about, but staff recommends approval of the proposed rezoning request, generally with the one-time accommodation with the phasing, to allow for mask clearing and grading prior to the approval of final plot and construction plans, and also the checklist would be applicable prior to the iss uance of a permit, which was in your packet. So in summary, one clearing and grading permit per phase within the 99 acres, according to the reviewed and approved phasing plan, clearing and grading permits issued under this accommodation shall expire one year from the date of issu ance, but can be extended by the building official for one six- month period upon showing ongoing construction activity, and clearing and grading permits under this accommodation must comply with the checklist contained in Exhibit 9 prior to the issuance of a permit. Notifications were sent out March 28, 2014, 2200-foot legal notices, 38 courtesy notices, and two returned in favor. These are the original notifications. The north side isn't applicable anymore, but the south side is still applicable. And that's it. Any questions for staff before we open the public hearing? Seeing none. Thank you. This is a public hearing. I want to open the public hearing. I don't see that we have any cards, but I wanted to give anybody an opportunity who wishes to speak to be able to speak on this agenda item. Anybody wishing to speak? Seeing none. Hearing none. We will now close the public hearing. Councilmember Johnson. Thank you, Mayor. I'd like to move approval of Item C. Councilmember Hawkins. I second. We have a motion and a second. Please vote on the board. I'm sorry for catching my mind before we vote here. Yes. We got a request from the applicant withdrawing that portion of the original request as it relates to that particular item on the northern portion related to the automotive. We will need to revise this ordinance. So if you would just approve the part of the ordinance that relates to the southern portion and the regrading and direct us to go back and officially correct this ordinance, we will do so. So if the motion could track those lines, we would appreciate that. Okay. So let me make sure I understand. What you would like is a motion that is applicable only to the southern portion clearing and grading of the ordinance in any language relating to the northern portion of the at least ordinance in our backup not be considered. And then I will go back and correct the ordinance accordingly. Okay. All right. So Councilmember Hawkins, I believe. Did you make the original motion? Oh, who did? Sorry, Mr. Johnson. Go ahead. Would you like to revise your motion? Mr. Johnson, by the way, let's keep that going. I would like to make a motion of approval of item C as stated by staff only focusing on the clearing grading of the 99 acres on the south, not on the automotive use on the north. Great. And we have a second. I second. Okay. And I'm presuming that the motion and second are inclusive of the restrictions that have been enumerated at staff presentation. Okay. That's infirmity. All right. Okay. We have a motion and second if we could vote on the board, please. Motion carries 7-0. We will now move on to our next agenda item. Agenda item 8, citizens reports. Mr. City Manager, do we have any citizen reports? No. All right. Thank you. And then number 9, agenda item number 9, any concluding items? Councilmember Ryan. Thank you, Mayor. I had my first meeting yesterday evening for the public up at North Branch Library while attendance was not very good. We are going to continue in the third Monday of next month. We will be talking about the Convention Center. So that's a good place for the public to get their questions answered. I've got a couple of different staff members that will be out there for that. That's on the 21st of July. Great. Thank you. Councilmember Hawkins. Thank you, Mayor. From what I understand, the Denton Fire Department and the Denton Police Department were having a rib eating contest tonight to raise money. And I swear that they specifically did that while we were all meeting. So we couldn't watch. So I hope that they raised money. But if they do that next year, it's going to be on a different night. Thank you. Thank you. Councilmember Gregory. I want to say thank you to our City Manager. We got something new after our last meeting, a memorandum, a follow-up memorandum, where he was summarizing what he understood our directions to be and what they were going to be doing. I think this is great communications. I appreciate it. I don't know if our new mayor had any influence over this, but to whomever the thanks goes, thanks. I would ask that in our next regular meeting, I know that it's probably going to be a full agenda, but I think it would probably be helpful to have an update report from Dr. Banks on our the testing that we do for mosquitoes regarding West Nile virus just to keep the public informed. I think during the summer months, we can't do enough to keep that information out there. Thank you. Councilmember Engelbrecht. Thank you, Mayor. I just wanted to publicly congratulate Dr. Bing Burton on his retirement as the County Health Officer. Some close to 20 years he's done that job, and because many of their offices are located here, a great many of our residents really get immediate service from that County Health Office. So it's a really important resource to the City of Denton, and they do a great job out there, and I just wanted to thank him for his many years leading that organization. Thank you. Any others? Seeing none, we will now adjourn the meeting.